A Comment on Faith and Sin

I posted the following comment here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/08/all-who-disagree-with-me-are-vile-sinners.html

Sometimes participants on one side of a debate sloppily and erroneously believe that all of the people on the other side of the debate hold the same positions on all issues pertaining to the questions under debate. I think that may be happening here to you. Because, while it is not your position, I do think many Mormons believe the only reason people leave the church is because they are sinners.

A story I remember from a BYU religion class illustrates this. A Church leader (I think Elder McConkie, but don't quote me on this) came across a group traveling in a car bearing an ex-Mormon bumper sticker at a gas stations. The interaction ended with the leader asking the ex-Mormons, in essence, which of the commandments they didn't want to keep? The takeaway (at least as I understood it) was that people leave the church because of a desire to justify personal sin.

I don't think this is right. In fact, I'm sure causation runs in the other direction in some instances--that is people reject the doctrine first for intellectual reasons, and violate the commandments next as a result of having rejected the doctrine and the Church.

But there's a certain logic to that position. If we are on Earth to test our adherence to the commandments, we need to know with some certainty what the commandments are, otherwise the test is meaningless. Members who are convinced the Church is true through spiritual experiences assume that others must have had similar spiritual confirmation, and are exercising their agency to reject that truth. If that's not the case then how can the test-taker be held accountable for failing to follow rules he never knew existed?

Sociology Professor on Mormonism

Here:

Of course, the sociology of Mormonism is separate from its truth claims, and though skepticism probably comes more naturally to me than belief, I nevertheless choose to believe. I savor what we have in common with other Christians—the Bible, resurrection, forgiveness of sins, gifts of the spirit, the example of our savior, the importance of moral living (though I certainly acknowledge that Mormons are not orthodox Christians)—and I love the doctrines of the Restoration (as we call it): that everyone who has ever lived has an equal opportunity for salvation, that sinners and unbelievers are not cast into hell forever, that God is not ultimately responsible for all the evil and suffering in the world, that marriages and families can last into eternity, that there is no end to knowledge and progress, and that God continues to speak to prophets today just as in biblical times. When I go to the temple, I marvel that I belong to a religion with such a sense of sacred ritual, and that it means so much to me. As I have studied and researched the Book of Mormon for scholarly, academic publications over the last few years, I find it more and more impressive. Though I respect the opinions of those who are attuned to its many historical improbabilities, it seems to me to be a revealed text, with roots in the ancient world. It may be hard to believe such things, but I do. They make sense to me, and as I have prayed, studied, served, and performed priesthood ordinances such as giving blessings and baptizing my children (another advantage of a lay ministry), I have had spiritual experiences that I interpret as the Holy Spirit bearing witness to me of the truths of Mormonism.

Church, Government and Marriage

My boss thinks that the LDS Church should encourage the government to get out of the marriage business. I slightly disagree. I think the government should mostly get out of the marriage business, but I don't know that the Church should take what is essentially a libertarian position.

While the Church reserves the right to speak out on moral issues, unless it's going to speak out on everything political, it doesn't really have a reason to take a libertarian stance. Marriage, however, is a moral issue as it's an integral part Mormon conception of life after death. Thus, the Mormon church has an important interest in how that institution is treated in law. Speaking out on this moral issue and supporting prop. 8 was entirely appropriate.

You could say, what does it matter to the church what the law says?--it can simply do its own thing. After all, Mormons only believe Mormon marriages are eternally valid, yet they doesn't object to all non-Mormon marriages. But Prop. 8 was a funny law. It gave essentially equal substantive rights to gay couples. The difference between same sex and normal couples was in what that relationship was called. In essence the Prop. 8 fight was over the word "marriage" and its meaning. That seems like an appropriate moral fight for a church that believes marriage between man an woman is sacred and that homosexual relationships are inappropriate.

