Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Mormon Cultural Expectations
Below I paste a facebook conversation I recently had. Included is a list of Mormon cultural expectations/ideas I identified. I'll admit my list is rough and not all the expectations/ideas I posit are strongly evidenced trends- it was more of a starting point/gist/constellation of items that helped convey my response to Nicole.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
The Male Brain
I just finished reading Louann Brizendine's The Male Brain (2010)! Though I include gleaned insights on other posts, I detail most of what I learned below. Brizendine's The Female Brain is on my top five list of recommended reads- and this sibling volume maintained the reputation.
Caution: some of the content in this post is sexually explicit. Also, most of my notes fall between generalizations and overgeneralizations, inclusive.
The Baby Brain
> Male infants are less interested than female infants in eye contact and watching faces.
> Male infants are more interested in moving objects than female infants, which is at least partly due (not surprisingly) to some genetic material on the Y chromosome.
> Male infants have a year of "infantile pregnancy" where their brains are marinating in the same levels of testosterone they'll experience as adults. From year 1 to 11 they have a "juvenile pause" where they're relieved of testosterone exposure.
> By seven months, baby boys can tell mommy is angry by her face. By 12 months they've learned to ignore her expressions. Their female counterparts heed warnings on their mothers' faces. The same disparity applies to fathers' verbal warnings- the dads must verbally warn the boys twice as often as the girls.
> By 27 months, boys will go behind their parents' backs more often than girls to take risks, break rules, and grab off-limits objects.
> Little boy brains get a reward center hit from penis stimulation- and many little boys fail to resist playing and grabbing even when threatened.
>Boys reject girl toys, while girls will play with boys' toys. Rhesus monkeys do about the same thing, as do girls exposed to high testosterone in the womb.
> Boys spend 65% of free time in competitive games compared to 35% for girls. Girls are 20 times as likely to take turns when playing.
> Preschool boys are six times as likely to turn a domestic object into equipment or a weapon than girls.
THE TEEN BRAIN
> 20 fold increase of testosterone from 9 to 15
> Young boys think and explain with body movements and gestures more than young girls
> Boys cause 90% of the distractions in the classroom, 70% of the D's and F's, and account for 80% of high school dropouts
> Testosterone resets the brain's clock cells in the suprachiasmatic nuculeus, causing him to go to sleep and wake up an hour later than his female counterparts
> Teen boy brains need more intense shocking or scary stimuli to activate than adults
> Vasopressin, which teen boys get slammed with along with testosterone, causes them to perceive neutral faces as hostile toward them
> Higher testosterone levels are correlated with angier faces, more aggressive behavior, impatience, irritability, talking less about people, talking more about objects and games, and a suppressed sensitivity to white noise.
> During puberty, boys' rostral cingulate zone, the brain's barometer for social approval, recalibrates to motivate "fitting in" behaviors and seeking approval of peers over parents.
> Teen brains get a pre-game high right before participating or watching sports, characterized by elevated levels of dopamine, testosterone, vasopressin, and cortisol. Losing releases less testosterone than winning.
> By sixteen or seventeen, most boys desperately seek autonomy from their parents, usually accuse their parents of being behind the times, and seek separation/independence.
> Teen boys' risky behavior increases markedly in the presence of peers, with and without drugs or alcohol. The combination of 1) his amygdala's two-fold stimulation when he's with his peers and 2) his inhibiting system's (prefrontal cortex) failure to develop until early twenties is thought responsible.
> Teen boys begin to be repulsed not only by their mothers' proximity, but by her smell.
> From puberty to about 25, boys masturbate 1-3 times/day compared to less than one/day of girls
THE MATING BRAIN
> Male brains are selected for honing in on fertile females. Hourglass figures (large breasts, small waist, flat stomach, full hips) say she's young, healthy, and not pregnant.
> Flirting behavior are conserved across cultures, and thus likely brain-based (I knew this already. Thanks flirting symposium!). Examples include reciprocating posture, proximity, smiles, head tilts, and slight raising of eyebrows.
> A girl's smell and high-pitched voice may make her more sexually attractive. Low-pitch voice is less attractive, and the smell subconsciously communicates genetic dissimilarity, contributing to more attractiveness with greater dissimilarity.
> Smooching communicates info about genetic similarity as well. Also, the bioactive testosterone in the man's saliva may activate the female brain's sexual arousal center.
> When sexually attracted, a man wants to have sex three times faster than a woman, who's more patient. (I know, hide the surprise)
> Generally, a show of dominance and strength by a guy turns a girl on.
> Promiscuity vs. monogamy in voles depends on which of two vasopressin receptor alleles he has. Men also have this gene- and Swedish men with the "monogamy version" were twice as likely to leave bachelorhood behind and commit to one woman for life.
> Three out of four men are willing to lie or modify the truth to persuade women to have sex with them. They exaggerate wealth, status, and social/business connections.
> The male brain on sex: the ventral tegmental area rapidly manufactures dopamine, which mixes with testosterone and vasopressin to form an addictive, high-octane fuel comparable to being high on cocaine.
> The autopilot lust center of the male brain directs them to notice and visually take in details of attractive females, even when the man's in love with another.
> Fear of loss or rejection can intensify feelings of love by igniting the amygdala's fear-of-rejection center and the hypothalamus's mating area.
The Brain Below the Belt
> Woman want on average 1-2 sexual partners/lifetime; men a whopping 14.
> It takes the male brain one-fifth of a second to classify a new woman as hot or not. This appearance-based verdict is made even before conscious thought processes engage.
> Okay, careful, a few penis details: autopilot erections often happen without a single command from the brain- the unconscious signals come from his spinal cord and brain. The penis, testicles, brain, and spinal cord all harbor testosterone receptors. If testosterone is present, erotic thoughts or images are enough to signal an erection.
> Men are more sexually adventurous than women.
> Orgasm requires turning off the danger/alert center (amygdayla) and the worrying center (anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC). This process is more difficult for women than for men.
> Foreplay to men is the three minutes before orgasm, while for women it's the preceding 24 hours.
> After sex, oxytocin and dopamine make the girl want to cuddle and talk, while men more often want to sleep.
The Daddy Brain
> Distress after learning you're going to be a father usually peaks at about 5 weeks after discovering the fact.
> Men worldwide expereince a "sympathetic pregnancy," gain weight, and experience decrease in testosterone and increase in prolactin, especially in the three weeks preceding birth. The dads can also hear and emotionally respond better to a crying baby than non-dads. Hormone levels return to normal by the time the baby can walk.
> Skin to skin and eye contact with the baby causes both dad and mom to enter a romantic love phase with the child. Also, within a seventh of a second, the parental-instinct area of the brain is activated.
> Men, like women, have a strong tending instict based in the insula, ACC, and amygdala. Daily hands-on contact promotes synchrony, or parent-child understanding.
> Men interact more with the baby when mom's away or not watching.
> Moms are gatekeepers who determine how much baby time Dad gets, irrespective of Dad's belief about how involved he should be in child care. Interestingly, moms who let Dad have more baby time are more likely to stay married.
> Daddy's play is more physical, creative, unpredictable, and stimulating than Mom's. Rougher dads produce more self-confident kids.
> Dads like to tease their kids, and sons prefer it more than daughters. Kids with teasing fathers can better detect deceit, and sons can better build close male connections later in life.
> Cross-culturally, dads feel duty bound to discipline their kids, especially their sons. Generally, kids in these families get better grades and go farther in school, the sons have fewer behavior problems, and the daughters fewer emotional problems.
> Dads feel closest to their daughters and sons when helping them.
> Insecure dads won't let their sons beat them at any game even when the son is very young.
> High parental care correlates to less cortisol as a college-age adult.
Manhood: the Emotional Lives of Men
> I know you won't believe it, but the brain circuitry for emotional processing is different in men and women. Both genders have a temporal-parietal junction system (TPJ) and a mirror-neuron system (MNS). The TPJ separates "self" and "other" emotions and searches the brain for solutions. The MNS allows you to feel the emotion of another (emotional empathy). Guess which genders use which disproportionately. :)
> Women look at faces more to get an MNS response, and men resort more quickly to fixing-it-fast. When the male's face stops imitating the emotion of the woman (he's left the MNS), she feels he doesn't care - whereas the guy switched to TPJ and is trying to solve the problem.
> Men turn off or disguise their facial expressions to suppress showing their emotions. Females, on the other hand, exaggerate an observed emotion in another. These realities are correlated to estrogen/oxytocin for women and testosterone/vasopressin for men. Switch the hormones and you switch the MNS/TPJ ratio.
> Men's anger suppression center, the septum, is smaller than in women. Though women feel anger about as many minutes per day, men are 20 times as likely to get physically aggressive.
> Men and women remember facts equally well, but women remember details of emotional events better
and longer. Recalling events brings the emotion back for women much more than men.
> Some men get a high from being mucho angry.
> Sometimes, anger can make people more rational.
> High testosterone men are more likely to react dramatically to being challenged, which reaction can be triggered by glares, accusation, or yelling.
> Angry men get noticed more by both men and women.
> Couples who argue have a better chance of staying together.
> Mens' tendency to violence is dialed down by a stable work heirarchy and a stable marriage.
> Mens' brains are wired to seek status and rank.
> People prefer to feel potentially useful emotions, even when unpleasant. (e.g. anger)
The Mature Male Brain (no, that's not an oxymoron)
(Mature = andropause and beyond, circa 55 and up)
> As men age, testosterone and vasopressin levels drop and estrogen levels rise. Their brains become more like the mature female brain, including enhanced capacity for reading subtle facial expression.
> Less testosterone means a greater impact from oxytocin, leading to more patience, tolerance, cuddling, and less jockeying for position.
> Lonely people die sooner than same-age non-lonely pairs, and can be as detrimental to your health as
smoking.
> Loneliness for men leads to decreased social flexibility and engrained habits, the disturbing of which leads to annoyance.
> Married men outlive single men by 1.7 years.
> Andropause takes place for men between 50 and 65, and includes a one-half to two-thirds drop in testicle-produced testosterone compared to levels in their 20's.
> Even into old age, men rank sex as the major benefit of marriage.
> Warm touching between partners, such as hand-holding and massage, improves relationship satisfaction, lower stress levels, higher oxytocin levels and, for men, lower blood pressure.
> Long-married couples are at risk for the woman criticizing the man, which prevents both from receiving the love and caring they crave.
> More mature brains are better at forgiving and forgetting.
> Grandfather brains care about supporting the success and survival of the next generation, though at first they accept responsibility for grandchildren only out of obligation.
Caution: some of the content in this post is sexually explicit. Also, most of my notes fall between generalizations and overgeneralizations, inclusive.
The Baby Brain
> Male infants are less interested than female infants in eye contact and watching faces.
> Male infants are more interested in moving objects than female infants, which is at least partly due (not surprisingly) to some genetic material on the Y chromosome.
> Male infants have a year of "infantile pregnancy" where their brains are marinating in the same levels of testosterone they'll experience as adults. From year 1 to 11 they have a "juvenile pause" where they're relieved of testosterone exposure.
> By seven months, baby boys can tell mommy is angry by her face. By 12 months they've learned to ignore her expressions. Their female counterparts heed warnings on their mothers' faces. The same disparity applies to fathers' verbal warnings- the dads must verbally warn the boys twice as often as the girls.
> By 27 months, boys will go behind their parents' backs more often than girls to take risks, break rules, and grab off-limits objects.
> Little boy brains get a reward center hit from penis stimulation- and many little boys fail to resist playing and grabbing even when threatened.
>Boys reject girl toys, while girls will play with boys' toys. Rhesus monkeys do about the same thing, as do girls exposed to high testosterone in the womb.
> Boys spend 65% of free time in competitive games compared to 35% for girls. Girls are 20 times as likely to take turns when playing.
