Joining Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon for this episode are philosophy and intellectual history professor James McLachlan, and BYU emeritus and current science professors Duane Jeffery and Steve Peck, all of whom argue that these tensions between Mormonism and evolution are quite minimal, and that Mormonism actually contains many teachings and theological thrusts, including a rich history of viewing scriptural accounts of creation as primarily figurative, that are extremely accommodating to evolution—far more so than those of many other traditions that begin with God creating everything ex nihilo (out of nothing) and being in full control of everything.

We know that you’ll very much enjoy learning the history of Mormonism in its interactions with evolutionary science at BYU and beyond, as well as listening in on this far-ranging and insightful discussion about the science and religion interface within Mormonism and the broader world. After listening, we hope you’ll join in the conversation by commenting below!

Links to additional readings or blogs:

Gary James Bergera, “The 1911 Evolution Controversy at Brigham Young University,” (from the volume, Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism, eds. Gene A. Sessions and Craig J. Oberg, Signature Books, 1993).

James M. McLachlan, “W.H. Chamberlin and the Quest for a Mormon Theology,” Dialogue 29, no. 4 (Winter 1996)

Duane E. Jeffery, “Seers, Savants, and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface,” Dialogue 34, no. 1 (Spring 2001). This is an updated version of the original article, which was published in Dialogue 8, no. 3/4 (Autumn/Winter 1974).

Steven L. Peck, “Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution,” Dialogue 43, no. 1 (Spring 2010). Because it is so recent, this article is not viewable online except to current Dialogue subscribers. However, the issue is available for purchase online.

Steve Peck’s blog, “The Mormon Organon: A BYU Biology Professor Looks at Science and the LDS Faith”

Essay by Steve Peck, “Why Mormons Should Embrace Evolution.” (Posted as a guest blogger at Jana Riess’s blog, Flunking Sainthood.)

Link to the papers or slides from the session on Mormonism and Evolution at the 2011 conference of the International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology, held at the University of Utah, 11-14 July 2011. This session featured this podcast’s three panelists, plus David H. Bailey, who presented: “Creationism and Intelligent Design: False Friends”

William E. Evenson and Duane E. Jeffery, eds., Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements. Link to book available for purchase at Greg Kofford books

Howard C. Stutz, “Let the Earth Bring Forth: Evolution and Scripture,” with a foreword by Duane Jeffrey. Link to book available for purchase at Greg Kofford books

Official statements call for robust discussion, and this episode tries to provide just that through engaging not only the statement but also the human face of this issue and marriage of religion and politics that is often so prevalent in policy debates related to this issue. And it even ends with the episode’s panelists—Brent Beal, a business professor in Texas who for many years has served in LDS branches containing many undocumented church members, Ben Daniel, a Presbyterian minister in northern California who likewise ministers to many people here illegally and who recently wrote a book, Neighbor: Christian Encounters with “Illegal” Immigration, and Mark Alvarez, a Salt Lake City attorney, radio host, and advocate for smart immigration reform—sharing their ideas for better discussions and improved policies.

After listening, we hope you will share your ideas in the discussion below! We also extend a special invitation to contribute to the disccuion to those who advocate positions that differ from those of the panelists. If you favor a hardline approach to illegal immigration, support enforcement-only legislative approaches increased deportations, etc., we would love to engage with you, especially on the intersection between your political positions with your religious views.

HOST’S NOTE: In the months, weeks, and days leading up this Mormon Matters episode, I was blessed to be able to speak with many people about the immigration issue and various different framings for this podcast discussion, as well as possible panelists. All were gracious with their time, all made great suggestions, AND THEN I FORGOT TO THANK THEM DURING THE EPISODE! I know it’s not as fun to be mentioned only here, and I’m very sorry, but thank you, thank you Jason Echols, Ryan Cragun, David Knowlton, David King Landreth, Jana Riess, and Joanna Brooks!

In this podcast, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon and LDS family therapist and Mormon Stories contributor Natasha Helfer Parker engage in a far-ranging discussion with two Mormon young adults, Kayla Woodring and Cam Davis, as they share their experiences and thoughts about the church, its emphases, and how they’d like to see leaders, members, and gospel messages become more affirming as they negotiate the challenges that come during this pivotal time of life. We welcome you to join in the conversation below!

LDS Sunday School students will soon take a quick leap through 66 chapters of Isaiah in five forty-minute lessons. All too often, some uniquely Mormon interpretations are given to these chapters which merit a critical analysis. In this post I present six Mormonisms often used with the first few chapters of Isaiah which I believe hinder a deeper and more accurate understanding of these prophetic writings.  Let us know if any of these interpretations show up in your Sunday School class!

1. Isaiah 2:2,3 Popular LDS commentary on this verse identifies it as Isaiah’s vision of people from many lands coming to Salt Lake City, Utah.

Many prophecies of Isaiah are dual and can be applied to more than one time, situation or people. I am aware that latter-day prophets and apostles have related this verse to the Salt Lake temple or even to the Conference Center from which the word of the Lord is issuing forth in these days. However, if we insist too strongly on this Mormon-centric view, we can miss the primary application which this verse has to the millennial reign of the Messiah. The word “mountain” as used in the Bible is a metaphor for “nation,” “government,” or “political system.” In verses 2 and 3 Isaiah is speaking of the millennial condition when Christ shall establish the political Kingdom of God upon the earth. This will be established “in the top of the mountains,” or in other words “as the head of the nations.”

2. Isaiah 2:3 Isaiah wrote that the word of the Lord will come from Jerusalem, and the law will come from Zion, the New Jerusalem, located in Jackson County, Missouri. There will be two distinct centers of influence for God’s people.

This may be, but verse 3 should not be used as a proof-text. Here we have a synonymous chiastic parallel where

the Law = the Word of the Lord, and
Zion = Jerusalem (one and the same)

The chiastic structure of this phrase indicates that Isaiah equated Zion with Jerusalem (the one located in Israel!) If we accept this, we will be able to learn more about Zion as it relates to the ancient City of David.

3. Isaiah 2:9 In the Book of Mormon, verse 9 is clarified by adding the word “not” to the following statement: “And the mean man boweth [not] down and the great man humbleth himself [not], therefore forgive him not.”

This verse actually makes much more sense in its original context, without the extra “not” added in the Book of Mormon version. Verse 8 speaks of idols which are found throughout the land. And the mean (common) man and the great (important) man boweth down (to these idols). This version makes more sense coming as it does right after the description of people worshipping idols, the work of their own hands.

4. Isaiah 2:13-17 , see also 2 Ne 12:13-17 Some Mormons still insist that this passage is an example of the restoration in the Book of Mormon of passages that were lost in the Old Testament. As noted in footnote 16a, “The Greek (Septuagint) has ‘ships of the sea.’ The Hebrew has ‘ships of Tarshish.’ The Book of Mormon has both, showing that the brass plates had lost neither phrase.”

Pike and Seely have shown the challenges of accepting this interpretation. I love the poetry of the passage and find that the addition of the extra phrase and other interjected words spoils the beauty of the chiastic tripled bicola. Isaiah used poetic conventions frequently to emphasize his points. The Book of Mormon addition does not enhance the poetic structure of the passage, but instead inhibits it. The Greek “ships of the sea” and the Hebrew “ships of Tarshish” are probably different translations of one original phrase and it is not necessary or preferable to include both. Observe the perfection of the Masoretic text with the pattern of w- (conjunction) + al (preposition “upon”) followed by kol- (“all/every”) and then two words (here in English translation):

For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be

upon every one that is proud and lofty,
and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

and upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up,
and upon all the oaks of Bashan,

and upon all the high mountains,
and upon all the hills that are lifted up,

and upon every high tower,
and upon every fenced wall,

and upon all the ships of Tarshish,
and upon all pleasant pictures (fine craft)

and the loftiness of man shall be bowed down,
and the haughtiness of men shall be made low;

and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.

(if all this fascinates you, there is a well-reasoned apologetic view here. But I stand by my opinion.)

5. Isaiah 3:16-26 The Daughters of Zion and their apparel show the dangers of worldliness and immodesty.

If your Sunday School teacher identifies this passage (as does the lesson manual) with modesty in dress, s/he has missed the boat! The daughter of Zion, is a poetic term for the covenant people of Israel, and the items of clothing stand for different types of authority. In the Old Testament, authority was passed down with the symbolic action of transferring clothing. Thus the significance of the passing of Elijah’s mantle to Elisha, and Jonathan’s dressing David with his own clothes in 1 Samuel 18. As the son of the reigning king, Jonathan symbolically transferred his claim to the throne to his friend by stripping himself of his clothing and weapons and bestowing them upon David. In Isaiah, the covenant people are struck down because of their pride. Each of the articles of clothing worn by the daughter of Zion represent some authority or privilege which is being misused and thus removed by the Lord.

6. Isaiah 4:1 The Mormon speculation on this verse goes as follows: With so many men killed in war, righteous single priesthood holders are in short supply. Thus, plural marriage is reinstituted, with many women stating they will support themselves in order to receive priesthood covenant protection.

My examination of the Hebrew of this verse makes me confident in translating “one man” as “a certain man.” The verse thus teaches that in the latter day seven women (symbolic number of completeness, denotes the covenant people) shall take hold of a certain man (guess who that would be?) and ask him “let us be called by thy name,” which will take away their reproach (effects of atonement). In my view this verse is Messianic and has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy.

As Latter-day Saints, we certainly have many resources in our scriptural records and our doctrine to interpret the Book of Isaiah.  But I think we need not go overboard in trying to overpersonalize these passages.  As important as it is to apply Isaiah’s writings to ourselves, we must not lose the historical connotations and meanings within the text.  Since we have only 5 weeks to cover this important book of scripture, let us carefully choose the scripture blocks we will discuss, and maintain a focused and accurate exegesis of the material.

Here’s the FAQ:  Are there restrictions based on race or color concerning who can join the Mormon Church and have the priesthood?

From the “official” response:

There are no race or color restrictions as to who can join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are also no race or color restrictions as to who can have the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. . . .

. . . “We believe in the old adage that many hands make light work. We have a lay priesthood, and every worthy man is eligible to receive this priesthood.”

Best answers:

• No.  Shortest is best.
• No, and I’m black.  It’s clearly less unsavory than a bunch of white people talking about how enlightened we are now.
  • “No. I am openly accepted, welcomed and loved by every member of the Mormon church. People are forthright and honest with their questions if their exposure to blacks have been limited and not once have I felt any prejudice only love, the love of Jesus Christ. Black men are accepted into the priesthood, and black men, women, and children serve alongside not only whites but other ethnicities. The church is extremely accepting of ALL races, ethnicities, and cultures and temples exist all over the world for all its members to partake of its blessings. Don’t believe the rumors, there are black mormons and there are mormons of different races and ethnicities. Only the adversary will promote otherwise.”
  • “Anyone of any ethnic or racial background is welcome to join the church. All worthy male members of the church can hold the priesthood.”
  • “I am proud to be an African American. But something i’m even more proud of is that i hold the Priesthood. There are no restrictions based on race or color. I’ve been a member of this Church for over 10 years and have never encountered racism within it! I serve alongside of brothers and sisters of all colors and races and hold the same priesthood of God as any other brother in the church.”
  • “There are no restrictions as to who can join the Church. We are all children of our Father in heaven and all of us are in need of his love, guidance and his gospel plan for us.”
  • “No, there are not. I hold the Priesthood, which is an incredible blessing for myself and my family.  For a time, there were restrictions, and it seems that there were some bad feelings towards the Church about it, but consider this…In my own personal studies, there was not a single Church or religion in the United States, or throughout the world in the last century who did not practice some kind of segregation or discrimination. Humans are far from perfect (Which is why we ALL need the influence of a loving God in our lives).  In the mid 1800′s, leaders of our church particularly suffered major persecution for allowing slaves to live and have membership among the Mormons and were tarred, feathered, beaten, and even driven out of their homes for it. In fact, in 1844 when Joseph Smith (The first prophet of the Latter- Day Church) ran for President of the United States, one of his major platforms was to have slavery abolished by 1850. This did not go down very well in a state that owned slaves as property. Like any other faith, people are striving to be better through living fully the principles taught by the savior, which comes line upon line, precept on precept.  With all this said, the Church that has an official declaration that is printed within Latter-Day Saint scripture announcing to the world that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a whole, do not permit any form of discrimination against color anywhere in the church. I am not aware of many faiths that have an official document like this included in pages of scripture used by all Latter-Day Saints.  There is great power in personal revelation and it can be given to all men who seek the Lord and have desires to know his will..It is amazing!!”
• No, we have all races in the church.  I think keeping this global and broad is how to avoid tokenism (see below).
  • “We have members of all races, from hundreds of nations around the world. The Book of Mormon clearly teaches that God “denieth none that come to him, black and white, bond and free, male and female…and all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 27:33).”
  • “When I was a missionary in Detroit I had the opportunity to teach people of many different races and backgrounds, including Africans, Hmong, and Chaldeans.”  Chaldeans, like Abraham?
  • “No there are not…in fact while my husband was attending graduate school in Philadelphia, the majority of the people in the Mormon congregation we attended were African American. The congregation was also led by an African American…President Johnson. There were also entire congregations of Laotian, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Spanish, and Portuguese-speaking members. They were not divided because of race, but rather by language spoken so that the members could hear the Word of God in their own language.”
  • “I am proud to sit in class with African, Indian, Hispanic and Asian members in our ward.”
  • “Our members are from the vast majority of countries of the world.  They comprise of all races, colours, and peoples, from Mongolia to Mauritius, Russia and the Baltic States to Japan, from Ghana to Guatamala, from Korea to Brazil, and most places inbetween.  It might surprise some to learn there are more spanish-speaking members of the Church than english-speaking ones. Twice-yearly Conferences of the Church are transmitted to our Church Meetinghouses worldwide in more than 90 languages.”
  • “I am the branch president of a small congregation that includes white, Hispanic, African-American, Asian, and Haitian members. We fellowship together in unity born of the Spirit of the Lord.  I lived in Alaska for many years. Alaska is truly a “melting pot” for Mormons. Our stake included Tongans, Samoans, Hawaiians, Koreans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Germans, and Native Americans along with white and African-American members. The same sort of harmony prevailed among us.
• No, and we don’t know why there was a ban.  I think it beats speculating anyway.
  • “No, there are not. The Priesthood (or right for men to officiate in the church) was not not available to men of African ancestry before 1978. We don’t know all the reasons why this was the case, but assuredly we rejoice in the fact that all worthy men may hold the Priesthood today.”
  • “Past restrictions appear to have been grounded in cultural, social and spiritual understanding at the time.”  If this is speculation, it’s got the benefit of being likely true.
  • “I do not know the meaning of all things, but I know that God loves His children of whatever tint and hue. I know that sometimes He sees fit to try our faith, to give us a tiny sample of the bitter cup so that we can appreciate more fully what He did in draining it to the dregs. I know that there are generational things that need to be worked out in all of us. I know that prophets are inspired and that the Lord has His reasons for everything that happens in His Church. I’ll be interested in finding out the details of this situation when I get to the other side but it’s not an issue now.”
  • “For reasons we don’t fully understand, there was a time when the priesthood was not made available to all people.”
  • “These kind of questions are very legitimate concerns. No, there is not a restriction. However, at one time this was different. I don’t have the answers but I do know that it’s too easy to get caught up in the thick of thin things and miss entirely the true gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Answers I liked slightly less:

• No, and priesthood is always restricted.  This is perhaps the least unpalatable explanation, but I’m not sure it makes a boatload of sense either since the church was being restored.  It comes dangerously close to implying it was a doctrine, not a policy, a distinction that I think we’ve been pretty careful to make.
  • “For a time the priesthood was restricted to certain bloodlines, as it was in the Old Testament when only the sons of Aaron and Levi were allowed the privilege. However, modern prophets were clear from the beginning that in the Lord’s time the priesthood would be extended to all races, just as the Gospel was finally extended from the nation of Israel to the whole world in the time of the early Apostles.”  A few issues here:  1) not sure the term “bloodlines” is accurate or relevant to the ban in practice, and 2) saying that it was clear from the beginning that the PH would be extended is optimistically naive.  There are many early leader quotes that contradict that.
  • “Priesthood had historically been limited as to who could hold it during ancient times as well as modern, for purposes known only to God. For example, during the time of the Old Testament, only one tribe of the 12 tribes of Israel, (Levi) could hold the Priesthood. In the New Testament times with Jesus only Jews could hold the Priesthood, no gentiles at all. It took a revelation from God to Peter that the Gospel could be preached openly to non-Jews.”  This is probably the best version of this type of answer I saw.
  • “Priesthood in the LDS Church is not a “right” or title. Rather, it is the authority to act in the name of God. Only those who live God’s teachings to guide their lives can receive it, and even then, it is only active when the priesthood holder is living in harmony with God. As a result, throughout history most people have not been given the priesthood. Not that they will never get it–they’ll just get it when God feels that they are ready for it.”  OK, this one sounds like he’s implying that blacks didn’t have it because they weren’t worthy (and by extension, that women are not worthy?)
• No, and women are still restricted.  I suppose girl power is great and all, but why bring that up?  Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think it’s a bit tone-deaf not to mention it when we’re patting ourselves on the back for being so color-blind.
  • “That is true, but the only restrictions now are dependent on worthiness… and gender, I suppose. Men are the only ones allowed to hold the priesthood, but it is part of a wonderful design to keep order. Women have just as much right to the priesthood as men do, but do not themselves hold those keys.”  You go, girl!
• No, and I know someone black who is a Mormon.  At best this seems like tokenism.  At worst, it reminds people how rare black members still are as a result of this practice, and points out (truthfully) that only one race was restricted.  This works better if the person we know is someone close to us, not if we knew some black person once who was OK with being Mormon despite the policy.
  • “No. Where I live, in the Washington DC area, we have a number of black members. Several years ago, we had a black member of the bishopric. One of the other wards in my stake has a black bishop. Gladys Knight, a black gospel singer, is a convert to the Church and has performed in our Stake Center.”

