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:
http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/58411/Use-proper-sources.html
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...
Showing posts with label Mormon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mormon. Show all posts
Sunday, January 10, 2010
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.
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.
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:
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'):
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.
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. RobertsThis 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, 1979How 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 ConferenceThis 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)