> Preschool boys are six times as likely to turn a domestic object into equipment or a weapon than girls.
THE TEEN BRAIN
> 20 fold increase of testosterone from 9 to 15
> Young boys think and explain with body movements and gestures more than young girls
> Boys cause 90% of the distractions in the classroom, 70% of the D's and F's, and account for 80% of high school dropouts
> Testosterone resets the brain's clock cells in the suprachiasmatic nuculeus, causing him to go to sleep and wake up an hour later than his female counterparts
> Teen boy brains need more intense shocking or scary stimuli to activate than adults
> Vasopressin, which teen boys get slammed with along with testosterone, causes them to perceive neutral faces as hostile toward them
> Higher testosterone levels are correlated with angier faces, more aggressive behavior, impatience, irritability, talking less about people, talking more about objects and games, and a suppressed sensitivity to white noise.
> During puberty, boys' rostral cingulate zone, the brain's barometer for social approval, recalibrates to motivate "fitting in" behaviors and seeking approval of peers over parents.
> Teen brains get a pre-game high right before participating or watching sports, characterized by elevated levels of dopamine, testosterone, vasopressin, and cortisol. Losing releases less testosterone than winning.
> By sixteen or seventeen, most boys desperately seek autonomy from their parents, usually accuse their parents of being behind the times, and seek separation/independence.
> Teen boys' risky behavior increases markedly in the presence of peers, with and without drugs or alcohol. The combination of 1) his amygdala's two-fold stimulation when he's with his peers and 2) his inhibiting system's (prefrontal cortex) failure to develop until early twenties is thought responsible.
> Teen boys begin to be repulsed not only by their mothers' proximity, but by her smell.
> From puberty to about 25, boys masturbate 1-3 times/day compared to less than one/day of girls
THE MATING BRAIN
> Male brains are selected for honing in on fertile females. Hourglass figures (large breasts, small waist, flat stomach, full hips) say she's young, healthy, and not pregnant.
> Flirting behavior are conserved across cultures, and thus likely brain-based (I knew this already. Thanks flirting symposium!). Examples include reciprocating posture, proximity, smiles, head tilts, and slight raising of eyebrows.
> A girl's smell and high-pitched voice may make her more sexually attractive. Low-pitch voice is less attractive, and the smell subconsciously communicates genetic dissimilarity, contributing to more attractiveness with greater dissimilarity.
> Smooching communicates info about genetic similarity as well. Also, the bioactive testosterone in the man's saliva may activate the female brain's sexual arousal center.
> When sexually attracted, a man wants to have sex three times faster than a woman, who's more patient. (I know, hide the surprise)
> Generally, a show of dominance and strength by a guy turns a girl on.
> Promiscuity vs. monogamy in voles depends on which of two vasopressin receptor alleles he has. Men also have this gene- and Swedish men with the "monogamy version" were twice as likely to leave bachelorhood behind and commit to one woman for life.
> Three out of four men are willing to lie or modify the truth to persuade women to have sex with them. They exaggerate wealth, status, and social/business connections.
> The male brain on sex: the ventral tegmental area rapidly manufactures dopamine, which mixes with testosterone and vasopressin to form an addictive, high-octane fuel comparable to being high on cocaine.
> The autopilot lust center of the male brain directs them to notice and visually take in details of attractive females, even when the man's in love with another.
> Fear of loss or rejection can intensify feelings of love by igniting the amygdala's fear-of-rejection center and the hypothalamus's mating area.
The Brain Below the Belt
> Woman want on average 1-2 sexual partners/lifetime; men a whopping 14.
> It takes the male brain one-fifth of a second to classify a new woman as hot or not. This appearance-based verdict is made even before conscious thought processes engage.
> Okay, careful, a few penis details: autopilot erections often happen without a single command from the brain- the unconscious signals come from his spinal cord and brain. The penis, testicles, brain, and spinal cord all harbor testosterone receptors. If testosterone is present, erotic thoughts or images are enough to signal an erection.
> Men are more sexually adventurous than women.
> Orgasm requires turning off the danger/alert center (amygdayla) and the worrying center (anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC). This process is more difficult for women than for men.
> Foreplay to men is the three minutes before orgasm, while for women it's the preceding 24 hours.
> After sex, oxytocin and dopamine make the girl want to cuddle and talk, while men more often want to sleep.
The Daddy Brain
> Distress after learning you're going to be a father usually peaks at about 5 weeks after discovering the fact.
> Men worldwide expereince a "sympathetic pregnancy," gain weight, and experience decrease in testosterone and increase in prolactin, especially in the three weeks preceding birth. The dads can also hear and emotionally respond better to a crying baby than non-dads. Hormone levels return to normal by the time the baby can walk.
> Skin to skin and eye contact with the baby causes both dad and mom to enter a romantic love phase with the child. Also, within a seventh of a second, the parental-instinct area of the brain is activated.
> Men, like women, have a strong tending instict based in the insula, ACC, and amygdala. Daily hands-on contact promotes synchrony, or parent-child understanding.
> Men interact more with the baby when mom's away or not watching.
> Moms are gatekeepers who determine how much baby time Dad gets, irrespective of Dad's belief about how involved he should be in child care. Interestingly, moms who let Dad have more baby time are more likely to stay married.
> Daddy's play is more physical, creative, unpredictable, and stimulating than Mom's. Rougher dads produce more self-confident kids.
> Dads like to tease their kids, and sons prefer it more than daughters. Kids with teasing fathers can better detect deceit, and sons can better build close male connections later in life.
> Cross-culturally, dads feel duty bound to discipline their kids, especially their sons. Generally, kids in these families get better grades and go farther in school, the sons have fewer behavior problems, and the daughters fewer emotional problems.
> Dads feel closest to their daughters and sons when helping them.
> Insecure dads won't let their sons beat them at any game even when the son is very young.
> High parental care correlates to less cortisol as a college-age adult.
Manhood: the Emotional Lives of Men
> I know you won't believe it, but the brain circuitry for emotional processing is different in men and women. Both genders have a temporal-parietal junction system (TPJ) and a mirror-neuron system (MNS). The TPJ separates "self" and "other" emotions and searches the brain for solutions. The MNS allows you to feel the emotion of another (emotional empathy). Guess which genders use which disproportionately. :)
> Women look at faces more to get an MNS response, and men resort more quickly to fixing-it-fast. When the male's face stops imitating the emotion of the woman (he's left the MNS), she feels he doesn't care - whereas the guy switched to TPJ and is trying to solve the problem.
> Men turn off or disguise their facial expressions to suppress showing their emotions. Females, on the other hand, exaggerate an observed emotion in another. These realities are correlated to estrogen/oxytocin for women and testosterone/vasopressin for men. Switch the hormones and you switch the MNS/TPJ ratio.
> Men's anger suppression center, the septum, is smaller than in women. Though women feel anger about as many minutes per day, men are 20 times as likely to get physically aggressive.
> Men and women remember facts equally well, but women remember details of emotional events better
and longer. Recalling events brings the emotion back for women much more than men.
> Some men get a high from being mucho angry.
> Sometimes, anger can make people more rational.
> High testosterone men are more likely to react dramatically to being challenged, which reaction can be triggered by glares, accusation, or yelling.
> Angry men get noticed more by both men and women.
> Couples who argue have a better chance of staying together.
> Mens' tendency to violence is dialed down by a stable work heirarchy and a stable marriage.
> Mens' brains are wired to seek status and rank.
> People prefer to feel potentially useful emotions, even when unpleasant. (e.g. anger)
The Mature Male Brain (no, that's not an oxymoron)
(Mature = andropause and beyond, circa 55 and up)
> As men age, testosterone and vasopressin levels drop and estrogen levels rise. Their brains become more like the mature female brain, including enhanced capacity for reading subtle facial expression.
> Less testosterone means a greater impact from oxytocin, leading to more patience, tolerance, cuddling, and less jockeying for position.
> Lonely people die sooner than same-age non-lonely pairs, and can be as detrimental to your health as
smoking.
> Loneliness for men leads to decreased social flexibility and engrained habits, the disturbing of which leads to annoyance.
> Married men outlive single men by 1.7 years.
> Andropause takes place for men between 50 and 65, and includes a one-half to two-thirds drop in testicle-produced testosterone compared to levels in their 20's.
> Even into old age, men rank sex as the major benefit of marriage.
> Warm touching between partners, such as hand-holding and massage, improves relationship satisfaction, lower stress levels, higher oxytocin levels and, for men, lower blood pressure.
> Long-married couples are at risk for the woman criticizing the man, which prevents both from receiving the love and caring they crave.
> More mature brains are better at forgiving and forgetting.
> Grandfather brains care about supporting the success and survival of the next generation, though at first they accept responsibility for grandchildren only out of obligation.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Forgive One Another Your Trespasses
Matt. 6: 14-15
14 For if ye aforgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye aforgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
This post answers the question, "Why must I forgive others their trespasses in order to secure God's forgiveness of my trespasses?"
One answer could be merely because God says so. I don't know that this answer is wrong. However, it may be wrong or, at the least, incomplete. The answer I give involves the resolution of a fundamental tension in the mechanism underlying application of the atonement. We are taught that Christ is "standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon ahimself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and bsatisfied the demands of justice" and that " God himself aatoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of bmercy, to appease the demands of cjustice, that God might be a dperfect, just God, and a emerciful God also." Thus it seems that Christ's suffering pays the price for our sins. This principle is neither new nor earth shattering.
However, though these scriptures show how the price was paid, there remains another demand of justice. Justice requires not only that the price be paid, but that it be paid by the transgressor!
I have seen two candidate work-arounds that purport to resolve this tension. Though neither may prove the case, both are related to the requirement that the atonement be infinite: "not a bsacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an cinfinite and deternal esacrifice."
1) At-one-ment is the first work-around. The idea that you and Christ become one, such that the punishment justice requires that you experience can go to Christ since the two of you are now one. Much as it's just to flog a thief's back for the crimes of his hand, because the thief is a single entity- so becoming one with Christ allows Him to be wounded for our transgressions, thus fully satisfying justice. The sacrifice must be infinite because either A) were there any end to the two of you being one, justice would still require a narrowly tailored punishment to the more culpable member, or B) only an infinite sacrifice could bind a mortal and an immortal such as you and Christ.
2) The second work around is the idea of basically getting all of creation to "look the other way." First, let's look at the relevant stakeholders when you sin. Who is harmed, and who can forgive those harms? God, ourselves, the earth, and each other come to mind as harmed entities. Also, every intelligence which has a sense of justice will have that sense offended if the sinner is not justly punished. Let's take each stakeholder class in turn.
-God: He can forgive of his own volition the harm against Him. It seems He usually does so.
-Ourselves/each other: We, like God, can forgive or refrain from forgiving, harms against ourselves. This includes self-inflicted and externally-inflicted harms. More on this category below.
- Earth: I'll lump the earth in with all non-sinning, justice-capable intelligences, which I now address. Presume every creation of God has intelligence. Those creations which have a sense of justice, which sense of justice would be offended if God did not punish sinners for their sins, must also have a sense of mercy (why these senses must be paired I have yet to establish- for the moment presume if a creation has the one, it also has the other). Well then, perhaps God persuades all these intelligences to fire their mercy neurons (remember, justice and mercy are here depicted as senses) to the exclusion or at least overpowering of their justice neurons. Perhaps their compassion at viewing the immeasurably torturous atonement (presuming they have a compassion sense, which isn't asking much presuming the senses of justice and mercy already) moves them to refrain from demanding justice. Only a being as great as Christ suffering to the extent He did would be sufficient to cause all of these innocent intelligences to be so moved (hence the requirement of infinite sacrifice). Under this work-around, the requirement of forgiveness makes the most sense. You must forgive others their trespasses against you, like these intelligences voluntarily "forgave" an offended sense of justice and, because of God's sacrifice, embraced mercy, allowing you to forever escape punishment. By a similar principle you must be willing to forgive for the Atonement to work in your case.
