All Activity

But isn’t oxygen typically a blind spot? We don’t think about it, aren’t aware of it normally? Maybe define what you mean by a blind spot because to me it’s the basically same thing as something you don’t question in your environment, but just accept.

I don't think Bourdieu uses the concept of doxa to either reinforce or minimize the truthfulness of the doxa. My impression of him and his teaching is that he was a professional secular sociologist; not an ethicist. He reported on what he observed. He did mention religion, but not as a focus of his theories. I did a lot of researching for my little book on truth, but I don't remember anything in his writings about truth. I may be wrong. I think his idea was more that doxas become so common place that they are like air; rarely discussed-their presence a given in the culture. Just as perhaps a silly example. When I travel to speak to LDS groups outside of Mexico, especially in the Great Basin, there is a concept that "Colony Mormons" are somehow different from other Mormons. I have even been told there is a "colony Mormon accent" so that a Mormon from Utah can tell a colony Mormon by their English. I have even had people tell me I don't have the colony accent! My guess is that is a doxa. I have no idea if it is true or not. However, my being introduced as being from the "colonies" almost inevitably after the meeting, lunch, or whatever brings up the subject of colony Mormons. I have discussed that with my LDS friends here. They are familiar with the construct. They basically are not fans of it. They seem to think it is some what derogatory.

Sorry again. I was not implying your personal truth cannot be rational. I am suggesting that rational truth is not typically thought of as being based on beliefs or personal experience. Hence, its scope is broader. It is based on reason, science, evidence, "knowledge." Nor is it composed of revealed truth. Nor, is it based on "truth as being" to use my term. It is not meant to be rational versus irrational, although that is a doxa for some groups. The word truth has evolved or perhaps devolved into a concept with many meanings. Some humans assume their identity based on their personal truth. A Mennonite may see her faith as persecuted because her personal truth as a Mennonite reinforces that. She may have been mocked for her clothes, her beliefs in a way that being mocked has become her personal truth and her identity. I am a Mennonite. Being mocked is not my personal truth, nor is it my identity. Living where I do, here in Chihuahua where there are thousands of extremely conservative Mennonites - I am not even considered Mennonite at all. I don't "look" like one. I have my own personal truths based on my own personal experiences. I err when I make my personal truth thee truth. Personal truth and perhaps what we know as absolute truth are not the same thing; They don't mean the same thing, except for the person for whom they do mean the same thing. The one who insists, "my truth is thee truth." Does that make sense?

No, I am sorry. I am not suggesting that a doxa is inherently a blind spot. That would be incorrect. It might become a blind spot, especially if it does violence (symbolic or otherwise) to others. Doxas are not bad things in and of themselves. I am sorry if I gave that impression. In some cases, doxas can assume the sacred role, perhaps as in LDS Temple rites. The basic idea in a Bourdieu sense, is that a doxa is so widely accepted by a group or individual that it doesn't even need to be discussed; it simply "is." It is a given . . . . accepted as truth, belief, correct, (pick your word). It is neither inherently good or bad until it provides justification for symbolic violence; or it blocks awareness of pain it causes other. I am not sure what yu mean by saying "it is always invisible here"???? However, I don't want to represent it as inherently a blind spot. It exists like oxygen. Might it become toxic? Sure, but so can too much oxygen. Sorry for causing confusion.

Lots of studying over the past few months. What I've learned is Mormon doctrine teaches traditional Christianity receives nothing from God. Interestingly, all non Mormon Christians go to hell to await being taught the true gospel in Hell/Spirit Prison.