Mormon-speak:

• Into the Waters of Baptism.  “Since the beginning of the Church people of all races have been welcomed into the waters of baptism, given the gift of the Holy Ghost, and equally promised the highest blessings of salvation.”  I suppose it does point out the fact that we are baptizers by immersion, but it just seems like a GC-wannabe way of saying people can join the church.
• Bloodlines.  “For a time the priesthood was restricted to certain bloodlines”  Outside the history channel and the church, I don’t think I’ve ever heard the word “bloodlines” used.

Other interesting observations:

• Policy.  We seem to be pretty consistently in agreement that the race ban was a policy, not a doctrine.
• Ham doctrine & other racist protestant teachings.  Racist speculations about the reasons for the ban (e.g. less valiant in pre-existence) have likewise been put to bed.

What I might have said:

• No, and I’m black (but the picture might give me away).
• I would probably just say “no,” and that the church is global and includes members of all races.  I would probably not even mention the PH ban.

What would you say?  Did you like the member answers to these questions?  Different ones than I did?  Discuss.

A younger Christianity once found science very scary — although history shows the conflict to be a little less about science versus religion, and a little more about intra-church politics than we usually notice. But eventually, much of the Christian world reached a peace treaty with the secular world based on the notion of non-overlapping magisteria. Religion has its realm; science has another. Peace is kept by neither side jostling the other.

However, many people do not realize just how much territory has been ”occupied” since Galileo first stood under the judgment of the church centuries ago.  They are still debating evolution when the science, like the 1950′s horror monster, has already enveloped them and moved on.

As science acquires the capacity to explain more and more that we once considered miraculous — as it asserts the authority to enter what had once been ceded as the magisterium of the church — what responsibility does it have to maintain rigorous scientific standards in drawing conclusions about phenomena in the newly “occupied” territories? How does science envelop religion while still being respectful of religion, and faithful (irony fully intended) to science?

The following paragraphs describe some things that come out of simple extrapolation of basic Western science.  Simply an exercise in consciousness-raising about consciousness when you look at science on time scales well within our technological imaginings, let alone out into deep time where all of human history looks like the lifespan of a mayfly. These are among the miracles that science asserts the capacity (now or eventually) to explain. So what does science owe religion? And what does science owe science?

CONTROLLED EVOLUTION

Within the lifetime of Charles Darwin, his half-cousin, Sir Francis Galton put forward the notion of eugenics as an approach to improving humanity as a whole by selectively encouraging breeding of people felt to have desirable traits and discouraging breeding by people with undesirable traits. Of course, Galton did not originate the practice of “negative eugenics” — societies have been culling the weak in times of stress to preserve resources for the group as a whole for thousands of years. But eugenics quickly gained the support of some of the most famous and progressive personalities in American and British society early in the 2oth Century.

After the horrors of Hitler’s Germany, eugenics seemed to have died. However, the ethical issues never seem to be far away and underlie a whole set of concerns reemerging in modern medicine as possibilities of cloning, stem cell research, or designer babies force us to confront the growing power of biotechnology to probe and, sooner, than we might have thought, take control of the expression of our own genetic heritage.

I don’t know whether this power will be good or bad; I suspect learning to use new powers are always part of growing up as moral beings. My point, however, is that the growing intensity of the debate simply shows how near the powers are to becoming scientific reality. We’re talking about the development of significant genetic modifications perhaps on the time frame it took to go from the Wright brothers to Mars landers.

This would give us powers to cure many diseases and create many new material goods – which is why so much money is being poured into biotechnology — but what might it also create? Would we want to increase our average IQ by 20%? Make our bodies age more slowly? Change our bodily forms to more closely match cultural sexual ideals? Make ourselves more accepting of our cultural norms and belief systems? Those are all things we’ve already tried to produce in our children without conscious control of our genetics. Even questions about the meaning of life — or at least why we ask questions about the meaning of life that we choose to ask — can rapidly fall within a controlled evolution paradigm.

CYBERLIFE

Cyberlife is another element that is on the science horizon, and that is forcing us to think anew about what it means to be “alive”. Perhaps it may someday force us to ask what it means to be self-aware. We already all use “anti-viral” software to protect ourselves from programming code that replicates and spreads. More interestingly, we have discovered that mimicking evolution can be a highly efficient way of optimizing computer programs to solve some extraordinarily complex problems.

Finding ways to create machines that can achieve goals in the real world — to create artificial intelligence — at a level comparable to humans has been an active area of science since the 1950′s. In some ways it has been enormously successful. In other ways it has been enormously disappointing. The mechanisms that underlie some human problem solving play to the enormous speed and memory advantages of computers, but some of the methods used by our minds don’t appear to rely on those strengths at all. For example, as the artificial intelligence link above points out, computers are great at playing chess, but inferior at playing “go”, despite vast effort at programming computers to play the latter game.

This suggests an approach of increasingly improving life by matching machine intelligence with human intelligence — although it will cost a lot more than the $6 million man of the TV show — to get the best of both types of intelligence. We already have myoelectric prosthesis, in which signals from residual nerve clusters in the human body are sensed by electrodes and used to more naturally control the movement of artificial limbs. What the human brain might be able to control remotely by mind with a few centuries (decades?) of technological development — power systems, transportation systems, etc. — is clearly a question subject to scientific exploration.

LONG-LIVED TECHNOLOGY

The modern species of humanity has been around on the order of 100,000 years, according to the best fossil and mitochondrial DNA evidence. Civilizations based on agriculture rather than nomadic hunter-gatherer methods have been around on the order of 10,000 years. Civilizations based on rudimentary scientific observation beyond that necessary for agriculture have been around longer than, but on the order of, 1000 years. The industrial revolution began on the order of 100 years ago.

Human technological capabilities do seem to be accelerating. But how far? What if technological civilization lasts 1000 years more? Ten thousand years more? One million years? If our capabilities are god-like to our ancestors living at the end of the last ice age, would we even be able to relate to the capabilities of our descendents 1,000.000 years from now? Would we even recognize them as our descendents?

And what about civilizations elsewhere that got millions of years of a head start on us? The search for such civilizations has itself been a matter of science since at least the Green Bank Conference in 1960. There are even classification systems for the level of technology in such civilizations, at least one of which extrapolates from growth in energy consumption the emergence of a galaxy-wide human civilization in as little additional time as the time humanity has already been on earth — a time that is a geological nothing.

________________________________

Again, my point in the above discussion is that these are all issues that science already considers within the realm of scientific inquiry. They all can and do generate papers and presentations in peer-reviewed journals and conferences. And I haven’t even touched any of the exotic ideas that scientists are suggesting as working hypotheses to explain gaps we know we do not understand!

The above topics are simply extrapolations of things we think we do know. Their uncertainty is so large that they have little or no predictive value. They permit earth to be everything from the most advanced civilization currently alive in the galaxy to the equivalent of a preserve for primitive wildlife. But the issues are clearly within the realm of science as scientists (in some disciplines, at least) already practice it.

And I have long since crossed the border defined between the natural and the supernatural, between the scientific and the philosophical or theological, when the concept of non-overlapping magisteria was defined in the West.

So I am suggesting that the boundary between science and religion can no longer be a matter of the phenomena being described themselves. It isn’t about whether or not we consider the meaning of facts versus the nature of facts either. As I’ve noted above, science is already probing scientifically the “meaning of meaning” as it probes the mysteries of the human brain and infers things about the nature of the human mind. It isn’t even about repeatability, since evolution and history themselves are sciences, yet we are nowhere close to hoping to repeat them even in simulations.

But as it contemplates its new responsibilities over what once was the realm of religion, science has a responsibility to itself not to fall into the same logical trap it claims creationists fall into: “If hypothesis X (evolution) can not explain everything, than hypothesis Y (creationism) need not yet explain anything, no matter how large the holes in hypothesis Y in absolute terms.” The same logical trap exists when X is religious, and Y is secular instead.

Science cannot start accepting sloppy evidence for its own explanations of the “miraculous”, i.e., evidence so sloppy it would not accept the evidence in any other field of its own endeavors.

In fiction, we can have Sherlock Holmes say, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains — however improbable — must be the truth.” I would suggest that for science to be true to its own methods, even when dealing with the “miraculous”, it must say something else.  “When you have eliminated the impossible, and whatever remains is still highly improbable, it is most probable that you have not yet imagined the truth.”

Here’s the question:  What is the Church’s attitude on homosexuality?  Why is homosexuality and same-sex marriage important to the Mormon Church?

From the church’s official response.  Interestingly, this is from the Ensign in 1998, but there is a more recent interview on lds.org that is a little less harsh (in that it doesn’t use the term “so-called” which implies disdain for whatever term follows):

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

In light of the church’s stance, there’s not much room to maneuver.  Answers that seemed best to me at navigating these tricky waters:

• I’m Gay & Mormon.  Hmmm.  Strangely, no profiles said that.  Silence speaks louder than words?
• Celibate + Homosexual = OK.  Since this is the church’s stance, I suppose that’s really the only way to answer.  It also should make it clear that we would accept and welcome those who are celibate in full fellowship.  The celibate clause may be cold comfort, but again, that’s all we’ve got to work with here. The best of these are probably ones that are
  • “So how do those with same-sex attraction fit into the Church? They should be loved and supported just like anyone else. . . Celibacy is expected of all unmarried individuals, homosexual as well as heterosexual.”
  • “We love our brothers and sisters who have same-gender attraction, and welcome them in the church as long as they keep the law of chastity.”
  • “Some homosexuals may feel it is too much to ask to have them remain chaste, but any member of the church that is not married is commanded not to have sexual relations as well. There are people in the church who have been single their whole lives and die single, never having broken that commandment. We expect this of homosexuals as well.”
  • “The Church teaches that feeling same-sex attraction may not be a choice, but that acting on those feelings is.”
• We are against discrimination.  A good reminder (for members, too), SSM notwithstanding.  Loads of profiles went down this path.
  • “At lunch we noticed that a gay member of our organization was sitting alone, shuned by others. We walked over an joined her for lunch. She asked an interesting question: “Why is it that you Mormons, who have the strongest beliefs against the gay lifestlye, always treat me with the greatest kindness among all of my co-workers?”"
  • “Mormons also believe that people with same-sex attraction are beloved children of God and that violence and unkindness toward people with same-sex attraction is as sinful as violence or unkindness to anyone else.”
  • “Meanwhile, all of us–gay or straight, older or young, conservative or liberal–can work on being kind and loving to others and ourselves. One of our church leaders, Joseph Wirthlin, put it this way, “The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony.”"
  • “”…..The Church does not object to rights…regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference……”"
  • “Should gays have the same basic human rights that we all enjoy? Of course. I personally believe that there is plenty of middle ground to be found — particularly as it relates to civil unions.”
  • “In regard to Gay Marriage, the church has found it important to speak out against the granting of the title of Marriage to Unions between gay couples. Yet, the church is not anti-gay. The Church has spoken out in favor of a non-discrimination ordinance in Salt Lake City. Members of the church are divided on the issue of Civil Unions though many members in Good Standing including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are ardent supporters. It is my belief that Gay Couples should have all of the same rights as straight couples, but that the title of marriage is something sacred that should be guarded and protected.”
  • “This is kind of a tricky one for me to answer. As I’ve stated, I disagree with any form of bigotry, and believe that discrimination of all sorts goes against God’s will. I’ve received personal assurance that I am supposed to be fighting against discrimination and bigotry in all forms, and that includes discrimination against homosexuals and anyone else in the LGBT community. But please do not take that statement, or my previous political activism (completely on hold during my mission) and believe that I disagree with the teachings of the church.”
• We are pro-marriage.  Again, it’s kind of skirting the question by affirming what we do stand for vs. what we don’t support, but there’s not much to work with here.
  • “The Church believes that marriage is ordained of God and is defined as the legal and lawful union of a man and a woman. No other sexual relation is condoned by God.”  This sexual relation was brought to you by . . .
• Someone close to me is gay.  This is better than the elusive token friend, and much more personal.
  • “my best friend of over 20 years is bisexual, and she is also the most loving, unselfish person I have ever met.”
  • “My older brother is homosexual. I love him to death and so does my family. Many people misunderstand the church’s stance on homosexuality because of the emphasis we place on the family. It is difficult to be a member of the church and be homosexual, but it is possible. Personally I do everything I can to promote a feeling of love and compassion towards those who struggle with same sex attraction. It is a trait that my brother has to deal with. He is not a member of the church.”
  • “This was an important question that I had when I was learning about the church because my Mom is gay and married her partner. It was important for me that I need always accept her and love her. The churches views on homosexuality can be found in the Bible. It states that marriage is between a man and a woman.  A friend said it to me best, she said, “The church does not support same-sex marriage, but we do support families.” That was all I needed to hear. Even though I am a member of this church and I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, I still love my mom and her partner.”

Middle of the road, and not so comforting:

• Hate the sin, love the sinner.  Since we are all sinners, this seems a little hypocritical and condescending.  However, many commenters DID point out that we are all sinners, so kudos for that!
  • “Simply put, homosexuality is a sin. God has commanded that this ought not to be. However, that does not entitle anyone to discriminate against a person who is a homosexual. It is sin that God hates, not sinners.”
• I have lots of gay friends.  I do have lots of gay friends, but it sounds like tokenism to say so.
  • “I have had many friends who have chosen that lifestyle. I love them, but do not support their sin.”
  • “I personally know and have close friendships with a large handful of Mormons who experience varying levels of homosexuality–some have left the teachings of the church (to remain celibate or wait until they find someone of the opposite gender who they love) for a gay lifestyle, but most remain active in the church, getting support from loving people who do not judge them.”
  • “I have homosexual friends who are good members of the church. I have one friend in particular who left the church for many years to live in a homosexual relationship. But at one point he decided that the Lord’s gospel was more important to him and so he came back to the church and refrained from sex. His sexuality didn’t change, his behavior changed. He died some years back from AIDS, still firm in the faith.”  The mention of AIDS sounds a little cautionary to me.