But what if you refuse to forgive another's trespasses, but instead insist that justice extract the uttermost farthing from him or her? Ironically, it is you that is punished for the greater sin: "34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
I'm not sure how the second work-around accounts for that comeuppance. Sorry to leave you with an unanswered question.
In conclusion, there may be a deeper, Atonement-rooted explanation for the requirement that we must forgive in order to be forgiven. That explanation might be found in the second work-around I've articulated here, though it might not derive from either work-around.
14 For if ye aforgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye aforgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
This post answers the question, "Why must I forgive others their trespasses in order to secure God's forgiveness of my trespasses?"
One answer could be merely because God says so. I don't know that this answer is wrong. However, it may be wrong or, at the least, incomplete. The answer I give involves the resolution of a fundamental tension in the mechanism underlying application of the atonement. We are taught that Christ is "standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon ahimself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and bsatisfied the demands of justice" and that " God himself aatoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of bmercy, to appease the demands of cjustice, that God might be a dperfect, just God, and a emerciful God also." Thus it seems that Christ's suffering pays the price for our sins. This principle is neither new nor earth shattering.
However, though these scriptures show how the price was paid, there remains another demand of justice. Justice requires not only that the price be paid, but that it be paid by the transgressor!
11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is ajust, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.
Justice requires that those who generate costs or harms should pay for them. Nemo punitur pro alieno delicto "no one is punished for the crime of another." Thus, though Christ paid the price, He did not the transgression, and thus justice is not yet fully satisfied. Justice requires that the sinner pay for his own sins. Even a willing scapegoat does not fully satisfy justice. What then is the mechanism that enables the miracle of the Atonement?I have seen two candidate work-arounds that purport to resolve this tension. Though neither may prove the case, both are related to the requirement that the atonement be infinite: "not a bsacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an cinfinite and deternal esacrifice."
1) At-one-ment is the first work-around. The idea that you and Christ become one, such that the punishment justice requires that you experience can go to Christ since the two of you are now one. Much as it's just to flog a thief's back for the crimes of his hand, because the thief is a single entity- so becoming one with Christ allows Him to be wounded for our transgressions, thus fully satisfying justice. The sacrifice must be infinite because either A) were there any end to the two of you being one, justice would still require a narrowly tailored punishment to the more culpable member, or B) only an infinite sacrifice could bind a mortal and an immortal such as you and Christ.
2) The second work around is the idea of basically getting all of creation to "look the other way." First, let's look at the relevant stakeholders when you sin. Who is harmed, and who can forgive those harms? God, ourselves, the earth, and each other come to mind as harmed entities. Also, every intelligence which has a sense of justice will have that sense offended if the sinner is not justly punished. Let's take each stakeholder class in turn.
-God: He can forgive of his own volition the harm against Him. It seems He usually does so.
-Ourselves/each other: We, like God, can forgive or refrain from forgiving, harms against ourselves. This includes self-inflicted and externally-inflicted harms. More on this category below.
- Earth: I'll lump the earth in with all non-sinning, justice-capable intelligences, which I now address. Presume every creation of God has intelligence. Those creations which have a sense of justice, which sense of justice would be offended if God did not punish sinners for their sins, must also have a sense of mercy (why these senses must be paired I have yet to establish- for the moment presume if a creation has the one, it also has the other). Well then, perhaps God persuades all these intelligences to fire their mercy neurons (remember, justice and mercy are here depicted as senses) to the exclusion or at least overpowering of their justice neurons. Perhaps their compassion at viewing the immeasurably torturous atonement (presuming they have a compassion sense, which isn't asking much presuming the senses of justice and mercy already) moves them to refrain from demanding justice. Only a being as great as Christ suffering to the extent He did would be sufficient to cause all of these innocent intelligences to be so moved (hence the requirement of infinite sacrifice). Under this work-around, the requirement of forgiveness makes the most sense. You must forgive others their trespasses against you, like these intelligences voluntarily "forgave" an offended sense of justice and, because of God's sacrifice, embraced mercy, allowing you to forever escape punishment. By a similar principle you must be willing to forgive for the Atonement to work in your case.
But what if you refuse to forgive another's trespasses, but instead insist that justice extract the uttermost farthing from him or her? Ironically, it is you that is punished for the greater sin: "34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts aforgive not every one his brother their trespasses."
In conclusion, there may be a deeper, Atonement-rooted explanation for the requirement that we must forgive in order to be forgiven. That explanation might be found in the second work-around I've articulated here, though it might not derive from either work-around.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Surrender and Developing Disposition
On my way down to Phoenix, I listed to Robert Millet's book on CD, Grace Works. I wish I had the book so I could look up some quotes. What struck me were two things:
1) that to successfully put on the character of Christ, I need to yield and submit and surrender. In our culture a male surrendering is usually not considered admirable- rather, independent master of a difficult skill or directing his own destiny is more approved. However, I must "yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit," surrender to Christ, submit to His laws, receive His atonement, and give my burdens to Him. None of these actions denote mastery or control, but rather its relinquishment.
2) It is by submitting and yielding that I can have my nature changed so that I have "no more disposition to do evil." I often focus overmuch on the behavioral aspect of gospel living- and while I believe it is better to perform in compliance with God's command with an unwilling or resentful or apathetic heart than it is to breach those same commandments in violation of one's commitment to keep them, I also believe it is superior to want to keep them as well, and to obey out of that desire/disposition. The sticky part is that I don't control my disposition with the completeness and immediacy as I do my behavior. I can alter my conduct 180 degrees nearly instantly- my disposition/nature is not so malleable. (sidenote: intermediate in malleability between conduct and disposition is habit). Thus, to change my nature requires other, or at least more, than my executive control. It likely requires patience, since the altering process is not as instant as behavioral change. It also requires submission (picture offering my heart below at here's my heart) to God, who by some means can reach in and change my nature.
O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.
1) that to successfully put on the character of Christ, I need to yield and submit and surrender. In our culture a male surrendering is usually not considered admirable- rather, independent master of a difficult skill or directing his own destiny is more approved. However, I must "yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit," surrender to Christ, submit to His laws, receive His atonement, and give my burdens to Him. None of these actions denote mastery or control, but rather its relinquishment.
2) It is by submitting and yielding that I can have my nature changed so that I have "no more disposition to do evil." I often focus overmuch on the behavioral aspect of gospel living- and while I believe it is better to perform in compliance with God's command with an unwilling or resentful or apathetic heart than it is to breach those same commandments in violation of one's commitment to keep them, I also believe it is superior to want to keep them as well, and to obey out of that desire/disposition. The sticky part is that I don't control my disposition with the completeness and immediacy as I do my behavior. I can alter my conduct 180 degrees nearly instantly- my disposition/nature is not so malleable. (sidenote: intermediate in malleability between conduct and disposition is habit). Thus, to change my nature requires other, or at least more, than my executive control. It likely requires patience, since the altering process is not as instant as behavioral change. It also requires submission (picture offering my heart below at here's my heart) to God, who by some means can reach in and change my nature.
O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Confronting your personal demons
We all have our personal demons- addictions, self doubts, insecurities, and fears that depress, burden, and trouble us. The negative self-talk of these demons is destructive. Below I bring one of my demons out into the open, deal him a few jabs, and let him know there'll be more of that to come in the future.
I will entitle this the Authentic Intimacy Demon (Autin for short). In sum, Autin claims that there is neither sense nor value to be found in my being authentic, which authenticity is prerequisite to meaningful emotional intimacy. Autin bases his argument on the premise that one who seeks to embrace all truth can't banish him because he's made up of immutable truths. He says that no one, including a potential spouse, would or can like me just for me. How could she? Why would she? As a result of the realities of our world and our culture, potential spouses are married to valuing my performance rather than just me. Do I listen to her? Do I affirm her abundantly? Am I romantically and sexually faithful to her? Do I provide for the family? Do I check the boxes in church that results in God protecting and unifying the family? Do I provide an example to the kids? Am I sufficiently normal to avoid being an embarrassment in the community/public? Am I a sufficiently managed risk to enable her otherwise impossible goal of bearing and mothering children optimally? Am I a stable provider? Do I meet her expectations and needs? These are the questions she's concerned about- accepting me for me just isn't that important, and therefore will very likely always be trumped by priority concerns such as those just listed. Thus, it is my performance in key areas that the potential spouse values/cares about rather than me. If I cease performing, such priority disparity would quickly become apparent. The conclusion is that the quirks, paradigms, cares, thoughts, insecurities, and uniquenesses that constitute a lot of my identity are largely irrelevant to a potential spouse. If she could secure a higher performing model than me at the outset, she would certainly do so.
4) There are personal benefits that come from accepting an authentic other, such as increased self-acceptance and "the joy of human love." Thus, even if Autin succeeds in establishing that my performances are valued because of another's self-interest, emotional intimacy and accepting the real me could also benefit another.
5) Arbinger Institute's Anatomy of Peace or Leadership and Self-Deception argues that independent of behavior (including rationally self-interested behavior), person A's orientation toward person B may either be in or out of the box. Out of the box, person A's way of being toward B acknowledges the humanity/hopes/dreams/fears/insecurities/personhood of B. For those who choose to be out of the box toward me, this way of being is similar if not equivalent to the authenticity acceptance Autin argues against.
6) God might adopt a virtue ethics approach, in which case He knows I need some less-observed space, and for the sake of eudaimonia will apply the atonement so as to "remember no more" my deleterious performance. Plus, I'm an ignorant, weak mortal and literally can't run faster than my own strength on my own. Thus, it is not the gap between my and perfect performance, but between my and a reasonable expectation of my performance commensurate to what I know and am capable of against which I am justly measured. Given how hard I try and how weak I am mentally, rationally, and energetically, that gap probably isn't that big. Plus, there is provision made for my poor performance perhaps in other ways through the Atonement. Utilitarian and virtue ethics approaches would say I need to shed that burden anyway to progress rapidly, as accelerated advancement and ultimate achievement is more likely under the "I feel accepted/safe and therefore am not distracted from pursuing self-improvement by the need to protect myself from condemnation/punishment/harm" than the "avoid condemnation, my performance is always insufficient and likely to incur wrath, direct attempts to be perfect, fearful of failure" approach.
7) John 3:17 For God asent not his Son into the world to bcondemn the world; but that the world through him might be csaved. Samuel Medley, who wrote the text of “I Know That My Redeemer Lives” in 1775, was born in Cheshunt, England, just north of London, in 1738. He practiced sinful and profane ways until his leg was wounded in a naval battle in 1759. The possibility of amputation led Samuel to pray, asking that he might keep his leg. The prayer was answered. Check out these lyrics and weep, Autin-
I know that my redeemer lives
What comfort this sweet sentence gives
He lives! He lives who once was dead
He lives! my ever-living friend
He lives! To bless me with his love
He lives! To plead for me above
He lives! My hungry soul to feed
He lives! To bless in time of need
He lives! To grant me
He lives! To guide me with his light
He lives! To comfort me went faint
He lives! To hear my soul's complaint
He lives! To silence all my fears
He lives! To wipe away my tears
He lives! To calm my troubled heart
He lives! With blessings to impart
I will entitle this the Authentic Intimacy Demon (Autin for short). In sum, Autin claims that there is neither sense nor value to be found in my being authentic, which authenticity is prerequisite to meaningful emotional intimacy. Autin bases his argument on the premise that one who seeks to embrace all truth can't banish him because he's made up of immutable truths. He says that no one, including a potential spouse, would or can like me just for me. How could she? Why would she? As a result of the realities of our world and our culture, potential spouses are married to valuing my performance rather than just me. Do I listen to her? Do I affirm her abundantly? Am I romantically and sexually faithful to her? Do I provide for the family? Do I check the boxes in church that results in God protecting and unifying the family? Do I provide an example to the kids? Am I sufficiently normal to avoid being an embarrassment in the community/public? Am I a sufficiently managed risk to enable her otherwise impossible goal of bearing and mothering children optimally? Am I a stable provider? Do I meet her expectations and needs? These are the questions she's concerned about- accepting me for me just isn't that important, and therefore will very likely always be trumped by priority concerns such as those just listed. Thus, it is my performance in key areas that the potential spouse values/cares about rather than me. If I cease performing, such priority disparity would quickly become apparent. The conclusion is that the quirks, paradigms, cares, thoughts, insecurities, and uniquenesses that constitute a lot of my identity are largely irrelevant to a potential spouse. If she could secure a higher performing model than me at the outset, she would certainly do so.
