smac97

Just why do you always add "their having children." I think for the same reason you apparently dislike this acknowledgment: Procreation is the exclusive province of heterosexual sex. Marriage as an institution has always centered on the creating and rearing of children, so the heterosexual act is a means to that end. Same-sex behavior can never be the means to that end, and so is fundamentally distinguishable. Sex, that is, heterosexual sex, is principally about "having children." Biologically, same-sex behavior does not make sense, as it does nothing to propagate the species, nor does it involve the biologically "intended" purposes of the participants' respective reproductive systems. This is so in both the macro and micro sense. I do not deny that there can be strong emotions involved in a same-sex relationship. Latter-day Saints propose that sexual behavior has an added fundamental dimension and purpose, namely, the strengthening of the union between husband and wife. In other words, it's all about, or should be all about, eternal families. The Lord has instituted marriage for purposes which a same-sex pairing can never achieve or fulfill. A man and a woman can marry and have children together. A same-sex couple cannot. A man and a woman can marry and be a father and a mother to children. A same-sex couple cannot. A man and a woman can be sealed for eternity, and they can also be sealed to their children. A same-sex couple cannot. A man and a women can marry and, through sexual behavior, strengthen the marital relationship between husband and wife. A same-sex couple cannot. An unmarried heterosexual couple can approximate some of these things. They can propagate the species. They can live together and raise children together (as can a same-sex couple). But even so, sexual behavior in this context is still immoral in the Latter-day Saint paradigm. In the end, I can't help but thing that there is really not a huge difference between you and me. You regard sexual behavior as extremely important, and so do I. You recognize its potency in affecting our individual lives, and so do I. You believe sexual expression ought to, even must, have a moral/ethical framework that creates boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate, moral and immoral, and so do I. We differ in that you place same-sex behavior within the ambit of "appropriate" and "moral," and I do not. For me, the parameters of appropriate sexual behavior are A) between husband and wife for the purpose of B) procreation and/or C) strengthening the relationship between husband and wife. Again, Elder Renlund explained things rather well: I cannot speak to the particulars of whatever boundaries you choose to impose on sexual expression. I would not presume to speak for you. Based on your comments over the years, I know these parameters are not fully congruent with the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints, but they sure seem to have a lot of overlap. You love your children. I respect that. You love your partner. I respect that. It is, I think, the central and intended purpose of every marriage, yes. Not every heterosexual marriage works out that way, of course. Some choose to not have kids (or abort or abandon the ones they do have), some are incapable of doing so (due to disorder or age or whatever). But despite the exceptions in the "micro" sense, most marriages throughout history - the macro sense of things - have involved procreation. In contrast, same-sex relationships have a 0% chance of procreating. If a child is in the picture, it is only because the child came by way of a heterosexual pairing. I don't know. I do know, however, that "multiply and replenish" has always been a biggie, after complying with Matthew 19: I appreciate that The Bible can, if the individual really wants to, be construed to accommodate same-sex behavior. I can't do it, but clearly there are people who can. As I see it, though, marriage is between a man and a woman, and sex is limited to the purposes explained above by Elder Renlund. I don't understand what you are saying here. My explanation for God not ordaining or recognizing same-sex marriage is not contingent on this or that person not having children. Thanks, -Smac

Roger, I have appreciated the back-and-forth discussion we've had on this topic over the past while. Given that we have circled around Sean Carroll's ideas in The Big Picture and their supposed application to disproving Latter-day Saint truth claims, I thought it might be helpful to step back and summarize where we stand. I am aiming for clarity and fairness, focusing on the core issues without rehashing every detail. If I have mischaracterized your position, feel free to correct me. (Grok provided some input as to tone, as I am trying to do better in that regard.) 