Homosexuality Part 3: How I read the Scriptures

This is a continuation of the Facebook conversation that I had with a friend regarding homosexuality. See the previous post.

In response to my previous comments, my friend sent me these scriptures and asked me for my interpretation of them:

* These references cited in the NIV Bible

• Leviticus 18:22 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.’
• Romans 1:27 ‘Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.’
• 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.
• Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire

This is what I wrote:

Generally speaking my feeling about what is in the scriptures is the same as that which I indicated about modern, including living, prophets: the writers were men, prophets perhaps, but subject to the weaknesses of men and the blindness which comes from cultural and personal bias. This is putting it mildly when it comes to the Old Testament, which I view as only a slight improvement over Greek and Roman mythos. I consider the New Testament as just one rung above this on a very long ladder leading to truth. I have come to the point where I view all of the scriptures as wholly symbolic. I don't believe that "God" flooded the earth and killed all the inhabitants because He thought it was better to get a fresh start; I don't believe that He rained fire and brimstone from heaven on two cities because He couldn't find enough righteousness therein; I don't believe that He turned a poor woman into salt simply because she turned her head in the wrong direction; I don't believe that He slayed untold numbers of people simply because they failed to look at a brazen serpent; I don't believe that He told a group of people to go into a land and murder all the inhabitants so that they could steal their home from them; I don't believe that He killed two of the early members of Jesus' fledgling church simply because they failed to consecrate all of their possessions to it; I don't believe that He condones slavery, torture, or the oppression of women, but this is all explicitly either done or taught by "God" in the scriptures. I could go on and on and on, especially if I cited the murders, rapes, kidnappings, and other atrocities committed by characters in the scriptures which, though not explicitly sanctioned, are considered by some to be so implicitly, but you get the point. For much of what is in the scriptures I think that *IF* there is any literal truth in them, they are loose (perhaps even fictional) histories written through the eyes of a people who desperately wanted their history to be sanctioned by God. However, I do think that viewed through the discerning eyes of the spirit one can find hidden between the shameful junk, stories and teachings which are morally inspirational and can lead one to an understanding of truths. I think this is in harmony with St. Matthew 16:17-18, Moroni 10:3-6, and other similar scriptures indicating the way to know the truth of all things.

It makes sense at this point to tell you that generally speaking I don't see the steep descent into moral depravity that is often preached from the pulpit or discussed in Sunday school. It is granted that our culture has trended towards more openness with regards to sexuality; but it at the same time demands greater responsibility for one's sexual activity. I also see a perpetually expanding consciousness of and sensitivity to those who have in the past been oppressed or afflicted. Even though this is not universal, and there are glaring lapses even in recent history, I think the reality of this is undeniable. Perhaps one could mark the abolition of slavery in the world as the starting point and progress through the civil rights movement and women’s liberation right through to the current trend towards recognizing the inherent morality of homosexual relationships alongside the heterosexual. In light of this, it is not the evil coming from the moral decay of society that I fear, but that which comes from religious extremism, Christian, Muslim or otherwise; it is this irrational devotion to a creed, which makes individuals blind to the rights and suffering of others, that has lead and I fear will continue to lead to the greatest evil in the world.

Just to give a few specific references, here are some scriptures (from the KJV) condoning human trafficking, torture, and oppression that no one in their right mind in today's world would interpret as representing eternal moral truths; As I have said, I think they are in the scriptures simply because they reflect the perverse culture of their origin. I view the scriptures you cited on homosexuality as similarly representing the intolerant and ignorant culture of the times that produced them. Unfortunately, in my mind, we are just barely overcoming this as a culture and many have confused what these scriptures say with moral truths.

• Exodus 21:2 (2-6) 2. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 5. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6. Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
• Exodus 21:7 (7-11) 7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
• Exodus 21:20 (20-21) 20. And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
• Leviticus 25:44 (44-46) 44. Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
• 1cor 14: 35 (34-35) 34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
• Eph: 5 (5-5) 5. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
• Col 3:22 (22-22) 22. Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:
• 1tim 6:1 (1-2) 1. Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 2. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

Homosexuality Part 2: Against the Teaching that it is Immoral

This is a continuation of the Facebook conversation that I had with a friend regarding homosexuality. See the previous post.