Similarly, friends often value the affirmation, help, and listening services I provide them. Almost all of them would quickly forget about me were I to move or become quadriplegic (such that I couldn't act, speak, respond, work, or function). Not that people are evil and calculating, but that they're shallow in a rational self-interested way and have needs that won't be met if they don't expend limited relational capital making and choosing friends with resources likely to benefit them such as affirmation, listening, fun, networking, and help when in trouble. (see also my post about selfishness). Autin calls this the "quadriplegic test" and he substantiates it by pointing out that even service provided with selfless intent benefits the giver. Attending to children, for instance, is facilitated by neurochemically-based attraction to cute faces and an oxytocin-based reward for tending them. Conformity to this biologically reinforced norm benefits everyone, since we all begin as children. Thus, consciously or not, everyone is much too distracted by the WIIFM (What's In It For Me) question to care about the real you unless there's some way the real you directly benefits them. Almost everyone fails the quadriplegic test, according to Autin- thus my chances of someone accepting and valuing the real me are slim.
Friends and potential spouses aren't the only ones who don't find much use for your authenticity. In the workplace as well, it is more often expectation compliance that is valued than the individual. Employers want performance: if they could get a cost-effective machine to replace the sum of your productive functions they would.
Often church leaders join the workplace, friends, and potential spouse crew of those who predominantly value performance. Do you fulfill your calling? Live the commandments enough to tick off yes's and no's appropriately in the temple interview? Do you attend your meetings and home teach monthly? I could care less about your feelings, happiness, misery, joys, etc.- my concern is that you do what you're supposed to and refrain from doing what you're supposed to avoid.
Lastly, God joins the bandwagon because He also wears the hat of justice enforcer. His angels take scrupulous notes and there is some evidence that my body itself will also prove a witness against me at the judgment bar. The universe is so arranged that all I ever do, think, and feel is perfectly recorded. Even the light I've received (e.g. I know that I should reprove with sharpness and show an increase in love afterward- if I fail to do so, I'm guilty of breaching a known command- he who receives the greater light receives the greater condemnation) works against me. The realities together result in the abundant ability to condemn me. Even though God can accept me as a parent, His acceptance is not equivalent to my salvation. Exaltation is at least partly performance based (not based just on God's grace), so there is a very literal loss if I fail to perform in correct ways and quantities. God is not a come-as-you-are kind of lord. A central message of the gospel is the need to repent - which is necessarily built on the fact that you aren't good enough as you are (else what need is there to repent?). Your authentic self is dirty, sinful, undeveloped, inchoate, reprehensible, and reprobate in disposition, conduct, and constitution; only through your intense and persistent efforts, literally killing your authentic self (natural man), and the intervention of a deity on your sorry behalf is there any semblance of hope. Why? Because no unclean thing can dwell with God (Alma 11:37). Even the easily offended Holy Ghost doesn't particularly like hanging out with you, bails at the slightest provocation, and to help him endure the sordid milieu of your tabernacle sanctifies you whenever he visits (picture an immaculate white South African lady-elite spraying lysol before she touches the doorknob or walks on the floor or sits on the chair during an unfortunate, obligatory visit to her native servant's filthy quarters). Your authentic sincerity won't be enough unless you jump cleanly through the right hoops- "sincerely following false traditions prevents salvation." "sincerity is not enough for salvation: one must sincerely comply with God-given truth" (Bruce R. McConkie, quotes approximated, see Mormon Doctrine 2d ed. entries on "Sincerity" and "Truth".). Even if your authentic self makes painstaking efforts to be righteous, you're probably too stupid to hit the mark and will likely be subsequently criticized and labeled a hypocrite by Jesus (e.g. the Pharisees, who despite the fastidious care they took to know and comply with God's commandments, which effort you'd think might earn you some righteousness points if anything would, ended up being categorically reviled and ridiculed to the present day by subsequent generations of followers of the condemning Christ, who first weighed their performance and found it wanting).
That's Autin's barrage. Here are six counter-jabs:
1) Yes, relational capital is scarce and most friendships follow the natural selection pattern you posit. However, many people, including some of my friends, probably humanize rather than instrumentalize me. Many women especially see me as a person and value me just as they do people they serve, e.g. through legal services, that have little or nothing to offer them. My friends Emily and Jana, for instance, would still love me if I turned into an incapacitate blob tomorrow. Thus, not everyone fails your quadriplegic test.
2) My mom loves and accepts the authentic me. Sure, she appreciates if I walk in the truth and express my gratitude to her, but she has enlarged the parental virtue of acceptingness enough and knows my identity enough that she would also likely pass the quadriplegic test.
3) Folks such as friends and a potential spouse can be BOTH self interested AND care about the real me- especially when their needs are met. There's no particularly reason that I can't acknowledge relational self-interest and still maintain the possibility of abundant emotional intimacy.4) There are personal benefits that come from accepting an authentic other, such as increased self-acceptance and "the joy of human love." Thus, even if Autin succeeds in establishing that my performances are valued because of another's self-interest, emotional intimacy and accepting the real me could also benefit another.
5) Arbinger Institute's Anatomy of Peace or Leadership and Self-Deception argues that independent of behavior (including rationally self-interested behavior), person A's orientation toward person B may either be in or out of the box. Out of the box, person A's way of being toward B acknowledges the humanity/hopes/dreams/fears/insecurities/personhood of B. For those who choose to be out of the box toward me, this way of being is similar if not equivalent to the authenticity acceptance Autin argues against.
6) God might adopt a virtue ethics approach, in which case He knows I need some less-observed space, and for the sake of eudaimonia will apply the atonement so as to "remember no more" my deleterious performance. Plus, I'm an ignorant, weak mortal and literally can't run faster than my own strength on my own. Thus, it is not the gap between my and perfect performance, but between my and a reasonable expectation of my performance commensurate to what I know and am capable of against which I am justly measured. Given how hard I try and how weak I am mentally, rationally, and energetically, that gap probably isn't that big. Plus, there is provision made for my poor performance perhaps in other ways through the Atonement. Utilitarian and virtue ethics approaches would say I need to shed that burden anyway to progress rapidly, as accelerated advancement and ultimate achievement is more likely under the "I feel accepted/safe and therefore am not distracted from pursuing self-improvement by the need to protect myself from condemnation/punishment/harm" than the "avoid condemnation, my performance is always insufficient and likely to incur wrath, direct attempts to be perfect, fearful of failure" approach.
7) John 3:17 For God asent not his Son into the world to bcondemn the world; but that the world through him might be csaved. Samuel Medley, who wrote the text of “I Know That My Redeemer Lives” in 1775, was born in Cheshunt, England, just north of London, in 1738. He practiced sinful and profane ways until his leg was wounded in a naval battle in 1759. The possibility of amputation led Samuel to pray, asking that he might keep his leg. The prayer was answered. Check out these lyrics and weep, Autin-
I know that my redeemer lives
What comfort this sweet sentence gives
He lives! He lives who once was dead
He lives! my ever-living friend
He lives! To bless me with his love
He lives! To plead for me above
He lives! My hungry soul to feed
He lives! To bless in time of need
He lives! To grant me
He lives! To guide me with his light
He lives! To comfort me went faint
He lives! To hear my soul's complaint
He lives! To silence all my fears
He lives! To wipe away my tears
He lives! To calm my troubled heart
He lives! With blessings to impart
He lives, my kind, wise heav’nly friend; He lives and loves me to the end.
He lives, and while he lives I’ll sing; He lives, my Prophet, Priest, and King.
He lives, and while he lives I’ll sing; He lives, my Prophet, Priest, and King.
He lives and grants me daily breath; He lives, and I shall conquer death.
He lives my mansion to prepare; He lives to bring me safely there.
He lives my mansion to prepare; He lives to bring me safely there.
Merging LDS Theology and Organic Evolution
"I see no reason why Mormons cannot, fully and without apology, embrace Darwinian evolution." - Steven Peck
"What sort of God could, would, and did create the world through evolution?" - Wesley J. Wildman
When I was a freshman in High School, I wrote a bitter anti-evolution paper as a response to learning about organic evolution in Earth Science. I was dead-set against the theory of organic evolution.
In college, I approached the subject with a renewed open mind. I fasted, studied, prayed, and, not insignificantly, earned a degree in biology. I extensively reviewed First Presidency statements relevant to organic evolution, heard BYU professors (notably Bill Bradshaw and Duane Jeffrey) lecture on the subject, and read some apostolic statements on the constellation of related matters. I also read Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God, which is in the top five list of books I recommend to others. Dawkin's The Selfish Gene also proved influential.
There are likely four value-adding results of merging organic evolution and LDS theology:
1) Explains why embodiment and physical access to the universe is so important
2) Answers the question of why such a cruel and wasteful process was chosen for creation
3) Contributes to solving the problem of evil
4) Shows the grandeur, glory, and creativity of God
Below, using Steven Peck's Spring 2010 Dialogue article, A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution, and insights from my quest for understanding this constellation of religioscientific issues, I illustrate some problems and resolutions for merging LDS theology and contemporary Darwinian thought.
First, I clarify my use of the term "evolution." I teacher assisted for a couple years for Bill Hess, a plant doctor who taught Biodiversity at BYU. His definition of evolution: "genetic change through time." I believe Darwin's was: "descent with modification." Some define evolution as the idea that all life on Earth (including humans) derive from a common biological origin deep in prehistoric time. I'll mostly use the meld of Bill and Darwin's definitions for the purposes of this post.
Second, I state my assumption for the sake of this post that the main tenets of organic evolutionary theory are likely true (i.e. natural selection provides a sufficient, non-designed explanation for the diversity of life, genetic mutations and variety exist, and selection pressures change the frequency of traits in populations, etc.). Support of this assumption can notably be found in Miller's Finding Darwin's God and my personhood, God of the Gaps, and Epistemology posts.
Third, I summarize and discuss some of Niels Gregerson's five responses to emergence.
(1) f lat religious naturalism,
(2) evolving theistic naturalism
(3) atemporal theism,
(4) temporal theism,
(5) eschatological theism.
(1) f lat religious naturalism- the whole spiritual, non-detectable by current human means portion of the world does not exist. Peck describes the main ontological (study of existence/being) wrinkle thus: "A difficulty that will make this project of bringing together
evolution and LDS theology tough slogging is that, within LDS
thinking, what we mean by a “physical universe” is often muddled.
Mormonism displays a kind of expansive physicalism suggesting
that the universe in toto is a farrago of matter of one kind or another
(D&C 131:7), that part of it (“spirit matter”) remains undetectable
by our perceptual apparatuses and instrumentation,
while we have phenomenological or manipulative access only to
the less “fine” or less “pure” part. This materiality includes Gods,
spirits, intelligences, etc., and may exist in extra-spatial and/or
temporal dimensions but does, presumably, still follow laws of
some kind. All matter is subject to God’s manipulation, thanks to
His greater knowledge and inf luence. This theological description
imposes a kind of dualism in which some aspects of the universe
are available to us and others are not. Lacking reliable
epistemic access to the “spirit matter” part of this world, it must
remain outside our scientific theories and practices, even though
it may play a role in a deeper physical reality." If man can't observe a thing, that thing existeth not. This view may be compatible with LDS theology since we believe we will eventually have the power to detect and observe spirit matter.
