Reactionary disrespect for science and intellectual freedom

[Anonymous]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

I heard/read a quote somewhere that went something like:

“If one insists on empericism (sp?), one can’t entertain spirituality” … or something like that.

I think of the whole delemna as ying and yang, masculine and feminine, emotion and intellect, etc. … in other words I feel we need both and the “truth” lies somewhere in the middle between the extremes.

Just random thoughts…

So what do you do when you are confronted with a major contradiction, say a personal life altering experience, where empericism contradicts spirituality, or vise versa. Most members have not experienced this I am sure but when it smacks you in the face you will have to make a choice.

[Anonymous]

In other words, Cadence, a moment when you have to satisfy both the demands of reason and the demands of spirit?

[Anonymous]

Well, maybe I’m nuts, but I feel that I can insist on empiricism and entertain spirituality. But I would change the words to something like… employ empiricism and embrace spirituality.

What happens when they contradict or appear to contradict? Ah, maybe that’s the genesis of the really great ideas. What do you do when it “smacks you in the face”? You’ll have to make a choice? Then, how about choose to THINK, not to decide. Accept the new information and move forward, continuing to learn.

I am one that does not really see “science” and “spirituality” as polar opposites or even qualitatively different. They are different constructs, certainly, but different constructs to explain things… to explain truth… to explain our world and ourselves. One construct demands empiricism and a little faith. The other construct demands faith and a little empiricism. The more we develop our understanding of ourselves and our world, the better we become at applying empirical methods to better understand spiritual data. Our scientific knowledge of spirituality is comparitively miniscule, but so was our knowledge of the workings of the brain 100 years ago. I believe that the expanding body of scientific knowledge will very shortly, using empirical methods, eventually develop hypotheses regarding many of the things we consider spiritual (e.g., promptings, spiritual communication).

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

It’s not a matter of whether I believe them or not the thing that bothers me is that they try to tie membership in the Church to the expectation that we should just believe them without questioning their authority or accuracy. If the prophets say the scientists are wrong then they must be wrong and anyone who thinks otherwise is on the road to apostasy according to TBMs.

I still think you’re taking a few quotes and applying a very broad brush stroke here. Why does the church have an enormous university with many many scientists, engineers, and social scientists if they are so afraid of it? I understand (and agree with) the fact that virtually all strong religions fear intellectualism as it challenges the logic that supports the conclusions of the group. But would you expect anything else? Mormonism supports the logic that supports its conclusions – no surprise there.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Reading between the lines the idea seems to be that if you don’t believe in the major claims of the Church then you might as well just leave it behind. Never mind the sense of community and promoting Christian values and any good the Church does for people, if Joseph Smith lied then we might as well just forget about it according to this line of reasoning.

Yeah, sure, black and white thinking isn’t very healthy. We read you loud and clear on that. This is part of the psychological mind games that keep people in a group and keep an organization strong. Given that the church is full of humans, I wouldn’t expect them to deviate significantly from the norm. The trick isn’t to find what’s wrong with the church, but to find the gems. If you apply that to just about any religion you will find something worthwhile.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

For many members leaving can be a painful thing to even consider and it’s not that easy to just walk away. So what will help ease the pain? If you ask them the answer is that you just need to try harder to believe and fall in line with the accepted doctrines and ignore the questions and “little flicks” of history.

Yes, exactly. Once again, I hear you with the frustration. It’s frustrating to be told that you just need to believe and fall in line. Not sure what else I’d expect though. Once again, keeping the organization strong is a very important issue in Mormonism. After all, why have missionaries, why spend all my stake conference yesterday talking about missionary work if not to keep the organization strong? Keep in mind, however, that most Mormons feel that they have found something that works for them, that makes them happy. You can’t blame them for wanting to share that and/or get you to see it the way they do.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

To me the Church should ideally be about Christian fellowship first and foremost more than insisting on the acceptance of certain doctrines and telling people what to do in great detail. Sure they have backed off on the idea of young earth creationism, a global flood, etc. since the heyday of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie and they’ve backed off on other things like birth control whenever convenient.

