Tomorrow I will be presenting a paper at the American Academy of Religion’s Mid-Atlantic regional meeting. The topic is Mormonism’s unique theology of gender. In my paper, I offer up a perspective on Joseph Smith’s teachings regarding exaltation and sexuality which may seem foreign to some “modern” Latter-day Saints.
Essentially, I argue that Joseph Smith’s teachings — both public and private — as well as his own practice of plural marriage show no indication of celestial procreation. In my view, Smith’s teachings and practices make much more sense when viewed within the context of individuals becoming part of the larger Abrahamic covenant. My argument’s strengths are that it relies on contemporary sources and gives them primacy over later recollections of Smith’s teaching.
The biggest challenge to my line of reasoning is the Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt. Pratt claims that in 1840, Smith explained that celestial offspring was the purpose of plural marriage. I am skeptical of Pratt’s account for reasons given in the endnotes of my paper.
In any case, if you would like to read the paper in its entirety, you can find it here:
Before doing so, however, I feel it necessary to disclose my absolute disdain for James Dobson and Focus on the Family. Dobson’s anti-gay rhetoric and activities are dangerous and unchristian. I want to be very clear that I do not, in any way, support, endorse, or condone Dobson and his Focus on the Family organization. Of course, my dislike of Dobson goes well-beyond the gay issue as he has shown his religious intolerance by excluding Mormons from supposedly ecumenical prayer activities because, much like Matt Slick, Dobson does not deem Mormons worthy of the name Christian. Jesus ate dinner with prostitutes, tax collectors and sinners but Dobson won’t pray with Mormons. Go figure.
When approaching the question of abortion I believe we must separate the moral question from the political question. We must first examine if abortion is indeed unethical and only then, can we discuss how the matter is to be dealt with in the public square.
It seems that the central relevant issue to the moral question of abortion regards the definition of life, when it begins, and under what circumstances it is morally justifiable to end it with purpose and intent. In the case of abortion, or course, we are dealing with at least two lives: that of the mother and that of the unborn child.
Reasonable people would agree that life has value in itself and as such, is something to be protected and preserved under normal circumstances. Life is unique, it has meaning, and at least in the case of human beings, is self-aware.
The first problem then, when considering the question of abortion is defining the term “life” and then determining, as best we can, when it begins. In the case of a pregnant mother this question is easily answered. She is alive. Her life has value and thus, we have a moral duty to protect her life as best we can.
Determining if an unborn fetus is indeed a “life” is a much more difficult question to address. Both sperm and egg separately represent potential life and when they come together they can eventually produce life, which is easily recognized and valued. However, at what point does this potential life become actual life? I contend that there is no objective and definitive answer to this question. Thus, any conclusion drawn is the result of a subjective definition.
However, we can clearly see the development and growth of the human fetus as it matures inside its mother’s womb. We can observe it becoming less dependent on its mother as it progresses towards birth. At some point, well before birth, the human fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother’s womb – albeit with the miraculous aid of modern medicine. Given these facts, I propose that if a fetus is capable of surviving outside its mother’s womb, it is, for all practical purposes a life and as such, has value.
For the sake of simplicity let us only consider the first three months of a mother’s pregnancy. In this case we have both the life of the mother, and the life – or potential life – of the unborn fetus. As has been mentioned above, it is impossible to determine if the fetus represents life or potential life without introducing subjective definitions. Therefore, it is morally imperative that we give preference in this situation to the life and well being of the mother because we know, without question, that she is “a life.” Given the subjective nature defining “life” it is impossible to employ a universal ethical framework in this type of situation. There are simply too many potential variables at play. Thus, the decision to abort, or not abort, must remain solely with the mother and those whom she chooses to involve in the decision-making process.
Having said that, I am troubled by so-called late-term abortion simply because these aborted fetuses can survive and sustain independent life separate from their mother. But again, I am reluctant to state unequivocally that late-term abortions are universally immoral. There are too many variables at play and this type of difficult choice must remain with the mother, her close associates, and her doctor.