What really set the hairs on the back of my neck up:

• I used to be gay, but now I’m not.  Fortunately, I saw NO comments like this either, and I’m glad.
• Being homosexual is a choice.  Science certainly doesn’t back this on the whole, although there are some exceptions (e.g. bisexuals, childhood abuse).
  • “The concept of marriage of a man and a woman is so fundamental to our beliefs about the nature of the hereafter that we are very sensitive about the issue. Having other forms of union between people accepted as though they were the same as the God sanctioned union of a man and a woman hits at the very core of this concept. This attitude can and has convinced individuals to choose this lifestyle and turn away from the one sanctioned by the Lord and forfeit substantial eternal blessings.”  I’m not sure SSM causes people who would otherwise not be gay to become gay; it probably discourages gays from heterosexual marriages, which is a good thing, IMO.  Does it discourage homosexual celibacy?  I doubt it impacts that one way or another.
  • “Homosexuality is a sin just like any other defiance against God’s will.”  Being gay is defiant?  Sassy, maybe.
  • “I have a few friends who have chosen to act on the temptations and urges that accompany homosexuality and while I do not agree with their choices, I still love them like brothers. Some people argue that God “created” men and women gay. I disagree. God does not, nor cannot, create sin. That being said, I do believe that there are some people out there that develop or are prone naturally to an attraction to the same sex. Does this mean God created them gay? . . . So to those who feel that they were “born gay” I say you were created just as everyone else, except you were given a trial that God knows you are capable of handling.”  The use of quotation marks around “born gay” implies that people are not, in fact, born gay.  Which science disputes.  The whole answer is a bit confusing, really.
  • “Homosexuality is simply a manmade way–an alternative to God’s design. It serves no purpose for God, for it is contrary to His design.”
  • “I have a friend that chooses to be homosexual and he asked me about this a few months ago. . . .  I realize that for some people it is a biological urge as strong as that of any heterosexual man.”  So, it sounds like the friend chose it, but others don’t.
• Gay = disability.  While it may be the implied doctrine, I’m not going to say it.
  • “My heart goes out to those who deal with same-sex attraction, including my friends and family who deal with this trial. . . We believe, however, that homosexuality is one of the challenges of life just as others are given their own struggles addiction, disability, illness, childhood trauma, etc.. For us, there is a difference between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior.”
  • “I do not look down on homosexuals and I don’t see them as bad people. We all have things we are dealing with and things we need to overcome.”  But do you respect them and see them as good people?
  • “Someone born with a disability or disfigurement was given that body with the an express purpose. What is that purpose? Most of us will never know. Why does God let children be born blind, deaf, or crippled? He allows this to happen because this life is a time for us to be tried and proven. A sad part of life is that we all must experience sorrow, trials and temptations. We can’t escape that.”
• Gays should marry heterosexuals.  Yikes.
  • “Those with homosexual tendencies and desires, regardless of how they were derived, should seek the Lord’s help in redirecting their behavior towards the end of having a spouse of the opposite sex.”  This just seems like bad advice to me.
• SSM would be disastrous for humanity.
  • “But if same-sex marriage is made legal, it will require those of us who believe it is wrong to officially accept it.”
  • “We reach out a hand of fellowship to all men everywhere, but homosexuality and same-sex marriage is destructive to our whole society and way of life. These practices lead to the ruin of mankind, so we warn all men everywhere against these practices.”
• Other funny stuff I found:
  • Misused euphemism.  “This is why it is important to not use or act on those powers of procreation outside of the bonds of matrimony”  Technically, you can’t call homosexual acts “powers of procreation,” and certainly many sexual acts are not procreative in nature.  Sometimes we just like a turn of phrase so much we don’t stop to ask ourselves if it makes any sense.
  • What the –?  “I think the real lesson is a warning against being so lustful that you don’t care who – or what! – you are having sex with, to the point where your not so much a person anymore, but more like a horny dog that will hump anything indiscriminately. Reality TV, anyone?”  OK, I actually did like this answer overall, but she kind of wandered off a little bit there at the end.  “Horny dog” passed the filter?  Hilarious!
  • Mormon-speak alert!  “We believe that all of us have freedom to choose, yet all of us have temptations, thorns of the flesh, if you will.”  Thorns of the flesh?  I think this is a Mormon euphemism, especially since the guy who said it looked like he was in his twenties.
  • Wow, just wow.  “The church truly believes in love. (just not homosexual love) In men and women being together for all eternity. I too am a firm believer in this. Men and women come together to learn how to become an eternal partnership. One is never truly without the other.  Homosexuality, derives from this goal. (‘scuze me?  I think she means it detracts from or it deviates from or it deters from . . . ??  Is this a Freudian slip?)  It means that a family cannot be achieved through natural causes. No, it does not mean I do not love everyone equally. I have people who are quite close to me that practice homosexual behaviours. (As Hawkeye would say, “practice makes perfect”)  However, at the same time, I cannot say it is part of God’s immediate plan.”  (But it is part of his long-range plan?)  This person is just all over the map here.
  • Is this guy’s wife reading this?  “I’m a married man. Is my wife the only person I find attractive in a sexual way? Of course not. I have to exercise self control to keep the law of chastity.”  DO tell!

What I might say:

• “No comment.”
• Since the church doesn’t welcome practicing homosexuals, I would certainly think they are not the target audience of this FAQ.
• The law of chastity requires that you abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage.  Since the church considers homosexual acts to be unchaste, the church does not sanction gay marriage.  Is a legally married homosexual unchaste?  I leave that to God to decide.
• No one who isn’t gay would choose to be gay just for the fun of it.
• I would never knowingly encourage someone who is homosexual to marry heterosexually as a way to reform their natural feelings.  That seems destined to fail.
• Being gay in the LDS church would be extremely difficult.  I imagine that a loving God would understand that.  I am not to judge.

What do you think?  What would you say?  Do you agree that the so-called phrase “so-called” should be stricken?  Discuss.

Here’s the “FAQ:”  What is the role of the husband and the wife in the family?  I have a few initial concerns with this: 

• Is this really a frequently asked question?  It seems to me that it’s something we apparently want to tell people, but it’s not necessarily the sort of thing anyone would ask us.  Isn’t it kind of like asking your boss what the company you work for does?
• Why is this question listed in the “women” section of the FAQs?  It’s ostensibly about the role of husbands (last I checked, men) as well as wives.  Of course, there is no section for “men.”  Hmmm.

The fact that this question exists is already questionable logic, IMO. With that in mind, let’s proceed.  Again, the “official” answer is perhaps the least problematic (below, an excerpt), although it does link to the PoF (which I state below I find potentially problematic):

Both mother and father have a necessary and important role in the lives of their children. Parents’ work in the home will be more effective if their first priorities are God, each other, and their children.

A home that is safe, where children can grow mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually, requires faith and the best efforts of the parents working together.

Answers I liked:

• Equality.  Those that focused on equality in parenting with no role-prescriptive caveats.  Most of the answers did this.
• Responsibility.  Those that talked about what parents’ duties are with regard to their children.  Many examples somehow lost the children in describing the role of parents.
  • “We are here to build self worth in our families. We teach our children to be kind, loving, charitable, helpful, honest and clean. We teach them to follow the example Jesus Christ has given us.”  I really liked this one, also because this was the entire answer; nothing even potentially offensive or sexist. 
  • “To turn out children into the world who are capable, responsible, and morally inspired people. It is a joint effort.”  I love this one.  And it’s the entire answer.
• Keeping it real.  Props to those who used personal examples to show their personal commitment to their very real marriages.
  • “My husband and I own a business together, so we share family and work responsibilities more than many Mormon couples. Because we have the same goals at home, we work together to make that happen.”  This is really the heart of the division of labor argument; the comment about goals was perfect, IMO.
  • “Individual circumstances sometimes require us to support and balance out our spouse in different ways. Husbands and wives work as a team. Sometimes my husband does the vacumning AND the laundry. A husband’s role as father goes beyond just providing, protecting, and presiding. They also play, discipline, change diapers, and do housework. A wife’s main role is to nurture. She cannot nurture other’s without personal nourishment. Her role may also extend to helping her husband provide for the family.”  I like that this contains personal examples and doesn’t exempt either spouse from anything that would have been considered traditionally the purview of the other spouse in a typical episode of Mad Men.
  • “But my wife is my greatest friend and companion. Knowing that I have been married to my wife not only “till death do you part” but for “time and all eternity” really makes a huge difference in how we treat each other and how we work through arguments. (yes we still have arguments from time to time… but knowing what this life is all about really helps us be as one more often than not).”  There’s some tenderness in this one that I like.
  • “I feel that spending quality and quantity time with our children is the most wonderful gift I can give to them. They are teenagers now. They are bright, talented, respectful, goal-oriented and fun to be around. They each have a fantastic sense of humor. Though they argue and annoy each other from time to time, at the end of the day they still love each other.”  Aside from a little Lake Woebegone effect, this is a nice heart-warming picture of a Mormon family.
  • “To me the most important role of a wife in the family is to love her husband, and my husband’s role is to love me. We work at that. We take care of each other, are kind to each other, are gentle with criticism or correction if it’s needed, and try not to take offense. I think that the best thing that parents can give their children is a strong and happy marriage. This doesn’t just happen, it takes commitment and a long-term vision, because life is hard and none of us are perfect at it. This perspective has seen me through short-term problems that otherwise could have ruined my marriage.”  I like this person’s focus on how happy marriages make for happy families.
• Humorous.  I’ll give extra credit to those who gave a tongue in cheek response to this silly, silly question.  Unfortunately, I didn’t see any answers like this.
• SAHMs by Choice.  Women have to own their choices.  Even though I’m not a SAHM, those who point out they are SAHMs who also add the caveat that it’s by choice win extra points in my book.
  • “My wife has chosen to stay at home and be with the children. This was the choice that she wanted and she is glad to do it.”  This is a nice contrast to those that say what women (in general) ”ought to” be doing, as if personal choice is irrelevant.  When we act on shoulds and oughts and don’t own our choices, we will inevitably experience regret later.

Answers that gave me mixed feelings:

• Equality + Role Prescription.  Those that mentioned equality, but also prescribed what men & women should be doing (e.g. women nurture & teach, men protect & provide).  I don’t strongly object to these, but they just feel a little too specific, and as I said, the entire question is one that no one outside the church would ever ask us to answer, so these PoF-centric answers point to the “hidden agenda.”  Equal but different, as we learned with civil rights, is not really equal.  The majority of answers fit this description.
  • “They work together as equal partners, neither above the other in the marriage. We believe the role of the husband is to provide for, to preside over, and to protect the family. The wife is to nurture her children in love and righteousness.”  ‘Nuff said.
• “Preside.”  Even when coupled with “equal decision making,” the word “preside” jangles (to me) and points to a “hidden agenda.”  To anyone outside the church it will sound like a throwback to “Leave it to Beaver,” and the word “preside” is nearly impossible to understand.  It makes me a little embarrassed for us.
  • “In all cases, husbands preside over the family. What this means is that they stand in for the Jesus Christ: their weighty responsibility is to direct the family as they feel He would if He were there.”  The WWJD religious twist is interesting here.  I’m not sure I’ve ever heard that “husband = Christ” idea before, but I’m pretty sure I don’t like it.  So, the husband is the only one who needs to be Christ-like?  And he interprets that for everyone else?
  • “The husband’s primary responsibility are to earn a living for the family, call the family to prayer and scriptural study, and preside over them in righteousness.”  Funny thing is, if those are all the examples of what “preside” means, it’s not exactly a great deal of power.  Why not use a more neutral term like administrative sperm donor?  (absolutely just kidding on that one!)
  • “The father is the patriarch and head of the household, but husband and wife should be equally yoked. They should make decisions together in love and kindness. Nothing should be handled in a dictatorial manner.”  The word patriarch is loaded for bear, and without all the caveats we attach to it will be a red flag to non-members who aren’t sexist.
  • “The husband presides, but does not dominate. They should act as equal partners, but as I indicated by the word “preside”, in God’s eyes, he is the first level of accountability in what happens in the family.”  Apparently, the buck stops there!  Wait, wasn’t Adam the quintessential buck-passer?
• PoF link or quote.  It’s not terrible, but there are aspects of the PoF that would be misinterpreted or easily misunderstood (for example, the word “presides”) and/or offensive to people.  Role prescription, even when followed by an “individual circumstances may vary” caveat can still create problems.  There’s a (sometimes hard to distinguish) difference between what is timeless and what is outdated.
• Ideal vs. Pragmatic.  Those comments that indicate how “blessed” or “lucky” someone is for having a traditional SAHM/working dad construct.  Not outright appalling, but also not a personal favorite.  I know there was some unhappiness in the b’nacle from SAHMs because they felt that the campaign highlighted career women rather than SAHMs.  My view is that variation should be represented without elevating one above another; what’s ideal to one marriage is untenable to another.  Can’t we just get along without being so judgmental?
  • “I am lucky. My husband is able to provide a good living for our family and I am able to stay at home with our children. I know this is not always a possibility, but I am grateful for my situation. I feel strongly that traditional gender roles create greater contentment and success in family life.”  It feels a bit like scolding those whose circumstances or choices differ.
  • “It varies from family to family, but basically if there are kids mom should be home with them if circumstances allow it.”  The use of the word “should” is always suspect.

Answers I did not like:

• (Unintentional) Sexism.  Even in attempting humor or light-heartedness, some of these answers came off tone-deaf to me.
  • “My wife’s role is to be perfect, which she does easily. Mine is to appreciate that.”  Actually I’m not sure if this is sexist.  It just makes relatively no sense.
  • “When people find out I’m Mormon, they automatically think I’m oppressed and considered to be beneath my husband. This is not true what so ever. Right now, because we don’t have any children yet, it is both our responsibilities to work hard and create a home. As I stated earlier, I am in school, working torwards a degree and my husband is the one who talked me into it telling me how important it was. Just because I plan on being a stay at home mom, doesn’t mean I don’t need an education. When the time comes, and we are blessed with children, my husbands (polyandry, anyone?) plans on working and will be the bread winner and I will stay home and be with our children as they grow.”  A few things:  1) if everyone else equates Mormonism with female oppression (which I question) then stating it makes everything you say afterward sound defensive, 2) the husband convincing the wife to get a degree as evidence of his not being oppressive is also (unintentionally) evidence of the wife being incapable of making this decision for herself, 3) I’m not sure anyone under age 65 uses the term “bread winner” any more, and 4) grammatical errors undermine credibility (“whatsoever” is one word, not three; “husbands” should say “husband”; “breadwinner” is one word, not two).
  • “The role of the husband is to honor his priesthood, provide for his family and protect them. The role of the wife is to nurture the family. She should also encourage her husband to honor his priesthood.”  Why is it OK to describe wives as cheerleaders to their husbands, but we never say that husbands should encourage their wives to nurture?  It just seems a little weird to say it one way but never the other.  To suggest men encourage their wives to be nurturing also sounds tone-deaf unless one is married to Susan Smith, in which case maybe it’s a fool’s errand anyway.
  • “This does not mean he “rules” over his family, but that he is the one who is ultimately responsible for his family.”  Whew!  I guess I’m off the hook then.
• Unintentionally Humorous.  Sometimes the mistakes people make in writing these up are just funny.
  • “Right now my husband is going to school and I am working and we are both caring for our Son.”  They are raising Jesus?  Otherwise, why is their son capitalized?
  • “Husbands and wife work together in a harmonious manor.”  Like an English estate?  Are there servants?  Pip, pip, cheerio!
  • One answer is basically an entire General Conference talk (including a poem, scriptures, and quotes from church leaders), defending the PoF against supposed claims that the church teaches that women should be barefoot and pregnant.  Aside from sounding a bit defensive, it’s about two thousand words too long.

What I might have said in answer to the question:

• I probably would not answer this question because it’s such a stupid question.
• Parents jointly bear the responsibility for the children in their care, to raise self-reliant and well-adjusted adults.
• Couples need to be flexible in how they approach their family’s needs as every family’s needs differ.
• Maybe I would share a personal example of how we both nurture the kids, we both manage careers, and we want to raise kids who enjoy pitching in to help, even though they manage to argue their way out of chores every week and still earn an extravagant allowance.

