“Jesus loves me-this I know, For the Bible tells me so”
– “Jesus Loves Me” by Anna Bartlett Warner
“Mmm – but she blinded me with science—And failed me in biology”
– “She Blinded Me with Science” by Thomas Dolby
Last week, I wrote “Why Same Sex Marriage Probably Fails” in an effort to discuss the separation of civil marriage from religious marriage. One being a civil right now granted by the SCOTUS and the other a sacrament or ordinance of a particular religious organization. Some religious organizations are particularly nervous they will be forced by the US government to perform religious marriage ceremony for those they object to, namely same sex couples.
As a fairly strongly believing Latter-day Saint, I am not dismayed by the SCOTUS ruling as I see the separation of civil and religious marriage as a logical step. In many countries, it’s already that way.
But that is not what this post is about.
Within the last few days, we had a very interesting post by Chris Harrison entitled A Response to the Letter Read in Wards Last Sunday. The post is a dialog about the First Presidency letter about same sex marriage that began in the BYU Daily Universe (DU). After a spirited dialog, the DU took it down and it was transferred to Facebook. The post was reproduced in its entirety on Wheat and Tares.
Chris essentially answered the question, “Did your ward read the letter last Sunday? What were the reactions?
Chris’s main response was that the policy in the letter is wrong. And away when the discussion. It continued in the comments section of the blog post. Back and forth between God’s laws and nature’s laws.
But that’s not what this post is about.
In any discussion by opposing sides, statements often get thrown around as fact and indisputable, whether they, in reality, are or not. We see it all the time. Such as during the debate over the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, commonly known as the Confederate flag or the Stars and Bars. One side argued that it is a racist symbol of slavery and the other that it is merely a symbol of Southern pride. Those that often chose the latter position fail to recognize the actual history of the flag, the real reason the Civil War was fought and how the flag has been used in the past 60+ years to promote segregation and racist ideology. The former argument made mostly by folks who have not been subject to slavery or segregation, so for them it is a historic symbol, more than an actual one.
In the discussion on Chris’ post, the main points go back and forth between the truthfulness of the LDS Gospel and Doctrine and the truth about love and biology. At least that is how I see it.
Let me say here that I am of the opinion that our collective knowledge of the Gospel, the Plan of Salvation and the Atonement could fill a thimble compared to the knowledge we don’t currently have. And likewise, the scientific knowledge we have about the biology of the human species, how it really works, and why certain anomalies and/or defects occur is equally as poor.
So much of the argument which is given as fact is really hope, faith and belief whether you are talking religion or science.
In the comments, there was a discussion of the term defect as it pertained to homosexuality. I realize that can be quite offensive to some. On the other hand, I am quite comfortable talking about my own birth issue as a defect because it was a physical one (Read my prior post about it here). Some have argued that because it happened in nature, it is natural and therefore correct, while some might argue that God made us a certain way while others that God does not make us a certain way.
The trouble with both of those arguments is 1) we really don’t know what role God plays in each individual birth, whether He elects people to have certain attributes, positive or negative or “let’s nature run its course.” 2) While we have an idea what we expect a normal person should be like, we have no real answer for why there are certain anomalies, physical defects, mental proclivities, etc. I am not referring to very well documented things like eye color, which can be traced back specifically to genetic pairing that we all learned about in first year biology. But really hard core things like sexual orientation, which has no real proven causality
For example, from a religious point of view, part of the reason we are here is to multiply and replenish the earth (procreate) and biology supports the idea that it takes a man and a woman to naturally accomplish that task. However, some men and some women are born without the ability to provide their portion of the procreative process. Is that normal or an anomaly? And now, medical science has the ability to create life from the component parts of a male and female, essentially bypassing the “normal process.” Is that condoned by God since He let it happen?
So I guess my bottom line here is that one cannot always separate our facts from our beliefs because one person’s absolute fact may just be an opinion. This conclusion correlates very well with my belief that science is as much a set of beliefs as religion. I say this simply because in the grand scheme of things, science hasn’t proven much of anything about us as a human species. And in some ways, religion attempts to fill in the gaps.
Wheat & Tares 
Jeff-
Great post. High five!
Great post, Jeff.