In my faith, our doxas are that we are not Fundamentalists. We live in simplicity, being "not of the world," the quiet in the land, humility, and for our most conservative, being conscientious objectors and anti-war. We share many of the LDS doxas, even if our words might not mean the same thing. Discussing what our words mean creates tensions because it brings out the doxa into the open. As one living on the edge of inside of the LDS faith I am now more outside than inside. It is not for me to suggest your doxas. Of course, I am not strong enough to avoid simply stating that, in my belief (personal truth) the single most powerful doxa in the LDS Church is its onlyism. Our most recent bishop (now replaced) revealed that doxa when he told my wife and I that we would be treated in the future as visitors, no more no less. He revealed a doxa that he believed our former bishop had betrayed—one is either in or out of the LDS church - no "faithful non-members" desired or allowed. That is also the doxa most likely to cause symbolic violence for non-LDS Christians. You didn't mention that, but then your habitus doesn't encourage disclosure of that since it is a doxa! Right? Of course, I must provide balance by stating that there are any number of non-LDS Christians who hold the same doxa about LDS-Christians. There is no doubt about that. We often try and justify our positions, even our doxas when forced to discuss them. It is the negative use of the word "justification." Methinks the fact that other groups do it, does not justify my group doing it. Justification is regularly a precursor to wounding. That is a theme in my book on justification and stones. Best wishes, my friend.

I don’t understand why you say this and not that beliefs may not be rational truths (meaning they could be). I hold a belief that 2+2=4 because this is what I was taught to accept and never question (the language was defined for me). My awareness of that reality is also a belief based on personal experience. I need Mark (Mfb) here to help me frame my idea….are you talking about the label, the mathematical statement we give to the reality that if two objects are placed with another two objects, there are now four objects or the reality itself?

If we continually talk about it, could it be a doxa? We are constantly teaching your list of doctrines. The intent does seem to be to embed in someone’s very being, but seeing a need to continually reinforce these beliefs seems to me to see them not as doxa yet at least even if there is a desire for them to be such.

In fact, if something is true, seems like it would have a tendency to become doxa as it would be reinforced by continual success. The rising of the sun daily is a doxa for many because it is a truth. Navidad, is this a correct use of doxa or am I missing a nuance in its use?

From your definition, it seems like Doxa is inherently a blind spot as something that is never questioned, just done seems like it isn’t in someone’s full awareness as no decision is ever made, as you said it just is. Can you clarify what the difference would be when doxa isn’t a blind spot? Are you saying it is always invisible here? If so, this seems to underline it is inherently a blind spot.

Your point is an excellent one. "True" is challenging, especially when used as an absolute binary - true or false - as you put it. Others put it as "correct and incorrect" in modern terminology. Perhaps "personal truth" is a helpful concept. Personal truth is truth for the group or individual based on experience and/or belief. That doesn't make it "true" in a modern binary sense for all or correct or incorrect. Beliefs are not rational truths (2+2=4). This is especially important in dealing with human conflict. There also is "revealed" truth. This is a challenging concept as well. Truth as revealed to you may not be truth as revealed to me. That becomes important when interpreting scripture. Again using truth in a true-false, correct -incorrect binary. When Christ said He was the "truth." He wasn't using truth in a binary sense. He was using it in a Greek sense, the revealer of that which was previously hidden. He uncovered that which had been hidden, even as under a blanket. When a Hebrew used the word "truth" it was more likely to mean genuine, reliable, consistent. Not absolute truth. I prefer "truth" as being. But that is just me. Best, Navidad

I don't think your views are informed by reason. They are informed by your faith first and foremost. Your faith teaches you what you believe on the topic and then you go looking for "reasons" to support that. It's identical to people's views on interracial marriages. People decided interracial marriages were bad and then went looking for reasons to support it. There is no fact or debate that can change your mind. How about this. Let's do a thought experiment. If I could show you that children of gay parents performed better in every metric than their peers born to straight parents, would you change your mind? For the purpose of the thought experiment, the evidence is overwhelming and convincing that the children report greater happiness, better grades, better jobs, etc. Would this evidence change your view on the morality of gay marriage? Since children of such marriages are better off, would you seek to call straight marriages immoral and encourage people to enter same sex partnerships? What if tomorrow, a cheap easy method is developed where gay people could create biological offspring, would that change your mind? Would gay marriage suddenly be moral, and good? If the above wouldn't change your mind, then your reasons are just made up. The real reason gay sex is bad is because you believe your prophet has a revelation from God that says gay sex is bad. Debating any other issue is pointless. You dress your religious belief in reason, but it's just window dressing.