(2) evolving theistic naturalism- God emerged from the natural world. He's nothing more than an outgrowth of nature itself. This response doesn't seem very likely if God predated the universe. Then again, one presumes He must have come from somewhere, so the emergence of God in a primal sense isn't wholly unreasonable.
(3) atemporal theism- God's omni- potent, niscient, and present, and created the universe and its laws, which he manipulated to make amenable to human life. God's transcendent and kind of "outside" time. It's not exactly clear how compatible this theism, and specifically its time-banishing element, is consistent with Mormonism. Interesting tangential concepts- gnosticism, stoicism, and Plotinusian thought.
(4) temporal theism- God has a core identity, but influences and is influenced by temporal changes. He's smart enough to predict all logical possibilities, but these alternate potentials don't all come to pass in actual futures, as the actions of free agents and fundamental particles affect what comes to pass.
(5) eschatological theism- I found this one to be the most interesting. Under this construct emergent features in the world (such as people or consciousness) don't result solely from a Godless past. Rather, new futures often hinge on small events that end up being major turning points. God pulls the future into the actual present by influencing small turning points in history. This construct asserts a unidirectional eschatology where the past can be understood only in retrospect, and even a thorough understanding of the present can't be explained merely by analyzing the potentialities in past matter. I don't really grasp how this process works out yet. See also mitichlorian-esque panentheism and pantheism.
So I've touched briefly on Grergeson's five responses. Now, fourth, I'll flesh out a few less-organized concepts, then finally conclude.
There's a tension between the purposeless progress and process of evolution and the presumed teleology (the study of aim/purpose) of God, e.g. to bring about man's immortality and eternal life. The scriptures indicate a high degree of premeditation and planning in the creation and man's role therein- the "creative destruction" of evolution doesn't much seem to plan. Life on earth has been and continues to be brutal and seemingly wasteful teleologically.
In 1911, some scholars were dismissed at BYU for promoting evolution and modern biblical criticism. I smile because I've heard both on campus by BYU professors- so this debate isn't new. See some of Margaret Barker's books for the biblical criticism.
Natural evil- Perhaps theodicy justifies the use of evolution because there aren't better alternatives- the end of man requires that cruel path. Then again, "Through millions of years, billions of animals experience vast amounts of pain, supposedly so that, after an enormous number of extinctions of entire species, on the tip of one twig of the evolutionary tree, there may emerge a species with the special properties that make us able to worship the Creator."
Perhaps the agency exercised by each of us and Adam and Eve in possessing a temporal body (the Fall) explains the existence of evil. In any case, I think the problem of evil and suffering is a signifant one.
Design- Did God design His body? God seems to work within natural law. Does He manipulate natural law? Probably not. If God works within natural law and natural law includes evolution through natural selection, the it would be a bad plan to divorce oneself from the natural selection framework. Thus, understanding evolution is potentially helpful and maybe even necessary in order to understand God.
I also think the idea that limited adaptive spaces makes humans or something like them, if not inevitable, more than nominally likely to result from natural selection in an earth or earth-like environment. Miller advocates this possibility in Only a Theory; Simon Conway Morris makes some more sophisticated arguments about its likelihood.
Embodiment- "The bodies of flesh and bone with which I am familiar do not shine, have blood, cannot hover, can be wounded and die, must move
through contiguous points of time-space. In short, they are not at all
like the bodies of the Father and the Son. So what does it mean to say
that the Father and the Son have bodies? In fact, does it mean anything
at all? ...
One could also legitimately ask: Is God a Homo sapiens? Is God
a mammal? Scientists have speculated on what a bipedal hominid
evolved from avian precursors might look like. Would it have leftover
structures like a pygostyle (a reduced fusion of vertebrae) instead
of a tail? Slime molds can take very complex shapes in some
of their life history stages. Can we imagine a human body that
evolved from slime molds on another planet? It seems that many
of our human features are part and parcel of our being mammals.
Could being a mammal be a contingent feature of our evolution
rather than an eternal part of our resurrected bodies?" Interesting quote.
Teleology- One of the most provoking quotes in Peck's article: "Nevertheless, if we embrace an evolutionary perspective, the idea
of God’s intervention, petitionary prayer, and divine action to
bring about His purposes become thorny issues. A nice thing about
the magical view of creation is that it is no problem at all to imagine God intervening in the world.Why use evolution through natural
selection in a non-teleological fashion if waving a magic wand
was possible? In fact, if God can and sometimes does intervene,
then why doesn’t He do it all the time?Why didn’t He do it during
the Creation? This question opens an intriguing possibility: the
necessary place of consciousness in divine interventions." This seems consistent with "The Lord worketh not among the children of Men save according to their faith." The implications are profound and support a case for urgency in persuading people to work out their own salvation in fear and trembling.
Also, "So there seems to be something deeply important about physicality
and spirit coming together. Could it be that the physical
world can be manipulated only through consciousness-mediated
direct action? Or through this kind of body that unites spirit and
physical matter? When I read the scriptures, I see a God who makes
arrangements for irreplaceable records to be kept, preserved, and
maintained through conscious effort. He implies that, if they are
not, this knowledge will be lost and not brought back through His
intervention. I see the Lamanites languishing in unbelief until the
sons of Mosiah are inspired to go among them. Angels bear messages
to other consciousnesses but do not seem to manipulate the
world in interventionist ways. Almost all of the scriptures can be reinterpreted
as acts of consciousness acting in the world... much of how God works in the world seems to be that He communicates
to and through conscious beings who then use their agency
to act. Stories of people inspired to stop and help a widow take on
new meaning if God cannot help the widow without us."
An early 20th century First Presidency statement: "even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God." Joseph F. Smith John R. Winder Anthon H. Lund First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints November 1909. Perhaps a Darwinian selection process requiring trial and proving are necessary to produce exaltation candidates. Out of all the intelligences out there, perhaps natural selection drives their emergence as Gods. Those intelligences or spirits certainly have the variability required (1. BD War in Heaven- every degree of devotion to the Father and Son among them, 2. many of the noble and great ones [thus not all were noble and great], 3. likely diversity in righteousness and obedience). We inherit traits from God- thus the heritability requirement. Obedience and righteousness is selected for by eternal reward and exaltation, thus the third requirement for natural selection (i.e. variability, heritability, and selection). Even the quasi-requirement of abundant time is met (ages and aeons).
Peck: "To me, evolution is an empowering idea. Linking it to our theology
provides answers to several perplexing questions. It suggests
that there is something wonderfully important about embodiment
and why physical access to the universe is so important. Our doctrines,
informed by evolution, answer questions about why such a
cruel and wasteful process was chosen for creation and resituate
the problem of evil. I find easy adaptations to our most important
and profound doctrines. I see no reason why Mormons cannot,
fully and without apology, embrace Darwinian evolution. As Darwin
concluded his magnificent On the Origin of Species: “There is
grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been
originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst
this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity,
from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and
most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.65"
Conclusion: The three fold take-home message of this post is 1) to read Miller's book (Finding Darwin's God or Only a Theory) for persuasive arguments about contemporary evolutionary theory, 2) I'm personally persuaded that most of the main tenets of contemporary organic evolutionary theory are reasonable and mostly compatible with LDS theology, and 3) there may be a lot gained by marrying LDS theology and Darwinian evolutionary theory, especially if both are mostly true and all truth can be circumscribed in one great whole.
"What sort of God could, would, and did create the world through evolution?" - Wesley J. Wildman
When I was a freshman in High School, I wrote a bitter anti-evolution paper as a response to learning about organic evolution in Earth Science. I was dead-set against the theory of organic evolution.
In college, I approached the subject with a renewed open mind. I fasted, studied, prayed, and, not insignificantly, earned a degree in biology. I extensively reviewed First Presidency statements relevant to organic evolution, heard BYU professors (notably Bill Bradshaw and Duane Jeffrey) lecture on the subject, and read some apostolic statements on the constellation of related matters. I also read Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God, which is in the top five list of books I recommend to others. Dawkin's The Selfish Gene also proved influential.
There are likely four value-adding results of merging organic evolution and LDS theology:
1) Explains why embodiment and physical access to the universe is so important
2) Answers the question of why such a cruel and wasteful process was chosen for creation
3) Contributes to solving the problem of evil
4) Shows the grandeur, glory, and creativity of God
Below, using Steven Peck's Spring 2010 Dialogue article, A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution, and insights from my quest for understanding this constellation of religioscientific issues, I illustrate some problems and resolutions for merging LDS theology and contemporary Darwinian thought.
First, I clarify my use of the term "evolution." I teacher assisted for a couple years for Bill Hess, a plant doctor who taught Biodiversity at BYU. His definition of evolution: "genetic change through time." I believe Darwin's was: "descent with modification." Some define evolution as the idea that all life on Earth (including humans) derive from a common biological origin deep in prehistoric time. I'll mostly use the meld of Bill and Darwin's definitions for the purposes of this post.
Second, I state my assumption for the sake of this post that the main tenets of organic evolutionary theory are likely true (i.e. natural selection provides a sufficient, non-designed explanation for the diversity of life, genetic mutations and variety exist, and selection pressures change the frequency of traits in populations, etc.). Support of this assumption can notably be found in Miller's Finding Darwin's God and my personhood, God of the Gaps, and Epistemology posts.
Third, I summarize and discuss some of Niels Gregerson's five responses to emergence.
(1) f lat religious naturalism,
(2) evolving theistic naturalism
(3) atemporal theism,
(4) temporal theism,
(5) eschatological theism.
(1) f lat religious naturalism- the whole spiritual, non-detectable by current human means portion of the world does not exist. Peck describes the main ontological (study of existence/being) wrinkle thus: "A difficulty that will make this project of bringing together
evolution and LDS theology tough slogging is that, within LDS
thinking, what we mean by a “physical universe” is often muddled.
Mormonism displays a kind of expansive physicalism suggesting
that the universe in toto is a farrago of matter of one kind or another
(D&C 131:7), that part of it (“spirit matter”) remains undetectable
by our perceptual apparatuses and instrumentation,
while we have phenomenological or manipulative access only to
the less “fine” or less “pure” part. This materiality includes Gods,
spirits, intelligences, etc., and may exist in extra-spatial and/or
temporal dimensions but does, presumably, still follow laws of
some kind. All matter is subject to God’s manipulation, thanks to
His greater knowledge and inf luence. This theological description
imposes a kind of dualism in which some aspects of the universe
are available to us and others are not. Lacking reliable
epistemic access to the “spirit matter” part of this world, it must
remain outside our scientific theories and practices, even though
it may play a role in a deeper physical reality." If man can't observe a thing, that thing existeth not. This view may be compatible with LDS theology since we believe we will eventually have the power to detect and observe spirit matter.
(2) evolving theistic naturalism- God emerged from the natural world. He's nothing more than an outgrowth of nature itself. This response doesn't seem very likely if God predated the universe. Then again, one presumes He must have come from somewhere, so the emergence of God in a primal sense isn't wholly unreasonable.
(3) atemporal theism- God's omni- potent, niscient, and present, and created the universe and its laws, which he manipulated to make amenable to human life. God's transcendent and kind of "outside" time. It's not exactly clear how compatible this theism, and specifically its time-banishing element, is consistent with Mormonism. Interesting tangential concepts- gnosticism, stoicism, and Plotinusian thought.