Part of what I was talking about in the previous discussion was about social constructs and frameworks. Social constructs and frameworks undergird what we think of as “facts”. The issue is if and when we do not recognize that what we know is based on a particular framework.
I think this is what you’re getting at when you say:
I would say it like this: “So much of the argument which is given as fact is really [expression of a particular epistemological framework/social construct that may be explicit or implicit].”
But, you know, I think it’s getting at a similar concept.
I certainly prefer certain frameworks than others, but I would prefer to problematize frameworks — point out when there are frameworks and what the problems.
So that’s what I was doing in the previous discussion. I was pointing out that to use the word “defect” isn’t a neutral thing. It comes with values, it comes with a framework.
I think it should go without saying (but I’ll say it anyway) that science is as much a set of beliefs as religion — meaning that it has its own epistemological foundation, assumptions, etc., BUT where you and I may differ (…but I would guess we probably don’t differ all that much) is in a few places: 1) the fact/belief distinction is kinda overblown. (In other words, saying that something is a belief or that something is a social construct or that saying something is subjective, etc., doesn’t mean that it is not “real” or not “true” or whatever…social constructs are powerful because *we make them powerful*)…and 2) just because different concepts rely on different frameworks doesn’t mean that we can’t prefer certain frameworks, judge different frameworks according to various criteria (e.g., more useful [for certain definitions of useful], more faithful-to-reality (according to certain definitions), more faithful to human experience, etc.,
a lot of times, I get this weirdly relativist perspective from people. Like they say, “Well, since science and religion are both socially constructed, it is just as flawed/true/false/whatever as religion.” But we need not think that.
(then again, another thing I see is when certain religious folks say, “well, science is a social construct, but religion is from god, so religion is more authoritative.” That’s a statement made out of faith, laden with a particular framework, but hey…if someone has that faith, why not believe that? I will continue to problematize the hells out of that though.)
I fully acknowledge that my framework is as much a shot in the dark as the next guy’s. I’m at a family reunion and a few of my brothers were having the same conversation as yesterday’s blog post about Christian’s response to the church’s letter (our beliefs about LGBTQ for the pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal lives) and my main point is that we know jack squat. We *think* we know what life will be in heaven and gender roles and etc etc. But I just don’t think we know. If we believe in AoF 9, there is much more to be revealed, then we can’t operate in certainty. Sure I think more along Christian’s framework because it works for me. I’ll use the framework, acknowledging my own lack of knowledge — and Jeff, I fully support you spreading the Gospel of not operating in certainty to the rest of the orthodox: me talking to them really doesn’t have any effect.
What I’ve learned in some very interesting (and sometimes disturbing) dinner conversations with my husband is that human biology is considerably more complex than we understood even a short time ago. You cannot change one gene without seriously affecting other body systems. There is still much more to understand.
My feeling is that if there is this many complications in physical bodies, there is a lot more we need to learn before we can better understand spirit bodies from the premortal realm or resurrected bodies in the hereafter. Gender is only the tip of the iceberg.
I think it goes without saying: followers of Christ are required to navigate our mortal experience with what we have been given. Thus, the need to follow the prophets.
We will be judged by what has been revealed, not by what has not been revealed.
Many in our day are compartmentalizing their faith, saying the prophets were wrong on the priesthood ban an on this issue or that issue. I’ll follow them when I think their right and ignore them when it suits me.
The scriptures don’t support this approach to faith.
Jared what do you think Nephi did when he killed Laban? Applied a personal spiritual revelation higher than the scriptures and the prophets – Our venerable Nephi experieced a crisis of faith – his story is how to navigate those waters.
The problem is that in LDS theology we are given an arbitrary, unchangeable framework. It is not something we’ve chosen, nor one that happens to correspond to whatever our natural proclivities or beliefs might be. Jesus said it as “you have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” And Jung said it as “one does not possess a metaphysical belief, but is possessed by it.”
This changes the dynamics of the argument within the LDS framework. It frustrates outsiders that they cannot reason with TBMs. TBMs will not concede that their framework might be false, nor that a conflicting framework might be true. Indeed they cannot. I solve this particular problem by positing an arbitrary God who says different things to different people. I’ve received a testimony, but I do not infer universality from it. But most others cannot do that because God Himself infers the universality of the LDS way within the revelations: “this is the only true church on the face of the earth.” TBMs are being more honest and strait forward with their testimonies than I am.