Very interesting thoughts. Thank you for sharing. I wonder what we would consider "doxa" in a Latter-day Saint context. What doctrines do we take as a given (within our faith, that is)? God exists and has particular perfections and attributes (he is a loving Father in Heaven, not a distant and disinterested "Clockmaker"). The Plan of Salvation, centering on Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. Joseph Smith's theophanies (including the restoration of the priesthood and deliverance of the Gold Plates). Witness Statements. The Book of Mormon is the word of God. Scripture. What it and Joseph said it is (a translation of an authentic ancient text, done so "by the gift and power of God"). Living Prophets. An open canon. The importance of faith, repentance, receipt of saving ordinances, and keeping covenants. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac

I think there's a lot worth thinking about in what you wrote, especially the warning that any religious community can develop assumptions that become so familiar we stop examining them. I certainly don't think Latter-day Saints are immune to that. Our own scriptures warn us about traditions, pride, and confusing what is familiar with what is true. That being said, it's probably worth noting that just because something functions as “doxa” within a group doesn't necessarily mean the notion is suspect. Something can be deeply embedded in a community and still be true. The fact that we don't continually debate a belief doesn't really tell us whether the belief is true or false – it merely tells us something about how the group relates to it.

Over the years I have enjoyed the writings and musings of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. I didn't always understand it, not because it was written in French and translated into English, but because he was so smart and I am not. One of my predominant interests as an adult has been religion and conflict. Methinks his writings, while not specifically about religion, are informative. He uses a derivative of the Greek word doxa as one of the principal legs on which his theories stand. The word doxa morphed in meaning over time, but that is for another discussion. Bourdieu uses doxa to refer to that which an individual, organization, or society takes for granted over time. In fact, they take it so much for granted that among themselves they never even discuss it. It is a "given" in that culture. It isn't debated within the group, families don't discuss it sitting around the table, teams don't discuss it in the lunchroom. It is just taken for granted as the truth, as correct. Doxa is that which simply is for a given individual or in a given group (not necessarily religious — but all groups or individuals). When I grew up, we never discussed putting milk on apple pie. It was just the doxa; the given way to eat pie - either with ice cream or milk on it. To use the construct of the Johari Window, doxa can become a problem when it becomes a blind spot. Others see something, but the group itself, or the individual doesn't see it, especially as a concern. It is simply the way things are, mostly at an unconscious level. The doxa just is. For Bourdieu the "habitus" is the society, the culture, the surroundings in which the doxa invisibly lives, eats, and sleeps. The habitus silently reinforces the doxa for those who simply silently believe. Where I grew up, the belief that the Phillies were the finest team in the history of professional baseball was a doxa. No one challenged it. Challenging it would have been a way to never get invited to a cheesesteak party; in other words to have been ostracized from the group. It was never even debated; it was, well, it was just true. The doxa was the unspoken truth. The habitus was the environment in which the unspoken truth thrived. Then there was the symbolic violence, my favorite part of the whole theory. Symbolic violence is what the habitus culture, group, or individual commits against those who were not of the group. It was unconscious violence. It was genuine violence, but not perpetrated with violent means (arms, knives, etc.). It most likely was committed without intent. It was perpetrated by ignoring, dismissing, mocking, insisting when confronted, or responding with shock or disbelief. This happened when someone outside, or heavens to mercy (a dicho of my mom) someone inside would challenge or even bring up the doxa as in some way doubtful or worse yet, in error, or worse yet untrue. Just mentioning it would be cause for tension, disbelief, or ostracization. Without knowing it, the Hopi of the Arizona mesas agreed with Bourdieu about symbolic violence. They deemed such as soul wounds. They added to Bourdieu in suggesting that soul wounds hurt both the perpetrator and the victim, even intergenerationally. It have now moved into science as the study of epigenetics. However, I stray . . . . as always! I believe that the world of religion is a well-honed habitus for conflict over the many doxa that reside therein. Almost all religions. I believe religion is fertile soil (habitus) for conflict, much of which starts as unintended—just the shock of the habitus against someone bringing up a doxa, especially an outsider. I believe religious habituses (plural of habitus—I just made that up) create doctrine (didache—another "d" word) to combat those who dare (another d word) to bring up doxa as something doubtful ( a terrible d word). It enables the society, group, denomination (another . . . . oh never mind) to dismiss (you guessed it) the other as misinformed, mal-intended, or gentile, heathen, reprobate, just choose your word, preferably one that starts with a "d." Ha! I just finished a book on truth. My current one is on tribal markings. My next one will be on stones humans throw, including more on doxa, habitus, and symbolic violence. I bet you can't wait to read it now! Not! Seriously, as religious people, methinks we must be aware of our habituses (there is that word again, our doxas, and our symbolically violent reactions to anyone bringing up what for many is not just doctrine but dogma (another d ------ Oh never mind)! Sumbolic violence is most often unintended, but it hurts! How about those Phillies! Best to all. Navidad.