The Political Question
Before continuing, it must be stated that we must operate – in terms of ethics and morality – within the world as it actually is and not as we wish it were. In the real world women seek out abortions. Some, if not most of us would prefer that if a woman is not ready to be a mother, that she not become pregnant. But, life is unpredictable. Teens have sex – too often unsafely. Condoms break. Sometimes birth control pills don’t work. I know of women who, with their tubes tied have become pregnant. I know of men with vasectomies who have impregnated women. Despite our best planning, things don’t always play out the way we hope they would. Again, whether we approve of it or not, some women will always seek out abortions.
Given 1) that we value not only life but quality of life and 2) women will seek out abortions whether legal or not I fully support legal access to medically safe and regulated abortion. I do so for several reasons. First, If a woman chooses to have an abortion, I would rather that she do so in a manner that protects her health and life. My academic advisor taught at Vanderbilt during the 1970’s and was a close associate of the Dean of the Medical school. He taught both pre and post Roe v. Wade and told me that before the Roe v. Wade decision botched “back alley” abortions were one of the most common emergencies seen in the hospital. Post Roe v. Wade, these emergencies all but disappeared. Granted, this is purely anecdotal evidence but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the account.
It seems to me then, that those who oppose abortion universally fail to fully account for the value and well being of the mother. They promote a lose-lose situation wherein both the fetus and the mother experience incredible harm. Legal abortions – at the very least – protect the life and well being of the mother. If the goal is to protect and cherish life, it is better to protect the known life of the mother rather than harm both known and potential life by forcing women to seek abortion in unsafe conditions.
I believe there are a few things we can all agree on:
1) Women will seek abortions whether legal or not.
2) Abortion as a form of birth control is morally ambiguous at best.
3) It is in the best interest of both mother and fetus to promote an environment where abortions occur less frequently.
So, how do we achieve this? I have a few thoughts:
1) We educate young people (and adults) about safe sex and promote both abstinence and the proper use of birth control.
2) We promote alternatives to abortion by making adoption a viable option. We streamline the adoption process and provide counseling and care for both the birth mother and the adoptive parents. We eliminate the prohibitive costs of adoption.
3) We avoid the extremes and employ a more balanced approach to the issue by dropping the “us vs. them” rhetoric that so often characterizes this debate.
4) We allow states to regulate abortion procedures to ensure that they are safe and that mothers are fully aware of the risks, both physical and psychological of participating in an abortion. Also, it is absurd to allow teenage girls to obtain abortions without parental notification. Parents have a right to know if their child is going to undergo a major medical procedure. Of course, there are circumstances such as incest where such notification is problematic but this is why we have a judicial system. Laws can be written in such a way as to protect both parental rights and the interests of pregnant minors.
Posted
on February 4, 2010, 1:35 pm,
by sethpayne,
under bible.
In the most recent podcast episode of Skeptoid — a podcast which I enjoy immensely and would highly recommend — Brian Dunning takes on the folk myth that Hebrew Slaves built the Egyptian Pyramids. This myth, of course, has no basis in either history or archeology and Dunning does an excellent job of demonstrating this fact.
However, while Dunning is to be commended for his insightful analysis, I was frustrated to hear him go beyond the scope of debunking this folk myth to make sweeping claims about the historicity of the Exodus specifically, and the Bible generally.
So, just to clear a few things up:
The biblical text makes no claim that Hebrew slaves built the pyramids. In fact, the text makes no mention of pyramids at all.
There is no direct evidence of a Hebrew exodus from Egypt -especially on the scale described in the Bible. However, there is circumstantial evidence for some type of slave exit from Egypt by people known as the habiru. Many Biblical scholars, including my former professor John Collins, recognize that the habiru may have been the inspiration for the grand mythic Exodus account found in the Bible.
There is also circumstantial evidence for the historical existence of Moses — although this question is very much disputed.
Posted
on January 31, 2010, 8:47 pm,
by sethpayne,
under politics.
I feel like a man without a political party. This is personally very disconcerting considering that I have thought of myself as a Republican since the 1984 reelection of Ronald Reagan. Granted, at age 7, I had no idea what the substantive issues during the campaign were all about but what I did know was that Grandma liked Reagan – a lot – and something about Mondale just kind of bugged me.