(4) temporal theism- God has a core identity, but influences and is influenced by temporal changes. He's smart enough to predict all logical possibilities, but these alternate potentials don't all come to pass in actual futures, as the actions of free agents and fundamental particles affect what comes to pass.
(5) eschatological theism- I found this one to be the most interesting. Under this construct emergent features in the world (such as people or consciousness) don't result solely from a Godless past. Rather, new futures often hinge on small events that end up being major turning points. God pulls the future into the actual present by influencing small turning points in history. This construct asserts a unidirectional eschatology where the past can be understood only in retrospect, and even a thorough understanding of the present can't be explained merely by analyzing the potentialities in past matter. I don't really grasp how this process works out yet. See also mitichlorian-esque panentheism and pantheism.
So I've touched briefly on Grergeson's five responses. Now, fourth, I'll flesh out a few less-organized concepts, then finally conclude.
There's a tension between the purposeless progress and process of evolution and the presumed teleology (the study of aim/purpose) of God, e.g. to bring about man's immortality and eternal life. The scriptures indicate a high degree of premeditation and planning in the creation and man's role therein- the "creative destruction" of evolution doesn't much seem to plan. Life on earth has been and continues to be brutal and seemingly wasteful teleologically.
In 1911, some scholars were dismissed at BYU for promoting evolution and modern biblical criticism. I smile because I've heard both on campus by BYU professors- so this debate isn't new. See some of Margaret Barker's books for the biblical criticism.
Natural evil- Perhaps theodicy justifies the use of evolution because there aren't better alternatives- the end of man requires that cruel path. Then again, "Through millions of years, billions of animals experience vast amounts of pain, supposedly so that, after an enormous number of extinctions of entire species, on the tip of one twig of the evolutionary tree, there may emerge a species with the special properties that make us able to worship the Creator."
Perhaps the agency exercised by each of us and Adam and Eve in possessing a temporal body (the Fall) explains the existence of evil. In any case, I think the problem of evil and suffering is a signifant one.
Design- Did God design His body? God seems to work within natural law. Does He manipulate natural law? Probably not. If God works within natural law and natural law includes evolution through natural selection, the it would be a bad plan to divorce oneself from the natural selection framework. Thus, understanding evolution is potentially helpful and maybe even necessary in order to understand God.
I also think the idea that limited adaptive spaces makes humans or something like them, if not inevitable, more than nominally likely to result from natural selection in an earth or earth-like environment. Miller advocates this possibility in Only a Theory; Simon Conway Morris makes some more sophisticated arguments about its likelihood.
Embodiment- "The bodies of flesh and bone with which I am familiar do not shine, have blood, cannot hover, can be wounded and die, must move
through contiguous points of time-space. In short, they are not at all
like the bodies of the Father and the Son. So what does it mean to say
that the Father and the Son have bodies? In fact, does it mean anything
at all? ...
One could also legitimately ask: Is God a Homo sapiens? Is God
a mammal? Scientists have speculated on what a bipedal hominid
evolved from avian precursors might look like. Would it have leftover
structures like a pygostyle (a reduced fusion of vertebrae) instead
of a tail? Slime molds can take very complex shapes in some
of their life history stages. Can we imagine a human body that
evolved from slime molds on another planet? It seems that many
of our human features are part and parcel of our being mammals.
Could being a mammal be a contingent feature of our evolution
rather than an eternal part of our resurrected bodies?" Interesting quote.
Teleology- One of the most provoking quotes in Peck's article: "Nevertheless, if we embrace an evolutionary perspective, the idea
of God’s intervention, petitionary prayer, and divine action to
bring about His purposes become thorny issues. A nice thing about
the magical view of creation is that it is no problem at all to imagine God intervening in the world.Why use evolution through natural
selection in a non-teleological fashion if waving a magic wand
was possible? In fact, if God can and sometimes does intervene,
then why doesn’t He do it all the time?Why didn’t He do it during
the Creation? This question opens an intriguing possibility: the
necessary place of consciousness in divine interventions." This seems consistent with "The Lord worketh not among the children of Men save according to their faith." The implications are profound and support a case for urgency in persuading people to work out their own salvation in fear and trembling.
Also, "So there seems to be something deeply important about physicality
and spirit coming together. Could it be that the physical
world can be manipulated only through consciousness-mediated
direct action? Or through this kind of body that unites spirit and
physical matter? When I read the scriptures, I see a God who makes
arrangements for irreplaceable records to be kept, preserved, and
maintained through conscious effort. He implies that, if they are
not, this knowledge will be lost and not brought back through His
intervention. I see the Lamanites languishing in unbelief until the
sons of Mosiah are inspired to go among them. Angels bear messages
to other consciousnesses but do not seem to manipulate the
world in interventionist ways. Almost all of the scriptures can be reinterpreted
as acts of consciousness acting in the world... much of how God works in the world seems to be that He communicates
to and through conscious beings who then use their agency
to act. Stories of people inspired to stop and help a widow take on
new meaning if God cannot help the widow without us."
An early 20th century First Presidency statement: "even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God." Joseph F. Smith John R. Winder Anthon H. Lund First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints November 1909. Perhaps a Darwinian selection process requiring trial and proving are necessary to produce exaltation candidates. Out of all the intelligences out there, perhaps natural selection drives their emergence as Gods. Those intelligences or spirits certainly have the variability required (1. BD War in Heaven- every degree of devotion to the Father and Son among them, 2. many of the noble and great ones [thus not all were noble and great], 3. likely diversity in righteousness and obedience). We inherit traits from God- thus the heritability requirement. Obedience and righteousness is selected for by eternal reward and exaltation, thus the third requirement for natural selection (i.e. variability, heritability, and selection). Even the quasi-requirement of abundant time is met (ages and aeons).
Peck: "To me, evolution is an empowering idea. Linking it to our theology
provides answers to several perplexing questions. It suggests
that there is something wonderfully important about embodiment
and why physical access to the universe is so important. Our doctrines,
informed by evolution, answer questions about why such a
cruel and wasteful process was chosen for creation and resituate
the problem of evil. I find easy adaptations to our most important
and profound doctrines. I see no reason why Mormons cannot,
fully and without apology, embrace Darwinian evolution. As Darwin
concluded his magnificent On the Origin of Species: “There is
grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been
originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst
this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity,
from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and
most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.65"
Conclusion: The three fold take-home message of this post is 1) to read Miller's book (Finding Darwin's God or Only a Theory) for persuasive arguments about contemporary evolutionary theory, 2) I'm personally persuaded that most of the main tenets of contemporary organic evolutionary theory are reasonable and mostly compatible with LDS theology, and 3) there may be a lot gained by marrying LDS theology and Darwinian evolutionary theory, especially if both are mostly true and all truth can be circumscribed in one great whole.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Reflections of a Mormon Feminist: the role of women and men in and out of the church
God's anti-discrimination Title VII: "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord... and he ainviteth them ball to ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he ddenieth none that come unto him, black and white, ebond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the fheathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (circa 550 B.C.)
Title VII specifically prohibits discrimination in the categories of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Amendment 13 prohibits slavery.
God's analog seems to specifically prohibit discrimination in the categories of color, slave/non-slave, sex, and a form of national origin or perhaps religion (Jew and Gentile). I'm not really sure what category is implicated by the reference to the heathen (uneducated? not religiously trained?).
Good going for America for the apparent anti-discrimination harmony with God's revealed word.
By the way, just for the record, I trust it is presumed on my blog generally that I am an active, worthy member of the LDS church loyal to its teachings and leadership. Gordon B. Hinckley said in an April 2003 talk entitled "Loyalty" that "This is His work. He established it. He has revealed its doctrine. He has outlined its practices. He created its government. It is His work and His kingdom, and He has said, "They who are not for me are against me" (2 Nephi 10:16)... Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." I know the Church is true, and I am loyal to it and intend to follow the counsel of its leader.
Now, I'm going to hone in on the gender discrimination and examine it using the comparison to the issue of racial discrimination as evidenced in the "separate but equal" (see Plessy) and "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" (see Brown v. Board of Education) language. No doubt brighter authors than I have done this very exegesis before. I feel more uneducated on this subject cluster than on other recent posts. Notwithstanding, here goes:
Plessy: Family Proclamation :: Brown: Adam and Eve story. Allow me to explain.
Much has been made of the "separate but equal" roles of men and women in the church. The divine role of women and the doctrine of motherhood is abundantly taught. (See for more detail LDS Family Ideals versus the Equality of Women: Navigating the Changes Since 1957 2008). The Family Proclamation teaches:
"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." (separate responsibilities but equal partners- separate but equal, Plessy's language)
This paragraph expounds separate responsibilities for fathers and mothers, though it doesn't go as far as to say in what ways the two genders' natures differ (that they differ is implied by "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."). Because I want to get to other points, I will not exhaustively research authoritative statements which support a conclusion that, for instance, the church teaches that men are built better for providing or that women are built better for nurturing children than the opposite gender. Although I would point out that although women and men might complement each other well generally, the general man and the general women never marry- instead, there is always a specific man and a specific woman, each with a unique attribute profile. If the father is more nurturing than the mother, or the woman more capable and inclined to protect or provide than the man, then the couple has a tougher job complying with the articulated roles than a more stereotypical couple. If one's profile of characteristics is largely unchosen, this result seems hard and unfair- with the seeming response of "tough luck."
Anyway, back to my intended points. The Adam and Eve story is one of the ideal marriage and family, and provides an archetype to follow. It seems that Adam and Eve's approach wouldn't fit in very well under the modern church's depiction of gender roles. That could be okay - the modern church is for the modern world, and Adam and Eve were in a different world, a new world, where they had the opportunity of establishing the culture rather than responding to it. However, the juxtaposition might shed some light on the doctrine of gender roles. I think it paints more of a picture of equality than the "separate but equal" conception extant today. (Though I don't here, I might also juxtapose an interesting third option chronologically nestled between the First Family and the Modern Family, namely the Polygynous Family, which like the other two, seems to have garnered at least occasional endorsement by God).
Back to the First Family. Adam and Eve did everything together. In Moses 5, it seems there wasn't a division of labor resulting from different innate, gender-specific tendencies.
Did just Adam do the providing? No, they worked together: "Adam began to till the earth, and to have adominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his bbrow, as I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wife, did clabor with him.
Did Adam take the lead as voice in their prayers, receive commandments, and pass them along to his wife? No- they prayed and worshiped and received revelation together. Notice the "they's": "And Adam and Eve, his wife, acalled upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of bEden, speaking unto them... And he gave unto them commandments, that they should aworship the Lord their God, and should offer the bfirstlings of their cflocks, for an offering unto the Lord."
Did Eve do the predominant share of nurturing? Here the answer is less clear, though again the partnership is referenced as the teaching entity: " And Adam and aEve blessed the name of God, and they made all things bknown unto their sons and their daughters." I think there is no doubt that women have a nurturing nature- but I'm not convinced that men lack this ability.
Brizendine, The Male Brain, 2010: "The stereotype of the stoic, unemotional male is again contradicted by research showing that the daddy brain and mature male brain are profoundly devoted and nurturing" (132).
I also don't think it is clear that men lack the level of nurturing that women exhibit, though men may nurture differently than women. I think men often nurture in similar ways as well, though- e.g. see the male-only priesthood qualities from D y C 121 that sound very feminine and nurturing, such as "cpersuasion, by dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned 42 By akindness, and pure bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the csoul without dhypocrisy, and without eguile- 43 aReproving betimes with bsharpness, when cmoved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of dlove toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy." Thus, I think men are equally qualified to teach and nurture children. At the least I think they could unlock the ability if socialized to do so.
I also see little reason on a "nature" argument why women are not cut out to be providers. Women are strong and smart and can do about anything with some training (as can men generally as well). Eve didn't seem to balk at earth tilling. Indeed, history shows that women can work.