We really like it on spaghetti squash.

What are your thoughts on all of the scriptures in the Old Testament, New Testament, and D&C that contradict your views about marriage and sex? I am happy to talk about particular passages. “All of the scriptures that contradict you” is not a list I can answer in good faith, because it assumes what it needs to prove: that those texts, read as a flat codebook, override living prophets and the Law of Chastity as the Church teaches it now. I do not read scripture that way. Proposition 1, that living prophets can teach and correct, is doing real work here. Heavenly Father and the Son send prophets and apostles with authority to teach, correct, and apply commandments in the conditions of a given dispensation. That is why Moses is not the last word on diet, why David’s household is not the template for marriage, and why the Church does not practice what Abraham or 19th-century Saints practiced. Descriptive history is not the same as a standing commandment. The record includes polygyny and concubinage in Israel’s households, levirate marriage and the captive-wife statute in the law of Moses, and the limited exceptions the Lord says He commanded in Jacob 2:30 and D&C 132. The same record includes monogamy as the standing law (Jacob 2:27), condemnation of taking wives the Lord did not give—including David’s sin in the case of Uriah and Solomon’s going beyond what was appointed—and the Church’s current teaching that sexual relations belong in marriage between a man and a woman. If a passage is historical practice, I treat it as history. If it is a commandment the Lord later limited or withdrew, I treat the later word as controlling. If it is the Savior or His apostles teaching holiness of body and covenant fidelity, I treat that as the through-line. That is not “ignoring scripture.” It is refusing to let every ancient arrangement become a veto on what prophets teach now. Scripture never authorizes sex outside a God-recognized husband-wife covenant, nor does it authorize group marriage—everyone married to everyone else—nor same-sex marriage. When the Lord has commanded plurality, it has been polygyny: a husband-wife covenant between a man and each wife, not a sexual commune. The wives are not married to one another and are not authorized to have sexual relations with one another. The exception to one-man-one-woman marriage, when it exists, is still marriage. It is not an enlargement of X to whatever consenting adults arrange. Levirate marriage (yibbum) is the same pattern: Deuteronomy 25 commands a brother to take the widow as wife to raise up seed to the dead, or to release her by chalitzah. It is a special-purpose marriage, not authorized sex outside marriage. In all of these, the essence of marriage - man-woman pairing, procreative capacity, constraints on sex outside of it - remains unchanged. Please feel free to name the verses you have in mind from OT, NT and D&C and I will take them one at a time. In particular, I am interested in you presenting scriptural passages showing God as commanding/authorizing sex outside of marriage, or between persons of the same sex. Thanks, -Smac

What are your thoughts on all of the scriptures in the Old Testament, New Testament, and D&C that contradict your views about marriage and sex?