Despite sitcom jokes, apparently "marriage" is still viewed positively, because Prop. 8 was essentially a big fight over how the government uses that word. A homosexual couple can go and get "married" in their own ceremony, and then get a certificate of "civil union" from the state and essentially have all the same rights as a heterosexual couple. But that's not good enough. Gays need the state to tell them that their arrangement is actually "marriage." I find it a little strange that gays so want the approval of their hetro peers. It's like they're saying "please, please accept me!"  That's because government approval is essentially majority approval. But the majority doesn't approve and doesn't think these relationships are okay. So the majority is saying, we don't want to harm you gays in any way, but, while we appreciate your affinity for musical theater and your fashion advice, we don't actually approve of your sexual practices or proclivities.

I generally support getting the government out the marriage business. I don't trust government to regulate "moral" behavior, which doesn't actually impose negative externalities on others. We can disagree about where to draw that line, but I think it's pretty clear that same-sex married couples do not create many more negative externalities than unmarried same-sex couples. Getting government out of the marriage business would also alleviate the need for the Church to fight these fights. But as long as, the government is in the "marriage business," it makes perfect sense for the church to fight these battles.

Hip Revelation

A co-worker recently argued that LDS revelation actually often reflects trends in society, but that Mormons don't like to admit it because it tends to undermine the assertion that revelation is inspired by god. To support this thesis he gives two examples: The first is the word of wisdom, which he says followed the dietary trends of the day, and the second is allowing blacks to hold the priesthood, which followed the civil rights movement. I added the ban on polygamy, which arguably caved into federal government pressure brought on by political forces of that day.


This argument really seems to get at three separate questions.1) Do Mormons acknowledge these trends as context for the revelations? 2) Do LDS revelations follow these trends? and 3) If so, does that mean that these revelations are not inspired?


I think the answers to these questions depend on the exact revelation at issue. Take the word or wisdom, for example. Mormons generally don't talk about this revelation in the context of the dietary movements at the time, however, Sylvester Graham was a contemporary of Joseph Smith, and preached eating bland foods to suppress sexual desire. That movement lasted some time, as Corn Flakes were also part of it, which were not created until the early 1900. The word or wisdom was received in 1833, but was advisory at that time, and only really enforced after the turn of the century. 


So there is a rough correlation, but I have to wonder what this means. Was it the original revelation or the subsequent interpretation making following the revelation mandatory that was the trend-following act? Or was this simply a 80 year trend influencing the initial revelation, and subsequent change from advisory to mandatory status. Doesn't it seem as though the revelation was actually precipitated by trend-following it would have come at the peak of The Graham diets influence instead of over time in two separate revelations? I also have to wonder why the word of wisdom is not or has not, to my knowledge, been justified as suppressing sexual desire (has it?). So while there is some correlation, it does not seem very likely that there is actual causation between the two (not that I've actually done any research to determine whether LDS leaders were influenced by the Graham diet/movement).


As to the extending the priesthood to blacks, LDS church members do talk about the civil rights context sometimes in church. Also, many member were alive at the time of the movement and are aware of when the revelation came down. Again the revelation was close in time with the civil rights movement, but actually some time after it. The priesthood was extended in 1978, which is a good time after the civil rights act of 1964, although obviously the act isn't necessarily when prejudice was "overcome." So, Mormons generally acknowledge the civil rights context, and an argument can be made that the revelation trend following, although that argument seems only based on the close proximity in time of the revelation and civil right movement.


In banning polygamy, however, Mormons always acknowledge context. At the time there was considerable political pressure to end the practice, and Wilford Woodruff acknowledged that he had a vision of government suppression if it continued, so polygamy was ended. Again, you could argue that the revelation was simply opportunistic caving to political pressure, but Mormons readily acknowledge the circumstances and pressure.


So you can argue that these revelations correlate with trends or events of the day. 


