Yesterday I joined the North Star facebook group. I was excited to read the comments and see what people were talking about. Unfortunately, to this point they have made me very frustrated. The reason seems to me to be the same reason that apologetics in general frustrate me: instead of a genuine search for truth, they are wholly based on the assumption of certain premises followed by the construction of cultural norms of conformity preferred over freedom of thought. To be fair, it's not so much a problem with North Star as it is a problem with the Church culture that permeates North Star.
I don't believe that lasting peace and happiness come from untruths (probably because of my LDS background :) ). If discovery of truth is necessary for true peace, and if peace of mind is something worth arriving at, then we must have a reliable method for discovering truth. The method that seems to have worked the best in the past four hundred years is the scientific method.
I've always loved Alma 32 because of how similar the process of faith described therein is to the scientific method. It's a process of experimentation and judgment based on results. While there are significant differences between this spiritual method and the scientific method (like the inability to reproduce results in a demonstrable way and blatant subjectivity of the spiritual method), both methods are based on a premise that most apologists, in my estimation, at least, fail to meet. This premise is presented in the beginning of Alma 32 when Alma tells the people that they are blessed because their poverty has led them to humility, which is the prerequisite for gaining a witness and developing faith. In order to gain faith, Alma teaches, you cannot have already cast out the "seed" by your "unbelief."
Alma is teaching that the premise to the spiritual method of coming to know truth is approaching the question with an unbiased mind, having not already come to a conclusion beforehand. In the scientific method it is the same way: when the facts don't match the theory, you throw out the theory, not the facts. This implies a willingness to be wrong and produces a flexibility in dialogue not currently seen among apologetics nor in the communications I've read from North Star.
Apologists begin with the assumed premise that the truth is known to them and that no facts contradicting the truth are actually facts. Their view that contradictory evidence is the result of cherry picking and data manipulation leads them, in my estimation, to be even more guilty of the same.
Last night I read the reactions on North Star to a post on the "No More Strangers" blog, which was written about the dangers of celibacy. The speed at which people dismissed the message of the post and relied simply on anecdotes and pithy, faith promoting aphorisms frustrated me (though to be fair, the original article was also anecdotal in nature). In discussing whether or not celibacy can lead to a happy life, there was no discussion of data (such as the research conducted on the quality of life of celibate gay Mormons by John Dehlin) - only an already agreed upon theory.
I have to put out the caveat that I could be completely wrong about both North Star and apologists. My observations are only based on what I have been able to observe. It's more than possible that I've only observed a small portion. This is also not a commentary on individuals within those two categories, but rather on the cultural norms established in the way the groups approach problems.
In conclusion, I think that allowing myself freedom of thought and being willing to question my deepest assumptions has greatly increased my quality of life. I'm more authentic and honest than I've ever been, which has brought me a lot of peace. I would encourage all gay, SSA, and even straight Mormons (heck, I'd encourage every living person) to really, deeply question all of your assumptions. And if there are some assumptions I've failed to question or look at openly and honestly, please point them out.
And that's all I have to say about that.
I used to be into North Star, but I noticed a lot of the same problems you outline here. There's a total bias towards MOMs, people who are into JIM or other reparative programs, and those who are TBMs that would basically drink the Kool-aid without even blinking. Anything smacking of open-mindedness gets shot down and attacked.
ReplyDeleteSo after being shot down and attacked one too many times, I stopped participating. The frustration just wasn't worth it. I find the larger MoHo community, found in blogs just like this one, to be much more intellectually stimulating and supportive.
Wow, I love the way you busted out some Alma to slap the face of apologetics! I agree that some apologists are better than others (e.g., Richard Bushman > Hugh Nibley), but even if they aren't ad-hominemites, they still start with foregone conclusion and reject evidence or questions that tend toward a rejection of their conclusions.
ReplyDelete