Thursday, June 26, 2014

Women and the Priesthood, 2014 vs Blacks and the Priesthood, 1978

There has been significant public controversy recently, concerning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint's initiation of Church Disciplinary actions against several prominent Church members, because of their public and vocal actions concerning various aspects of Church doctrine, practices, teachings, etc. (Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Rock Waterman). This seems to be gaining considerable national media attention, with some referring to this as the real ‘Mormon Moment.’

There are several aspects of these controversies that deserve comment and perspective. but here I just want to address the issue of Women and the Priesthood.

Many orthodox Church members simply affirm that God leads the Church, that whatever Church leaders do and decide is God’s will, and that if those members are not willing to abide the rules, choose not to be obedient to the leaders, or ‘fight’ against the leadership, they have basically forfeited their right to maintain their membership, and deserve to be excommunicated.

But if you stop and give this matter some thought and research, things are not quite as simple as they might seem, even for an Orthodox, believing Mormon. While not an exactly comparable situation, I still find it useful to examine the topic of the previous restriction of Blacks from holding the Priesthood.

Consider this official statement from the First Presidency (George Albert Smith President) on August 17, 1949:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time." 

"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality..."

This was the official Doctrine of the Church, and not simply a 'policy,' as declared by the First Presidency. Seems fairly clear-cut.

Now consider a recent document published by the Church online on its official website. In trying to explain the ban, it states:

"Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." 
"In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination." 
"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life..."

The take-home point here is that what was formally declared as official Church Doctrine in 1949 is declared as not being Doctrine in 2014. What was explicitly identified as not simply being a policy in 1949, is now declared in 2014 as simply being a policy.

And to respond to an expected objection to this line of reasoning, this is different from the concept of ‘Continuous Revelation’, where additional light and knowledge is supposed to expand on previous understanding, fill in details previously not known, reveal new knowledge, etc. This recent declaration directly contradicts matters previously declared as being the official Doctrine of the Church.

I found it fascinating to read about Byron Marchant, who was excommunicated in October, 1977, in connection with his public opposition to the Church's withholding the Priesthood from Blacks. Just a year later, and his membership might not have been threatened. This may provide insight into the current excommunications.


I'm not advocating any position here. I simply think it would be healthier if all sides of any controversial issue have a more complete understanding of the matter at hand, and in particular to have a full understanding of how and why others come to different conclusions. This seems to me to offer a greater opportunity for mutual understanding and respect, which is so often missing at times like these.

And all of this makes one wonder if, down the road, Church doctrine/policy will change to allow women to hold the Priesthood, just as it did with the Blacks.

Prior to 1978, it was basically inconceivable for most members to see a change in Church doctrine/policy to allow Blacks to hold the Priesthood, believing that the Brethen, and therefore God, had already clearly spoken on this issue. Further, there were (and still are, unfortunately) multiple scriptural passages justifying this practice.

With regard to the Priesthood being restricted to males, it is interesting to note that there aren't even any actual scriptural passages that justify this practice. Ally Isom, official Church spokeswoman, during an interview with RadioWest's Doug Fabrizio, was asked, "Where does it say in Mormon doctrine that women can't have the priesthood?" She replied, "It doesn't."

Time will tell.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Baptism for Holocaust Victims: Principle vs Public Relations

The issue of proxy baptisms in the LDS Temples being performed for victims of the Holocaust has been a sore point for several years, and has come to international attention once again.  This is at least in part because of the increased scrutiny of the Church in connection with the Presidential campaign of Mitt Romney.  Basically, and understandably, many people of Jewish descent are offended by the concept of their ancestors, who died in large measure because of their religious faith and identity, being ‘converted’ to the LDS Church, without their consent.

The Church has in the past, and again in the current situation, vowed to discontinue this practice, and is often seen favorably because of their being ‘sensitive’ to the feelings of those who have been objecting.

I see this whole matter in a very different context, and would like to address why I find the statements and actions of the Church to be hypocritical.

Having spent several decades as an active, devoted member, I was taught consistently and repeatedly, the importance of integrity, and making decisions according to one’s principles, even when it was not easy, convenient, or comfortable to do so:

On Sundays, the congregation often joined together singing:

“Do what is right, let the consequence follow...
“Do what is right; be faithful and fearless”

“Choose the right! There is peace in righteous doing.
Choose the right! There's safety for the soul.
Choose the right in all labors you're pursuing;
Let God and heaven be your goal.”

Children, and often adults, wear the official “CTR” ring - Choose The Right - as a constant reminder to make the right choices.

We were often instructed to follow the example and counsel given in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 3:7):

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

This is actually a significant part of what attracted me to the Church in the first place: the insistence on personal integrity, and I earnestly strived to teach this principle to my children.

Next, consider how the Church expresses its purpose in the world, in the form of the “Threefold Mission of the Church”:

  1. Proclaim the Gospel
  2. Perfect the Saints
  3. Redeem the Dead

This is the sacred trust that the LDS Church states is its reason for existence, the command it has received from its God.  Just to clarify, “Redeem the Dead” refers to the practice of performing all Temple Ordinances, including Baptism, on behalf of all those who have gone before, who did not have the opportunity of hearing and receiving the Gospel while they lived on earth.

Interestingly, this is another teaching that first attracted me to the Church: if one accepts at face value the teaching of Jesus Christ in the New Testament that all have to be baptized to enter into His Kingdom, this practice provides a way to avoid anyone being deprived of this opportunity because of where and when they happened to be born.  This was much more just than, and a far cry from, so many other Christian denominations who basically wrote these people off, consigning them to a Hell of some sort, simply because they had never been baptized.

And yet when the Church is challenged on its principles, it does not follow the counsel it has given to its members, it doesn’t “go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded.”  It simply bows to public pressure and abandons its principles.

In this incident, as in so many other matters, it is clearly demonstrated that the Church functions more as a Corporation, than a Church.  It is more concerned about its Public Relations, than remaining true to its principles.  Ironically, as one of Jewish descent myself, I would actually have more respect for the Church if it were more courageous in its devotion to its conception of truth, however much I might disagree with it.