Getting back to the doctrinal question, I should probably tell you what I think about the Church's position regarding homosexuality in general, as well as elaborate on my views both on the church and on homosexuality.

I find it interesting that you equated the "homosexuality issue" with Polygamy. I think you meant this in the sense that it is a divisive issue; in this sense I agree. However, with the case of polygamy, the Church was advocating an act (plural marriage) which those on the outside viewed as immoral, compared to the case of homosexuality where the Church opposes an act it deems immoral but which others on the outside view as being moral. They are really opposite in this sense. (I know this is a bit trifling but it offers a good lead-in to the point I really want to make.)

I actually think of the "homosexuality issue" in the church is analogous to the "Blacks and the Priesthood" issue. Before SW Kimball’s proclamation on the priesthood, the Blacks being denied the priesthood was as divisive as Homosexuals being denied the expression of their love and sexuality within a marriage by the church. In both the case of homosexuality, and the Church denying Blacks (or anybody with arbitrarily dark colored skin) the priesthood, the Church can be seen as denying individuals a right on supposed doctrinal basis. My opinion about the Church's teachings on homosexuality mirror my opinion about the church withholding priesthood from males with the wrong skin color.

My opinion on why people with arbitrary levels of melanin in their skin were denied the priesthood is simply that the Church leaders which decided to deny them the priesthood were acting (perhaps unwittingly) on personal and cultural prejudices which were never congruent with Heavenly Father's desires or doctrine properly understood. Unfortunately they were able to trump up what they thought (and what many people still today use) were good doctrinal reasons to justify their prejudice, but these explanations were and are always lacking in substance. Importantly, Joseph Smith is not included in this statement because he did in fact confer the priesthood on black men; the temples of the day were even ornamented with a saying to the effect that all were welcome regardless of race. As with any revelation, our Heavenly Father had to wait until someone in the right position asked the right question and was prepared to receive and act on the answer. I personally think that in the case of the Priesthood, He had been patiently waiting, from the moment the decision was made to deny the first black the priesthood until SW Kimball asked the question, to tell us we were wrong and that no worthy male member should be denied any blessing of the Gospel.

Notice that I DO think that SW Kimball and all those leading up to him were prophets. I just also recognize that a prophet is a man who is free to act on his own conscience, but who also happens to be the only one who can receive revelation for the Church as a whole; I also do believe that they are selected to be prophets and leaders because they generally are righteous, intelligent, and sincere, which means both that generally speaking their decisions will be in harmony with truth and that they are more likely to be prepared to receive revelation; but in the end they are human and they do still make mistakes.

Regarding the issue of homosexuality and how their desires are treated by the church, I personally think that the direction the church has taken is not a product of revelation, especially with regard to Proposition 8. I think that the teaching that having a homosexual relationship is immoral stems from historical and cultural ignorance, and fear of things which are out of the ordinary; I think this is another case of confusing popular norms with gospel truths: The way I see things, the Earth revolves around the Sun, humans (along with all other life on this planet) are the product of evolution, and there is nothing inherently immoral about acting on homosexual feelings. I think it is clear that individuals do not choose their sexual persuasion, and it is even clearer that no amount of therapy or repentance or righteousness will change a homosexual into a heterosexual, no matter how badly they may want to change. I do agree with the law of chastity that we should not have sexual relations outside of marriage, but I think this applies (should be applied) in the Church equally to homosexuals as it is heterosexuals. As said, I think that making homosexual marriages legal will only tend towards the stabilization of family and society. I will even go so far as to say that I think that homosexual couples should be allowed to be sealed in the temple. I know that most in the church would argue that there would be no point because they wouldn't be able to have spirit children in the next life, but even if the premise and the argument are true, is this sufficient to make their marriage immoral? I don't think so. I can honestly say that I hope that the Prophet considers the issue sincerely and receives revelation that homosexuality is not immoral as long as homosexuals adhere to the law of chastity. I am not holding my breath, however, because, the analogy with blacks and the priesthood notwithstanding, homosexuality is much more difficult for people to accept.