In any case, I think non-believers should acknowledge the difficulties believers face in these sorts of discussions. Believers do not chose their beliefs based on their own prejudices or conservative tastes. They were drafted to a particular team.
Kristine A #6 – What do you think the early disciples of Christ did? They applied the principle of prophetic leadership and followed the Savior. That pattern is shown consistently through out the scriptures. I don’t think Nephi didn’t experienced a crisis of faith. He experienced a crisis of choice.
Ooops – “I don’t think Nephi experienced a crisis of faith.”
#6 Kristine A
Nephi was a prophet doing the Lords will. He lived in Old Testament times. Eye for an eye and all that.
To take that scriptural episode and apply it improperly leads to spiritual trouble.
Should a gay person use this episode to justify marrying, and at the same time expect God and the church’s approval is a risky course for for one who wants to be faithful.
I think Ty and Danielle have chosen a path that faithful gay Mormon should consider.
Here is the link:
http://www.ldsliving.com/Living-with-Same-sex-Attraction-Our-Story/s/68799?page=1%3Fpage%3D1
Nate-
Well said.
re 7,
Nate, I don’t think that is even a great fit with the Mormon narrative. After all, there is a strong undercurrent in Mormonism that says that beliefs *can* be and *are* chosen. After all, Mormons are decidedly not Calvinists.
I happen to personally agree that beliefs are generally not chosen (which is why when I hear the Mormon narrative suggest instead that they can be, that is bothersome to me), but I just want to point out that that’s not quite how the narrative goes.
And you know, that has implications throughout your message. Like, when you say that non-believers should acknowledge the difficulties believers face in these sorts of discussions because believers do not chose their beliefs based on their own prejudices or conservative tastes, this can be flipped around. I mean, there’s certainly the argument that could be made that conservative believers should acknowledge that non-believers don’t choose their beliefs based on prejudices or tastes. But the implied universality that you mention does not afford that to everyone.
I just hope you recognize the inconsistency in saying on one hand, “Conservatives believe that they were drafted to this team” while saying on the other hand, “but conservatives cannot admit the possibility that others who are drafted to other teams may feel that their other team is right…or that that other team may in fact be right…or that just because someone is drafted to a team isn’t justification for whether that team or another is right in the first place.”
Andrew, good points. I would say that all we can hope for is a kind of patient condescension. Maybe from both sides. Conservatives indeed “can admit the possibility that others who are drafted to other teams may feel that their other team is right.” Conservatives know that others “feel” they are right. And that can generate sympathy. We say “they are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men” and we are supposed to be patient with them, and reason with them.
But as you say, this attitude is not so different than the scientific one who sees religious people as “blinded by the subtle craftiness of religious superstition” and they can also be patiently condescending towards us.
It is a rare individual who actually says and believes in his heart, “this is what I believe, but perhaps you could be right.” Everyone of course feels honestly that they are right.
Rare, but perhaps worthwhile. I look at Richard Rorty’s description of an ironist as a good ideal (obviously, true believers on either side won’t necessarily see it similarly):
Consider the following:
Religion said the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun went around the earth.
Science said the sun was at the center, and the earth (and the other planets) went around the sun in circular orbits.
Now, in response to this, imagine someone saying, “SEE!! Religion was wrong and science was equally wrong too, because religion thought the earth was at the center, which is not true, and science thought the planets went in circular orbits, but that is not true, either, they travel in elliptical orbits! Therefore, religion and science both got it wrong. So they are equally flawed.
NONSENSE
Religion got it completely wrong for all the wrong reasons, while science got the bulk of it right, by needed minor revising. To consider these two hypotheses as equally wrong is insane. Yet, people who love to try to equalize science with religion constantly do this.
I am so tired of people who love religion trying to lump it in with science as both being beliefs and both being equally flawed. Religion is a bunch of beliefs without proof. In fact, the religious are taught that believing without seeing is noble and praiseworthy. Science is the opposite. To belief without evidence is the worst thing you can do. You must have the evidence. Science is provable, testable, repeatable, predictable. They couldn’t be more different. Does science have its problems? Sure. But it is the opposite of religion. Any scientist who sees science as similar to religion and uses the same strategies used for religion in science is a terrible scientist.