I expected the Church to behave the same as it taught me to behave.  I expected it to “Choose The Right.”  How naive I was...

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Isn’t It Supposed To Be About The Truth??

In the past few months, I have received phone calls from some of the leadership of the local LDS Ward. First the High Priest Group Leader, and a Counselor in the Bishopric, came over. The HGPL had called a few days before, and indicated that he had come across my name on the interview forms for Temple Recommends (I had been Branch President a number of years ago), and wondered why I no longer attended. He asked if he could come over, and I said I’d be happy to meet and talk with him.

After a few pleasantries, I dove into the basis for my no longer attending Church. I restricted myself to a few specific areas: how DNA and Archaeological studies completely invalidate the idea that the Lamanites, claimed to be of Middle Eastern origin by the Book of Mormon, are the ancestors of the original modern-day Indian populations of North and South America. This has been clearly taught by Presidents and other General Authorities of the Church through the current day. I further explained that the Church was already back-pedaling on their previous position, as reflected in the change made in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, which used to refer to the Lamanites as the “principle” ancestors of modern-day Indians, but now speaks of them as “among” their ancestors.

I discussed Joseph Smith’s practice of both Polygamy (marrying multiple wives, many of whom were teen-agers, with the youngest being 14) and Polyandry (in that he married women who were then married to living husbands). I went on to clarify that even if one is willing to justify Polygamy as being a commandment of God, that Joseph’s actual manner of practicing it violated the specific stipulations governing it as shown in Doctrine & Covenants Section 132.

Lastly, I addressed how it can be readily demonstrated that the Book of Abraham which Joseph claimed was a translation of Papyri written “in his own (Abraham’s) hand” had absolutely no connection to the actual translation of those Papyri confirmed by multiple Egyptologists, both inside and outside the Church. Because of this, the Church Apologists propose the “catalyst” theory, suggesting that Joseph received the Book of Abraham as direct revelation, initiated by his viewing and studying the Papyri, despite the fact that this completely contradicts Joseph’s own words and actions.

A month or two later, I received a call from the Ward Executive Secretary, indicating that the Bishop wanted to meet with me. I again said I’d be happy to speak with him, and we set up a time for him to come to my home a week later.

We sat down, and I rehearsed the same basic set of information, demonstrating that the Church’s claims are completely contradicted by the evidence. Consequently, despite decades of trying to reconcile these matters, I had to draw the inevitable conclusion that the Church simply isn’t what it claims to be, and not what I thought and hoped it to be.

Now I wasn’t naive enough to think that my presentation of these facts would be sufficient to convince them that the Church’s claims were false. And I certainly didn’t expect them to simply accept that everything I said was accurate and factual. But what continues to astonish me is their complete lack of curiosity about any of these matters. They seemed unable or unwilling to understand that if what I presented were in fact true, the implications were huge!

They didn’t seem bothered by the fact that using the criteria of D&C 132, Joseph would have to be considered an adulterer. They didn’t seem bothered by the overwhelming evidence that both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham were 19th century works of fiction.

They just stated that their “testimony” tells them that the Church is “true” and they’re content to just leave it at that. I tried to explain how their spiritual experiences were identical to those of a Baptist, a Catholic, a Jew, a Buddhist, or any other religious believer, whose testimony similarly convinced them that they had the truth. They were happy to just live in their little cocoon, and allow their mental blinders to avoid any contradictory information that might cause them to actually think and consider the possibility that some of their beliefs could be wrong.

Now, they are all good, honest, moral people, and I give them ample credit for this, but ultimately, isn’t the Church supposed to be about Truth? Aren’t they taught in their own scriptures that “The glory of God is Intelligence, or in other words, light and truth” (D&C 93:36), and that “A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, P. 217)?

Sadly, what the Church teaches today is primarily about obedience and loyalty to Church leadership, with Truth not even a distant 3rd or 4th concern. Apostle Boyd K. Packer stated this pretty clearly when he said “There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.” (BYU Studies, 1981). Further, these same leaders take the very self-serving position that it is actually evil to criticize them, as described by Dallin H. Oakes: “Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local... It does not matter that the criticism is true.” (Ensign, Feb. 1987).

As the title of my blog emphasizes, for me “The unexamined life is not worth living.” This disregard for truth is simply unacceptable. It is one thing to exercise faith and belief in the absence of evidence, but it is quite another to do so in complete contradiction of the evidence.

When I had received the call about the Bishop’s wanting to meet with me, I had the impression (which I previously would have called a ‘prompting of the spirit’) that my membership in the Church was the underlying issue. On that basis, I had prepared a formal letter of resignation, which included a brief summary of the reasons for my resignation. Toward the end of my meeting with the Bishop, he basically asked that given all that I had just explained, why did I keep my name on the records of the Church?

So my impression turned out to be accurate, and I then handed him my letter of resignation. I asked that it be processed promptly, and he honored that request. Technically, once I handed in the letter, my membership in the Church ended. But a few weeks later, I received the acknowledgement letter from Church headquarters, recognizing the end of my 39 years in the Church.

My search for Truth continues, and while I recognize that obviously it will never be completed, it is still helpful to identify those things which aren’t true, and which can safely be left behind.

Monday, July 5, 2010

Life is a Jig-Saw Puzzle

When I made the initial decision to join the Mormon Church back in 1972, I found it helpful to use the metaphor of a Jig-Saw Puzzle to understand the basis for this decision, and to explain it to others. The idea was that Life presented me with a huge array of pieces from a complex Jig-Saw Puzzle, and the challenge was to piece these together in order to figure out what the picture was, or what Life was all about. Using the various things the Church taught and presented to me I earnestly set about putting various pieces together, and it seemed that the picture that was emerging was of the truthfulness of the Church and its teachings.

True, I realized that there were many, many pieces that were still lying around which I couldn’t see how to connect to anything else, various sections of the puzzle which seemed unlike other sections, etc. But it seemed that I could imagine what the completed puzzle would look like on the basis of what I had thus far assembled, and that seemed sufficient to move forward. So I took a leap of faith, with the hope that as time went on, I would be able to figure out where the various loose pieces would fit in, how to join together the disparate sections I had already pieced together, and that I would finally, someday, understand it all, and the final completed picture would be seen.