One ill of promoting a Modern Family over a First Family model is that some of those "misfits" (e.g. 1: *Jessica Stott, a young and high-accomplishing Ph.D. professor in the MPA program. Her husband is content to be a stay-at-home dad and his wife the breadwinner. Or 2: *Sarah Stewart, a high-accomplishing, full time MPA student, mother of four friend of mine) receive condemnation, both direct and indirect, within the church. Who can blame them, when the Family Proclamates: " By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." Both couple examples I illustrated are misfits. In the First Family model, however, such a couple is not out of line, as long as the couple somehow provides and the couple somehow nurtures. The First Family model treats the couple as a unit, rather than an association of a father and a mother to whom different duties independently attach. The First Family approach seems to treat the couple as "one flesh" better than the Modern Family framework.
Personal preference, I like the First Family approach more than the Modern Family approach. It seems to be a better policy in an ideal and a practical world because men and women really are equal, and avoiding role differentiation allows the couple greater flexibility in fulfilling the parenting and other responsibilities incumbent on them as a couple. I think in a First Family, if there is any failure in the performance of parenting duties, then each is held individually responsible for the breach, as each individual is accountable for the entire parental performance. In addition to apportioning responsibility, I see great benefit in a tighter peer/equality relationship. As the Brown decision says, separate is inherently unequal. This justification is bounded, though- for there are some physical differences at least between the average man and average woman (see e.g. Brizendine's The Female Brain and The Male Brain). As mentioned above, though - because unique individuals marry rather than averages, less discriminating of roles seems a propos (instead, assign roles to the couple rather than to individuals, which further incentivizes unity). Men and women "are alike" - at least to God.
God unifies. The at-onement is all about at-one-ing us with God and each other. The baptism covenant, though between an individual and God, binds her to her fellows ("bear one another's burdens). Satan, on the other hand, divides and separates. He tries to separate us from God. Division seems to be an indicator of the Devil's work. He tries to separate and divide families. He tries to prevent and disrupt the unity of marriage. He approached Adam and Eve separately so that the fall was staggered rather than unified. Nibley speaks of this wedging and decries both matriarchy and patriarchy. The relevance of this distinction is that it seems the First Family is more "together" than the divided roles expounded in the Modern Family: vir et uxor consentur in lege una persona- "a husband and wife are regarded in law as one person." Counterargument- "Think not that I am come to send apeace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Interestingly, not husband against wife).
Jesus and Joseph Smith were both progressive feminists for their time. I wish I had some substantiating examples close at hand.
Though Jesus and Elohim exemplify charity for us, charity itself is female rather than male: Moroni 7:45 "And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own..."
Proverbs 2 and 3 refer to wisdom and understanding as female: "So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; 3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; 4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures..."
Dialogue with my brother:
Another good example is women's rights. In the church women don't have any rights. Counterexamples- the right to pray, the right to read scriptures, the right to believe as they choose, all civilly-guaranteed rights, and the right to repent. If you argue that they only have these rights through men (e.g. scriptures because they were revealed through a man or they have the right to pray because a male told them how), you might similarly argue that any rights men have come through women because none are born except to a woman. My point is that you might have a solid claim here, but it's not yet well supported or sufficiently narrow. Any rights they have come through a man. This is understandable as it was the way society was run in the not too distant past. I agree generally. Many religions, including ours, have their roots in a man-centric milieu (e.g. 19th amendment wasn't until 1920). Women couldn't own property, they couldn't vote, and they were basically add-ons to their husbands. If you lived in a society like this today you would be labeled a patriarchial society. This is how the church still operates. Women are barred from holding the power of god, counterexample 1: officiating women in the temple. counterexample 2: any women exercising faith in the magnifying of her calling. they're barred from taking part in any leadership role that doesn't involve other women or children, I'm struggling to conceive of counterexamples here- e.g. a Sunday School secretary isn't a classic leadership role, and a mother role, though a leadership position, is mostly relevant to children, i.e. her role diminishes even in a family of only sons as the males become adults- so good point as far as I can tell. they're even technically barred from heaven if they don't have a man to let them in (see temple ritual). True, although that bar applies equally to men, i.e. neither men nor women can attain the highest degree of exaltation but for sealing to an opposite-gender spouse. Does this make sense in a modern context? Not really. I agree in that the restrictions do seem deleteriously and unnecessarily limiting. Those restrictions may not exist forever- as others, the policy might feasibly change in the future (presuming the policy is either A) merely a practice like blacks and the priesthood or B) malum prohibitum only, like polygamy). I observed an all-female clergy in an episcopal church a month ago and they seemed competent for the pastoral role. Given the opportunity, I see few skills women couldn't develop that are relevant to current male-only roles in the church. Also, since growth and progress are important aims for men and women, it makes a lot of sense to open up traditionally male-only leadership roles to women (except for the presumed fact of current contrary revelation). Difficult as some church leadership roles such as bishop are, they offer unparalleled outcomes for those who fulfill such roles (examples include understanding principles and refining skills of change, government, judgment, gentleness, love, stewardship, accountability, and leadership more generally). There is little reason to conclude that women, though they might fulfill these roles differently, would do a worse job than men. Nor does it seem likely that men have more need than women for the lessons gained from fulfilling these roles outside contrived gender distinctions.
I'd like to read a book on female and male roles in the LDS church. I don't know enough about these issues. I'd also to to read a book analyzing chronologically LDS statements on contraception.
> The Place of Mormon Women: Perceptions, Prozac, Polygamy, Priesthood, Patriarchy, and Peace
> ""it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by." - First Presidency statement (David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Office of the First Presidency, April 15, 1969
> "As to sex in marriage, the necessary treatise on that for Latter-day Saints can be written in two sentences: Remember the prime purpose of sex desire is to beget children. Sex gratification must be had at that hazard."
(J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report 1949, Oct: pp. 194-95)
Excerpt from my Sunstone Symposium post, in the Mormon Women's Forum section:
If one were to go about trying to establish gender equality in the church, presuming that priesthood exclusivity tips the scales in favor of men, two primary strategies would be likely to succeed:
1) demean men in relationship to women, such that priesthood acquisition then brings the two into balance
2) exalt women in relationship to men
I have observed both in abundance. Evidence:
Strategy 1) When I was in the MTC, I remember asking our middle-aged branch president why the idea persists that women are naturally better/more spiritual than men, noting how frequently I hear that idea expressed (the idea bothered me at the time). He told me "simply because it's true." Also, the persistent theme in the church that men are most frequently the ones who cheat on or leave spouses, abuse and neglect their children, etc., shows that they must be the worse of the two sexes. Further, polygamy shows that men are naturally worse since there are so many more righteous women than there are men: just take a look at current active women>men ratio in the church.
Strategy 2) I have heard from LDS pulpits the idea that women, since they were created last, are God's "crowning creation," implying their superiority to men. Also, women have the supernal role mother and wife, and are superior nurturers by nature.
These relative to each other, men- denigrating and women-exalting themes are ill-founded and misleading if they aren't true.
-I would counter some of the pieces above by noting that though women on average are perhaps more emotionally expressive and use their MNS more frequently, this fact even if verified does not necessarily support a conclusion that women are more spiritual, since emotion is not equivalent to the Spirit. To the contrary, the presumption that revelation reception rates for the two genders are very similar is a reasonable one.
- I would note that if women were created last, men were created first, and Jesus was both male and the Firstborn. If you're going to make a women>men claim on the basis of sequential creation, it seems that God makes His best creation first, so the crowning creation argument is at the least neutralized if not superseded.
- I would point out that focusing on nurturing and motherhood when addressing gender equality excludes the value of single and/or career-focused women. Unless that focus is accompanied by a similar focus on providing/protecting/presiding and fatherhood for men which would also exclude childless and/or career-focused men, then the nurture focus leads to further inequality.
- Since when are the roles of mother and wife more significant than the roles of father and husband? Thus, focusing on the mother/wife role doesn't boost women relative to men absent a conclusion that mother>father and/or wife>husband. As to the nurturing argument, I would argue that men nurture differently than women on average, but not necessarily worse or less. Also, is nurturing more important than the male-associated roles of providing, protecting, and presiding, all identified in the Family Proclamation? One must necessarily conclude as much to exalt women in relation to men on a nurture basis.
- See more of my detailed arguments in my Mormon feminist post. Basically the conclusion is that, at the margin, men and women are equal up until 1) male-only priesthood, 2) male-oriented scriptural focus, 3) polygamy, and 4) patriarchal order tip the scales in favor of men.
There are female characterizations of deity or God's attributes in several places in the scriptures. Two examples that come to mind: A hen gathering her chickens (3 Nephi 10), and charity as a her (Moroni 7).
I would predict that church practices and principles regarding females have changed over time. Examples will likely include working outside the home; praying, speaking, voting/sustaining, and partaking of the sacrament at church; and becoming very educated.
I think if there are incompletenesses or imperfections in the church, but the Lord still is well pleased with it and allows it to exercise His authorized priesthood and seals ordinances performed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, I am encouraged. If God will grant that level of acceptance of an incomplete or imperfect church, then perhaps He will grant me a high level of acceptance- because I am all sorts of incomplete and imperfect.
Caveat: My blog generally is a way to "try on" ideas to see how they feel, rather than an authoritative, certain, or permanent stance I assert. Simplex commendatio non obligat - "A simple recommendation does not bind." This is especially true of this post.
Title VII specifically prohibits discrimination in the categories of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Amendment 13 prohibits slavery.
God's analog seems to specifically prohibit discrimination in the categories of color, slave/non-slave, sex, and a form of national origin or perhaps religion (Jew and Gentile). I'm not really sure what category is implicated by the reference to the heathen (uneducated? not religiously trained?).
Good going for America for the apparent anti-discrimination harmony with God's revealed word.
By the way, just for the record, I trust it is presumed on my blog generally that I am an active, worthy member of the LDS church loyal to its teachings and leadership. Gordon B. Hinckley said in an April 2003 talk entitled "Loyalty" that "This is His work. He established it. He has revealed its doctrine. He has outlined its practices. He created its government. It is His work and His kingdom, and He has said, "They who are not for me are against me" (2 Nephi 10:16)... Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." I know the Church is true, and I am loyal to it and intend to follow the counsel of its leader.
Now, I'm going to hone in on the gender discrimination and examine it using the comparison to the issue of racial discrimination as evidenced in the "separate but equal" (see Plessy) and "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" (see Brown v. Board of Education) language. No doubt brighter authors than I have done this very exegesis before. I feel more uneducated on this subject cluster than on other recent posts. Notwithstanding, here goes:
Plessy: Family Proclamation :: Brown: Adam and Eve story. Allow me to explain.
Much has been made of the "separate but equal" roles of men and women in the church. The divine role of women and the doctrine of motherhood is abundantly taught. (See for more detail LDS Family Ideals versus the Equality of Women: Navigating the Changes Since 1957 2008). The Family Proclamation teaches:
"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." (separate responsibilities but equal partners- separate but equal, Plessy's language)
This paragraph expounds separate responsibilities for fathers and mothers, though it doesn't go as far as to say in what ways the two genders' natures differ (that they differ is implied by "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."). Because I want to get to other points, I will not exhaustively research authoritative statements which support a conclusion that, for instance, the church teaches that men are built better for providing or that women are built better for nurturing children than the opposite gender. Although I would point out that although women and men might complement each other well generally, the general man and the general women never marry- instead, there is always a specific man and a specific woman, each with a unique attribute profile. If the father is more nurturing than the mother, or the woman more capable and inclined to protect or provide than the man, then the couple has a tougher job complying with the articulated roles than a more stereotypical couple. If one's profile of characteristics is largely unchosen, this result seems hard and unfair- with the seeming response of "tough luck."
