Early in our blogging years, a memorable incident involved one of my sisters sharing a personal experience. Another blogger came by to inform her that she could not have had the experience she reported. Why not? Because he had in his mind a neat system of how life worked, and her experience didn’t fit his system.
There is a tendency that troubles me in some popular LDS theological discourse to make theology into nothing more than an intellectual game. Don’t get me wrong; I think theological speculation can be quite interesting. But I think we lose something vital when it gets disconnected from the actual experience of living human beings.
I also see an ethical problem with intellectual discussion that does not take seriously its implications—especially, perhaps, its implications for those who are marginalized. “Do women have souls?” might be a fascinating question in the abstract—but to discuss it only in the abstract, without considering what it means for actual women, is deeply problematic.
This is why, to give another example, I have a hard time with extended discussions of the nature of spirit birth—discussions, I note, generally carried out by men. What is at stake here, but is rarely acknowledged, is the role of women in the eternities, and whether the best we can hope for is to be eternally pregnant. This isn’t a side issue that can be glibly ignored because it complicates the conversation.
I also find this dynamic troubling in many discussions I’ve seen of homosexuality. It’s easy to make it into an abstract question about the nature of sin. Which is fine, until actual gay people come by to report their experience, and they’re ignored in favor of the abstract discussion. Or instead of being asked about their experience, gays are informed as to what their experience should be.
But this is the thing. Human experience is messy, and likely to complicate or even defy the abstract systems we use to attempt to make sense of it. And experience—not the formulation of abstract systems—is what this life is all about. If your pristine system can’t handle it, that’s not because the experience is flawed, or isn’t real. Theology should ultimately be a reflection on experience, not a rigid system limiting its possibilities.
So as we create systems and theories and do our best to impose order on the world, I think we have a moral obligation to listen to those who are affected by these systems. When you talk about the sin of homosexuality, for example, keep in mind that the way this gets framed has real-world implications for vulnerable people. Don’t lose track of the faces behind the abstractions.
Thanks, Lynnette, for this important reminder.
It’s amazing that we are still talking about spirit birth.
Yeah, nice thoughts … but really, can’t we go back to the old ZD blog design? The one with the cycling banners?
I think someone submitted too many Troll 2 pictures and the rotating banner rebelled.
You beautifully summarize the end result of what I was thinking about from a different direction here (A Thought Experiment for Mormons on Together blog: https://amuseinmetis.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/thought-experiment-for-mormons/.
People.
I love what you have said. Thank you.
Thanks for this, Lynette. I seem to recall Paul writing his longest and most important epistle about the dangers of letting the abstractions take over, because they will condemn us every. single. time.
(That sarcasm was directed at those who put theology before people, not you, Lynette.)
Lovely, and it can be legitimately extended in so many directions. It’s another reason to add to my list of why I don’t let my Sunday School class talk about “those people” (how “the world” is corrupt, or what other churches supposedly teach, or to answer questions about sin with phrases like “drug dealers and prostitutes and those people who want us to pay for their healthcare”). I constantly steer the conversation back to what WE do, even to the point where the “we” is affluent, educated, experienced Church members in downtown Salt Lake. The face behind the abstraction had better be the face in the mirror.
Boom. Thanks Lynette. Recent conversations have been super revealing/depressing.
If the framework were discussing causes the marginalized to cover their ears and run away…….(like women reproducing in the next life, homosexuality being a birth defect, etc)…..we need to hit the reset button.
Preach.
I think this is why having personal experiences and friendships with “the others” is so powerful. It converts them from mere abstractions to living, breathing people whose faces we can’t help but conjure up when we think about the abstract issues surrounding them.
Good post.
Thank you.
In my opinion, this has been a pernicious, albeit unintentional, consequence of the proclamation.it has taught mormon to think of one another as abstraction is rather then as human beings. Male and female are interchangeable units, not unique individuals. we have some unlearning to do
Good stuff. Thanks.
Whoa, sorry about typos, grammar, and misspellings. This speech to text app still needs some work. (Or I need to proofread before pressing enter.)
I’d say this is great, Lynnette, but I have a very definite understanding of what a blog post should include, and this just isn’t it. (You don’t have a single footnote here, and I always prefer a serif font. Also it would have been nice if the first letter of each paragraph had spelled out my name. And if you had more quotations from Jack Sparrow.) So even though this seems like an insightful and compelling blog post, and the natural man in me wants to compliment you, I know that this blog post does not adhere to the established patterns of blogging laid out in my patented theoretical model of of socio-populist bloggerogonomics. Sorry.
Oh, so you’re one of THOSE people…
I have been thinking a lot of the model of framing homosexuality as a sin or a birth defect. People often compare it to a tendency towards alcoholism etc., that is a challenge that must be overcome, a passion that should not be given into because it is harmful. My response to this, we should only classify something as a sin and try to control other’s behaviors based on that model if we have evidence that that behavior is causing harm to themselves and others. There is plenty of evidence that an alcoholic who drinks causes real harm in their own life and the life of others. Is there evidence that a homosexual individual who is in a relationship with someone of their own sex is causing harm? No, there is not persuasive evidence that this is the case. Just look at the arguments in the Prop. 8 case or the Supreme Court case. There is very little evidence that can be put on the table that shows that gay individuals are causing harm to themselves or the children they raise. On the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that restricting and shaming gay individuals from being in a romantic relationships with a member of the same sex contributes to high rates of mental illness and suicides for the gay individuals and real harm done to straight individuals they marry in an effort gain acceptance from their religious communities. So, people can continue to talk in the abstract and insist that the only way to gain happiness is to enter into heterosexual relationships or to be single for the rest of your life. However, if this was the case, if this was what truly brought peace and happiness for gay individuals, we should see the fruits of that.
Thanks for this. Such an important principle; especially timely, but important always.