In retrospect, this general approach still seems fairly reasonable, but as the saying goes, ‘the devil is in the details.’ Despite my best efforts, earnestly striving to make sense of the complicated array of pieces and puzzle sections, my initial hope was in vain. I guess at least two things occurred:
  1. I pieced together a number of the previously loose and separate pieces, and found images emerging that are intrinsically incompatible with the other sections I had put together, and upon which I had based my conclusions about the final picture.
  2. I also made a much more careful and detailed examination of the pieces I had previously joined together, and found small spaces and other inconsistencies between those pieces, and realized that they didn’t really fit precisely. In a complex puzzle, it is quite easy to gently force two pieces together that “almost” fit, but which in fact are not the correct match. Even though you’re reluctant to go back and start over, if you’re wanting to do it right, you realize you must then separate them, and continue looking for ones that are a more perfect match.

So as I have continued working on the puzzle, the pieces have been rearranged, and different images emerge, such that I have had to acknowledge that I was previously mistaken about the final picture I thought I saw in the Jig-Saw puzzle. The picture I now see is dramatically more complex, with a richer spectrum of shades and textures than I had imagined possible, and more intriguingly beautiful. The challenge of life is to put together as many pieces as possible, as accurately as possible, and try to understand just what the puzzle is all about.


Sunday, July 4, 2010

How Do We Know Whether Something Is True Or False?

Before we can even begin to discuss what is “True” or “False” in the world, it is crucial to first have a valid method and conceptual approach that can be relied on to establish what is or isn’t true. In Philosophical terms, this challenge is part of what is called Epistemology. Now, I am by no means trying to present myself as a Philosopher, nor should this piece be seen as a rigorous treatise on the subject. I’m a “bottom line” type of person, and this short essay summarizes how I currently understand these issues, and how this provides a practical way of approaching these very complex matters.

Our bodies provides a wide variety of sensory input as we interact with the world, and the brain uses this to create a working model, or ‘construct’ of the world. Take the phenomenon of color, for example. Objects that we encounter have various physical properties, including the wavelengths of light which they reflect or absorb. Similarly, our eyes and visual system have their own set of physical properties, which are able to detect and respond to a limited portion of these wavelengths. Our experience of ‘color’ is a phenomenon produced by our brain as a result of this interaction between the physical properties of our environment and our brain. But ‘color’ does not have its own separate physical existence, out there in the “real” world; it is a phenomenon generated within the brain which provides useful information about the environment.

In this fashion, our brains takes the wide variety of sensory data it receives as we interact with the world, and constructs a mental image of the world, which we then perceive as “reality,” often not realizing how this model is created. In some respects, this is analogous to the ‘Virtual Reality’ generated by computers.

(Some modern ‘New Age‘ philosophies go even further than this, and say that we construct reality itself, and somehow draw the conclusion that the physical world is therefore “dependent” on us for its existence. There seems to be no basis for this rather rash position, and it seems, at least from the bottom-line, practical basis I use, that it is closer to the truth to recognize that the world exists in its own right, independent of having a human around to perceive it.)

So then, as we live and interact with the world, our brain constructs a working model of our environment, to help us successfully live and reproduce (the natural result of the evolutionary process underlying the development of life). But as incredible and useful as these mental constructs are, they can be readily fooled. Optical Illusions serve as excellent examples, which can be easily experienced by most people with intact visual systems. For my purposes here, it is helpful to distinguish between two types of illusions:

This is a fairly famous illusion, where one can either see an old woman with a large nose facing to the left toward you, or a more beautiful woman facing to the left away from you. You can see one or the other, and effortlessly switch back and forth between them. But which of these is “real” or “true”? The drawing itself is real and objective, but the pattern-seeking processes of our visual systems interpret this single reality ambiguously, in differing and mutually exclusive ways.

I have used this next illusion before, but find it quite compelling:

When we look at the Squares labeled A and B, we can see that obviously Square A is considerably darker than Square B. But it turns out that they are in fact the same exact shade. Because of the specific ways that our visual systems have evolved to interpret the light coming in through our eyes, and which will be accurate in most instances, there are situations where they will be fooled.
I had to prove this to myself by opening up the image in Photoshop. And yet despite having proven to myself that these square are the same shade, I am unable to convince my brain to actually see this “reality.” So this is an excellent example of where we will draw factually incorrect conclusions about the nature of reality based on our subjective experiences, and where “seeing is not believing.”
In a similar way, people of a religious mind-set typically rely on their subjective experiences, and on this basis, they draw conclusions about the world, how it came to be, how and why things happen in it, etc. What they fail to take into consideration, however, is that this particular kind of subjective experience is no more reliable than our sensory perceptions, in establishing what is true. In fact, it is likely much less reliable than ordinary sense perception, in that it depends more on the complex processing and interpretation taking place within the brain, and considerably less on direct physical sensory input.
Religious “testimonies,” which proclaim absolute truths about the world, however well-intentioned, however profound and self-evident they seem to the individual, are simply unreliable. This is the inevitable conclusion to be drawn when you begin to understand the basis for how the brain works, and how we generate working models of our environment. And this is further confirmed as one studies human religious experience throughout history, and sees the widely divergent, and typically mutually exclusive, conclusions that individuals draw about the world on the basis of their religious experiences.
So if we can’t implicitly rely on our own experiences, nor the information provided directly by our own senses, to differentiate between truth and error, how do we then make these critical distinctions?
This where Science comes into the picture. The value of the Scientific Method, and its accompanying logic, is that it enables us to transcend the limitations and subjectivity of our senses, of the idiosyncrasies of the information processing that takes place in our brains, to provide hard data, which can be independently tested and verified by multiple observers. It also provides a means of systematically uncovering and eliminating various forms of bias, and results in drawing conclusions solely on the basis of what the evidence will support.
It should be acknowledged that science does not produce “absolute” truth, and by definition, deals only in probabilities. But the crucial point here is that it provides a mechanism to progressively get closer to truth, and further from error. It is self-correcting by its very nature, and non-dogmatic (even though individual scientists themselves can be quite dogmatic at times), which is quite different from the absolute pronouncements of many religious individuals and institutions, where ‘revelation’ is alleged to demonstrate truths which cannot be challenged or changed.
At this point in my life, I see the use of the Scientific Method as the only legitimate way that we currently have available that will enable us to differentiate between truth and falsehood, and this is therefore the basis upon which I will live my life. I remain open-minded on basically any and all questions, including the “ultimate” ones, but require that any claim be backed up by evidence obtained using the rigorous methodology of genuine scientific inquiry.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

The Search for Knowledge and Truth: Apparently not recommended for Church members

It's been a while since I've added to my blog, as I've been preoccupied with a variety of other matters.  But a recent article in the Church News jarred me so hard that I had to comment on it here.

