[science_saint]

SomeUsername84 wrote:

Both my wife and I were raised in the church … So, you can imagine the disillusionment, betrayal, and fear she felt when I began telling her that I had concerns about the church … This is one of the most heart-wrenching things I have ever been through.

Right now, whether or not you decide the Church is your cup of Mormon-friendly tea, your primary obligation is to yourself and your spouse. No Bishop can take away what you’re building there. Coming from a few more years of experience, you have not yet had enough time to get used to each other’s quirks, let alone a change of faith. Be open, loving, honest, and all those good things you should be to your wife, whether or not the Church is true for you. Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims and Atheists that have good marriages all have one thing in common – they have good marriages.

As for being on the “right track”, you have now entered the domain where you must make your own decisions, as terrifying as that may seem. And the best part? You have the ability to make those choices.

I wish you luck and awesome spousal communication – it is worth more than your membership in the Church ever was, even if the Church is true.

[science_saint]

Curtis wrote:

science_saint, this is the thread I mentioned in your introduction post.

Thanks Curtis!

The discussion here ranges so much, I hardly know where to jump in.

I think one way in which this topic could be helped along is by emphasizing “normalcy”. What do I mean? [list]

[science_saint]

convert1992 wrote:

The problem is that we’ve been taught and had it drilled into us that we have to keep these things “sacred”.

Not to go too far afield, though there is a rich literature describing natural explanations for *myriads* of miraculous experiences, I think the major flaw in our “sacred” thinking is that we fail to take joy in the “merely real“. We learn that a rainbow is the refraction of light through water vapor suspended in the air and become offended that reality is so simple. We read that weather patterns are becoming increasingly predictable (yes Meteorology has vastly improved since its inception as a field of study) and find ourselves incensed that Thor’s wrath is merely an algorithm worked out by electrons and current flows.

I’ll tell you what I find astonishing – that we have discovered the secrets to destructive power beyond what any scripture ascribes to God, the flood included. We have sufficient nuclear weaponry to cover the earth more or less in a blanket of fire, and we have developed the means to predictively communicate with near instantaneity at any distance with an image of ourselves (Skype). Tell me this is not “miraculous” or “sacred”.

So don’t be surprised if there is a naturalistic explanation for everything we hold sacred; doesn’t our cannon declare all things to be the same to God? That He sees no difference between material and spiritual? That there is no such thing as immaterial matter?

[science_saint]

DarkJedi wrote:

I’m glad you came back. Would you care to share which GA talk, or at least the subject matter, you disagree with? I promise you won’t be attacked here, but I think if it’s such a strong disagreement that your calling or TR or whatever are in danger it’s probably worth discussing here – or perhaps in its own thread.

No problem; I have to begin by admitting that my mistake was to share with “friends” on Facebook what is probably reserved for Friends in private. That was my mistake and I’m willing to accept it.

I had read Elder Tad R Callister’s recent talk: The Lord’s Standard of Morality https://www.lds.org/liahona/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/liahona/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng. I think it states pretty clearly the Church’s doctrinal stance on chastity, but it goes beyond that in stating that scientists and professionals have essentially no place in defining normative sexual standards or behaviors. Natasha Parker, Mormon sex therapist in the Salt Lake area thought as much and wrote a strongly worded review of the article: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2014/02/morality-we-can-do-much-better-than-this.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2014/02/morality-we-can-do-much-better-than-this.html, which I, in turn, shared. The Bishop claims that some parents of the youth (whom I am very close with) were concerned and they and he took umbrage with this article, along with some of my other intellectual posts.

I attempted to convince the Bishop that this did not constitute “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”, he did not appear convinced. I later spoke with a friend who counseled me that the parents of the youth had a right to decide what their children were and were not exposed to and by whom, so I wrote back to the Bishop informing him that I would be more careful in the future. I also requested that per D&C 42:88, I be permitted to discuss such matters with the aggrieved parties and I am still awaiting his judgement.

Not sure where to cross-post this if it is necessary…

[science_saint]

Cadence wrote:

I believe science has done more for the salvation of man than any one individual. Welcome!!!