I’m not sure saying anything else is really warranted in my opinion – and even that much is sort of obvious, isn’t it?  What would you say?  Did you like or dislike the answers on the site?  Discuss.

Here’s the question members were asked:  Does the Mormon church endorse political parties?

This is the church’s official party line that was posted on the site:

The Church has made the following public statement on multiple occasions prior to major elections: “Principles compatible with the gospel are found in the platforms of all major political parties. While the Church does not endorse political candidates, platforms, or parties, members are urged to be full participants in political, governmental, and community affairs.”

Here are some of the member profile answers I liked best:

• No.  Most of these were basically a recitation of the same statement that’s read over the pulpit regularly.  So, there’s clarity and consistency of message.
  • “No. The church does not endorse political parties. The church believes in free agency, and let’s its members decide which political party to join on their own.”  I like the shout out to free agency.
  • “No, THANKFULLY. I don’t believe any political party has the corner on morality.”  My favorite simple “no” answer.
• No + we’re not all Americans.  Thanks to those members who rememered that little fact.
  • “No it doesn’t. The Church has always encouraged Church members to be knowledgeable about political issues and to participate in the political process e.g. voting in their respective countries and at all levels of governance.”
  • “I personally know active and faithful members of the church (in the U.S. and worldwide) who are Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Tories, Labourites, Libertarians, Greens, etc.”  Yeah, for this guy who has met a non-US Mormon.
• No + 11th Article of Faith.  Adds a twist of “doctrine” to the refutation.
  • “I’m happy to say that there are members of the Church of all different political backgrounds. The Church does not endorse any specific party. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
• No + pray / vote conscience.  Adds a nice religious touch that feels universal.
  • “No it does not. It does however encourage you to pray before you vote to help to choose.”  I do have a weird feeling about the wording, though, which sounds a lot like, “it puts the lotion on its back.”

I had mixed feelings about these, although again, they were mostly pretty good:

• “No, we’re not all Republicans” or conversely, “No, as evidenced by the fact that I’m a Democrat.”  As they say, the exception proves the rule, but that just means that “the rule” is Republican, something I’m not quite sure we should be conceding.  It also rings a little hollow because it sounds like we’re protesting too much.  Frankly, I think that’s a good message for those who are aware that there are a lot of Republicans in the church (whether they are members or not).  It just has the potential to ring a little false if someone didn’t think that was a foregone conclusion.  And saying “I know some democrats at church” sounds just a smidge defensive like saying, ”I have lots of black friends” to prove how culturally savvy you are.  Yet I do know that political affiliation is a badge of honor for folks in a democracy like ours.  I prefer the ones that are more personal.
  • “I know many people connotate Mormons and Conservatism and the Republican party, but it is a misconception. I can say this as a devout Mormon and democrat!”
  • “I think our church teaches us to be as informed and educated as possible, and that’s why I am an independent and consider each issue and candidate carefully, regardless of party affiliation.”  Actually this one I like better, probably because I too am an independent.  In addition to being as informed and educated as possible (just kidding on that one!).
  • “I am a fairly liberal democrat, while most fellow Mormons in my congregation are very conservative republicans. It can be a little tricky at times, but Mormons are a kind and caring community.”  I particularly like the comment about a kind and caring community, which for me rings true.  Nicely done!
  • “The Mormon church absolutely does not endorse political parties. In fact, my husband and I, faithful members of the Mormon Church, both belong to different political parties. I feel that the platforms of both political parties endorse some good things and that no party has all the answers.”  I like the mixed-politics marriage angle here.
• Answers that are US-Centric.  This ran the gamut from those just talking about their own politics, and they happen to be American (not too bad) to those God-bless-Americans that sound tone-deaf to non-Americans (like most Americans sound to others).
  • “No, I used to think that all Mormons happened to be Republican, but they aren’t. I’ve met plenty of people in all parties. However, I think it’s safe to say, we do tend to be a bit more conservative no matter which party.”  I’m not sure I agree that Mormon Democrats are all middle-of-the-roaders.  Also, this forgets the 50% of Mormons who live in other countries.
  • “The Mormon Church does not endorse political parties. Members of our Church belong to both major political parties.”  Both the Tories and the Labor Party.  Right?

Answers I (in my wisdom) would not have approved if I were a reviewer:

• No, but (hint, hint) God’s probably a Republican.  First of all, just as it’s anachronistic to think of God as a Mormon, he’s clearly not an American, so associating him with contemporary political issues in our little square inch of the globe seems off-key and presumptuous.
  • “any political party that approves of God’s teachings, and lives them consistently, is more likely to attract Mormons. Likewise, any political party that prefers different standards, or opposes the teachings of Jesus Christ, will be more likely to offend Mormons.”  I am unaware of any political party that approves of all of God’s teachings or any political party that wholeheartedly rejects them, so this comment seems suspect to me.

There has been some criticism of the profiles, stating that it implies wider diversity of thought than one actually experiences at church.  While I think that may be true, I think it’s a natural by-product of the process:

1. Participants self-select.  Those who are confident in their uniqueness (and reasonably photogenic) will be more inclined to participate.
2. It’s on the internet.  The outlier Mormons are more likely to be internet-savvy than the stereotyped ones.  And younger members are more likely to proliferate the internet and have more progressive views.
3. There’s no “common” review process.  Each profile is reviewed by a team of 20-30 MTC employees who make personal decisions about what to approve or decline.  If there was a single reviewer, there would be more consistency of response.  This is better, IMO.

Here’s what I might have said:

• No, I’ve been in wards in the U.S. that were predominantly Democrat and wards that were predominantly Republican.  And I’ve known members outside the U.S. with a very wide spectrum of political belief.
• IMO, both parties are full of hypocrits and philanderers as well as genuine good guys who haven’t yet become hypocrits and philanderers.  Give them time.
• Generally speaking, members avoid discussing politics in my experience because they are polite and understand that politics can be divisive; most members recognize the power of politics to divide friends and families.  But as with any large organization, there are a few bulls in the China shop.

Have you created your profile yet?  Let’s talk politics!  How would you answer this question?  What answers did you like or not like?  Discuss.

First of all, here is the phrasing of the question:  Why don’t women hold the priesthood in the Mormon Church?  How do women lead in the Mormon Church?

The first “answer” was just a quote by Gordon B. Hinckley, and frankly it was the one I liked best, although I worried a smidge about how outsiders might perceive part of it:

“Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way.  (Here we run the risk of sounding like we are saying “because the Lord, who is a man, told the leaders, who are all men . . .”  You get the point).  It is part of His program. Women have a very prominent place in this Church. Men hold the priesthood offices of the Church. But women have a tremendous place in this Church. They have their own organization. It was started in 1842 by the Prophet Joseph Smith (need I say “a man”), called the Relief Society, because its initial purpose was to administer help to those in need. It has grown to be, I think, the largest women’s organization in the world… They have their own offices, their own presidency, their own board. That reaches down to the smallest unit of the Church everywhere in the world…

“The men hold the priesthood, yes. But my wife is my companion. In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are co-equals in this life in a great enterprise.” (This is my favorite part of his quote).

Common member answers that I thought would be generally acceptable to outsiders:

• God sets the rules.
  • “Well, the quick answer is God’s priesthood, God’s rules. In reading the Holy Bible you can see that the priesthood of God has always been exclusive. I’ve heard lots of speculation on this over the course of my years in the Church, but I still think that the quick answer is only one we know for sure right now.”
  • “I have a pretty simple understanding of this question. It’s God’s priesthood. He can give it to, or withhold it from anybody He chooses. If I thought the church was led by men, instead of by God himself, then I might think that they were selfish, or old fashioned, or just wrong. But knowing that the head of the Church is God, I let Him govern His Church any way He so chooses. But from the outside looking in, I know that you might not know that God really is in charge. You might still be suspicious. I can understand that. Still, the true answer is to ask God. If this is truly His church, then we have less objections to Him choosing to run it His way.”
• Priesthood is always restricted.
  • “The Lord has throughout the scriptures given different responsibilities to different people, based on all sorts of things.”
  • “In the days of Moses, for example, not every man had the priesthood. It is only in our day that every worthy male may be ordained into the priesthood of God.”
• It’s only a matter of time.  (This seemed a bit progressive, but the censors didn’t object.)
  • “My faith is placed in God, and should He choose to extend priesthood to the women of the church, I’m okay with that idea. It’s His church, His priesthood, and I will follow Him any way He leads.”
  • “As to why women do not hold the Priesthood, my answer is it is a matter of the Lord’s timing.”
• Priesthood blessings are for all, and it’s only used for service.
  • “The priesthood is used to serve others and perform ordinances of the gospel, the blessings of which are enjoyed by both men and women.”
  • “The priesthood power is not a gift or a right but an oath and covenant that a worthy man makes with the Lord. It is not a power for man’s own gain and a man is not better off than a woman because he holds this power. Women and men are entitled to the same blessings and promises when they live righteously.”
  • “I have no doubt that I, woman, am as significant to my Heavenly parent as any man. If you understand that the priesthood is all about service, then perhaps you’ll see how this is a vehicle for men to serve God and their fellowman.”
  • “The priesthood however, is not to be used to benefit yourself, but to benefit others, such as the sick, or anyone else (family or otherwise) who is in need of a blessing from God.”
• Women hold key leadership positions in the church. Sample comments:
  • “There are certain positions that are held by men, and certain others that are only held by women.”
  • “There are innumerable opportunities for women to serve and bless the lives of others through their church service. In the church I have always felt important and cherished. I feel that my contributions are appreciated and needed.”
  • “Women do lead in the church in many callings, and do a spot on job of it.”
  • “The five women in my life are leaders. They know what they want and what they don’t want. When they speak, I know I had better listen. While they do not currently have the Priesthood, they do certainly influence me. So do women who lead the children (the Primary organization) and the women’s organization (the Relief Society) and those who speak or pray or serve in the Lord’s house, the Temple.”

Common members answers that made me nervous:

• Priesthood?  No, thanks!  I’ve got my hands full with these dishes and dirty diapers, thank you very much!
  • “When I read or hear similar questions such as these I want to laugh. To me a question like this is akin to asking for more responsiblity, more accountablity, more work, more angish (sic) etc. . . . I guess my question would be, why would a woman want to hold the priesthood?”
  • “Honey, we women have enough to do! Why worry about holding the priesthood too? Just lovingly hold that dear husband of yours and support him as he honors the priesthood.”  I think I threw up in my mouth a little on that one.
  • “Personally, I would rather lead at home as a mother, than anywhere else.”  I have been rendered incapable of speech by that one.
• Men and women are inherently different.  Mommies have babies, and daddies do (insert awesome entitled stuff).  All right, that’s a very loose paraphrase.  But the old “boys and girls are different” routine often strays into sexist stereotypes easily sniffed out by investigators (unless they too are sexist).
  • “Just as men have not been appointed to bear children in this life, so women have not been appointed to bear the priesthood.”
  • “Men and woman have different responsibilites. The man has the responsibility of holding the priesthood and using those keys given to them (sic) in righteousness. Woman (sic) have another kind of responsibility that of bareing (sic) and rearing children.”  Seriously, what is up with the grammar and spell check on mormon.org??  There is clearly no basic editing.  (same comment)  “Each of us, man and woman have a sacred roll (like the shewbread of the temple?) like our Heavenly Parents that is not talked of much, but is essential just the same.”  I’m unclear what it is that is not talked of much.  The roles of parents seem talked about a lot.  Heavenly Father is talked about a lot.  So does this mean that Heavenly Mother is not talked about?  If so, there’s subject-verb disagreement in that sentence.
• Women have access through men.  This is really close to saying women still get the blessings, but it has the twist of sounding like men take care of women and women are dependent on men.
  • “As a woman I have total access to the blessings of the priesthood through my father, husband, bishop, and home teachers. Our home teachers visit my family in our home monthly and look after our well-being.”
• Women lead by example (aka being modest).  This one kills me with its irrelevance.  How do we go from a question about women and the priesthood to talking about how women should dress?  Yet, here we go.
  • “Many women in the Mormon Church also lead by setting an example of virtue, and do not follow the tight/low cut/body revealing fashions of this day but instead understand their true beauty is enhanced by their choice to be modest in dress.”
  • “Young girls need righteous examples of Christlike women to whom they can look as they try to make good decisions in today’s world. Women who are modest, caring, honest and virtuous lead these girls to Christ.”
• Men need the priesthood because women are better than they are (aka Male Guilt Syndrome).
  • “My wife is a remarkable woman, and does all of this without the priesthood. I, however, need the priesthood because I’m not a woman, and would fail miserably without it.”
  • “Because men are rather selfish and self-centered by nature, they need extra guidance and teaching to acquire compassion and selflessness. Serving in the priesthood is that schooling process for them. Women, on the other hand, are much more natural in their abilities to love and serve and teach. Priesthood is not required for them to emulate the Savior’s commandment to love one another.”

Here are some things I could possibly say if I were answering this question:

• I don’t know why women don’t.  Perhaps that will change at some point in the future.  Women do use priesthood power within temples (but it’s not suitable for mormon.org which is primarily focused on a non-LDS audience).
• We have no paid clergy at the ward level, so priesthood is not a career in our church.
• Women hold at least as many leadership positions as men at the ward level, and are probably more influential in these roles.  Women speak in church to the congregation every Sunday and teach lessons to adults.
• Our scriptures specifically state that anyone who uses “unrighteous dominion” loses his priesthood power.

What were your reactions to these answers?  Did you like some I didn’t like or dislike ones I liked?  What would your answer be to that question?  Are you motivated to create your own profile yet?  Discuss.

To take a line from Shakespeare — a pox upon both your houses. The Ex-Mos and TBMs continue to argue past each other and never the twain shall meet. While the thought of a kind, loving heavenly being comforts and then closes the ears of the believer, the list of inconsistencies, logical disconnects and “anti-Mormon” cliches assuages and then closes the ears of the non-believer.

Unless you frame your debate, it will continue to be unproductive, each side creating their own echo chamber of reinforcement until the cacophony makes it impossible for anyone to hear what is going on.

Here is where I would propose to take the discussion: How do you reconcile the conflicts? To quote this guy I once read, “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.” Bonus points if you can tell me who said that. The discussion then moves from cliche and rote response to a value and factual discussion in an attempt to find common ground.

For example: Blacks and the priesthood. The Word of God is for all of God’s children. You are punished for your own sins, not Adam’s transgressions (or Cain’s.) Racism is a rampant cultural and historical phenomenon which prompted violent conflict between those who thought racism violated God’s law and those who believed their race was chosen by God to rule over the lesser beings (both sides used religion as the basis for their beliefs — one of those contraries Joseph was talking about.).

The argument came to a head in the spring of 1820 (bonus points if you know what else happened in the spring of 1820) in the United States with a Missouri Compromise. The Compromise held the Union together for about forty more years until war broke out, but the entire time temperatures were broiling on the race issue in the United States. Northern (upper state New York) abolitionist leaning religions moving south into Missouri and southern Illinois were not well received.

Not surprising that depending on your viewpoint the ban on blacks holding the priesthood came from:
a) false doctrine;
b) the human capacity for self-deception while striving for self-preservation;
c) individual racism of some church leaders;
d) conforming to the current societal norms; or
e) some other reason arising out of the factual scenario.

The anti- and the pro- both believe that the whole racism thing was a bad idea, they just get there different ways. Conflict resolved, sort of.

So who is right? How should we define, the capital T, “Truth”? I’m going to come clean right now — I’m in the Joseph Smith camp on this one, at least for how to determine Truth. The reason I’m in the Joseph Smith camp is that he is also in the historical philosophical tradition of the American Enlightenment and the scientific method and he made one of the first attempts to apply that philosophy to religious thought. Joseph Smith also had a strong sense of American individualism — study it out and figure it out for yourself. How he succeeded can be argued, but I love the empirical, scientific approach to religion. (To avoid numerous digressions into atheism, geology, cosmology and science, I’m only talking in this post about applying an empirical, scientific approach to internal subjective experience.)