The title of the article is Use Proper Sources and it was published in the Jan. 9, 2010 issue of the Church News.  The full text can be read at this link:

The search for knowledge and truth is presented here in an extremely negative way, and the author (presumably representing the Church as it appears in one of its official publications) is actively advising its members that there is no need for them to do their own searching, since the Church has already done it for them, and has all the answers they'll ever need.

A woman is portrayed preparing a Church lesson, and has apparently turned to a variety of books and magazines, and the Internet, in an attempt to explore and research the topic at hand.  She is described as being discouraged and frustrated, commenting that this was a very "time consuming" process.  Her daughter responds to her asking for help by explaining that she needs only to rely on and use the materials provided by the "inspired Church-writing committee."  She goes on to say, "Everything you need — and more — is in your manual."  The author then says, "But we may be tempted to do more, to turn to unofficial lesson plans, resources and information found in books and on the Internet."

The woman's response to all of this is then summarized with the following:

"Following the advice of her daughter, the woman above turned off her computer, shut the dozens of books open on her dining room table and picked up her manual and scriptures. The frustration she had previously experienced disappeared. She knew the material was doctrinally accurate. She knew its source was valid. She knew it had been approved by the men called to lead the Lord's work on the earth today and that it was what they wanted her to teach."

I find this a chilling article, where the pursuit of truth is actively discouraged, and the intent of the Church to completely control the information availiable to its members is clearly laid out in unmistakable terms.  If a Church member were to read something like this in a publication of another religious organization, they would most likely immediately recognize and condemn the clear-cut attempt to control the minds of its members, in an almost 'cult-like' manner.  But because it comes from their leaders, it is accepted at face value, with  no further critical thinking applied or even needed.

I worry about the effect this type of counsel has on the thinking ability of its members, and most especially the youth.  If followed, it would squash curiosity and independent thinking, and create a population of mindless followers.  I'm hoping that Church members will read this, and because it is so blatant in its attempt to control their minds and thinking, that it will awaken something inside them, which would then start them asking themselves some very serious questions about the Church.

The search for truth and knowledge seems to me to be one of the most important tasks in our lives, and the Church here, in no uncertain terms, actively discourages its members from pursuing this, directing them instead to accept only those things taught by the Church leaders, who have done all the searching for them.

Chilling, indeed...

Monday, September 14, 2009

Science and Reason are the Default and Final Arbiters of Truth

This is a fairly provocative title, I realize, but the more I think about these matters, this is a conclusion I keep coming to, regardless of what topic I explore.

It has become well-established in the modern world that if someone wants to understand how a given phenomenon works, he or she will implement the scientific method: develop an hypothesis, design an experimental protocol and collect data to test that hypothesis, and on that basis accept or reject that hypothesis. The idea of simply praying about it in order to find the truth does not enter into most people’s minds. Prayer is rather seen as a means of getting ‘spiritual’ truths, which are supposed to be ‘beyond’ the reach of Science.

Stephen J. Gould articulated the concept of ‘Non-Overlapping Magisteria” (NOMA), which gives Science and Religion their respective provinces of inquiry, but along with many others, I reject that as a false and in fact not useful approach. Many or most religions make claims that impinge on the physical world that are eminently testable using the tools of Science. This is one of the primary themes of Victor Stenger’s book God: The Failed Hypothesis, which I enthusiastically recommend.

What I wish to demonstrate here is that despite the declaration of most religious institutions, that Revelation ‘trumps’ Science, the facts of the matter reveal quite the opposite, even when applied to the teachings they claim to have been received by revelation directly from God.

The scriptures of most religions are excellent examples of information claimed to have come directly from God, are therefore seen as true, reliable and authoritative, and which should form the foundation for one’s life. If we look at a few examples, and simply take them as written, we would believe that:

• The world was created in 7 days
• The first woman, Eve, was created using a rib taken from the first man, Adam
• Slavery is an acceptable form of human conduct
• The Sun stood still for almost a day during one of Joshua’s battles
• One is justified committing Genocide or murder if commanded by ‘God’
• There was a flood which covered the entire earth, with all surviving life, human and otherwise, coming from those on Noah’s ark

If we include scriptures unique to the Mormon Church, we would believe that:

• All of the North and South American Indians (and possibly Polynesian peoples as well) are descended from Book of Mormon peoples, and are therefore of Middle Eastern origin
• Certain papyri acquired by Joseph Smith contained Egyptian hieroglyphics, written in the hand of Abraham, describing events from Abraham's life, and which Joseph translated giving us the scriptural Book of Abraham

Even in today’s world, you can find people who do accept all of these things as being completely true and factual, but I would guess that for the most part, the majority of even the most religiously inclined people see these things as being more allegorical, mythical, or else not completely true in a literal sense. (I provide details on the Book of Mormon claim below, and will address the Book of Abraham in a future blog post.)

My question is - What is the basis for the decision to consider certain scriptural passages as simple literal truth, and others to be figurative and non-literal?

The answer is that the discoveries of science, along with the progression of human civilization guided by reason, serve as the final arbiters of Truth, and not Inspiration, Revelation, or other individual, subjective experiences. The truthfulness of these passages of scripture is rejected either on the basis of indisputable physical evidence, or because social progress has moved well past those examples of ignorance, superstition, barbarity and primitive conduct.