Yes, ideally, this would be great. Unfortunately churches that are just about Christian fellowship, and have no mechanisms that keep an organization strong usually fade out, or are weak by comparison. If you know of a strong church, that has as good of a community feeling (as Mormonism), that is only about Christian fellowship, please let us all know!!

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

The only reconciliation strategy I see is for more members to stop listening to them when they say something questionable and maybe talk to their bishop or stake president and hope some of it reaches the top.

Nope, this is definitely not the only reconciliation strategy. A couple of points here.

1. I try to worry about myself, and let others worry about themselves. It’s not up to me to prevent someone from listening to whatever nonsense is being spewed at them in any setting. Doing so would be just as draconian as you are claiming the church is.

2. I try to pick out the gems, and ignore the lumps of coal. Are there lumps of coal in Mormonism? Sure. While I do get frustrated at times (who doesn’t?) I try to keep things in perspective, and challenge my emotional responses by good sound reasoning.

3. Question your expectations. And when you’re done, question them again. Keep them realistic (or better yet, nonexistent).

Hope something in here helps you out.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Questions for internal contemplation, that I believe you are going to have to consider if you are going to find peace and joy within the LDS Church:

1) Why do you need to read between the lines?

I’m just trying to understand what they are thinking and what these statements really mean if taken to their logical conclusion. I’m really not trying to be as cynical as I probably sound here. I’m sure most of these Church leaders are nice guys that are trying to do what they think is right under the circumstances. However, I worry that some of them are out of touch with a significant number of members who basically look at the Church as more of a social club and/or family tradition rather than the ultimate source of truth and spiritual guidance. These leaders treat the Church like it’s a package deal as if any lukewarm “cafeteria” Mormons should just get with the program or get out. This looks like conditional love which doesn’t really inspire trust and loyalty.

Old-Timer wrote:

2) Are you open to an attempt to discover something else (a different reconciliation strategy) – or, at the very least, that such a strategy as you suggest is not good for the vast majority of people in ANY organization, including yourself?

I’m open to any strategy that works in practice. However, I just don’t agree the with the whole one-size-fits-all idea that says if I have a problem with the Church then the problem must automatically be with me. If the current policies and hard-line doctrines of the Church are really working all that well then I don’t understand why more than 99% of the people in the world are not LDS and something like two-thirds of the members they still count are not currently active. Growth of the Church has really stalled in recent years with new converts barely making up for the losses.

I understand that the Church wants members to do what is right rather than whatever is easy or convenient but come on. There are other churches out there that are just as strict or more so than the LDS Church that sill retain their followers better than we have lately. Just because certain policies used to work alright 15 years ago doesn’t mean they are the best thing to do right now or for the future of the Church.

Old-Timer wrote:

3) Do you really think that ignoring what leaders say and telling other leaders that they also need to ignore those leaders is a “reconciliation strategy”? It seems more like an “I’m right and you need to agree with me” strategy – that it’s a reconciliation of others “to” YOU, not a reconciliation of you “with” the group.

I’m not suggesting that members should ignore the prophets and apostles entirely; I just think that it’s a good idea to take some of what they say with a grain of salt. For example, Gordon B. Hinckley once stressed that women should not wear more than one pair of “modest” earrings. Many Mormons will take this kind of thing very seriously as if it came directly from God but to me this honestly sounds more like something you would hear out of the Pharisees than from Jesus.

I wasn’t trying to say that members should tell other leaders to ignore the prophets and apostles. What I meant was that if you’re having a hard time because you feel the Church is making unreasonable demands and/or you don’t have a lot of confidence that they know what they are talking about then you could share some of these concerns with your bishop rather than just leaving the Church behind without looking back. I’m guessing that this is the main reason that they stopped condemning birth control the way they used to, because too many members didn’t follow this advice anyway and complained about it.

[Anonymous]

Devil’s Advocate, another very sincere question:

Quote:

What do you want from this forum?

I ask that simply because I think we all pretty much agree completely with most of what you just wrote – most of it at least at some level. However, in the context of this forum, what are you looking to get out of your participation?