The scientific method gives us a mechanism for creating hierarchal judgments on different hypotheses — the hypothesis that is the most consistent with all the data is the most correct, the most true hypothesis.

Another way of saying this is Truth is inclusive. If you draw lines that exclude, you don’t have the Truth, you’ve left something out.

Joseph Smith believed this and it shows in his theology, for example eternal progression and baptism for the dead. He wanted everything included and this is a huge comfort point for believers. It leads to a Mormon mother’s common belief that a non-believing child can eventually end up in the temple and end up included, despite the past. What a comfort that must be to her, based on her own world view.

So I am looking at TBM’s hypothesis which says “my view is right because it is more inclusive, God’s plan provides eternal salvation for all mankind, even Ex-Mos.”

The conflicting Ex-Mo hypothesis is “my view is right because the reality and data coming out of the religion is that the religion does exactly the opposite of include all mankind, it excludes everyone except the elect.”

So there are the two contraries, how do we manifest Truth. In the spirit of Johnathan Swift, let me make a modest proposal: Eat the children to stop the famine (sorry literary joke that I couldn’t resist).

Seriously, the TBM’s hypothesis fails because despite the efforts of the Church at inclusion theologically, the reality is countless people feel excluded and some are even forced to be excluded by a process known as excommunication. Just makes the whole “one heart, one mind” thing seem a little narrow and false.

The counter hypothesis and its proponents equally fail because it fails to include the large group who devoutly believes. This makes it equally weak and equally vulnerable to attack by those believers.

My proposed hypothesis, neither of you are correct. I’ve studied it out. Thought about it. Prayed about it. I came up with the answer that neither of you were true. (Told you I was in the Joseph Smith camp).

First of all, this campaign is slick and attractive.  I applaud efforts to show the diversity that exists in the church, and to showcase some of the cool non-celebrities who are actual Mormons.  These are family-centric people with a wide variety of interests.  There are many of these people whom I would really enjoy on a personal level.  So, kudos on a very effective campaign!

On the downside, some of the answers to the difficult questions are problematic for various reasons (no more problematic than what you hear on a given Sunday from lay members, but they are now public):

• some answers contain factual errors, including some doctrinal mistakes (see below)
• there is no spell check or editing; perhaps this is “keepin’ it real”
• this exposes some of the most common speculations and assumptions that are comfort food to lay members on these tough issues; there’s an upside to this, too.  Perhaps this is an opportunity for the church to clarify or deal with some incorrect assumptions.
• some of the answers are not going to be very appealing to those outside the church.

So, first things first.  Let’s start with the FAQ on polygamy that members answered:  Why did your church previously practice plural marriage (polygamy)?

Reading through the posted responses, this is the one I liked the best.  He refrains from speculating or spinning pet theories that are easily debunked, and he simply talks about trusting God.  It’s not perfect because it really doesn’t answer the question, but it is a very tough question to answer given that it’s not relevant to our daily experience as church members:

I struggle with this question, myself. I believe, as I have been taught, that it was a commandment from God. I’ve heard many theories about why God commanded it but, as far as I can tell, none of the theories can be proven. I do consider the question from time to time but, in the end, I simply have to return to the fact that I trust God and do not understand all of His ways.

Another answer I somewhat liked was this one.  What I liked was that she talked about polygamy on a personal level, about her own family.  But again, it’s no justification for it (can there be?):

My great, great, great grandmother was a polygamist. She immigrated as a late teenager and would have had little opportunity to find a righteous and good husband had she not married my great, great, great grandfather as his third wife. She raised 6 children mostly on her own, since her husband died before their last child was born. The legacy she left continues to inspire me to be stronger and better. I believe she was a polygamist wife for the benefit of her posterity.

There are some other good statements as well, but I wanted to highlight a few that seem problematic for various reasons:

The Prophets have said “to raise up a righteous generation unto the Lord.” The righteous women in the Church outnumber the righteous men. That is another one of those male-female inequalities. This was especially true in the early days of the Church. Plural Marriage permitted every righteous women to be the wife of a righteous man and then to raise up a righteous family. The problem is not so severe nowadays.

The old romantic paternalist argument that women are more righteous than men.  It is demonstrably false that there was a shortage of marriageable men in the early days of the church.  Census numbers in Utah from 1850 to 1960 show more males than females in the state:

Utah population:
                       1850 total 11,380      male 6,046          female 5,334
                       1860 total 40,273      male 20,255        female 20,018
                       1870 total 86,786      male 44,121        female 42,665
                       1880 total 143,963    male 74,509        female 68,454
                       1890 total 210,779    male 111,975      female 98,804
                       1900 total 276,749    male 141,687      female 135,062

The caveat “righteous” is a bit of a two-edged sword; does that mean that Mormons of that era who did not practice plural marriage were unrighteous?  Because another defense of polygamy is that only a select few ever practiced it (see below).  Can’t have it both ways.  Here’s another comment I found troubling:

See the Book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon where the then current Prophet banned the practice because of the unrighteousness of the people. Will the practice ever come back officially? Only the Lord knows, and he hasn’t confided in me.

This seems mixed up or is just worded strangely.  It is not doctrinal that polygamy is the higher law only given to us when we are righteous; that’s the law of consecration.  The admonishment in Jacob is they were being unrighteous by committing polygamy.  My other concern is that leaving the door open that polygamy is coming back (alarming enough to suggest in its own right) just sounds creepy coming from a man.  I don’t see this one winning any converts.  Moving on.

Let’s look at some facts: in the 19th century, about three quarters of the world’s population lived in countries or societies where polygamy was sanctioned or even encouraged. In non-polygamous societies, like Europe, having a “mistress” was common and acceptable by society. I think it’s much more honorable to be legally and lawfully wedded to two wives, than to have one wife and a “mistress”.

It’s true that there are many societies that have allowed polygamy (encouraged might be a stretch), but do we really want to draw this parallel?  Many of these are the same countries that also allow stoning of women or wife burning.  I’m also not sure I would call all of Europe a “society” as if it’s all one country (apparently a society of adulterers – are we not also looking for European investigators to visit this site?  We just called them immoral here). And he just inadvertently classed polygamy in the same boat as keeping a mistress, as if both are simply inevitable, so you might as well make it legally binding.

In the early days of the Church, there were more women than men. In the harsh frontier times, survival for single women was difficult.

Again with this old chestnut that has been disproven.  There were not significantly more women than men (see above).  Yet I grant that frontier life was tough due to lack of fast food chains and toilet paper.

It’s my understanding that scarecely 3 percent of Church members practiced polygamy.

The 3% estimate is disproven.  More accurate estimates indicate 20-30%.  And the other issue is that it contradicts the notion that only the righteous practiced it (so between 70 and 97% of all church members were unrighteous?)

However, when the representative who speaks for God a prophet says that God wants you to do something, you do it. That is what happened back in the day. God told Joseph Smith that He wanted them to practice plural marriage and so they did.

This one sounds rather cultish, like saying “Shaddup and do whatcher told.”  I am quite sure most investigators would want more clarification on how God’s will is understood clearly and how you know when you should listen to this prophet and when not (since investigators don’t blindly follow leaders of a church they haven’t joined).  This is not a very useful answer to those outside the church, the target audience.

God has commanded humans to practice polygamy in many different instances throughout history. Readers of the Bible will remember that Abraham and Jacob Israel were affiliated with this practice. Even the great King David had multiple wives.

IIRC, it was the infertile wives (Sariah, Rachel and Leah) and conniving fathers-in-law (Laban) who were behind polygamy in the OT.  There is no scriptural account in the OT of God commanding polygamy.  These were people who wanted more children and didn’t want to wait for them.  Also, David and Solomon are not examples of God-sanctioned polygamy.  Whoever wrote that answer should read the Book of Mormon:  “for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” —Jacob 2:23-24

It was from God’s order out of necessity to take care of many women who were widowed with children and those who were alone.

Again with this old chestnut. I’m telling you, this is one of those very convincing very appealing explanations that we would love to find out is true, but unfortunately, it isn’t upheld by actual data.

OK, the point is not to pick these things apart.  I’m sure we’ve all heard more or less the same types of answers our whole lives in Sunday School, whether they are accurate or not.  And it takes a lot of guts to get on line and say these things with your picture plastered there, so I applaud the courage.  There are MTC volunteers who are reviewing for content and accuracy, so I suppose it is consistent with whatever average missionaries believe is accurate.  Since this is an external-facing campaign, that approach makes sense.  Feedback on doctrinal inaccuracies in the profiles can be submitted to bairdct@mtc.byu.edu.

I gave this some thought, wondering how would I answer such a difficult question for an audience of mainly investigators.  Here are the things that I could say in good conscience that might pass muster:

• I don’t know why.  (I really just have to bite my tongue on this and stop there because I am personally open to the idea that polygamy was not inspired, although that doesn’t bother me in the slightest since I view church leaders as fallible, which is also doctrinally sound.)
• Personally, I find it hard to imagine life under such an arrangement and am glad it is not something that is directly relevant to my own church experience today.
• I am hesitant to judge the actions of others who acted in faith in different times under circumstances that are so different from my own.  Many of those individuals made great personal sacrifices.

So, your turn.  How would you answer this question?  Do you have a mormon.org profile?  Which answers do you like the best and why?  How should the church address mistaken assumptions about things like this?  Discuss.

I’ve observed 4 general categories of struggles that people have in the church (possibly in any church, and there are likely parallels in any type of organization):

1. Cultural. They dislike aspects of Mormon culture, may feel they don’t fit in, or may simply not want to fit in (“I’m a loner, Dotty.  A rebel.”).
   • Examples:  Church activities, social norms, opinions people express, how people dress, unwritten rules of behavior, church standards.
2. Historical. They find aspects of our Mormon history unsavory (even faith-shaking) and white-washed or misrepresented (and sometimes have been unpleasantly surprised due to only having known the uplifting “correlated” version).
   • Examples:  Polygamy, BOM origins, aspects of church leaders’ lives, doctrinal changes, restrictions on priesthood, temple origins, events from church history.
3. Doctrinal. They disagree with certain doctrines of the church or the interpretations of those doctrines they’ve encountered.  While there may be some overlap between historical events that relate to truth claims, it is possible to view these items separately.
   • Examples:  Mormon view of the atonement, Godhood, marriage and sealing, priesthood authority, ordinances, historical claims that are related to truth claims may also fit here, plan of salvation, the role of prophets, Temple Recommend questions related to belief, interpretation of scripture.
4. Personal. They have had a personal issue that has harmed them and caused dissonance with the church.
   • Examples:  marital issue, abuse, interpersonal conflict, depression

It seems that a person could have issues in more than one of these areas, or may find that they are less impacted by a disconnect in one or more of these areas.  For example, one may find historical facts like Mountain Meadows Massacre troubling, but feel that they are personally less important because of no direct personal connection to the historical church.  If an area is of high importance and is also an area of strong concern, that’s when people leave if they can’t resolve their concern satisfactorily.

[poll id="183"]

[poll id="184"]

[poll id="185"]

[poll id="186"]

It seems to me that for people who care very deeply about a specific area (culture, doctrine, history, or personal experiences), they are more prone to disaffection for that issue if something goes wrong in that area.  Likewise, if it’s extremely important to them and it’s going well, that can strongly solidify their commitment to the church.  What are your observations?  And which of these areas are most important to you?  Have they caused you any cognitive dissonance?  Discuss.

Clearly Facebook doesn’t cause infidelity any more than guns kill people, but is it bad for marriage or even worse, a catalyst for divorce to be avoided at all cost?

I checked the lds.org site, and there is no official warning to members to avoid Facebook at all costs, nor is there a specific suggestion that married people not “friend” those of the opposite sex (I’m fairly certain that the word “friend” is not used as a verb anywhere on lds.org, and if it were it would probably mean sending a copy of the children’s magazine to someone).  In fact, the church is active in social media (including Facebook and Twitter), using it as both a proselyting tool, and as a method to organize charitable endeavors.

From what I can see, Facebook has made it easier for exes to find one another, and so the one marital danger that exists is that someone will reconnect with an old flame (or an almost flame) which can lead to a rekindling of feelings (or emotional manipulation and bad choices – whatever).  And yes, prior to Facebook, it would be difficult for people to find these known individuals; adulterers would presumably have to resort to random hookups with strangers in bars and airports back in the good ol’ days rather than someone from their past.  Clearly, a determined adulterer wasn’t likely to be deterred by a little thing like lack of internet social networking.  But let’s remember, David & Bathsheba weren’t pen pals.  From Facebook to bedroom, there are some intermediate steps and choices being made.  There are some Facebook behaviors that might be ill-advised for those who want to stay faithfully married:

• keeping secrets from your spouse
• emotional affairs, building more intimacy with a friend of the opposite sex than you do with your spouse (these seem to lead to physical affairs)
• posting revealing pictures of oneself
• expressing neediness through status updates (making one vulnerable to emotional manipulators).  This is the Facebook equivalent to the secular admonishment not to “dial drunk.”

Yet for all its flaws, I can’t help but love Facebook for reconnecting me with old friends, helping me stay in touch with relatives in the most low effort way possible, allowing me to avoid all future high school reunions, providing me with dozens of unsolicited yet universally enthusiastic birthday greetings, and providing me with endless hours of marginal enjoyment through applications like Scramble.

When it comes to Facebook and marriage, what’s your opinion?

[poll id="182"]

Have you friended or been friended by an ex?  Has a FB friend ever made you feel uncomfortable or gotten too personal?  Do you have concerns with your spouse’s Facebook use?  Discuss.