Thus, even scripture is understood not on the basis of what it actually says, but on the basis of the knowledge and progress achieved through non-religious channels.

So, if we can’t implicitly rely on any of the sacred texts themselves for truth, then how are we to determine what is or isn’t true?

Those of a religious mindset, and this definitely includes the leadership of the Mormon Church, claim that the truth can be known through inspiration or revelation. This goes by various names, including the witness of the Spirit, a Testimony, etc. The following examples demonstrate that this approach is also invalid.

One classic case concerns the Catholic Church’s teachings about the Earth being the center of the Universe. They read it in the Bible, they felt the Spirit confirming its truth, and on this basis, they proclaimed it as God’s Truth and persecuted anybody who claimed otherwise. Galileo, through the use of the scientific method, discovered for himself that this was false, and that the Earth rotated around the Sun.

It took several hundred years, but the real truth finally prevailed, and the Catholic Church acknowledged that Galileo was correct. And the key point here is that it was not a ‘Revelation’ to the Pope that drove this change - it was the recognition that Science was unquestionably correct.

Returning to one of the examples used above, for 170+ years, the General Leadership of the Church, sustained by its members as Prophets, Seers and Revelators, have borne their testimonies that the North and South American Indians were descendants of Book of Mormon peoples, calling them all Lamanites (after one of the main groups of people in that book).

Archaeological research over the years, and more recently, DNA studies, have proven this to be false, beyond any reasonable doubt. In this context, the Church quietly changed the wording of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, from saying that the Lamanites were the “principle” ancestors of modern day Indian people, to their being “among” their ancestors. No announcement was made to the Church, no acknowledgment of a fairly major shift in teaching.

Again, the crucial point here is that this change wasn’t driven by a “Revelation” to the Prophet - it was simply a response to what had unquestionably been proven to be true by Science. This is a clear example that despite their claims that Revelation is superior to Science, when push comes to shove, they have had to acknowledge that in fact, Science trumps Revelation.

Now Church apologists might jump in here and state either that previous Church leaders didn’t “exactly” say they were all Lamanites, or find occasional statements from some Leaders that might be more consistent with current scientific thinking, or even that those Prophets were ‘speaking as men’ in those particular matters.

But, whatever value those claims do or don’t have, they do not change the crucial underlying fact that the apologists themselves are still relying on Science and Reason to interpret and make sense of previous Church teachings. If Science and Reason are to be the final arbiters of truth in the end anyway, and be the basis for deciding which previous Church teachings are true or not, then what is the need for those ‘Revelations’ to begin with?

And yet, despite all of this, they still teach the members to listen to and obey their Leaders’ teachings, as if it came directly from God’s own mouth (see D&C 1:38), never acknowledging that so much of the previous teachings of Church Leaders was either incorrect, or has been substantially changed.

Approaching this from a slightly different angle, I am unable to identify a single instance where actual, empirical ‘truth’ or knowledge has been produced by religious or spiritual experience. Yes, there have been religious individuals who have produced great discoveries, or even religious institutions in the past that have fostered inquiry, but I am not aware of any real knowledge produced by spiritual experience in and of itself. And even more than this, whatever truth claims are made by virtue of those experiences still depend on Science and Reason to validate them. So, it is therefore Science and Reason, not revelation or inspiration, that actually do the ‘heavy lifting’ in identifying truth.

I am also intrigued by investigators such as V.S. Ramachandran, Richard Davidson, Andrew Newberg, Norman Doidge and many others, who are on the forefront of utilizing the tools of science, especially fMRI, to begin to unravel the mysteries associated with consciousness and what is going on inside the brain while people are in the midst of what they call spiritual experiences.

As I have suggested elsewhere, I am inclined to think that the patient and persistent use of the Scientific Method will allow humanity to unravel the mysteries behind questions that have previously only been in the realm of religion and philosophy.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Faith, Belief, Facts & Hope

I monitor and occasionally participate in a number of LDS-related online forums, and frequently the topic comes up of what people believe once they have concluded that the unique foundation and teachings of the Mormon Church are not true. Some retain basic Christian beliefs, some become overt Atheists, others refer to themselves as Agnostic, with many others taking a wide variety of approaches as well. This is the general subject matter I wish to explore in this blog entry.

I guess it would be appropriate to provide a working definition for these terms. I understand “Belief” as being an idea somebody affirms as being true, without being completely grounded in evidence, and which needs to be differentiated from a “Fact” which is completely based on evidence, and can be demonstrated to be true to anybody willing to look. I can ‘believe’ that there is life on other worlds in the universe, but I can factually demonstrate that life is present on earth.

Faith is quite similar to Belief, and some see no distinction whatsoever. From a practical standpoint, I find it useful to see Faith as a more emphatic form of Belief, which often acts as the ‘core’ of somebody’s worldview - how they understand themselves, and their place in the world.

Hope is fairly straightforward - something an individual wants to be true, irrespective of any evidence for or against that claim. I think many people confuse their hopes and beliefs, which leads to all kinds of problems and difficulties.

A very crucial factor here is the strictness with which any individual holds their Faith or Beliefs. Some have a completely dogmatic rigidity, typical of “Fundamentalist” type religions, where their underlying Faith and Beliefs, are beyond question or doubt. Others are more tentative in their approach, and are willing to re-examine their Faith and Beliefs in light of additional information or Facts. You can find this same spectrum of approaches in any belief system, religious, atheistic, or otherwise.

With that somewhat lengthy introduction, let me address how I now approach these matters:

The only thing at all that I can honestly say I have “Faith” in is the ability of Science (which by my definition includes logic, rational thought and the use of the Scientific Method) to distinguish truth from falsity. I’ll be working on a blog entry on this specific topic, but as far as I can see, Science is the default and final arbiter of truth.

Now I am not dogmatic in this Faith - if somebody can demonstrate another legitimate way of identifying truth, then I’d love to include this in my thinking. But at this point in time, this is the central core of my understanding of myself and the world.