Mormons, however, also believe in modern revelation. The premise of modern revelation, is that the church needs to adapt or change doctrine or policies to accommodate changing circumstances in the world. Thus, it makes complete sense that, as circumstances change, the doctrine is going to change, too, otherwise, there would be no need for modern revelation. While sometimes the doctrine changes in a way the reflects worldly wisdom--such as extending civil rights--at other times, the doctrine changes or repudiates worlds wisdom, such as LDS modern revelation that gender is innate, spiritual part of who we are, or that marriage is for heterosexual couples only. Similarly some doctrines don't change in the face of social trends, like the doctrine that premarital sex is immoral has remained constant, despite a strong worldly consensus that it perfectly fine. So my conclusion is that my co-workers argument suffers from the assumption that correlation amounts to causation, and also from selection bias.

Party of Death II

How does the position that, from conception on, humans have a right not to be killed mesh with Mormon theology? At first glance, you'd think that because Mormons are strongly and almost uniformly pro-life, (both culturally and as a mater of doctrine) this conception-is-the-beginning position would mesh well. However, Mormon doctrine, which allows for abortion in cases of incest and rape, is inconsistent with life beginning at conception. Also, Mormons are allowed to use the pill.

Ponnuru argues that drawing any line after conception leads to a strange, unworkable duality. While specifically addressing the argument that humans acquire the right not to die when they acquire some higher level of brain function, he writes:

First: By treating human organisms and "persons" as separate, though mostly overlapping, categories, it assumes that a distinction can be made between a person and the body that person merely "inhabits." The "person" is an aware, conscious "self" that floats above the body, as a sort of ghost in the machine. An embryonic (and fetal, and infant) body comes into existence before this person does, and the person can die before the body does. But this dualism is untenable. It contradicts everyday experience: We sense and perceive, which are clearly bodily actions, but also engage in conceptual thinking, which cannot be reduced to bodily actions; and it is clearly the same subject who does both types of things. The dualist who utters his idea refutes in the act of voicing it. We are (among other things) our bodies. p.86

I guess you could say he recognizes some separation when he says "engaging in conceptual thinking . . . cannot be reduced to bodily actions." So we are more than just our bodies, but also our bodies. Still it seems to me that Ponnuru decries the idea that we are somehow separable from our bodies, and that is exactly what Mormons believe: body and spirit are separate (duality). Our spirit enters our body at (or probably some time before) birth and exit our bodies at death.

Accepting this duality, Mormons can then draw a principled line after conception. The question for a Mormon is not: when does "biological" life begin, but instead when does the spirit enter the body? Drawing the line there means Mormons can allow for some abortion before the spirit enters the body, for instance in cases of rape and incest. It also means Mormons can support embryo destructive research if the embryo is destroyed before the spirit enters the body.

Still there are problems with this line. For instance, if it's okay to kill an embryo before the spirit enters, why is it not okay to have an abortion for other reasons, (like birth control) before the spirit enters the body? Also when does the spirit enter the body?

There may be an answer to the first question. Mormons believe that the we come to earth to get a body. Clearly what is forming inside the mother at conception is a body, so perhaps there is still some moral reason not to disrupt this process or destroy this body even though it doesn't contain a spirit. Perhaps the reason that abortion is "like murder" , but not actually murder, is because abortion destroys the forming body, which is clearly an important part of our souls (body and spirit together). if we are prohibiting abortion for this lesser reason, then we might also permit abortion in cases where there is compelling reason, like to find a cure for disease or to restore choice to a woman who was raped. But if this is the case, what is the compelling reason for allowing abortion in the case of incest? The mother was not denied her initial choices. Or what is the reason for allowing Mormons to use the pill? Convenient birth control doesn't seem like a great reason to allow for even pre-spirit abortions.

And the second question is harder. If we suppose that Mormons permit abortion in cases of rape and incest because the abortion happens before the spirit enters the body, Mormons should still prohibited abortion after the spirit enters the body. So when exactly does that happen? Mormons doctrine allows women who fit within one of the exceptions to make the decision to have an abortion based on their own revelation. Not exactly a bright line.