Here’s the talk in a nutshell:

1. Why we need the spirit.
   • “Throughout the ages, many have obtained guidance helpful to resolve challenges in their lives by following the example of respected individuals who resolved similar problems. Today, world conditions change so rapidly that such a course of action is often not available to us.”  I think E. Scott just admitted that old folks haven’t necessarily “been there, done that.”  It’s kind of a radical thing for an octogenarian to say.  Frankly, I’m not sure all 80-somethings would admit that.  Kudos, E. Scott!
   • “Personally, I rejoice in that reality because it creates a condition where we, of necessity, are more dependent upon the Spirit to guide us through the vicissitudes of life. Therefore, we are led to seek personal inspiration in life’s important decisions.”  So, he’s saying we shouldn’t do things just because of tradition or what others who are older tell us to do, but we should find out for ourselves the best course.  Personal accountability–one, blind obedience to authority–zero!
   • “Spirituality yields two fruits. The first is inspiration to know what to do. The second is power, or the capacity to do it. These two capacities come together.”  Features & benefits of the Spirit.
2. How to get the Spirit.
   • “I am convinced that there is no simple formula or technique that would immediately allow you to master the ability to be guided by the voice of the Spirit.”  Decrying a formulaic approach to spirituality.  Down with checklists!  Spirituality is personal and subjective.
   • “Our Father expects you to learn how to obtain that divine help by exercising faith in Him and His Holy Son, Jesus Christ. Were you to receive inspired guidance just for the asking, you would become weak and ever more dependent on Them. They know that essential personal growth will come as you struggle to learn how to be led by the Spirit.”  I love the notion that we are supposed to live up to our potential, not just let others make decisions for us.
   • “Your confidence in the direction you receive from the Holy Ghost will also become stronger. I witness that as you gain experience and success in being guided by the Spirit, your confidence in the impressions you feel can become more certain than your dependence on what you see or hear.”  There’s a little bit of implied confirmation bias here, but by the same token, it’s how we develop decision-making ability and intuition:  through experience.  We learn what works and what doesn’t.
   • E. Scott shares 2 contrasting teacher styles and how each resulted in inspiration for him.  While the contrasting examples seem designed to reinforce the correlation committee’s guidelines (the first teacher stuck to the materials and the second one used archane and unusual references), both lessons resulted in personal spiritual guidance for E. Scott.  Of the second experience, E. Scott shared:  “I received such an outpouring of impressions that were so personal that I felt it was not appropriate to record them in the midst of a Sunday School class. I sought a more private location, where I continued to write the feelings that flooded into my mind and heart as faithfully as possible.”  I’m pretty sure he just admitted to ditching Sunday School to write in his journal.
   • “Impressions of the Spirit can come in response to urgent prayer or unsolicited when needed.”  I think it’s hard to chalk it up to the Spirit when it could be confirmation bias – unsolicited one-off ideas are more easily attributable to the Spirit, IMO.
   • “However, the Lord will not force you to learn. You must exercise your agency to authorize the Spirit to teach you. As you make this a practice in your life, you will be more perceptive to the feelings that come with spiritual guidance. Then, when that guidance comes, sometimes when you least expect it, you will recognize it more easily.”  Part of this does strike me as confirmation bias; however, I have experienced an unexpected idea to do something that if I followed it worked out, and sometime I have not and it didn’t work out.  To me, that’s the spirit.
3.  What prevents us from getting the Spirit.
   • “The inspiring influence of the Holy Spirit can be overcome or masked by strong emotions, such as anger, hate, passion, fear, or pride. When such influences are present, it is like trying to savor the delicate flavor of a grape while eating a jalapeño pepper. Both flavors are present, but one completely overpowers the other. In like manner, strong emotions overcome the delicate promptings of the Holy Spirit.”  I like the analogy.  The idea sounds true enough.
   • “Sin is spiritually corrosive. Unrestrained it becomes all-consuming. It is overcome by repentance and righteousness.  Satan is extremely good at blocking spiritual communication by inducing individuals, through temptation, to violate the laws upon which spiritual communication is founded.”  So, sin is bad then . . . right?
   • “With some, he is able to convince them that they are not able to receive such guidance from the Lord.”  I think this is a real issue for people.  I think many have these high-falutin notions of what constitutes “the Spirit” and anything short of meeting JC on the road to Damascus isn’t cutting it.  I think that’s a misunderstanding.  If you re-read E. Scott’s talk and substitute the word “instinct” or “inspiration” for “the Spirit,” you can get a real sense for how commonplace these experiences are.
   • “Satan has become a master at using the addictive power of pornography to limit individual capacity to be led by the Spirit.”  Let’s not make this a porn post, shall we?  But the rest of the talk is basically about how porn makes it impossible to recognize the Spirit.  Personally, I’m no fan of porn, and I think the point is valid.  Porn’s blocking of spiritual guidance is not the worst of its influence in society.  On the subject, E. Scott waxes eloquent.  Anyway, ’nuff said on porn.  Moving on.  Nothing to see here.

Here are some points I think worth discussing from the talk:

1. Does this jive with your experience feeling the Spirit or inspiration or whatever you kids are calling it these days?
2. Do you like the idea that you can be equally inspired in a lesson regardless the instructor?  I found these examples fascinating; although ostensibly the “not as good” instructor was “out of policy,” it had no adverse impact on the spiritual guidance received.  Doesn’t that mean that maybe we can quit wringing our hands over this?  Does that make church a BYOS (Bring Your Own Spirit) institution?  I say yes.
3. Have you ever felt the Spirit when in the throes of strong emotion?  If so, let’s have the deets!
4. Overall, did you like the talk or not?  I am of the opinion that not all talks are for all people.  This one was one I happened to like, but that doesn’t mean everyone should.

Discuss.

Today I’d like to talk about some of the nuances to the word “morality.” The meanings that we don’t get in Mutual or Seminary or Sunday School. For purposes of this discussion, I would prefer to define “morality” as a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.

We Mormons like to think of ourselves as a moral people. We accept the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament, Jesus’ behavioral standards as described in the New Testament, additional ideals and clarification from the Book of Mormon, and random precepts such as the Word of Wisdom health code from the D&C. We even have our own rules of behavior that come from continuing revelation and church tradition. But out of all of these standards of morality, there are some in which we are truly invested, and some to which we merely give lip service.

As one indicator of standards of morality, let’s look at what we teach our children and youth. The standard of conduct that we hit the hardest is of course sexual purity before marriage. We do this to the extent that even the word morality has become synonymous with sexual behavior, as noted above. We reinforce this teaching with related cautions about masturbation for YM and dress standards for YW. I have been dismayed by the amount of emphasis dress standards receives in the Young Women’s program. This counsel eclipses all other religious instruction, including teaching of the Savior and the Restoration. Modesty in dress for girls is taught during YW classes, midweek activities, Standards Nights, Seminary, Sunday School, over the pulpit, at Stake dances, Girls Camp, EFY. Indeed, there is scarcely a church activity a YW can attend where she is not warned that she must appear dressed modestly. If her clothing is not appropriate, she is subject to being sent home to try again. The message is firm and unmistakable. Dress standards must not be violated. Here again the very word “modesty” has been coopted to mean only a particular pattern of dress for girls and women.

Additionally, sermonizing abounds in our youth programs on the importance of obedience to the Word of Wisdom. Due to this emphasis the youth of the Church would sooner steal a car, cheat on an exam, or spread vicious rumors about a peer than take a sip of coffee.

The emphasis on the remainder of the wide spectrum of right and wrong behavior is virtually ignored among Latter-Day Saints. To illustrate this point, fill in the blank of the following sentence:

Our Mormon youth are known for never ________________.

One might say that our youth would never drink alcohol, or smoke a cigarette. One might fill in the blank with “never sleep with a boy/girlfriend.” But would you even think of filling in the blank as follows:?

Our Mormon youth would never skip classes at school.
Our Mormon youth would never haze their fellow students.
Our Mormon youth would never tell a lie.
Our Mormon youth would never steal.

As a convert who attended evangelical Christian services, I can tell you that in other churches, these standards of moral conduct are given great emphasis. If you have grown up in the LDS church, it is likely that you consider loss of sexual purity and Word of Wisdom adherance as grievous sins. It is possible that you would add murder to this list, with the exception of those you kill while in the military. Other transgressions would be appraised as less important on the moral continuum.

Is there not a morality that is based on the other commands of God found in the scriptures? Is there not a morality that is concerned with practices that minimize the harms that people suffer? Promoting people living together in peace and harmony? Morality that requires charitable action for good? Overcoming selfish vices? What about a morality based on respect for the planet on which we live and the myriad creatures who live upon it?

I hope we can begin to consider the vast implications of religious morality. Morality within the Church should be more than simply refraining from sex. This wider morality should be discussed at least as often as the length of skirts. It should help us formulate ethical theories for personal conduct.

Cliques tend to form within the boundaries of a larger group among individuals most likely to interact based on common interests.  While cliques can occur within any group, in our modern society of inclusion and participation awards, the term is often used pejoratively:

• Exclusivity.  By default cliques exclude those who don’t share those common interests or social opportunities.
• Self-reinforcing.  Cliques develop a sub-set of standards within the larger organization.  For example, a teenage clique might develop more specific dress standards (e.g. skinny jeans or black tee shirts) that are a sub-set of what is admissible in the high school they attend, but that does not include other admissible attire (e.g. chinos and polo shirts) that pertains to a different clique in the same high school.  Over time, behaviors, values, and so forth are normative within the smaller clique and will differ from the larger group as a whole.
• “Popular” or “cool” factor.  Those who aspire to inclusion in a clique that does not include them may experience envy or feel spiteful toward those in that clique.  Likewise, those within a clique may look down on those who do not share their clique’s normative values and behaviors.

Surely this doesn’t happen among adults in the church.  Or does it?

A psychometric test called the FIRO-B attempts to gauge one’s interest in being included.  It covers the following personal characteristics:

• Inclusion.  Those with high inclusion scores want to belong.  If they feel they don’t belong, they may become offended.  Ask yourself:  Do I want to be included or would I rather be left alone?
  • High Inclusion:  Am I missing out on something that everyone else is doing?  Am I in the “in” crowd?
  • Low Inclusion:  Maybe if I unplug the phone and don’t answer the door, they will go away!
• Control.  Control relates to one’s desire to direct the activities of others.  Ask yourself:  How much say do I want to have in what the group is doing?
  • High Control:  I know the best way to do this, if they would just let me do it.
  • Low Control:  Why do I always have to do everything?
• Affection.  This relates to one’s desire for warmth in relationships.  Ask yourself:  Do I want my relationships to be close and personal or to maintain distance and independence?
  • High Affection:  I just love people.  I’m a hugger.
  • Low Affection:  Don’t touch me.  Have we even been properly introduced?

The instrument measures two other aspects as well:

• Expressed behavior.  This relates to one’s own actions in relation to the social group.  Ask yourself:  How much do I take initiative to meet my needs for affection, control, and inclusion?
  • High Expressed Behavior:  I take the initiative to set the terms of my relationships.
  • Low Expressed Behavior:  I’m not likely to be the one to call you or invite you
• Wanted behavior.  This relates to how you would like others to act in relation to your needs.  Ask yourself:  How much do you want others to initiate actions to meet your needs for affection, control and inclusion?
  • High Wanted Behavior:  If I have to ask you for what I need, then that’s not much of a relationship.  You should know what I  need.
  • Low Wanted Behavior:  I don’t rely on others to get what I need.

So, cliques happen.  That much is a natural byproduct of social groups.  What cliquish behavior occurs in church?

• Extending callings based on personal friendship.  Or conversely, those called to serve together closely may form a clique that outlasts callings.
• “Lunch Bunch” or book club groups.  Focus groups in Relief Society are in essence a form of clique – a smaller group that forms within a larger group based on a common interest.
• Families with same age kids tend to group together.
• Priesthood grouping by age can foster cliques.
• Less active members or converts may find it difficult to break into established groups of people.

The church also has some clique-busters built in:

• Rotating visiting & home teaching assignments.
• Callings that rotate and mix groups of different interests, age groups, and socio-economic status into presidencies and quorums.
• A spirit of inclusion; activities are to be open access to all ward members and at no cost to participants.
• Fellowshipping for converts and ward missionary programs.

In my experience, most claims of cliquishness relate to people whose needs aren’t being met.  What do you think?  Is your ward cliquish?  What types of cliques have you observed?  How do you get past cliques?  Does this model (FIRO-B) help explain how people relate to groups?  Discuss.

But why is a celebration of our country’s freedom considered a non-Sabbath avocation?  Would it be unthinkable to hold a short worship service followed by a Ward pancake breakfast? At our breakfast we had a reading of the Declaration of Independence, a congregational singing of patriotic hymns and prayer.  Then we ate and fellowshipped with one another.  The celebration seemed particularly well suited to worship and thankfulness.  The wholesome recreational activities gave us a break from our usual weekly work.  And watching fireworks with our families on Sunday doesn’t really strike me as detracting from the spirit of the day.  A 2001 Ensign article, Call the Sabbath a Delight instructs:

“…the Sabbath day was meant to be a blessing rather than a burden to those who observe it. Its blessings flow not only from attending Church meetings but also from engaging in activities appropriate to the spirit of this sacred day. Because circumstances differ among Church members, the kinds of Sunday activities each of us may choose in order to gain spiritual strength and draw closer to the Lord will vary.”

It seems to me that in many LDS homes, the Sabbath is as far from “a delight” as can be.  It has become a somber day of “don’ts” which our children and youth dread. My college-aged kids are home for the summer, and they have begun a tradition along with my high-schoolers.  They sit up on Sunday until the stroke of midnight, then they pile in the car and head off to Wal-Mart to buy snacks and fete the end of the Sabbath.  Our family attends our meetings, avoids purchasing things, and observes the general LDS guidelines for Sundays, but I wonder what exactly we are doing to gain spiritual strength and draw closer to the Lord.

A scripture in Galatians reads:

“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”

What do you think? Does the liberty offered us through Christ to supersede the Law of Moses extend to our Sabbath Day activities?  Would it be following the flesh to celebrate the Fourth of July with barbecues, picnics, fireworks watching?  Or could such family time be considered loving service? Does your family plan to eschew some of the activities you would normally do on Independence Daythis year because it falls on the Sabbath?

Optimization

Optimization largely rules our world. Virtually all of management, engineering, politics, and much of science is about optimization. Optimization, in this sense, is the process of determining the optimal solution given all the objectives and constraints. In management, the process may not be that formal. Perhaps there is a board of directors who gather around a table to discuss the optimal set of policies, the direction to go, etc. In politics it is likely similar. The President of the U.S. surrounds himself with experts on a particular topic, they then engage in discussion, and hope to land on the optimal answer given the objectives and constraints.

For engineers the process is much more formal and precise. Usually optimization takes the form of a cost function – a function incorporating, mathematically, all the objectives and constraints. An algorithm (and there are many) is then employed to “solve” the function resulting in the optimal solution. To demonstrate, here’s an example:

Suppose you are designing an aircraft. There are numerous design possibilities, a canard style, V-tail empennages, aspect ratio of the wings, length of fuselage, coating of the surfaces, wingtips, where to place the turbines, height of vertical stabilizer (if having one at all), etc. etc. We would like to find the optimal answer amongst all these parameters such that we maximize lift, maximize cargo space, maximize safety, minimize energy consumption, etc. Of course we also have constraints. We cannot physically manufacture a flexible fixed wing that is 800 ft long and thin as a toothpick. To solve the problem, we can write down a big, long, nasty equation that would mathematically characterize the physics, constraints, and objectives and then pick our favorite optimization algorithm and wait for it to churn out the answer (which may take a long time).

Bayesian inference is one algorithm that can be applied to such an optimization problem. Typically one would choose this algorithm amidst a cost function that was stochastic in nature, having noise and/or error in the system, that expressed our confidence.

Finding the Truth, Optimization Style

In some sense, the Bayesian inference mechanism I discussed in previous posts could be seen as an optimization method for finding the truth. If we assume that all the new information we regularly encounter has some (even if very little) truth therein, and we apply that information in the regular Bayesian inference sense, we could then reliably conclude that we have found the “truth,” with some probability (level of confidence), given all the information.

This is highly related to a comment FireTag made on my previous post. He asked

So there are routes to evolve our beliefs toward truth no matter where we start or whatever the order of our search algorithm?

In the context of this question, Bayesian inference can easily be seen as a search algorithm. And, in fact, if we used a Sequential Monte Carlo method, it really does feel like a search algorithm.

In expanding this notion, my response, in part, was:

Absolutely (at least in my book)! Though certainly some search algorithms are definitely worse than others and some starting places better than others! Otherwise what prayer in the world do we have (unless you’re absolutely certain that YOU’VE got it right, but I sure don’t)? I view my religion/spirituality as a compass that (I hope) points me in a good direction. My hope is that if/when the absolute truth is made manifest to me I will be humble enough (and my definition of humble is “openness to the truth”) to recognize it because/in spite of my current confidence distribution.

From this perspective, we might view the church (or whatever church you belong to), the Gospel, this life, and all our associated experience as tools to help us optimize for, and draw nearer to the truth given the objectives and constraints of our personal limitations and the limitations of this mortal existence. While I have encountered a very few number of Mormons who claim that we have ALL the truth, this is not the claim of the LDS church. Most of us, I believe, accept there are things we don’t yet know and don’t yet understand. The real challenge is to have an appropriate confidence distribution such that you will accept that truth when it is made known to you.

However, I finished my response to FireTag with the following:

However, this really opens another can of worms – namely, what is truth? My explanation thus far has been about our perception of truth which may or may not correlate with objective or absolute truth. To argue over whether or not our perception of truth is objective truth is to argue over what forms of evidence are acceptable and what weight we should apply to that evidence (which is the conclusion of this post and is an argument with no victor).

“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child:  but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

What is a “puberty rite”?  In The Power of Myth, Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell discuss the importance of puberty rites.  When society does not have a ritualistic way to move young men to adulthood, those young men create their own rituals (e.g. violent street gangs, Lord of the Flies scenarios).  Those rites can be dangerous because they often run counter to the interests of society, but it is the failure of society to initiate those children into adulthood in concert with the society’s values that creates the problem.