Regarding the frequent elements of religious belief systems:

Do I believe in “God”?
Obviously, the answer is heavily influenced by one’s definition of “God” but I’ll use that term to refer to the traditional Jewish-Islamic-Christian personal God. That is, a being who is not just the Creator of everything, but is also intimately involved in His creation, in an ongoing basis, actively intervening, answering prayers, etc., as He sees fit. He is usually spoken of as being Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenvolent.

I do not believe in such a God, as I find no credible evidence for His existence. I also find unresolveable paradoxes as I compare these attributes with the world as I experience it. There are many books on these topics, but I find these two to be among the best:

God: The Failed Hypothesis - Victor Stenger
God’s Problem - Bart Ehrman

Again, I am not dogmatic in this belief (or lack of belief). If evidence comes forward that contradicts this ‘working hypothesis’ I’ll gladly reconsider. But at this point, I agree with LaPlace, who when he was asked by Napoleon why he didn’t mention God in his landmark description of the universe said:
“Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis.”

Do I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?
I am unaware of any credible evidence that would support that hypothesis. I have no more basis for believing in his divinity, than in the godhood of Zeus, Buddha, Krishna, etc.

As an aside here, I am curious about those in the Post- or Ex- Mormon communities who maintain their belief in Christ. For many of them, they have realized that getting a good feeling when reading the Book of Mormon has no bearing on whether that book is a legitimate ancient document. But it seems to me, they are basing their belief in Christ on similar feelings when they read the Bible. It seems inconsistent to me, and something I would be interested in exploring with them.

Do I believe in Life After Death?
I do not, again because I find no credible evidence for its existence. I am intrigued by, and have read much, about “Near-death Experiences” but along with many others, find that there is nothing in these experiences that justifies the conclusion that one’s consciousness survives the death of one’s brain.

There has been an interesting study on this subject, in a Coronary Catheterization Laboratory, where a computer laptop is placed high in the lab where patients have the potential of having ‘out of body’ experiences. If they truly left their bodies, and looked down from the ceiling, then the display of this laptop would be clearly visible, and they would be able to report Facts about it that nobody else in the room would know. So far, the results have been negative. But if there should be a positive report, that would be tremendously exciting, and would open up wonderful new areas of research.

All that said, I hope that there is life after death. I can see that as being wonderful. But in the absence of any credible evidence for that belief, I will live my life on the assumption that this is all there is. If I turn out to be mistaken, then that’s great.

But there are moral principles I do believe in, for which supportive evidence can be found:

• I believe in loving and being kind to my fellow-beings, both human and non-human.
• I believe in doing no harm, and avoiding violence whenever possible.
• I believe in the importance of families, and raising children to be loving, curious, and tolerant.
• I believe in hard work, and sacrifice for the sake of others.
• I believe that one of humanity’s highest goals is the relentless search for truth.

Certainly, this is not an exhaustive list, but hopefully it demonstrates that one can live a worthwhile life, and be an asset to one’s community, while not holding the conventional beliefs of that community.

Finally, I hope that there is some ultimate meaning and purpose to our existence, even a ‘transcendant’ dimension we have not as yet discovered. If there is, I suspect it will have little in common with the teachings of current or past religious institutions (just as our current understanding of the universe is quite different from ancient guesses). And if it’s real, it will ultimately be discovered and verified through the patient, open-minded and persistent use of Science in the pursuit of truth.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

On Blind Obedience and Infallibility in the Mormon Church

The Church denies teaching blind obedience to its members, and also denies that its Prophets are infallible.  Consider the following quotes:
Concerning the question of blind obedience. Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. - Joseph F. Smith, Sept. 3, 1892 (as quoted on the FAIR LDS website)
But I told them that a prophet was only a prophet when acting as such. - Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, edited by B.H. Roberts
This sounds all well and good, but then consider these quotes:
The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. - Wilford Woodruff, Official Declaration 1, Verse 14
When the prophet speaks the debate is over. -  N. Eldon Tanner, First Presidency Message, Ensign August, 1979
How is a member supposed to respond to counsel received from Church leaders?  Quoting further on from that same statement by Joseph F. Smith:
If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil. - Joseph F. Smith, Sept. 3, 1892 (as quoted on the FAIR LDS website) 
Yes, the members are taught to study and pray in order to receive their own witness concerning any counsel that is given to them by the leaders of the Church, but let's consider how this actually works.  Let's say someone attends an official Church conference, and is given some particular teaching, or asked to sustain an action or practice.  He or she then proceeds to study and pray about it, in order to receive their own witness or confirmation.  Fine so far.  But what happens if that person comes to a different conclusion?  What if they become convinced that the teaching or practice in question is not true?

If they then share this with Church leaders, inevitably the validity of that person's spiritual experience is denied. Either they are getting their answer from the wrong source, are being deceived, haven't prayed sincerely or long enough, have some sin in their life that is clouding their judgment, etc. If the only acceptable answer is the one already identified by the Church leadership, how is this any different from blind obedience?

As a simple example: years back, prior to 1978, when I examined the Church's teachings and practices regarding Blacks and the Priesthood, I came to the conclusion that this was a mistaken policy, and was not of God.  If I were to voice this conclusion, I would be identified as an apostate, as speaking against the Lord's Anointed, and would be subject to Church disciplinary action.  If I persisted in maintaining my position, I would likely be excommunicated.

And yet, I would eventually have been proven correct.  Ironically, if someone today would take the position that the Church's original teachings and practices on this matter were in fact correct, they would similarly be subject to Church discipline.  In this way, the Church effectively does teach blind obedience, regardless of any statements to the contrary it might make.  Members are expected to obey their leaders, regardless of their personal thoughts or feelings.  For all practical purposes, this is blind obedience.

An extension of this is even more worrisome, and very reminiscent of the defense used by German soldiers at Nuremberg ('we were only following orders'):
My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray. - Pres. Heber J. Grant to Marion G. Romney, as quoted by Pres. Ezra Taft Benson, October, 1960 General Conference
This problem is often humorously summarized as follows:

The Catholic Church teaches Papal Infallibility, but the Catholics don't believe it, while the Mormon Church denies the Infallibility of their Prophets, but nobody in the Chuch believes it.