Dexter-
Consider the following:
Joseph Smith, the first Mormon, wasn’t born when you wrote: “religion said the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun went around the earth.”
Joseph Smith did learn the following by revelation:
1. We’re not alone in the universe.
“And worlds without number have I created; … and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten” (Moses 1:3, 33).
That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. D&C 76:24
2. How old is this world?
We have an authentic account, which can be accepted as true, that life has been going on in this system for almost 2,555,000,000 years. Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, p.29
My point is that you can’t lump Mormonism into “religion got it completely wrong”.
I think a little research will suggest that Joseph Smith’s teaching about life on other planets and the age of things was ahead of main steam scientific thinking in his day.
Yeah, and men living on the moon!
Joseph Smith has nothing to do with this.
It seems to me that conservative members (by definition are supporting the status quo (isn’t that what conservative means) While questioning members are willing to look for alternative explanations.
I doubt that Elder Oaks asks God whether his view of Gays and Gay marriage is in conformity with gods view on the subject. My impression is that he believes his view is Gods view without asking or being told. His framework is that conservative culture is Gods culture. He has strong self belief.
So if I recognise that, but he doesn’t, can I attribute his statement on the subject (and the church’s position) to that framework? Can I at least raise it as a possibility?
The problem is that he and his disciples, are not able to recognise their framework, and so not willing to have the possibility raised. So even if it is true it is not acceptable.
The past evidence of this certainty of the leaders being wrong, does not seem to indicate that the same could be happening again. What does it indicate? Again not open for discussion, to question the leaders.
Dexter-
This is not a quote from Joseph Smith, but rather a late, third-hand account of something that Joseph is supposed to have said.
In the 1800s, the idea that the moon was inhabited was considered scientific fact by many.
Go here for more detail:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Moon_inhabited
Excellent points regarding the facts….just the facts, ma’am.
Yet life is far more than just the facts. It’s lived experience, which is comprised of individual facts interpreted through personal filters.
We need the lived experience of those who live them to teach us facts pure science or pure religion fall short of helping us “see” and “hear” and thus, know. To fully know something is the pearl of greatest price…..
It is through real people living real experiences teaching us real facts that religion and science progress. Even in the church we saw how Pres. Hinckley meeting with three black men (no women, unfortunately) back in the mid-70’s that greatly enhanced the weekly meeting of the Q15. He learned a great many facts from those faithful black brethren that he passed on to his fellow quorum members. What a truly exemplary visionary Gordon B. Hinckley was!
So bring us more facts from those who live LGBT lives…..teach us……that we may see, hear, and know the pearls of great price we’ve yet to find….that science and religion may become more one and Zion become more possible.
Dexter continues to display the usual arrogance of anyone who insists that their personal mode of thinking is always correct, whether it is science or religion or anything else for that matter.
Knowledge is inherently iterative and the more we learn, the more potential to learn we have.
Dexter misses the whole point of the post simply because he cannot adjust his view to give any other POV legitimacy.
Oh, and he is anti-religion.
Jeff,
Are you thread jacking your own post to insult me? I’m flattered.
But I’m the arrogant one? Please.
Jeff,
Stick to the issue. I don’t insult you personally. I simply address the issue. You don’t think I could list a hundred insults about you? You post on this site, yet I’m the one who isn’t resorting to personal insults while you are. Grow up.
” I don’t insult you personally. I simply address the issue.”
Yep, sure, let’s not play the innocent victim here.
Insult away, friend. Sticks and stones…..
Dexter, IF religion got it ALL wrong, and science more right than wrong, then in a ‘survival of the fittest’ manner, a ‘logical’, Vulcan-like society, with a disdain of religion, would fare the best, in terms of life expectancy, health, and other quality of life factors, measureable and otherwise. Please note that even the writers of Star Trek ascribe some manner of deities to Vulcan society, how is THAT “logical?”. I see no evidence that secular societies fare any better than those that are known for their religious bent, it seems that the opposite is true.