Again, please understand, I’m not asking for ANY reason other than to encourage introspection and focus. Nobody here advocates the extremes you address. We all understand that what you describe happens sometimes. We aren’t trying to ignore stuff – not at all. Our focus is on finding **legitimate** ways to cope, then understand, then embrace – NOT any particular doctrine or teaching or practice or cultural aspect, but simply the church community. We can do that from various levels of belief and with widely divergent perspectives, but ultimately we are here to learn to embrace being Mormon or share how we’ve done so personally.

My main point in all of my questions is to see if you can start shifting the responsibility for your happiness away from others (“The Church” in this instance) and to yourself – even as you remain actively involved with and in “The Church”. As I said in a previous comment, it is to try to help you toward reconciliation with the group, not to help you reconclie the group to you. Perhaps you can’t do that. If so, I respect that – but this ultimately won’t be the place for you. Perhaps you can do that. If so, I respect that – and this will be a good place for you. Much of the difference will be your willingness to let go of some things as you read about how others have let go of some things. That is up to you – but “reconciliation, peace and joy” aren’t going to happen until (unless) you can see why the outlook this post illustrates is counter-productive to that process.

Until you can begin to see the legitimacy for others of the ideas that bother you (or, at least, grant that as a real possibility) – until you can grant that they might be right / correct for some, even as they are wrong / incorrect for you – until you can read those quotes without seeing “reactionary disrespect for science and intellectual freedom” – until you seek and achieve a different level of charity and compassion in how you characterize others – until those things start to happen, you are not going to find peace and joy in ANY religious group – not just in Mormonism.

[Anonymous]

Euhemerus wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

To me the Church should ideally be about Christian fellowship first and foremost more than insisting on the acceptance of certain doctrines and telling people what to do in great detail. Sure they have backed off on the idea of young earth creationism, a global flood, etc. since the heyday of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie and they’ve backed off on other things like birth control whenever convenient.

Yes, ideally, this would be great. Unfortunately churches that are just about Christian fellowship, and have no mechanisms that keep an organization strong usually fade out, or are weak by comparison. If you know of a strong church, that has as good of a community feeling (as Mormonism), that is only about Christian fellowship, please let us all know!!.

One example of a church that seems to have less of an emphasis on doctrine and strict rules at least from the average follower’s perspective is actually the biggest church of all with over a billion Catholics worldwide. Maybe overall strength is relative because many Catholics probably can’t be expected to have the same level of commitment as the average practicing Mormon. However, I’m not so sure that this is such a bad thing in general over the long run. Personally, I think this is one reason the Catholic Church isn’t going away any time soon. It means different things to different people. If some Catholics feel more zealous about religion than others then they can express this without making it an expected requirement for everyone.

Look at the results, some of the negative history surrounding the Catholic Church is no secret but many Catholics aren’t bothered by this to the point that they will ever leave. The Pope can say something stupid and many Catholics couldn’t care less. One reason they stay in spite of any negatives is that they have realistic expectations because they realize that it is essentially a human organization so they don’t really expect it to be perfect and many of them don’t expect the Bible to be perfect either the way many Protestant/Evangelical Christians do.

Now I’m not saying the LDS Church should try to emulate the Catholic Church in general but I do think we could get to the point where we can talk about Joseph Smith and his teachings and revelations without thinking it needs to be a dealbreaker if someone isn’t convinced that this is the complete truth. We can still love our neighbors and make them feel welcome at church without so much concern about whether they believe exactly the same things that we do.

In some cases the LDS Church already looks similar the Catholic Church albeit the medieval version back when they had the political power to enforce their beliefs without much opposition. Seriously, D. Michael Quinn, Grant Palmer, and Simon Southerton were excommunicated or dis-fellowshipped mostly because they didn’t whitewash their research conclusions and align their opinions with the official position of the Church. If this is not reactionary disrespect for honest scholarship and intellectual freedom then I don’t know what is. Maybe this kind of hard-line policy will work to retain some TBMs because they will shun any known apostates and refuse to listen to them but the flip-side is that this kind of reaction gives the impression that the Church is trying to hide something or cover-up the truth. This can make curious members want to uncover any dirt even more and once they do there is no going back for many of them.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Devil’s Advocate, another very sincere question:

Quote:

What do you want from this forum?