The primary message of the Church here is to obey your leaders, even if you think they're wrong. I find this both frightening and unacceptable.

Friday, August 28, 2009

"We believe in being honest..." (from the 13th Article of Faith)

There are many controversies surrounding various aspects of the history and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“the Church”), and I’ll try to address many of these individually in future posts. But what I want to address here is the way that the Church is misleading at best, and overtly deceptive at worst, in its treatment of these issues.

The Church claims that its teachings and practices are based on God’s word, which is Eternal, and doesn’t change, and that members can rely on those teachings and practices as a secure foundation for their lives. Members are thus counseled to obey Church leaders as if that counsel came directly from God Himself (see D&C 1:38). But they hide the fact that basic doctrine and practices have seen profound changes over time, while still expecting members to obey current teachings as if they were eternal and not subject to change or debate.

Maybe I’m overly idealistic, but I would expect any religious organization that claims to possess absolute truths, to be absolutely committed, privately and publicly, to the cause of truth, with a strict policy of honesty and openness, avoiding even the appearance of dishonesty. This is not what I find as I have studied the Church and its history for the last several decades.

To give just a few examples of these changes, ranging from fundamental doctrine to day-to-day practice:

• Birth Control was once condemned, and included in the same condemnation as Abortion; now it is left up to the discretion of the couple.

• Families were once counseled to not have “playing cards” in their homes; now this practice is no longer even mentioned by Church leaders.

• Polygamy was once considered to be an essential part of the Gospel; now the Church distances itself from this practice as something purely from the past (although it is still an integral part of Church doctrine - see D&C 132).

• Temple Ceremonies and Garments were originally declared to be revealed directly by God, and therefore could not be changed; the fact is both have seen continual and substantive changes over time.

How does one justify these examples of changing, conflicting teachings and practices that are presented as “God’s unchangeable word” at the time that they were proclaimed?

One typical Church response emphasizes the concept of “continuous revelation” where God is in constant communication with His Prophet on earth, so he can then communicate to the Church members the things that need to be understood and done at that particular point in time.

Now, if these teachings provided greater detail and depth over time, or provided new insight which expanded upon, but didn’t contradict, previous understanding, that would be one thing, and would not raise fundamental questions. But when they directly contradict previous teachings, that is quite another, and this thoroughly undermines any claims to their being ‘eternal’ truths directly from God’s mouth.

Another strategy taken by the Church and its apologists in addressing statements by previous Prophets that are no longer accepted as true, is to say they “were speaking as men and not as Prophets.” This is not tenable, however, as they said those things during official Church Conferences and meetings, in their role as Prophet, and declared that they were in fact speaking the words of the Lord. If previous Prophetic statements made in that context could be false, then we must similarly disregard any counsel given by current Prophets, even during General Conference, or in the official Church publication, The Ensign.

The Church is thus in a bind. In order to prevent its members from becoming aware of these changes and conflicts, it produces teaching manuals and other materials which effectively ignore previous contradictory teachings. These manuals often contain ‘mis-quotes,’ either overtly edited or taken completely out of context, very reminiscent of George Orwell’s “1984.”

Following up on one of the examples above, a member could thus study the lives of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in Sunday School for 2 years, and have absolutely no idea that they not only practiced polygamy (not to mention Polyandry), but taught that it was an essential part of the Gospel, and a requirement for entry into the highest degree of Heaven in the Celestial Kingdom.

Further, the Church also actively discourages members from even looking for information in any sources other than currently ‘Church-approved’ publications, invoking the term “anti-mormon” to discredit any and all of those materials. (With the advent of the Internet, however, this is becoming increasingly difficult.)

Thus, the bind is that if it acknowledges that the doctrine and practices taught by previous Prophets and Apostles were in error, then it has absolutely no basis to expect members to accept current teachings as true. The whole edifice simply falls apart.

For many who leave the Church, it is as much this feeling of betrayal, that they have been lied to by those they trusted, that is the cause of their disaffection, perhaps even more than the knowledge of the actual facts and history.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

The Value of Doubt and the Danger of Certainty

This is one of the most important themes underlying my thinking, and it also helps illuminate the general topic of Science versus Religion.

“Conventional Wisdom,” especially from a religious perspective, would generally view Doubt as a negative thing, and Certainty as something to be celebrated, but I think this is completely backwards. This can easily be understood when considering human nature - people generally long to have absolute certainties in their lives, which can be relied on in times of crisis. Great emotional satisfaction and peace can be experienced when one anchors their world view on matters that they see as rock-solid, beyond doubt, even ‘eternal.’

This naturally leads into the topic of Epistemology. There are many definitions, but on a practical level, it asks the question of how do we know what we know (or think we know). I have always been intrigued by optical illusions, where our sensory system is fooled into mis-perceiving reality. This is one of my favorites:


The squares marked A and B are actually the same shade of grey. The first time I saw this, I was “certain” this couldn’t be true, based on my very clear-cut perception. I had to open up the image in Photoshop in order to prove to myself that my senses were in fact deceiving me, and these were identical shades of grey. And even now that I know the truth, there’s still no way I can persuade my brain to “see” these squares as the same shade of grey.

If we can be so easily, and so fundamentally, fooled by our senses, which are at least somewhat “objective” how much more can we be fooled in our thought processes, which are much more ephemeral. As with our visual perceptions, we rely quite a bit on our memory, which we initially think is an accurate representation of reality. It turns out that human memory is quite different from the recording of a videocamera, and is in fact quite susceptible to the cognitive equivalent of optical illusions. One can look at the various personal tragedies from a few years back, associated with the recovery of false memories of child abuse, to see how devastating the results can be if you naively assume that memories are a reliable source of objective truth.  Memories are continually shaped and re-shaped over time, as we recall them, experience new things, etc.

If we then enter the world of ‘spiritual experiences’ which are even further separated from objective reality, we can begin to understand how and why these phenomena, whatever their source, origin, or validity, simply can’t be implicitly trusted as objective truth.

On this basis, “doubt” should be the starting point when attempting to establish what is and isn’t true, with “certainty” basically being a form of mental illusion.