In one of your comments posted to you Facebook wall, you mentioned the importance of making the pursuit of truth the standard we should be rising to, not dogmatic adherence to one way of thinking and a determination for that to be right. I completely agree. I agree that these kinds of truths can only be received by sincere and humble searching. I believe this searching must include as much study of all sides of the issues from all angles, as it does prayer and meditation. I think that all sides of an issue must also be sincerely considered as real possibilities. I do not believe that truth will ever be obtained if the predetermined answer is conformity to any one way of thinking, regardless of the source. If the source is a prophet/leader of the Church, their opinion in my mind deserves attention, but it is not guaranteed to be in the right. I can tell you that 5 years ago, even though I have always been sensitive to the struggles that homosexuals face, my opinions were definitely more in line with the main-stream Mormon views. However, the more I have looked at, thought about, studied, prayed, meditated, and considered this issue (along with many others), my views have changed in ways that surprise even myself.

Homosexuality Part 1: On The LDS Church's Position

This is something I have been thinking about for a long time, but just haven't taken the time to put my opinion to words. Then, after the fallout from President Packer's talk which discussed the issue, I found myself having a lengthy Faceboook conversation with a friend about our views on homosexuality. Here are some excerpts; You'll have to fill in the missing context but it should be fairly self explanatory. As the conversation is ongoing, I may post more later on.

In the heat of the Prop 8 campaign, I read the church's official statement on the matter (http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage). Based on what I remember and what I gleaned by skimming it just now, the central arguments were: 1) God has defined marriage as between man and woman, 2) The best conditions to raise a child are in a family with a mother and father present, 3) There are a myriad of "unwanted" potential consequences for legalizing gay marriage. The last of these actually include arguments such as the one you presented (I saw references to the case you mention regarding housing for same-sex couples) and many others. But the overarching theme which penetrated all the others was really #2.

I'll comment on #1 later, which really gets at the doctrinal reasons for thinking that homosexual relationships are immoral in the first place, and is really the weakest political argument (hardly even worth mentioning politically, even though that is where most who are religious fanatics tend to begin.)

Your comments regarding your peeks into family life recapitulate much of what the Church argues in the article. While I appreciate the benefits you see from having a masculine and a feminine influence in the home, I am also aware that the "division" of labor is quite different in my home. I am the softy. I even think I am much more of a talker than is my wife when it comes to resolving conflicts. I see benefit and need for both perspectives. When I read the article announcing the Church's position, I also read their references and found that they were not the strongest of references, at least from an academic perspective. I was also curious about what research had been done to see if there was an effect that could be observed when comparing children raised in traditional families with stable marriages and children raised in homes with same sex couples. I haven't looked these up again, but my memory is that those conducting the study actually hypothesized that those raised by same-sex parents would be maladjusted in some way, but found that there was no difference between the children raised in the different circumstances. They even noted that if anything, children raised by same-sex couples were perhaps better equipped socially because their homes were typically marked by more equitable relationships than is often found in traditional families. I am obviously here remembering one specific article, but I read multiple articles which all drew the same essential conclusion of no difference. I know this goes against conventional wisdom, but taking this research along with my own experience leads me to think that what really matters is having a stable home where children learn to love and work through difficulties which arise due to individual differences (or for whatever reason); those differences themselves perhaps providing examples about alternate ways to navigate family and social situations as well as what might be found outside the family. Given this, I agree with "Kaylee's wisdom" saying that it makes sense to provide an opportunity for homosexual couples adopting children to be married to promote stability in the family.

These arguments aside, I also found it interesting (and by that I mean discouraging) that the Church was willing to cherry-pick weak publications which favored their point of view but ignored what I found to be the larger body of research on the topic. I just think that as a matter of good faith, once scientific evidence is brought to bear, one (the Church in this case) has to be willing to accept, or at least address, the full weight of scientific research on the topic.