Anyway, back to my intended points. The Adam and Eve story is one of the ideal marriage and family, and provides an archetype to follow. It seems that Adam and Eve's approach wouldn't fit in very well under the modern church's depiction of gender roles. That could be okay - the modern church is for the modern world, and Adam and Eve were in a different world, a new world, where they had the opportunity of establishing the culture rather than responding to it. However, the juxtaposition might shed some light on the doctrine of gender roles. I think it paints more of a picture of equality than the "separate but equal" conception extant today. (Though I don't here, I might also juxtapose an interesting third option chronologically nestled between the First Family and the Modern Family, namely the Polygynous Family, which like the other two, seems to have garnered at least occasional endorsement by God).
Back to the First Family. Adam and Eve did everything together. In Moses 5, it seems there wasn't a division of labor resulting from different innate, gender-specific tendencies.
Did just Adam do the providing? No, they worked together: "Adam began to till the earth, and to have adominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his bbrow, as I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wife, did clabor with him.
Did Adam take the lead as voice in their prayers, receive commandments, and pass them along to his wife? No- they prayed and worshiped and received revelation together. Notice the "they's": "And Adam and Eve, his wife, acalled upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of bEden, speaking unto them... And he gave unto them commandments, that they should aworship the Lord their God, and should offer the bfirstlings of their cflocks, for an offering unto the Lord."
Did Eve do the predominant share of nurturing? Here the answer is less clear, though again the partnership is referenced as the teaching entity: " And Adam and aEve blessed the name of God, and they made all things bknown unto their sons and their daughters." I think there is no doubt that women have a nurturing nature- but I'm not convinced that men lack this ability.
Brizendine, The Male Brain, 2010: "The stereotype of the stoic, unemotional male is again contradicted by research showing that the daddy brain and mature male brain are profoundly devoted and nurturing" (132).
I also don't think it is clear that men lack the level of nurturing that women exhibit, though men may nurture differently than women. I think men often nurture in similar ways as well, though- e.g. see the male-only priesthood qualities from D y C 121 that sound very feminine and nurturing, such as "cpersuasion, by dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned 42 By akindness, and pure bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the csoul without dhypocrisy, and without eguile- 43 aReproving betimes with bsharpness, when cmoved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of dlove toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy." Thus, I think men are equally qualified to teach and nurture children. At the least I think they could unlock the ability if socialized to do so.
I also see little reason on a "nature" argument why women are not cut out to be providers. Women are strong and smart and can do about anything with some training (as can men generally as well). Eve didn't seem to balk at earth tilling. Indeed, history shows that women can work.
One ill of promoting a Modern Family over a First Family model is that some of those "misfits" (e.g. 1: *Jessica Stott, a young and high-accomplishing Ph.D. professor in the MPA program. Her husband is content to be a stay-at-home dad and his wife the breadwinner. Or 2: *Sarah Stewart, a high-accomplishing, full time MPA student, mother of four friend of mine) receive condemnation, both direct and indirect, within the church. Who can blame them, when the Family Proclamates: " By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." Both couple examples I illustrated are misfits. In the First Family model, however, such a couple is not out of line, as long as the couple somehow provides and the couple somehow nurtures. The First Family model treats the couple as a unit, rather than an association of a father and a mother to whom different duties independently attach. The First Family approach seems to treat the couple as "one flesh" better than the Modern Family framework.
Personal preference, I like the First Family approach more than the Modern Family approach. It seems to be a better policy in an ideal and a practical world because men and women really are equal, and avoiding role differentiation allows the couple greater flexibility in fulfilling the parenting and other responsibilities incumbent on them as a couple. I think in a First Family, if there is any failure in the performance of parenting duties, then each is held individually responsible for the breach, as each individual is accountable for the entire parental performance. In addition to apportioning responsibility, I see great benefit in a tighter peer/equality relationship. As the Brown decision says, separate is inherently unequal. This justification is bounded, though- for there are some physical differences at least between the average man and average woman (see e.g. Brizendine's The Female Brain and The Male Brain). As mentioned above, though - because unique individuals marry rather than averages, less discriminating of roles seems a propos (instead, assign roles to the couple rather than to individuals, which further incentivizes unity). Men and women "are alike" - at least to God.
God unifies. The at-onement is all about at-one-ing us with God and each other. The baptism covenant, though between an individual and God, binds her to her fellows ("bear one another's burdens). Satan, on the other hand, divides and separates. He tries to separate us from God. Division seems to be an indicator of the Devil's work. He tries to separate and divide families. He tries to prevent and disrupt the unity of marriage. He approached Adam and Eve separately so that the fall was staggered rather than unified. Nibley speaks of this wedging and decries both matriarchy and patriarchy. The relevance of this distinction is that it seems the First Family is more "together" than the divided roles expounded in the Modern Family: vir et uxor consentur in lege una persona- "a husband and wife are regarded in law as one person." Counterargument- "Think not that I am come to send apeace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Interestingly, not husband against wife).
Jesus and Joseph Smith were both progressive feminists for their time. I wish I had some substantiating examples close at hand.
Though Jesus and Elohim exemplify charity for us, charity itself is female rather than male: Moroni 7:45 "And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own..."
Proverbs 2 and 3 refer to wisdom and understanding as female: "So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; 3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; 4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures..."
Dialogue with my brother:
Another good example is women's rights. In the church women don't have any rights. Counterexamples- the right to pray, the right to read scriptures, the right to believe as they choose, all civilly-guaranteed rights, and the right to repent. If you argue that they only have these rights through men (e.g. scriptures because they were revealed through a man or they have the right to pray because a male told them how), you might similarly argue that any rights men have come through women because none are born except to a woman. My point is that you might have a solid claim here, but it's not yet well supported or sufficiently narrow. Any rights they have come through a man. This is understandable as it was the way society was run in the not too distant past. I agree generally. Many religions, including ours, have their roots in a man-centric milieu (e.g. 19th amendment wasn't until 1920). Women couldn't own property, they couldn't vote, and they were basically add-ons to their husbands. If you lived in a society like this today you would be labeled a patriarchial society. This is how the church still operates. Women are barred from holding the power of god, counterexample 1: officiating women in the temple. counterexample 2: any women exercising faith in the magnifying of her calling. they're barred from taking part in any leadership role that doesn't involve other women or children, I'm struggling to conceive of counterexamples here- e.g. a Sunday School secretary isn't a classic leadership role, and a mother role, though a leadership position, is mostly relevant to children, i.e. her role diminishes even in a family of only sons as the males become adults- so good point as far as I can tell. they're even technically barred from heaven if they don't have a man to let them in (see temple ritual). True, although that bar applies equally to men, i.e. neither men nor women can attain the highest degree of exaltation but for sealing to an opposite-gender spouse. Does this make sense in a modern context? Not really. I agree in that the restrictions do seem deleteriously and unnecessarily limiting. Those restrictions may not exist forever- as others, the policy might feasibly change in the future (presuming the policy is either A) merely a practice like blacks and the priesthood or B) malum prohibitum only, like polygamy). I observed an all-female clergy in an episcopal church a month ago and they seemed competent for the pastoral role. Given the opportunity, I see few skills women couldn't develop that are relevant to current male-only roles in the church. Also, since growth and progress are important aims for men and women, it makes a lot of sense to open up traditionally male-only leadership roles to women (except for the presumed fact of current contrary revelation). Difficult as some church leadership roles such as bishop are, they offer unparalleled outcomes for those who fulfill such roles (examples include understanding principles and refining skills of change, government, judgment, gentleness, love, stewardship, accountability, and leadership more generally). There is little reason to conclude that women, though they might fulfill these roles differently, would do a worse job than men. Nor does it seem likely that men have more need than women for the lessons gained from fulfilling these roles outside contrived gender distinctions.
I'd like to read a book on female and male roles in the LDS church. I don't know enough about these issues. I'd also to to read a book analyzing chronologically LDS statements on contraception.
> The Place of Mormon Women: Perceptions, Prozac, Polygamy, Priesthood, Patriarchy, and Peace
> ""it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by." - First Presidency statement (David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Office of the First Presidency, April 15, 1969
> "As to sex in marriage, the necessary treatise on that for Latter-day Saints can be written in two sentences: Remember the prime purpose of sex desire is to beget children. Sex gratification must be had at that hazard."
(J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report 1949, Oct: pp. 194-95)
Excerpt from my Sunstone Symposium post, in the Mormon Women's Forum section:
If one were to go about trying to establish gender equality in the church, presuming that priesthood exclusivity tips the scales in favor of men, two primary strategies would be likely to succeed:
1) demean men in relationship to women, such that priesthood acquisition then brings the two into balance
2) exalt women in relationship to men
I have observed both in abundance. Evidence:
Strategy 1) When I was in the MTC, I remember asking our middle-aged branch president why the idea persists that women are naturally better/more spiritual than men, noting how frequently I hear that idea expressed (the idea bothered me at the time). He told me "simply because it's true." Also, the persistent theme in the church that men are most frequently the ones who cheat on or leave spouses, abuse and neglect their children, etc., shows that they must be the worse of the two sexes. Further, polygamy shows that men are naturally worse since there are so many more righteous women than there are men: just take a look at current active women>men ratio in the church.
Strategy 2) I have heard from LDS pulpits the idea that women, since they were created last, are God's "crowning creation," implying their superiority to men. Also, women have the supernal role mother and wife, and are superior nurturers by nature.
These relative to each other, men- denigrating and women-exalting themes are ill-founded and misleading if they aren't true.
-I would counter some of the pieces above by noting that though women on average are perhaps more emotionally expressive and use their MNS more frequently, this fact even if verified does not necessarily support a conclusion that women are more spiritual, since emotion is not equivalent to the Spirit. To the contrary, the presumption that revelation reception rates for the two genders are very similar is a reasonable one.
- I would note that if women were created last, men were created first, and Jesus was both male and the Firstborn. If you're going to make a women>men claim on the basis of sequential creation, it seems that God makes His best creation first, so the crowning creation argument is at the least neutralized if not superseded.
- I would point out that focusing on nurturing and motherhood when addressing gender equality excludes the value of single and/or career-focused women. Unless that focus is accompanied by a similar focus on providing/protecting/presiding and fatherhood for men which would also exclude childless and/or career-focused men, then the nurture focus leads to further inequality.
- Since when are the roles of mother and wife more significant than the roles of father and husband? Thus, focusing on the mother/wife role doesn't boost women relative to men absent a conclusion that mother>father and/or wife>husband. As to the nurturing argument, I would argue that men nurture differently than women on average, but not necessarily worse or less. Also, is nurturing more important than the male-associated roles of providing, protecting, and presiding, all identified in the Family Proclamation? One must necessarily conclude as much to exalt women in relation to men on a nurture basis.
- See more of my detailed arguments in my Mormon feminist post. Basically the conclusion is that, at the margin, men and women are equal up until 1) male-only priesthood, 2) male-oriented scriptural focus, 3) polygamy, and 4) patriarchal order tip the scales in favor of men.
There are female characterizations of deity or God's attributes in several places in the scriptures. Two examples that come to mind: A hen gathering her chickens (3 Nephi 10), and charity as a her (Moroni 7).
I would predict that church practices and principles regarding females have changed over time. Examples will likely include working outside the home; praying, speaking, voting/sustaining, and partaking of the sacrament at church; and becoming very educated.
I think if there are incompletenesses or imperfections in the church, but the Lord still is well pleased with it and allows it to exercise His authorized priesthood and seals ordinances performed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, I am encouraged. If God will grant that level of acceptance of an incomplete or imperfect church, then perhaps He will grant me a high level of acceptance- because I am all sorts of incomplete and imperfect.
Caveat: My blog generally is a way to "try on" ideas to see how they feel, rather than an authoritative, certain, or permanent stance I assert. Simplex commendatio non obligat - "A simple recommendation does not bind." This is especially true of this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)