Of course, over the years I became more politically aware and, at least in my own mind, politically savvy. I’ve never been terribly wonkish but have found myself attracted to the sentiments encapsulated in the sound-bites of the Republican party: government should stay out of people’s lives, be limited in its powers, support a strong national defense, and be fiscally responsible.
Of course, I have come to realize that these are things the Republican Party simply enunciates; very rarely have they actually put these very basic principles into actual practice. True, Reagan – much like Thatcher — went a long way in eliminating counter-productive government bureaucracy and his significant tax cuts did contribute to a period of incredible economic prosperity. He was also no slouch on defense – although I’m troubled at how much of that defense spending was fiscally questionable.
In any case, here are some brief thoughts on transforming the Republican Party into what it is supposed to be:
The neo-conservatives have to go. Making war and then cleaning up the mess we’ve made is absurd foreign policy. Invading Iraq was a mistake – a mistake I freely admit I was absolutely, 100% wrong on at the time. This whole idea of pre-emption is absurd and if maintained under the guise of maintaining a strong national defense, is an affront to Republican principles.
It’s time to say goodbye to the radical Christian right. Pat Robertson and James Dobson, abortion is here to stay whether its legal or not. Women will continue to seek them out. I for one, would rather that they have access to abortion procedures in clean, regulated environments. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have continued discussions about how, when, where, and under what conditions should be performed. I don’t think any reasonable person advocates abortion as an acceptable alternative to contraception. And of course, that’s another thing. Radical Christians don’t want safe sex taught in school. They push for abstinence-only programs. I have no problem teaching abstinence to teenagers. Frankly, it’s the best route for a plethora of reasons. However, we live in a world where kids are having sex, getting pregnant, and catching STDs. I wish the kids weren’t, but they are. As Republicans, we can’t oppose abortion on the one hand, and then also oppose supporting education programs that would negate the very need for those abortions. This isn’t rocket science.
If the Christians right wants to live in a fantasy world then let them form their own party. As for our Republican party, let’s deal with real issues in the real world.
Get out of the gay-marriage debate. Dick Cheney is right. This is a state issue. Let’s not turn it into national political ploy to garner support from the above-mentioned Christians, whom we don’t really want in the party anyway. Republicanism is about limiting the intrusion of government into personal lives – it is no concern of ours who can or cannot get married.
We really need to get back to our roots by supporting healthy markets, economic growth, and promoting equality of opportunity. For the past 9 years, we’ve done a pretty poor job at upholding the principles we claim to hold dear.
Posted
on January 6, 2010, 2:20 pm,
by sethpayne,
under mormonism, philosophy.
While visiting my parents over Christmas I attended worship services as the local ward – the ward I “grew up” in. It was a great experience for many reasons. I had a chance to see some close friends from High School and catch up with other Church members who I had not seen for many years. The service was spiritual and uplifting. It was an opportunity for like-minded people to come together and, through shared experience, lift each other’s spirits and offer both spiritual and temporal support.
As I sat in the congregation enjoying the music, the stories of Jesus, and all of the family and friends singing and smiling together I was reminded of why I find Pragmatism, as an epistemological approach, so incredibly appealing. What I witnessed during these worship services was the real-world consequences of religious belief.
I am, for the most part, a non-believer in many of Mormonism’s truth claims – both metaphysical and historical. Yet, this Christmas worship service reminded me of the powerful pragmatic implications of Mormonism in the lives of its adherents. Pragmatism, of course, has no concern for truth claims in any abstract sense. Rather, Pragmatism is concerned with the practical outcomes of such abstract beliefs. Take basic theism, for example. Pragmatism cares nothing for whether God exists except in how a belief in God produces real-world outcomes. Simply put, if a belief in God produces positive outcomes in the life of an individual or a community by aiding in the construction of a coherent “truth narrative”, such a belief is good and is what we can call, instrumentally true.