That needs to be Doctrine. So very much.

[science_saint]

SamBee wrote:

have heard one scientist say science is the how and religion the why. What do you think of that?

Science is just a word we’ve come up to describe systematic, (occasionally) quantitative, and experimental testing of the nature of reality. I think religion is supposed to be the same thing, even if the tools are currently different. If truth is all the same, regardless of source, then our exploration of what is true and real will eventually yield the same result. 2 = 2 and 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of whether Thomas S Monson, Jesus, Buddha, even Hitler says it. Just as righteousness is no guarantee of truthfulness, so immorality is no guarantee of falsehood. The key to truth is testing. This is why I like Alma 32 so much: even if you start out with a bad seed, testing will reveal it to be so.

Ann wrote:

And being on the same page with your wife is a blessing, I’d say.

Definitely helpful to have a safety net. We may not have much, but we’ve got each other and no doctrine or council can take that from us.

[science_saint]

WOW! I am so excited to have gotten so much support. I’m not one for participating terribly regularly in online forums, I’ve had my nose in books and journal articles too much over the past decade post-mission.

If I flub a bit in forum etiquette, I apologize ahead of time.

It feels so validating to find a community of individuals who find safety in the the Savior’s message while also remaining open to the possibility that other paths are possible.

To answer some of the questions:

SamBee wrote:

What branch of science are you in?

I am a neuroscientist, but have a background in molecular techniques and genetics.

Roy wrote:

“When science fails you, the solution is more science not less.”

Such a good quote. I feel, if nothing else, that Alma 32 largely redeems the Book of Mormon and that more formal training in the “how” of cultivating evidence-based testimonies would save our Church. It is so hard to push against the willful ignorance that plagues believers – Mormon or otherwise. I suppose the truth, given cognitive neuroscience and psychology, is that willful ignorance is a human trait, regardless of background.

DontKnow wrote:

Well, if it’s even possible for them to reconcile.

As I see it, the Church and Science are on two different trajectories: If no new knowledge comes to the Church, no progress, then the Church will only have a diluted portion of truth each successive generation. As with Science, no matter how little knowledge it begins with, it is always an upward path and if religion does not keep pace, science will ultimately discover the origin and mechanisms of morality and will engineer a higher morality than religion can even conceive. Ultimately, religion’s methods are in peril of failure without “grafting in” evidence on a continuous basis. I hope to be apart of the grafting crew.

Curtis wrote:

We need scientists to stay in the church and help educate our membership against the tide of stupidity that is flooding at them from secular sources (and older / former church leader quotes).

That’s a tall order, and requires a lot of participation and “thought sharing”. I wish I could effectively advocate for a forum – perhaps similar to the ARP – where members of all stripes could open a dialog on any topic under the sun, without fear of reprisals. Someday.

Forgotten_Charity wrote:

As an adult I rarely express different thoughts out loud because growing up I had various thoughts I expressed out loud that brought wrath and anger for asking and seeking questions like expressing different possibilities for things instead of staying inside the box.

There are some scholarly comparisons about atheism and/or freethought and “romantic rejection” that explain some of this. The basic concept is that believers espousing a view of God is like a friend trying to get you to go on a blind date with their friend (God). When you fail to find their description of their friend believable, you have not rejected their friend, merely their description of their friend. Free thinkers do not reject God, but rather the ideas other try to use to describe him. Even so, the same emotions as romantic rejection are experienced. A neat concept, especially since it reflects the notion that one’s perception of God comes the themselves, and so when their version of God is rejected, they feel rejected.

Forgotten_Charity wrote:

It’s out there for study. Now that’s its available we should and it is out obligation to take it seriously and adjust accordingly and reevaluate some of them. Not just in the church but in the nations and businesses and military in general.

Yes! This is the point – there’s no secret devilish plot here. It’s all out in the open (unlike some of our teachings) and anyone can use their own hands/minds to confirm or reject the data. There’s no need to fear it, it’s just knowledge.

[Author]

Posts