In primal societies, there are teeth knocked out, there are scarifications, there are circumcisions, there are all kinds of things done.  So you don’t have your little baby body anymore, you’re something else entirely.  When I was a kid, we wore short trousers, you know, knee pants.  And then there was this great moment when you put on long pants.  Boys now don’t get that.  I see even five-year-olds walking around with long trousers.  When are they going to know that they’re now men and must put aside childish things? ~ Joseph Campbell

Moyers & Campbell discuss a puberty rite from the Aboriginals:

“When a boy gets to be a bit ungovernable, one fine day the men come in, and they are naked except for stripes of white bird down that they’ve stuck on their bodies using their own blood for glue.  They are swinging the bull-roarers, which are the voices of spirits, and the men arrive as spirits.

“The boy will try to take refuge with his mother, and she will pretend to try to protect him.  But the men just take him away.  A mother is no good from then on, you see.  You can’t go back to Mother, you’re in another field.

“Then the boys are taken out to the men’s sacred ground, and they’re really put through an ordeal–circumsicision, subincision, the drinking of men’s blood, and so forth.  Just as they had drunk mother’s milk as children, so now they drink men’s blood.  They’re being turned into men.  While this is going on, they are being shown enactments of mythological episodes from the great myths.  They are instructed in the mythology of the tribe.  Then, at the end of this, they are brought back to the village, and the girl whom each is to marry has already been selected.  The boy has now become a man. . .

“Now he has a man’s body.  There’s no chance of relapsing back to boyhood after a show like that.”

Priesthood ordination sounds a little tame compared to this particular ritual.  Maybe scout camp is a better analogy?  The obvious question is if that’s how a boy becomes a man, how does a girl become a woman?  Here is a contrast:

“The girl becomes a woman with her first menstruation.  It happens to her.  Nature does it to her.  And so she has undergone the transformation, and what is her initiation?  Typically it is to sit in a little hut for a certain number of days and realize what she is . . . .  She is now a woman.  And what is a woman?  A woman is the vehicle of life.  Life has overtaken her.  Woman is what it is all about–the giving of birth and the giving of nourishment.  She is identical with the earth goddess in her powers, and she has got to realize that about herself.  The boy does not have a happening of this kind, so he has to be turned into a man and voluntarily become a servant of something greater than himself.”

Clearly to our modern sensibilities, the idea that periods are the female equivalent of priesthood strikes a sour note (to say the least!).  And frankly, I never sat in a hut for a few days over it.  Perhaps I watched some reruns and ate mint chocolate chip ice cream, though.

However, one point to consider is that to become men, boys leave their primarily female-dominated sphere (the home) to join a male-dominated sphere (the world of men).  To do this, boys need to associate with men, and to join their ranks in a way that contributes to the society.  Priesthood initiation at age 12 seems to do just that.  What are your thoughts?  Discuss.

The Convert

John is a member of another Christian denomination and he was raised as a believer. He has had one discussion with the LDS missionaries and plans to continue these discussions. In the first discussion the missionaries built on common beliefs with John and challenged him to read a few verses in The Book of Mormon and to pray over them. They read Moroni 10:3-5 in which the Lord, through his prophet, provides a recipe for confirmation of the truthfulness of the message taught. John takes this seriously and reads the verses and prays over them. He also has a strong spiritual manifestation. He feels peace, warmth, and what he interprets as an assurance from the Holy Spirit that the message is true.

For John, he has had a number of spiritual manifestations and hence accepts this form of gaining knowledge. He has not had one quite this powerful before so he takes this manifestation as evidence that the LDS church is true. In Bayesian terms, we might claim that John had a confidence distribution with a mean of “my Christian denomination is true” with a fairly large standard deviation (since he was open to other religious possibilities). When he received this new piece of information (a spiritual manifestation of the truthfulness of the LDS message) he incorporated it into his confidence distribution. This, along with further discussions from the missionaries is enough to shift his distribution to one with a mean of “the LDS church is the true church” with a fairly small standard deviation.

In this scenario there are some interesting things going on with regard to faith, knowledge, and belief. John had “belief” enough to take a leap of “faith.” In essence, he was testing the “tail ends” of his confidence distribution by examining a foreign concept. In a Monte Carlo sense, his random walk was probing “less probable” areas of his distribution. For John, he found some valuable information that he then used to modify that distribution. It is easy to characterize his actions as “faith” as he probed heretofore untested waters. His experience exemplifies the allegory of faith given in Alma 32.

The Stereotypical Mormon

Bill is a lifelong member of the LDS church. He was raised in Salt Lake City and has been an obedient member of the church for all of his 39 years. Bill has a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel and all of its core principles and doctrines.

Bill has had many experiences which he interprets as support for his view of the Gospel. He has a successful career, a great family, good health, and an abundance of opportunities to serve which he attributes to his adherence to tithing, prayer, fasting, righteous living, and heeding the counsel of prophets. Bill has so much confirming evidence of his life choices and beliefs that his confidence distribution has a mean of “the LDS church is the true church” with a very small standard deviation. Bill acknowledges that others have some pieces of truth, but is grateful that he has the blessing of knowing the fulness. Indeed, Bill claims he “knows” the Gospel is true. He would live and die by this, and admits that nothing could persuade him otherwise.

In this scenario, faith, belief, and knowledge take on a bit different meaning. Bill hasn’t really taken the same kind of “leap of faith” that John did. He has put his beliefs to the test and received verification that they were correct. While he has somewhat probed the less probable regions of his confidence (the tails of his distribution) he interprets the information as confirming his beliefs. His confidence in his mean is so great it would be easy to classify Bill’s “faith” or “belief” as “knowledge” (which of course he does regularly at testimony meetings). Each successive spiritual experience or life event, properly interpreted, only adds more information which confirms Bill’s knowledge.

The Disaffected Mormon

Fred is in the same boat as Bill. He is a lifelong member of the LDS church, grew up in Salt Lake City, and did all he was asked to do. However, about a year ago he encountered some individuals that posed challenging questions to his worldview. Initially, Fred’s response was much like Bill’s, that is, he interpreted information to confirm his knowledge. But eventually the information became so overwhelming that Fred had to concede he might not have it quite right.

Fred has also had many spiritual manifestations, but his probing into psychology convinces him that much of it can be explained by regular, well understood psychological phenomena. Fred has also been richly “blessed” with a good career, great family, etc. but has to acknowledge that many non-Mormons have also been similarly blessed. For Fred, his confidence distribution is beginning to change. Each new piece of information, incorporated loosely via a built-in Bayesian inference calculator, shifts the distribution away from his mean of “the LDS church is the true church.” Initially, the information only increases his standard deviation as he acknowledges truth in other places, but eventually his mean starts to shift as well when he examines what he considers to be the lack of evidence for the historicity of The Book of Mormon, the myriad conundrums in Church history, etc. Most alarming for Fred is the feeling of betrayal by not realizing these things earlier in life which he attributes to white-washing by the LDS church.

In this scenario it would be easy to claim that “faith” is being destroyed. I think this is erroneous. Rather, I would say that “faith” is shifting. Fred now has faith in other things, though admittedly less faith in the LDS church being the true church. After a year of struggling, Fred admits he no longer has any confidence that the LDS church is the true church.

Contrasting the Scenarios

The commonalities between the scenarios are interesting. Each individual is doing what he thinks is most probable. John and Fred actually took a “leap of faith” to probe the less probable regions of their confidence distribution which turned up valuable information. Additionally, since some previous experiences had modified their distribution, their built-in Bayesian inference calculator was perhaps more able to objectively incorporate the new information. While Bill did occassionally probe the less probable regions of his distribution, the new information was interpreted to add more evidence to his beliefs.

This leads me to conclude that the biggest argument over “faith,” “belief,” and “knowledge,” actually has nothing to do with one’s “faithfulness” and everything to do with the quantity, types of, and weighting given to different types of evidence. For John and Bill, spiritual manifestations are a perfectly valid form of evidence, perhaps even the most important kind, which they weight appropriately. For Fred, this used to be the case, but as he discovered new information he had to modify his weightings, and began to reject some forms of evidence (spiritual manifestations) previously acceptable to him.

I subscribe to the “confidence distribution” model for understanding people’s beliefs, motivations, actions etc. because I believe it drives to the real issues which is what types of evidence are accepted by people, and what importance they place on that evidence.

This kind of reasoning also brings a different perspective to the word “doubt.” We could say that Fred is “doubting” and couch this in negative terms, but I think a more appropriate characterization would be to admit that Fred now accepts other forms of evidence and hence his faith has shifted. For Fred, he is being intellectually honest, as is Bill and John. This doesn’t make one more faithful, or more spiritual than the others, just different!

First, let’s clarify the terms:

• Nature Religions are based on the premise that nature is benevolent (even human nature) and that mankind should strive to be in harmony with nature.  These religions usually emerge when the religious community is tied to a geographic location (e.g. islanders or others who cultivate the land).  Often these religions have a female deity because the whole world is the body of the goddess.
• Social Religions are based on the idea that nature is evil and must be controlled.  The means to control nature is through “magic” (we would say Priesthood in our religious tradition).  These religions usually emerge when a religious community is nomadic (e.g. wandering in the desert for 40 years, trekking across the plains).  In these religions, God is separate from nature, and nature is condemned by God.  Often these are religions with a male deity because the female represents life and nature – the source of all life – while the male is elsewhere.

What happens when a Social Religion meets a Nature Religion?  Usually, the social religion tries to control the “pagans.”

Joseph Campbell described:  A local jungle native said to a missionary:  “Your god keeps himself shut up in a house as if he were old and infirm.  Ours is in the forest and in the fields and on the mountains when the rain comes.”

“In the Bible we are told that we are the masters.  For hunting people the animal is in many ways the superior.”  ~Joseph Campbell

“In classic Christian doctrine the material world is to be despised, and life is to be redeemed in the hereafter, in heaven, where our rewards come.”  ~Bill Moyer

“The ancient myths were designed to harmonize the mind and the body.  The mind can ramble off in strange ways and want things that the body does not want.  The myths and rites were means of putting the mind in accord with the body and the way of life in accord with the way that nature dictates.”  ~Joseph Campbell

During OT times, there were many nature cults in which you would go to a grove to commune with diety.  These groups were condemned by the Hebrews who had a temple-bound (or mountain-bound at times) god, and both groups were constantly at war.

Clearly, as a Christian religion, Mormonism has facets of a Social Religion (anti-nature):

1. The pioneer trek & Zion’s camp were examples of attempts to recreate the nomadic culture of the ancient Hebrews.  These types of cultures require subjugation of nature to ensure one’s very survival.
2. Priesthood is sometimes described as the power to control nature, even to command the mountains to move.
3. Male deity is generally associated with anti-nature, social religions.  However, the caveat to this is below.
4. Sin, the idea that man’s nature is fallen.  Again, this is a Christian concept, so not unique to Mormonism.

So, what are some evidences that Mormonism (as a restorationist movement) has components of nature religion:

1. Female deity.  Although there is little to no discussion any more of our Heavenly Mother, the fact that we acknowledged God to have an equal female partner is an interesting restored concept and adds balance to the male-dominated deity.
2. Theosis.  The idea that we are Gods in embryo capable of becoming Gods.  Certainly this ennobles our human nature.
3. Corporeal resurrection.  Although some religions have this in common, Mormonism is somewhat unique in defining the resurrected body as part of the soul (not just the spirit).  This contradicts the idea that our bodies are inherently sinful and weak.
4. Second estate.  This is the idea that gaining a body is superior to a purely spiritual existence (like Satan & co).  Again, many religions elevate the spiritual over the physical.  We do the reverse.
5. Eve’s choice.  Unlike many other Christian religions, our interpretation of the fall is that Eve made the better choice; she chose life and progeny (nature) over obeying the rules.  And if she had not, we wouldn’t be here.  However, the caveat to this is the notion that she was punished.  The question is whether her punishment was a punishment or a natural condition.

There are some other key links between Mormonism and nature religions.  Some of these links are very Mormon, others are common to Christianity:

1. Sacred groves. Sacred groves were most prominent in the Ancient Near East and prehistoric Europe, but feature in various cultures throughout the world. They were important features of the mythological landscape and cult practice of Celtic, Germanic, ancient Greek, Near Eastern, Roman, and Slavic polytheism, and were also used in India, Japan, and West Africa. Examples of sacred groves include the Greco-Roman temenos, the Norse hörgr, and the Celtic nemeton, which was largely but not exclusively associated with Druidic practice. During the time of Christianisation of Estonia by German invaders starting in 12th century there was a common practice of building churches on the sites of sacred groves.  Mormon mythical connection: Duh, when JS didn’t find God in the local churches (man-made buildings), he found Him in a grove of trees near his home.  Chalk one up for nature!
2. The “Mountain” of the Lord.  Almost all religions have some sacred mountains – either holy themselves (like Mount Olympus in Greek mythology) or related to famous events (like Mount Sinai in Judaism and descendant religions). In some cases the sacred mountain is purely mythical, like the Peak of Hara in Zoroastrianism. Volcanos were also considered as sacred mountains, such as Mount Etna in Italy, which was believed to be the home of Vulcan the Roman god of fire.  Mormon mythical connection:  The temple is referred to as the “mountain of the Lord”; when the Hebrews couldn’t build a man-made temple, they built tabernacles.  When they couldn’t build tabernacles, they went into a high mountain to commune with God.  The trek to the Rocky Mountains makes this one stand out.  Their man-made temple was destroyed in Nauvoo, so where did they head?  Once again, to the mountains.  Nature wins again!  (Of course, then they built another man-made temple, but it sure took a long time).
3. The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning.  Worship or deification of fire (also pyrodulia, pyrolatry or pyrolatria) is known from various religions. As fire has also destructive capabilities, the worshipping of fire is necessarily ambiguous. This is indicated in proverbs such as “Fire is a good servant but a bad master”.  Mormon mythical connection:  While there are some fire / God connections we share with other faiths (burning bush, Israelites following God who was a pillar of fire) in Mormonism, God is described as dwelling in everlasting burnings.  D&C 110: 3 says:  “His ^aeyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his ^bcountenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his ^cvoice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of ^dJehovah.”  Sounds like a God of fire to me.  Another one for nature!
4. And the star nearest to God is called Kolob.  Astrolatry refers to the worship of stars and other heavenly bodies as deities, or the association of deities with heavenly bodies. The most common instances of this are sun gods and moon gods in polytheistic systems worldwide. Also notable is the association of the planets with deities in Babylonian, and hence in Greco-Roman religion, viz. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.   The term astro-theology is used in the context of 18th to 19th century scholarship aiming at the discovery of the original religion, particularly primitive monotheism. In contradistinction to astrolatry, which unambiguously implies a polytheism frowned upon as idolatrous by Christian authors since Eusebius, astrotheology is any “religious system founded upon the observation of the heavens.  Mormon mythical connection:  Well, this certainly sounds like the Book of Abraham to me!

So, what do you think?  Is Mormonism a nature religion or a social religion or something in between?  Has it changed over time?  Discuss.

Mormonism today runs a balancing act between its roots of free speculation and the need to create a cohesive religious and cultural organization.  The social bond of a church is based at some vital level on common belief and understanding among people practicing their religion.  Lacking firm creeds, we conduct this balancing act on a personal level.  Problems arise when we attempt to impose our speculation on others.  Conflict occurs when we need others to validate our individual interpretations.  There is a line between personal belief and the beliefs that all Mormons must share in common.  But where is it?

There has to be official Mormon doctrine.  There has to be something common that brings people together in the religion.  Don Ashton recently published a paper on this topic at http://www.staylds.com.  It is called “What is Official Church Doctrine?”  You can find it in the “Additional Support Resources” section of the website: http://www.staylds.com/?page_id=29

Don argues that the official and binding core of ideas, the cannon of doctrine that is fixed, is actually limited and abstract.  That abstract characteristic allows following generations to interpret and develop the core to suit the needs of their contemporary environment.  The same can be done by individuals to meet personal needs in their eternal journey of progress towards divine enlightenment.