Again, Pragmatism has no concern for metaphysical conceptions of truth as it recognizes that such truths, if they do in fact exist (whatever that means), are essentially unknowable. Thus, a pragmatist may analyze his/her conception and God and recognize negative consequences that result from this conception. In such a case, a pragmatist may choose to abandon his/her belief entirely or, as is more commonly seen, adjust their conception so as to produce positive real-world outcomes. Such adjustments, of course, are not limited to beliefs as looming as the question of theism generally. Adjustments may – and perhaps more commonly – occur to smaller beliefs and notions which, when put together, comprise an individual’s conception of “The Truth.” In my particular case, I found that a belief that the Book of Mormon as a historical record produced negative outcomes as I struggled to reconcile my understanding of authentic ancient texts as well as 19th Century protestant theology with what the Book of Mormon claimed to be. Ultimately, I found that by adjusting my beliefs and viewing the Book of Mormon as a work of great literature and theological significance, rather than as an authentic history, that these negative outcomes disappeared and were replaced by outcomes more positive. Thus, my pragmatic approach to this particular belief resulted in a rejection of Book of Mormon historicity but a greater appreciation of the book’s literary beauty and the genius of the book’s author, Joseph Smith.
Yet, my personal belief is unique to me. Pragmatism does not require that I conclude, for all people, that the Book of Mormon is non-historical. For example, there is a gentleman in my parent’s congregation who has, for as long as I have known him, had some very serious struggles – some of which have caused incredible hardship for himself and his family. In Priesthood meeting, I listened to this brother express how the Book of Mormon, its teachings of Jesus, and the prophetic call of Joseph Smith had helped him overcome many challenges and gave him the strength and inspiration to continue. It was clear that this Brother’s personal beliefs about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the divinity of Jesus varied greatly from my own yet for this man, these beliefs were the foundation upon which incredibly positive practical outcomes have been established.
I can imagine that some of my more enthusiastic atheist or zealous ex-Mormon friends will argue that establishing “the truth” about God’s existence or the “reality” of Joseph Smith’s visions etc… are matters of incredible importance. For some, this may be the case. If, for example, my specific conception of God leads me to strap bombs to my chest, or shoot doctors who perform abortions, it is high time to reevaluate those beliefs in terms of the consequences they produce. Likewise, if my commitment to Jesus’ command to “be perfect” (Matt 5:31) leads me to become discouraged and depressed, it is time to reevaluate my beliefs/understanding regarding Jesus’ words. Yet, if my belief in a benevolent God leads me to be more charitable and kind, then this belief has real value.
As William James pointed out over 100 years ago, when we evaluate beliefs and conceptions of truth based solely on their practical outcomes, we begin to realize just how many questions of metaphysics become entirely irrelevant.
In the end, I say live and let live! Practical outcomes are shared experience and the wise pragmatist will consistently evaluate his/her beliefs in these terms.
Also, To provide context for the brief discussion that follows, please keep in mind the question posed by CARM’s Theo1689 to Mormons who may make the dire mistake of visiting CARM’s discussion forums:
1) Why do you believe in “plural gods”, when the Bible teaches monotheism (Deut. 4:35,39, 1 Kings 8:60, Isa. 43:10, 44:6,8, 45:5,21,22, 46:9, John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:4-6, etc.)?
That early Israelite religion was henotheistic is nearly beyond dispute. Henotheism, of course, is the position that reverence is paid to one god while still acknowledging the existence of other gods or divine beings. This is distinctly different from polytheism where reverence is paid to multiple gods simultaneously. Clear examples of polytheism can be found in the pantheons of both Greece and Rome. Early Israelite religion was not polytheistic. The highest reverence was given YHWH (rendered the LORD) while the existence of other divine beings was clearly acknowledged.
In short, Jeff Ricks, the founder of postmormon.org, and Wade Englund, a long-time defender of the Mormon Church, are discussing the ethics of the Church using specific artwork depicting the Book of Mormon translation process in proselyting efforts generally, and in the Church’s recent Truth Restored campaign, specifically.
If you have not read my previous post on Theo1689, it may be helpful for you to browse what I have written there to provide context for what I discuss here.
Before seeking to answer Theo1689’s questions about Mormon doctrine and dogma as it relates to the Biblical text, it is important to put a few things in context. First, we must acknowledge that Mormonism, just like all religions, is a living organism. It changes and adapts over time. Some dogmas, which were emphasized even as few as 10 – 20 years ago, are not spoken of much today. Second, it must be understood that Mormonism has no official creed. This can make it extremely difficult to pin down exactly what is, and what is not, Mormon doctrine or dogma – especially on ancillary issues or speculative points. Third, Mormonism is not evangelical Christianity. It does not claim to be evangelical Christianity nor does it claim to be constrained by the biblical text.