I ask that simply because I think we all pretty much agree completely with most of what you just wrote – most of it at least at some level. However, in the context of this forum, what are you looking to get out of your participation?

Again, please understand, I’m not asking for ANY reason other than to encourage introspection and focus. Nobody here advocates the extremes you address…

I mostly just wanted to vent my frustration about the current culture, policies, and direction of the Church which I don’t believe are sustainable over the long run. I would hate to see the Church go away entirely but without some positive changes I really think there will be a significant decline over the next few decades. Maybe some decline is inevitable if the Church really depends on everyone believing Joseph Smith’s claims as much as they seem to think but personally I think the people and their sincere faith in God is what makes the Church special more than any specific beliefs.

[Anonymous]

One thing I know is that science requires that we be willing to CHANGE our beliefs. One must be ever ready to “unlearn” old truths and relearn truth to a newer, fuller understanding. This is growth. One example: I was working in a Virus Laboratory when my boss walked in and explained that a patient had been hospitalized for rabies. He went on to inform me that hospital staff had been instructed to treat this patient and sustain his life for as long as possible. The victim of rabies survived and is alive today. “Rabies is no longer to be considered a fatal disease”, he proclaimed! We are learning how to treat these patients with antisera and life support. Our entire procedure for their care had changed.

Now, with religion it is “stay the course”, “constancy amid change”, “being ever-lasting to ever-lasting”. I have noticed a tendency for modern day church leaders to “hold to the iron rod” and resist straying into new paths. This worked in the last century. There simply wasn’t a lot of change. Now the world is changing minute by minute.

The question is “can be grow and adapt with it”? I have been thinking about this lately. One example: I was looking at a file of hundreds of names that had been extracted and indexed in order to prepare them for baptism for the dead. About 50% of these people had died of tuberculosis. Well, there was no way for anyone to treat and cure TB effectively at the time. The most one could do for these people who were doomed to die was to lovingly perform vicarious ordinances on their behalf. I was working in a tuberculosis, biosafety level 3 laboratory at the time. This little light when on inside my head. I’m not a prophet, I don’t lead the Church, but science has changed the world so much. “Switch the emphasis from baptism for the dead to healing and curing the living”. We are so blessed to live in a day and age when we can actually do this. The idea sounded amazing to me, but, can the church actually change?

[Anonymous]

MWallace57 wrote:

One thing I know is that science requires that we be willing to CHANGE our beliefs. One must be ever ready to “unlearn” old truths and relearn truth to a newer, fuller understanding. This is growth.

…I’m not a prophet, I don’t lead the Church, but science has changed the world so much. “Switch the emphasis from baptism for the dead to healing and curing the living”. We are so blessed to live in a day and age when we can actually do this. The idea sounded amazing to me, but, can the church actually change?

Yes the Church can change and it has already changed many times throughout its history but they do seem to lag behind current trends and resist popular opinions to some extent. For example, denying blacks the priesthood was taught as doctrine before but this was eventually reversed completely.

[Anonymous]

Often times, God allows truth to be revealed through scientific methods. This is actually a great blessing and gift from God. Our creator has bestowed upon each one of us a natural curiosity and a yearning to investigate. You really see this in young infants and toddlers as they investigate their surroundings and explore the world. Sometimes, we punish this great instinct out of our children by scolding them for touching things and taking things apart. We are afraid that they will destroy our homes (sometimes they do).

Sometimes, religious institutions are afraid that investigators will destroy their churches. They needn’t fear. Science and technology can actually enhance, advance and improve all religious experiences and promote faith. Because of airline travel, missionaries can reach the far corners of the earth. We can now do missionary work on-line – more people than ever will be able to hear the gosple.

What we need is an ability to constantly improve and upgrade as these new advances become available. The Church does this very well with communications technology such as broadcasting General Conference to millions of viewers worldwide. They upgrade computers, genealogical databases, communications networks etc. This is great.