With respect to #3 (the "unwanted" potential consequences), this is actually the argument I have heard most often. The first time I heard it some friends of mine were suggesting that if gay-marriage were legalized then there is a possibility that the Church would be forced to perform gay marriages or suffer some sort of consequence (perhaps loosing the license to have marriages performed in the temple be recognized legally). The way I felt about this is the same way I feel about all similar arguments the Church made regarding the potential consequences. They all seem to me to be illegitimate "slippery-slope" arguments. There is no reason that any of these consequences should necessarily follow, particularly the ones which the church claims would limit religious freedom. Respecting my friends’ fears, there is no reason that making gay-marriages legal in the state means that any institution other than the justice of the peace (especially religious ones) would be forced to perform them; moreover, there is good reason to believe that the law could not be pushed in this direction in light of the 1st amendment. It is granted that activists have and will seek to push the boundaries, but their actions do not make gay marriage wrong in and of itself. If the argument is to be made that they were trying to pre-empt the financial expense of these activist-driven law suits, then from a purely financial perspective I see the argument, but without making it clear why they are against gay-marriage specifically (particularly when the marriages are secular and have nothing to do with the Church directly) I don't see that the decision is a moral one. It makes it seem rather more like stooping than taking the high road.

What's more, if they are truly concerned about the consequences, foremost among them being those affecting children and the preventing the "disintegration of the family", why choose gay marriage as the focal point for their sudden political activity. Doesn't abortion, adoptions by single individuals and gay couples, and quickie divorces lead more directly to the disintegration of the traditional family than gay marriage? I am not arguing against any of these (except maybe quickie divorces), but it seems that these could be places where the Church could take political action on the premise of protecting families and at least make a potentially sensible argument. Why does the Church not choose to be politically active on these issues?

I have to admit that no matter how I look at it, I just cannot get my head around why the Church took the actions it did with Prop 8. In fact the more I look at it the worse the Church's case becomes from my perspective. The action taken seems to have caused nothing but turmoil. What's worse, Prop 8 was overturned (Which I actually rejoiced over) and from my understanding the Church didn't even have representatives or lawyers make any arguments at the hearings which led to it being overturned. It seems that they may have recognized that the same arguments they used to persuade the electorate to pass Prop 8 wouldn't pass muster by anyone familiar in any way with law or the constitution.

Mormon Naturalist: Introductory Post

Returning home after my freshman year at BYU, I shared with my mom a growing sense that if the only thing that existed was raw material (e.g. energy, matter) with inherent laws governing interactions within the material, then the action of law alone would bring gods into existence. Though she dismissed the notion on some doctrinal ground, this sense has developed in my mind. Looking back from where I am now (at the time of writing, a Ph.D student working on my dissertation in Evolutionary Biology), the forming of this sense in my mind seems to mark the beginning of my brand of naturalism. See: What is Naturalism?

While many Mormon scientists subscribe to a methodological form of naturalism, they inevitably back off just shy of being true to the belief as a matter of ontology regarding the universe, typically manifesting their supernaturalism by necessitating God’s involvement at some crucial step of creation. While some hypothesize on what they think the critical requirement was (initiating the big bang, establishing parameters for universal laws, forming DNA, engineering the first cell, etc.), others admit that they don’t know what or how God was involved, but nonetheless require it. Either way the lapse constitutes supernaturalism, and trudges dangerously close to the American embarrassment: Intelligent Design. I neither advocate this idea nor believe that a close look at the metaphysical underpinnings of Mormonism substantiate anything but unadulterated, ontological naturalism. See: Why Mormonism .