It's not true, either. Okay. So sexual ethics about these aspects of the human experience are based on reason, not bigotry. Would you agree with that? And you have not provided it. Here's one: I think my beliefs are reasonable. If you feel otherwise, I would like to hear what you have to say. In doing so, I hope you will present reasoning and evidence rather than just assertion. And another: I think my beliefs about sexuality, and appropriate parameters for them, are reasonable. I laid out much of my thinking in my previous post. And I have never expressed "dislike" of LGBT people, just disagreement with some things. That's an interesting perspective. I would like to better understand it, as you are not demonstrating or explaining it, just asserting it as if it were axiomatically and unquestionably true. You also larded it up with matters I have not addressed (racial attributes, national origin, religion). I would also like to see you critique the reasoning I presented in my previous post. For my part, I cannot articulate a reasoned basis for opposing a marriage of two people based on their "racial attributes," largely because people of different races can procreate and raise children with a mother and father in the home. Same goes for notional origin. I also cannot think of any basis for a categorical "religion"-based perspective. That just leave "gender" and "sexual orientation." In a strict sense, my disagreement with same-sex marriage is not based on sexual orientation, but rather on gender (that is, biological sex). Marriage was previously based on five defining attributes: age (no child marriages), consanguinity (against incest), mental capacity (must have requisite measure of it), consent (no forced marriages) and . . . sex (a man and a woman). In legal and sociological history, these five criteria traditionally formed the bedrock of valid marriage contracts across many jurisdictions. However, the legal landscape surrounding the fifth attribute has transformed significantly in recent decades. We have radically re-defined marriage to include same-sex marriage. I acknowledge that. It's the law of the land. I think there were, and are, ample grounds to disagree with this re-definition. By way of example, I think I can rationalize and justify the restriction on marriage as to consanguinity. Incest and inbreeding are pretty serious and damaging things to our society. There are some marginal cases, to which I admit I still retain some sociocultural aversion. For example, Utah allows first cousin marriages to persons both over 65 or, if 55-64, persuade a judge that they cannot procreate. In the main, however, I think it is reasonable for society to prohibit incestuous marriages. That doesn't mean that this is a universal sentiment. For example: It is not "bigotry" to critique and disagree with incestuous marriages, because there are a lot of downsides to such marriages. What are your thoughts about this? Also, what are your thoughts about restricting marriage based on age, consent, and mental capacity? It seems reasonable to me to not allow children to marry, or to allow compelled/coerced marriages, or to allow marriage to a person who lacks sufficient mental capacity. Again, what are your thoughts about this? That just leaves the last restriction: sex. I assume you think this is the line you will not cross. Could you explain why? Why did so many societies restrict marriage by this criterion? Was it wholly irrational and blind "bigotry" all the way down? Or were there other reasons? If so, what were those reasons, and why were they wrong? Well, no. Bigotry is inherently bereft of reason. My position is not that. Bigotry generally is intolerant. I have all sorts of tolerance for people who disagree with me. Again, I laid out my reasoning is some detail. I hope you will engage with it. I don't really subscribe to sexual orientation as a discrete and insular minority or class. I do believe marriage as between a man and a woman. That makes sense, sociologically and biologically and physiologically. Opposite sex sexual behavior propagates the species. Same-sex behavior does not. That's not "privilege" (as in an "unearned and mostly unacknowledged societal advantage"). That's just biology. Marriage, until very recently, was overwhelmingly between a man and a woman, in large part due to procreative capacity, and also because the optimum environment for raising children is where there is a mother and a father who are married and devoted to each other. That's not "privilege," that just sociological and historical reality. Same-sex marriage inherently lacks procreative capacity, and if a child (born through opposite sex behavior) is in such a family, he will necessarily and by design be deprived of a mother or a father. Actually, we haven't really been talking about marriage, but rather sexual behavior. There are lots of people whose behavior is outside of X, not just those who engage in same-sex behavior. You haven't engaged in the points I raised. I hope you will do so in the future. Principled and reasoned disagreement about sexual ethics (and about many other topics) is not bigotry, it is just disagreement. I think you likely agree with that sentiment as to other topics, but I think you are not willing to apply it here. Here, as to same-sex behavior, disagreement with you is "bigotry." No reasoning. No analysis. No engagement. Again: I think the "Bigot!" schtick is so frequently utilized because it's all you've got. I can articulate a reasoned basis for my position. I don't think you can, either that or you are so immersed in your own worldview that you cannot accommodate the possibility that viewpoints divergent from yours might be reasonable. So you retreat to name-calling. Thanks, -Smac