As I have studied the variety of human religious experience, I quickly saw that there are people who are absolutely certain, totally convinced that they have the ‘Truth’, that their subjective, inner experiences, have somehow transcended doubt. The problem is, the various ‘Truths’ that these people teach are typically mutually exclusive. This being the case, how can we possibly base our own understanding of what is objectively True on our own personal, subjective experiences, regardless of how intense, or real they seem to be?

The scientific method, however imperfectly utilized by scientists, where conclusions are based on actual evidence, reproducible by anyone who would want to verify them, has an incredible track record of increasing humanity’s knowledge of the world around it, as well as of humanity itself. And because it recognizes that ‘Certainty’ can never be achieved, it is self-correcting, as the relatively recent Einsteinian revolution in Physics demonstrates.

The general approach of religious institutions is the exact opposite: it starts with the conclusions. The problem with religious dogma is that it establishes “Truths” which by definition cannot be challenged, with no evidence whatsoever backing it other than the inner experiences and perceptions discussed above. Religious certainty is thus seen as an illusion, however well-intentioned it might be.

The following books can be quite helpful in fleshing out the various ideas briefly presented above:

  • The Seven Sins of Memory - Daniel L. Schacter
  • In Praise of Doubt - Peter Berger and Anton Zijderveld
  • On Being Certain (Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not) - Robert A. Burton, MD
  • Why We Believe What We Believe - Andrew Newberg, MD and Mark Robert Waldman
  • How We Believe - Michael Shermer
  • Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) - Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson


Monday, August 24, 2009

A not so brief intro...

As the name of this blog implies, Socrates statement:

“The unexamined life is not worth living”

is one of the main themes of my life. For as long back as my memory extends, I’ve had an unquenchable thirst to understand the world, my life, and my relationship to the world. I started this blog to share some hopefully useful ideas and perspectives, but have also found that the act of writing down one’s thoughts provides a unique opportunity to better define, examine and articulate them. The process of blogging thus becomes perhaps more worthwhile than the blog itself.

A brief bio is in order:

I was raised in a fairly typical Jewish household in Brooklyn, NY in the 1950’s. I attended Hebrew School, learned Hebrew, was Bar Mitzvah’d, but my mind was dominated by Science and the Scientific Method. I recall a brief period of personal orthodoxy, around age 12 or 13, when it seemed important to follow all the various practices of Judaism. But I also recall doing an ‘experiment’ around the same time, where I filled the bathroom sink with water, and attempted to split the water, like Moses. The results were negative, which seemed to set the tone for much of my life.

For all practical purposes, I headed to College as an Atheist, who had no use for the ‘Supernatural,’ and viewing the Universe as a giant chemical reaction, with Science the only legitimate means of identifying truth. But the existential implications of such a philosophy quickly caught up with me, and I had to start finding answers to questions as basic as “Why get up in the morning, if it’s all pointless?”. I changed my major from PreMed to Psychology, and then quickly to Religious Studies, as I began my search for meaning and truth in earnest.

Through courses in Philosophy, studies in Eastern Religions (especially the more naturalistic traditions such as Jainism, Zen Buddhism, etc.), I began to expand my understanding, and allow for the possible existence of ‘spiritual’ or ‘mystical’ states of being. They spoke not of ‘supernatural’ deities, but of knowledge obtainable through direct, personal experience. This led to an intensive period of studying, fasting, praying, and meditating, in hopes of obtaining ‘enlightenment’ or at least some kind of transcendent experience that would serve as self-evident proof of another dimension of existence. These results were no different from my ‘Moses’ experiment.

In the midst of these efforts, I came into contact with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the ‘Mormons’) through my closest friend, who in turn had encountered it during High School through one of his friends. I intensively studied their teachings, and was drawn to and excited by their expansive understanding of man’s origin and limitless potential. I was also intrigued by their claims concerning the Book of Mormon, with at least some Archaeological evidence at that time (early 1970’s) supporting these claims. Their emphasis on the importance of families, and having one’s whole life-style centered on the Gospel, appealed to me as well. But I was also deeply troubled by their generally conservative, authoritarian, sometimes anti-intellectual, attitudes, and especially by their denial of the Priesthood to Blacks.

My search for a definitive, undeniable spiritual experience (not just some emotional ‘high’) to confirm or disconfirm the Church’s claims was relentless, but ultimately unsuccessful. I ended up making a ‘leap of faith’ and joined the Church: the appeal of the good qualities overcame the negative ones, and in humility I decided to give it the ‘benefit of the doubt’ and await additional evidence and experience to resolve the matters I found troublesome.

These matters were thus “put on the shelf” as my time and energies were devoted to my career (a return to my PreMed roots), and raising what has turned out to be an incredible family. They are full of love, humility, an intense desire to do what is right, compassion - what more could a parent ask for?

But my search for ultimate truth never stopped, and as more knowledge, evidence, and experience were acquired, the Church’s various claims, practices and policies, which had bothered me from the beginning, were increasingly found to be false. I struggled with this for many, many years, to make sure I was correct in my conclusions, not wanting to create confusion and uncertainty in my children in telling them that many of the things I had taught them for so many years were simply not true.

With all this as backdrop, of necessity, many of my postings on this blog will be on matters related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For brevity, I will refer to it as the “The Church.”  Notwithstanding my fundamental disagreement with their historical claims, and with so many of their moral and social positions, I wish to be respectful. This is also in recognition of the fact that the overwhelming majority of those filling their pews each Sunday, serving in the various organizations, are humble, dedicated, honest, anxious to sacrifice of themselves to serve others, and in short trying their best to follow the example of Christ.

In that spirit, all respectful comments are welcome, including from those who have different opinions.  "Preaching" is not productive, nor welcome here, and these posts will be deleted.  I seek honest and open communication, in a mutual search for truth and understanding.

And while I no longer condemn off-color language on moral grounds, and understand why some choose to use it to express themselves and their feelings, it is also unwelcome here, as it tends to disrupt open communication.  This language in Posts will be edited out if they are otherwise worthwhile, or the entire Post deleted, at my discretion.