Already, most if not all philosophical naturalists are thinking, perhaps out loud in between bursts of laughter, that I must be a fool to think it possible to be a naturalist who believes in God. Let me be clear: I do not believe in God! Not if you are talking about a creator God, or going to describe God in any of the traditional supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient ways; this doesn't mean that there isn't someone that fits my understanding of a god. See: What is god? I believe that there is possibility outside of what we are able to observe scientifically (at least with our current technology!) for there to be more to existence than what we are able to observe when moving in only three dimensions while stuck in a temporal stream, and blind to all but what interacts with one of the four forces we observe. Is there another force that allows dark matter to interact with a darker (dark at least to us) and stranger form of matter or energy? Could the matter which composes our bodies be scaffolding for some type of darker matter which does not die with the rest of our physical body, perhaps occupying another dimension, perhaps not. Is it possible for something that doesn’t interact with the four observed forces to be found within one of the other dimensions predicted by string theory? What else is found in the ‘whatever-it-is’ that our universe is growing within? These thoughts are admittedly ‘out there’, and I do NOT plan to dwell on questions such as this anywhere in this blog. The point I am making here is that there is possibility within ontological naturalism for things to exist which cannot be observed from our frame of reference. Whatever spiritual truth there is, it cannot be attained by protecting it from scientific scrutiny by compartmentalizing it in a different region of our minds; all truth must be circumscribed as one great whole! I believe that among these spiritual truths with natural possibility is our continued existence after the death of our observed physical bodies. See: The Ultimate Spiritual Question.

Many people I have spoken with about related matters, particularly those in the scientific community, dismiss any talk about what cannot be observed because they see no utility in discussing something that we cannot know from science is true. I sympathize with this feeling, and I think this type of dismissal is often appropriate; but not always. As a scientist I subscribe to the validity of inductive logic even though there are underlying philosophical problems with inferring universal laws from an (always!) limited set of observations; a far greater number of observations will always remain unseen. I subscribe to science because I deem the assumptions of inductive logic to be correct, and because the alternative leads nowhere. Without it one must conclude that there are no universal natural laws that we can discover, that nothing in the world is reliable, that all technology may cease to work at any time, that the sun may not appear tomorrow, and all for no good reason. My scientific epistemology makes my world secure, and allows me to collaborate with others in discovering truth based on our shared observations (or sometimes observations not common, yet trusted). Likewise, I have an epistemology about discovering natural truths regarding “what might be” but cannot presently be observed. See: Epistemologies of a Mormon Naturalist. For lack of a better word, I will call it my spiritual epistemology (spiritual does not mean supernatural to me, but indicates truths which help me know myself better, including my past, present, and future). Even though I cannot fully explain why it is so, I believe (this is my first article of faith) that my deepest, truest feelings can lead me to truth about the unseen. See: The True Object of our Faith. I believe that this is a sense which must be learned through practice; that I in order to develop it, I must be completely open and honest with myself (something that is difficult to learn); that I must be true to myself; that I must accept and apply all recognized scientific truths to my spiritual understanding; that I must labor with at least the same intensity of mind to discover spiritual truths that I apply to scientific truths. Without this faith I would completely agree that any discussion about the unobservable is pointless and fruitless, but with it I believe we can all come to know absolute spiritual truth for ourselves.

I remember clearly the night I first faced the philosophical divide between my views as scientist Mormon (yes that is the intended order of those two words) and my views as a Scientist. See: The Great Philosophical Divide. It came during the summer I was preparing to teach my first course in Evolutionary Biology to a group of over 400 freshman students, and it launched me through a period of personal crisis which has begun to culminate in both the destruction and rebuilding of every doctrine I once believed, and the personal affirmation of the genius underlying the Mormon approach to religious thought. To be sure, typical Mormon doctrine and thought carries with it the baggage of all human religious (especially Christian) history, and manifests the limitations imposed by the ignorance of ages past, intellectual weakness, and culturally wrought blindness; but at the heart of Mormonism is a natural philosophy, and Naturalism as a philosophy provides the insights necessary to shed this baggage, exposing the underlying principles essential to the discovery and understanding of truth. The point of this blog is to provide a forum where I can develop my thoughts related to this process (doctrinal, political, philosophical,or otherwise) while offering them up for anyone who thinks they may benefit by reading. I do not necessarily expect to have an audience, but if I do, it will most likely be composed of other scientist Mormons; however, for whatever reason I find myself writing as if to my non-religious friends and associates, as if to help them understand my point of view; I will likely write as if both are listening.