Another area where the church excels is in agriculture and irrigation technologies. Ezra Taft Benson was an amazing leader in this area. He worked to improve food production in starving nations in Africa, but was sadly ignored. Had these nations listened, millions of people may not have starved to death.

But, sadly, we fail in other areas. I don’t mean to be so harsh, to use the word fail, but I have to be honest. We are behind in certain areas. Many LDS mothers have joined the Eagle Forum which does not believe in immunizing infants. Children in Provo have become ill with whopping cough. I fear that |Utah could have an a Tetanus death if we are not careful – it is coming. I worked for the Utah State Department of Health and attended an epidemiology meeting once per week. Utah is slipping and we are one of the few States that still has infant deaths from totally preventable childhood illnesses. Remarkable, GBH actually praised the Eagle Forum and this group uses GBH’s Proclamation on the Family as their official Facebook icon for Utahn’s for Traditional Families.

(Brian, please don’t delete). We have to face this truth. We owe it to our children to confront this issue head-on and not let the next generation suffer from our neglect.

We simply cannot afford to let any student fall behind in the study of biology, earth science, evolution, geology and in developmental biology. We have to teach about topics such as disorders of sexual development and differentiation. We must. I refuse to raise ignorant children and grandchildren. I will buy books and supplement their education. The Doctrine and Covenants actually commands us to study the sciences. (See Section 88 of the D and C).

[Anonymous]

The Church has moved more slowly in some areas, but it also has moved more quickly in others – and when it moves, it tends to move MUCH more quickly than other religions. It’s a mixed bad in that regard, but I’ve seen too many organizations (including religious ones) that have moved too quickly and suffered terribly for it to want the Church to move more quickly on everything.

Of course, there are issues where I wished things happened more quickly, but as someone who has studied and implemented organizational change management, I recognize the principle articulated in the Allegory of the Olive Tree in Jacob 5 – that the bad fruit can’t be pruned faster than the strength of the root to absorb the trauma.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I mostly just wanted to vent my frustration

DevilsAdvocate, while we don’t mind some venting here, the purpose of the site is to find ways to deal with the frustration we all face. Heck I get frustrated at church all the time. I’ve been on other boards that are an absolute whine-fest, and it drove me away. We don’t want this board to turn negative–our aim is to find positive ways to deal with frustrations. I’m not saying don’t vent–others have seen me vent here too. But don’t turn so negative that every post is a frustration. If you look for the good in the church, you will find it, and make yourself happier in the process. There are many good things in the church too, and that’s why it is growing, not shrinking. I am always surprised at how many people think the church isn’t growing, when in fact it really is.

When my sister had a brain tumor, I tried to be grateful for all the time I spent with her. I miss her greatly, but I made a conscious decision not to blame God. Some people blame God when these things happen. The story of Job is a great story, and I encourage you to develop Job’s traits.

I must say regarding science that I often feel like I can’t speak freely at church, but this board is a great place to speak freely.

[Anonymous]

|might just add that the church has excelled in other areas of science such as seismic engineering (building structures that can survive earthquakes). Church buildings in Haiti, Chili and New Orleans actually did very well. The Church office building in Salt Lake was built to withstand earth tremors and was a technological marvel at the time it was built.

Primary Children’s Medical Center has consistently been in the top 10 for children’s hospitals and I know many LDS health care workers who have pioneered life-saving surgeries and treatments for children. They should be proud.

But, we do need to be vigilant. There is a small but growing number of LDS and other Christian families that are removing their children from public school and homeschooling just so the children won’t be taught geosciences and biological sciences. We could pay a price if this trend is not reversed.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Henry Eyring was pointing out to Joseph Fielding Smith that the earth is 4 billion years over 50 years ago.

Sorry, this comment is only tangentially related to the topic of Official Doctrine. I’m not trying to derail the discussion. I am teaching a lesson on the Creation in HP Quorum Sunday. Euhemerus, do you have the reference for that quote, or reference for other good material that indicates Creationism IS NOT Mormon Doctrine. I’ve got a couple guys in the class who are very intelligent, but sometimes ill informed. I suspect this may be a new concept for them, and I would like to be ready. Can you or anyone else make some suggestions

[Author]

Posts