I don’t think we are being screwed over if we are preexistent and under the care of God the Father and Christ. If consent can’t come fully before true comprehension of what we are accepting and that can only come by experience, then no progress would ever occur if we insisted on full consent as a condition of fairness and then insisted on life being fair. I think it’s appropriate to accept that whether it’s parents of minor children or God the Father, it is a necessity of growth to have them make certain decisions for us. I also think it’s a good idea to dump the idea we chose everything in our life as justification for parents to see their kids as owing them or that parents have a right to ignore a kid’s wishes in their decisions because we allegedly chose our parents knowing how they would treat us as if even if that was so that means we have no right to expect considerate treatment from them…or any other justifications for treating children as more like possessions or pets or puppets than people or there to fulfill parents’ wishes and needs based on the preexistence. (I know your belief that NDE support this idea in no way implies you see any justification doing these things, but I have seen it in others)

Yes according to my recall, but it made it very sentimental and imo likely drew too much attention, so got some blowback on the idea. When did Pres. Kimball (iirc) come with his statement that any couple of celestial kingdom quality could marry and be happy with each other. That’s probably not very curate, but it was saying the idea of marriage commitments in the preexistence wasn’t accurate.

It's not that complicated. No one calls you a bigot because you say wait for sex until marriage. No one calls you a bigot because you say society is way too sexualized. No one calls you a bigot for your views on masturbation. Bigotry has a very narrow definition. If I say "those two people shouldn't get married" and my reason is solely based on the racial attributes, national origin, religion, gender, or sexual orientation (or some other near immutable characteristic) that is bigotry. It doesn't matter if the person stating it has all these intellectual reasons surrounding preserving "white culture", some divine curse on Cain, or anything else. It's still bigotry. You privilege yourself as a class (heterosexual) and would deny the same privileges to a different class of people (homosexual). Our ancestors sought to do the same around interracial marriages. They could write "reasoned" paragraphs about it just like you I'm sure. They were still racist. Sorry.

I was wondering what was Knox's primary source. It appears that he was mostly translating the Latin Vulgate, which is St. Jerome's translation from Greek and Hebrew into what was then the vulgar tongue of the western church (Latin), which is also why it is called a Vulgate. It would seem though that Knox was also making good use of the Hebrew and Greek secondarily. The site below is where I got that impression. https://www.knoxbible.com/ I also was impressed with the elegant but accessible English in Psalm 22 in the Knox edition, which is Psalm 23 in all Protestant Bibles and more recent Catholic Bibles. Edited to add that this might be helpful from the same site too in explaining a little history and Knox's vision for this English translation. (If I am not mistaken, Baronius Press is the publishing arm of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, which is probably the most prominent of several religious communities with full permission from Rome to celebrate all their Sacraments according to the 1962 MIssal of Pope St. John XXIII). https://www.knoxbible.com/why_is_knox_bible_unique.html

Yes, I like the way Genesis 1 says God made "furniture" for the earth. That is a cool concept.

It's online at https://catholicbible.online/knox/OT