Don summarizes this nicely in his opening section:

The 14 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are spread across 160 countries on 6 continents. Yet there is a remarkable consistency in beliefs, attitudes, teachings and practices among Mormons everywhere. A traveler visiting congregations throughout the world will find familiar curricula materials, beliefs, and attitudes on most every religious topic.

Yet Mormonism is not dogmatic. There is no creed or statement of core beliefs which adherents are obliged to accept. Both members and leaders alike hold varying opinions ranging from whether watching TV on Sunday is sinful, to whether every statement by a General Authority must be explicitly and unconditionally obeyed.

Such questions may be insignificant or disquieting. If a person is struggling with faith issues, it may become important to distinguish between Official Doctrine and less authoritative council. A clear understanding of Official Doctrine can reduce controversy, minimize anxiety and perhaps open up new options for resolving faith issues. This essay attempts to evaluate the authoritativeness of council ranging from canonized scripture to conventional wisdom.

The practical implications of this speak to a common encounter, which is a feeling of having to believe or practice things sometimes that do not make sense to us.  The first question should then be whether the problem stems from an unbending core of fundamental doctrine; or instead, is it actually our own incorrect expectations and assumptions, someone else’s personal speculation, or something that we can freely explore.

Many ideas and practices touted as “official” are not.  They are someone’s personal speculation and interpretation of the core doctrine.  That means we are free to agree or disagree.  It does not mean that person is wrong in their religious journey.  What they do and believe may be valuable to them.  But we should feel justified and even compelled to use our free agency and God-given intelligence to build what works for us.  That is the soul inherited from our Church founding, and it is a theme to be nurtured today.  We should expect our understanding to evolve over the course of our life.  We should also expect the larger and broader concept of Restoration in the Church to continue its course of evolution from the past to today, and on into the future.

What do you think?  Discuss.

I really enjoyed studying about ritual – the ways that we use ceremony to create value and meaning – we just experienced one with our sacrament.

And I enjoyed learning about “memorates” – personal experience stories that people tell about their own encounters with the supernatural. In the church, we often call these faith-promoting stories, and that’s the way that folklorists look at them too – that these stories function to justify and validate the beliefs of the people who tell them. They create certainty in the face of uncertainty, and whether the stories themselves are true or not, this is a very valuable thing.

It was an interesting time, and I went through many shifts and changes as I looked more closely at what I believed, why I believed it, and how it fit with the beliefs of other people all over the world. It was a pretty humbling experience, to say the least. And as a result, I have developed this constant, nagging, unshakeable, internal tug-of-war between the skeptic and the believer. It is very much like the lyrics to a song:

When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they’d be singing so happily,
joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible,
logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
clinical, intellectual, cynical.

There are times when all the world’s asleep,
the questions run too deep
for such a simple man.
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned
I know it sounds absurd
but please tell me who I am.

That about sums up my graduate experience. It was kind of like worlds colliding. I had become skeptical, cynical, but I still had to exist in a believing world. What was I to do?

One thing I did was turn to the scriptures and to the counsel from general authorities and modern day prophets:
Mormon 9:27 - “Doubt not, but be believing.”  Thanks, but too late.
Bruce R. McConkie – “Doubt is an inclination to disbelieve the truths of salvation… it is a state of uncertainty… faith and belief are of God; doubt and skepticism are of the devil.”  Really? Yikes!
President Monson – “Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other. Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: ‘I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it’.”

With these quotes, I think it is pretty clear where I ought to be when it comes to doubt and faith. But if I’m being honest, I fall far short of these ideals. I just can’t accept the premise that faith and doubt cannot co-exist in the same mind. They have to. Because they both exist in mine. And I don’t know any other way to be.

I do want to endorse President Monson’s counsel, however, that if you can dismiss doubt when it knocks on your door, from my experience, you will be much more comfortable and far less troubled — so by all means, if you can do it, do it.

But if you’re like me – if you can’t just dismiss your doubts – there must still be a way to keep those doubts from destroying the house of faith. Right? Please? Because I can’t not doubt, but I still want to hold on to my faith. So what am I to do?

Well, the simple answer is that I have had to redefine my faith to make room for my doubts and to find a value in these doubts – so I want to share with you how I have done this.

MY TOP TEN

I want to walk you through my top ten personal beliefs about faith and doubt. Disclaimer – these are just my own imperfect opinions based on my own limited experience. I could be wrong. But this is how I have found personal peace and balance in my life amidst this constant tug-of-war between the skeptic and the believer. So I share these with you because they have helped me, but I also reserve the right to change my mind at any time – it’s happened before, it can happen again.

If I really wanted to be borderline irreverent I might say that these are the philosophies of Glenn, mingled with scripture – but I don’t, so I won’t.

So here are my top ten:

1. Faith – at its most basic level – is desire.

I think this is consistent with the scriptures. Especially Alma 32. This is where Alma is preaching to the poor among the Zoramites.

You may remember that the Zoramites were condemned for their incredible pride – they would stand up on their rameumptom and show forth false humility – praising themselves for being the elect chosen of God, and condemning everyone else around them for following foolish and corrupt traditions. They cast out the poor and were very exclusive in their membership.

So Alma went among the cast out poor and taught them an allegory about faith – that it starts with desire – and that desire can be nurtured and tested and grown into a firm conviction. He compares it to a seed that is planted in fertile soil and cultivated until it grows and bears fruit and you can taste the fruit to know that the seed was, in fact, a good seed.

So faith starts with desire, but it isn’t JUST desire – you have to act upon that desire.

One of my basic desires is to be fair to people and respectful of their beliefs. And this desire has had a great influence over the mental gymnastic that you are about to see, because I also desire to hold on to my faith in spite of all of my doubts.

2. There is really no such thing as “doubt”

I guess you could say that I doubt doubt.

“Doubt” is just a word. It’s a word that we use to describe someone else’s belief that is contrary to our belief. For example, I could say, “I believe it is going to rain today.” And you could say, “No, I doubt it.” That’s really the same thing as saying, “No, I don’t believe that it will rain today.”

My point here is that “doubt” isn’t really anything but another way of saying “I don’t believe.”

3. There is really no such thing as “don’t believe”

I’m playing a game of semantics again. When you say that you “don’t believe” that it will rain, what you really mean is that you “do believe” that it will not rain. It is still an active belief.

I believe it will rain – you believe it will not rain. Your belief vs. my belief. And we may both have valid reasons for believing what we are choosing to believe.

I believe it will rain because I trust the forecast – it’s been right more than it has been wrong, and I don’t mind carrying an umbrella.

You believe it won’t rain because, despite the forecast, you just looked outside and no Japanese person in sight is carrying an umbrella, and the Japanese are never wrong about this sort of thing. Plus, you don’t want to be the only one carrying an umbrella, cuz then you’d look stupid.

So the point here is to define belief as an active thing, despite whatever words we use – whether we call it doubt or say we “don’t believe” it is all really just belief.

4. Faith and Doubt are not opposites – they are equivalents

If both faith and doubt are active beliefs, then they are really the same thing, aren’t they? They are both beliefs, just pointed in different directions.

Someone may say that faith has action but doubt has no action, but I would challenge that.

Yes, the faithful person takes an umbrella even if they are uncertain whether it will rain or not, and that is a faithful act.

But even the doubter takes action by choosing to NOT carry an umbrella and still walking outside anyway. Both are beliefs and both inspire action. Maybe this is the secret key to unlock the mystery of believing “all things” that we have been admonished to do. And then again, maybe not.

5. Faith and Doubt can co-exist

President Monson said that doubt and faith cannot exist in the same mind at the same time – and maybe I am using this quote out of context – but don’t we all doubt some things while simultaneously having faith in others?

For example, I doubt the traditional meaning behind the James 2:20 scripture mastery scripture “faith without works is dead.” I was originally taught that this was James’ response to the atonement of Christ. That we are not saved by grace alone, but must also show forth works for our eternal salvation, for faith without works is dead.

But when I went back and read all of James chapter 2, I saw that James’ message wasn’t about the atonement. It was about our own exercise of faith. It is saying that you have to put your money where your mouth is. If someone comes to you seeking food, and you say “bless you, and hunger no more” but you don’t actually give them any food, then you aren’t actually going to save them.

So I doubt the way that I was originally taught this scripture, but I still have faith that the message is a good message and that it comes from a good source. And that is a balancing act between doubt and faith.

6. Faith without doubt is dead

That is the GOT – the Glenn Ostlund Translation of James 2:20. Faith is a hope and a desire, but it is not a perfect knowledge. So there must be uncertainty, some degree of questioning or doubt, otherwise faith would be knowledge. Uncertainty in and of itself is not a bad thing in my world. And when uncertainty or doubt spurs us to positive action, it can actually be a very good thing.

7. Uncertainty is a scary thing

Without a doubt, doubt will make you more unsure about what you used to be very sure about, and this can be a scary thing. But one lesson that I learned as a kid is that anytime the scriptures say “have faith” you could interchange the phrase for “fear not” and the meaning would stay the same. So even with all of the different conflicting messages all around us in the world every day – even with all of the valid and reasonable reasons to have doubt, if we nurture our faith, we do not need to fear doubt. Doubt does not have to destroy our faith – it can bolster and lift it and lead us to new light and knowledge.

8. Our church has been built upon doubt – or at least upon the positive interaction between doubt and faith.

The First Vision would not have happened unless Joseph had experienced some questions and doubts about what he was hearing in the different revival meetings. But he also had faith that the Lord would answer his prayer. A pretty successful one-two punch, if you ask me.

And throughout the history of the church, doctrines and policies have been added or removed or amended because people have debated and doubted and questioned and reached out in faith, and received further light and knowledge. So there is a lesson to be learned here, that doubt and faith can interact together towards a good end.

9. Repentance without doubt is dead

We are constantly encouraged to evaluate and examine how we are living our lives. We are encouraged to repent when we need to repent, and I think that doubt plays a role here.

I have always found illumination in the Japanese word for repentance – kuiaratameru. If I understand it right, it literally means to remorse and to change. What causes this remorse? What leads us to a realization that we are in error? We must at some point doubt our very selves – we must doubt that our actions have been good actions. So perhaps this is another area where doubt can have a positive influence in our lives.

10. Humility is the key

Whether as individuals or as a church, regardless of what we currently believe or how strong our convictions, further light and knowledge can always reveal new truths, and our beliefs can always change.

Shouldn’t that awareness then lead to greater humility on our parts? Isn’t humility the way we learn to show Christ-like empathy and compassion and forgiveness for others, even when we disagree with them or when they disagree with us?

Isn’t that the humilty that caused the good Samaritan to stop and help the man on the side of the road, even though he probably doubted the other guys’ beliefs?

Isn’t that the compassion and empathy that caused Christ to say “forgive them father, for they know not what they do?” even as they were in the very act of doubting him to a painful and undeserved death?

Back to Alma 32 – Alma rejoiced when he saw that the poor among the Zoramites had been cast out. Why? Because they had been compelled to be humble, and that softened their hearts. No one wants to be compelled to be humble, but I think we should all have soft hearts — believers and skeptics alike. We should be open-minded, tolerant of different ideas, willing to admit our own imperfect understanding.

Doubt – for me – has compelled and pounded and softened my heart. It has lead me to a humilty in my beliefs, or at least an ability and a desire to step off of my own rameumpton and drop any pretense that I am any more elect than anyone else around me. Doubt has helped me repent of this pride.

In conclusion, I have atheist friends who are some of the most charitable, kind, Christ-like people that I know. When I ask them about God, they often say that it makes no sense to them that a loving God would put us in a no-win situation, and would punish us for living in a sinful world that God himself created.

There are many responses to this, but I want to give just one. If the story of the atonement is true – if Jesus Christ took upon himself the sins of the world and died for our sakes – then isn’t that the responsible thing for a God to do? Doesn’t that mean that he has personally erased the effects of sin and death that have come to us as a result of our following his plan and entering into this mortal probation full of death and sin? To me it is like he is saying, “don’t worry, I’ve got you covered. Have faith. Fear not. Now just go and love each other as I have loved you. “

I find great beauty and hope in this approach. And I have a firm desire for this to be true. I also have a strong faith in the principles of charity that we read about in Moroni:  “Wherefore, if a man have faith he must have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope. And he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart. Otherwise, his faith and hope is vain; and he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; for charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.”

This is my hope and my faith, in spite of my doubts.

How do you feel about doubt and its relationship to faith?

To me, the answer as attributed to Paul in Corinthians is crystal clear and easy advice:

1 Corinthians 7 : 12-16

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

If you accept Paul’s writings as doctrinally binding, this means you can allow an unbeliever who wants to leave to go, but you should stay with your spouse otherwise.  Paul’s counsel reminds me of E. Bednar’s personal life growing up in a house with a non-LDS father and going to church with just his mother.  Eventually, after E. Bednar was an adult, his father did choose to join the church.  I think most confusion regarding mixed belief marriages is related to this scripture in 2 Cor 6:14:

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

But this second one seems to be about whom you choose to marry or associate with, while the first one is about someone who is already married.

According to Paul’s advice, divorce of an unbeliever is only justified if that unbelieving spouse desires to leave.  Yet we hear time and again of believing spouses who consider loss of testimony a valid reason for divorce.  Why?  Here are some reasons that have been discussed around the b’nacle:

• Change.  It’s normal for spouses to fantasize about divorce when there has been a material change to the “marriage contract” as they viewed it.  For example, John McCain reevaluated his marital contract when his wife became disabled and he ditched her for the leggy blond heiress.  The fantasy may be normal and common, but actually carrying through on it is a bit unsavory.  All marriages will experience change.  Spouses will grow old, develop independent interests, get fat or skinny, change political views, have changes to sexual interest, etc.  While studies show that living in a bad marriage is detrimental to health, the negative health effects of divorce are devastating and lasting.  Being resilient and flexible enough to make marriage work through change maintains your health, both mentally and physically.
• Control.  If either spouse attempts to control the other spouse’s behavior, the marriage is on rocky ground.  Control may not degenerate to abuse, but it is in the same family of behaviors.  Marriage based on respect and mutual love does not involve controlling the choices our spouse makes.  We may wish they would choose something different, but coercing or manipulating or threatening to get what we want is another fantasy best left unindulged.  In marriages where the wife exhibits controlling behavior, husbands have a marked negative health impact that often results in an earlier death.  Maybe that’s something the controlling wife considers a benefit of her behavior.
• Opportunism.  This is one that few people will openly own, but it often sounds something like “I deserve better” or “My patriarchal blessing promised me . . . ” or “Heavenly Father wants me to have . . .” or even “My kids deserve a father who . . .”  Often what is behind those statements are two sentiments:  1) entitlement (last I checked we are still only entitled to taxes and death in this life), and 2) viewing the spouse as an obstacle to “what I want” or “what I deserve.”  Often, the believing spouse in this scenario feels entitled to a spouse who will allow him or her to maintain status in the church.  It can also be based on a fear of loss of exaltation or salvation (meaning status in the life to come).  This is the opposite of charitable love and honoring our marital vows; it is putting self ahead of the marriage.  Some will also talk of the entitlement in terms of their children (e.g. “the children deserve a mother or father who . . .”), but again, it’s not giving the children a very good example of how marriage works or of Christ-like behavior.
• Fear.  Behind a lot of failed marriages lies raw fear.  Fear of change, fear of loss of control in your life, fear of loss of status, fear of eternal consequences that are unclear in one’s changes circumstances.  Fear is something that must be faced with courage and love.  This can take time.

There is obviously justification for leaving a marriage that is abusive.  No one should be in fear of physical harm or be subject to ongoing verbal abuse, but even in cases of abuse, individuals have different definitions of what is abusive, when does disagreement become verbal abuse, etc.  Clearly, anyone can choose to leave a marriage for any reason at any time.  Marriage is voluntary.  But that doesn’t make one’s choice justifiable or healthy for personal growth.  Those who divorce are prone to make the same mistakes in future relationships (consider Emma Smith whose second husband Louis Bidamon was unfaithful).

What do you think of Paul’s counsel?  Is divorce of an unbelieving spouse who is faithful to marriage vows, loving, a good parent, and not controlling or abusive ever morally justified?  Discuss.