On to Theo’s first question:
Why do you believe in “plural gods”, when the Bible teaches monotheism (Deut. 4:35,39, 1 Kings 8:60, Isa. 43:10, 44:6,8, 45:5,21,22, 46:9, John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:4-6, etc.)?
The first thing I would like to address is Theo’s statement that “the Bible teaches monotheism.” This would seem to imply that the Bible is a monolithic autograph that expresses singular meaning, without ambiguity, throughout. This is simply not the case. The Bible is a collection of 66 (73 in Catholic Bibles) individual and distinct books. Some of these books are clearly related to each other while others have no apparent relation at all. Very few share the same author and other than the letters of Paul (which the exception of Hebrews), book authorship is ambiguous at best. Thus to claim that the Bible, as a whole, teaches anything consistent throughout is to ignore the very nature of the text itself.
Posted
on December 2, 2009, 1:03 pm,
by sethpayne,
under mormonism.
I’m actually a bit annoyed that I have to blog about this.
Recently, a site was established to petition the LDS Church to change a policy regarding Temple marriage. I won’t bore you with the details here.
In any case, when I learned about this petition I submitted my email address in order to obtain information on how to sign the petition. Shortly after this I received an email from Jean Bodie (who is currently suing the LDS Church) with attachments of both the petition and instructions on how to submit the petition. Jean’s participation made me a bit wary of the “true” intent of the petition from the get-go given her current legal battle with the LDS Church.
After spending some time on the sight I became uncomfortable with a few things I found there. Bridget Jack Myers has outlined some of the worrisome content and I am in full agreement with her assessment.
On November 27 I received an email from David van der Leek:
Would it be OK to include your name online for the petition?
Thanks,
David
To which I replied:
Hello David,
Thanks for the email. The links to IRR on the site make me wary of being involved in the petition. I fully support a change in US Temple Marriage policy but I do not want, in any way, to be associated with IRR.
Seth
David followed up with two emails:
Hey, I understand that. We’ve removed the links to IRR from the pages and added a seperate section for Related Links. If you have any suggestions for external links, I’d be interested in receiving them. This website is not about anti-mormonism. It is about affecting positive change for both LDS and non-LDS families. Thank you Seth for your support.
David
Again, thank you very much for the feedback. We don’t want to alienate anyone from participation. I’ve completely removed all IRR references from the site including the Related Links section. Thanks Seth!
David
Please note, my original reply was my only communication with David. I never gave permission for my name to be used on the temple petition website. Nor have I signed the petition.
Just a few moments ago I emailed David and have asked that my name be removed from the website immediately.
So, just to make my position clear:
1. I fully support a change in the Church’s one-year waiting period policy in regard to temple weddings.
2. I never signed, nor gave permission for my name to be used on the temple petition website.
3. I am frustrated and angered that my name was used without my permission.
NOTE: As soon as Jean Bodie saw my reply on Bridget’s blog, she stated:
Sorry Seth your name will be removed. Don’t want to offend or embarrass anyone at all
My sincere thanks to Jean for being prompt in responding to my concern.
Also, given how Jean and David have responded to people’s concerns I don’t think there was any mischief at work here. This was most likely a case of misunderstanding/miscommunication. In other words, an honest mistake.
Posted
on November 29, 2009, 6:21 pm,
by sethpayne,
under mormonism, religion.
In my previous post I discussed my general impressions of Matt Slick and CARM. (Incidentally, if you would like to read an “insiders” perspective on the goings-on at CARM, read here and here.) Within the context of that discussion I briefly mentioned the CARM discussion forums. These forums are heavily moderated and cover a wide range of topics including atheism, evolution, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, etc…
The forum to discuss Mormonism is filed under the “Cults/Groups” section and, as does every message board, has a common group of posters who rant about the evils of Mormonism. One such poster goes by the name Theo1689 – which I suppose is a reference to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. According to his board profile, Theo is 46, lives in Toronto, and is a teacher by trade. He’s also very nasty to Mormons who attempt to defend their faith on CARM.