1. Your Core Argument: Science Disproves LDS "Supernatural" ("Miraculous") Claims You have argued that Carroll's framework—rooted in Effective Quantum Field Theory (EQFT) and what he calls the "Core Theory" of physics—provides "positive evidence" that certain forms of matter, energy, or forces (like non-physical spirits or divine interventions) "do not exist." You apply this specifically to Latter-day Saint claims, such as: The existence of spirits that interact with physical bodies (e.g., via a "causal interface" with the brain). Miracles in LDS scripture (e.g., Book of Mormon events) that would require violations of known physics. Revelation or spiritual experiences that imply influences on or interactions with the physical world. You emphasize "interactions with observable reality" as the key criterion. In your view, if something "supernatural" (or "miraculous") purportedly affects the physical world (e.g., spirits influencing thoughts/decisions), then that something is within science's purview, and is therefore falsifiable. Drawing on Carroll's book, you argue that modern physics describes brain/body processes so comprehensively that there's "no wiggle room" for undetected non-material interventions (which, if I am accurately describing things, is incongruent with Latter-day Saint thought, which postulates that spirit is not immaterial/non-material). Thus, claims implying such interventions (like mind-body dualism) are "impossible" and "did not happen," based on the absence of experimental evidence for them. You have clarified that this is not about proving a negative in absolute terms, but rather about colloquial "proof"—high-confidence conclusions from overwhelming evidence, akin to knowing a one-in-a-million chance won't pan out. You distinguish Latter-day Saint claims as "narrow and specific" (e.g., requiring spirit-brain interfaces) from more abstract religious ideas that don't demand physical interactions. 2. My Counterarguments: Science's Limits and Epistemic Boundaries I have pushed back by arguing that science, by design, operates under methodological naturalism—it excels at empirical, repeatable, falsifiable phenomena but cannot address non-empirical or historical one-off events outside its wheelhouse. A few key points: Non-Falsifiability of Many Religious Claims: Claims like God's existence, spirits, or revelation do not, in my view, necessarily produce "repeatable, detectable violations of physics." If a spirit interacts subtly (e.g., influencing thoughts without measurable energy transfers), such an event would not be testable via EQFT or experiments. Carroll himself acknowledges this in places, noting science deals with "how the world works" but not ultimate "why" questions or unfalsifiable metaphysics. Historical Events Are Untestable: I have repeatedly asked how science could empirically disprove specific miracles which occurred in the past and outside of any sort of scientific/empirical observation, such as Christ's resurrection (a belief shared by billions of people, not just Latter-day Saints) or the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24—physical interactions like walking, talking, vanishing). These "interact with observable reality" but occurred millennia ago. No lab can recreate or falsify them; history relies on testimony, not replicable experiments. You have not yet provided a scientific methodology for testing or disproving such historical events, which highlights the practical epistemic limits of applying EQFT/Core Theory to particularized miraculous claims about events not empirically/scientifically observed or tested. Inconsistencies in Application: If Carroll's ideas disprove miraculous events accepted as such by Latter-day Saints, they should equally debunk biblical ones accepted broadly in Christianity (e.g., resurrection, walking on water). But you have generally focused on LDS-specific claims while not addressing the application of Carroll's framework to these comparable biblical events. This feels selective—either "science" disproves all supernatural/miraculous interactions, or its "purview" is narrower than you claim. Philosophy vs. Science: Carroll's book blends physics with philosophy (e.g., poetic naturalism). His "disproof" of souls relies on assumptions like physicalism, not pure empirical data. Science shows consistency with known laws but doesn't "prove" non-existence of undetected forces (e.g., dark matter was once "undiscovered"). Claims of "impossibility" overreach into metaphysics, where science defers to philosophy/theology. 3. Where We Agree (or Mostly Agree) Science is powerful for observable, interactive phenomena. If a claim predicts measurable effects, it can be tested and potentially debunked—as you've noted. Language matters: "Proof" is contextual. Philosophically, nothing is absolute. Colloquially, high-confidence conclusions are fine. (As an attorney, presenting claims of "proof" or "proving/disproving" is a potent thing, as I deal with evidentiary quanta—preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt—and probabilities—more likely, less likely, etc. Claims of scientific "proof," in contrast, would seem more akin to mathematics—that is, reasonable minds cannot disagree about the outcome.) Interactions are key: Purely non-interactive entities (e.g., Sagan's garage dragon) are unfalsifiable and thus outside science. 4. Unresolved Questions and My Bottom Line Despite our exchanges, key challenges remain unanswered: How would EQFT/Core Theory empirically falsify historical, non-repeatable events like the resurrection (or the Road to Emmaus, or the First Vision, etc.)? If Carroll's framework applies to Latter-day Saint claims, why not equally to other miraculous claims? Does this mean science "disproves" them too? If spirits/God operate without violating detectable physics (e.g., subtle influences indistinguishable from natural processes), aren't they outside science's epistemic reach? How can Carroll or you make sweeping pronouncements about the existence or non-existence of "God" and "spirits" when you have not even defined these terms? In the end, I see your position as conflating science's strengths with overreach. Science excels at the "how" of the natural world but can't adjudicate the "why" or supernatural/miraculous claims that do not necessarily leave empirical and detectable fingerprints. In my view, Latter-day Saint truth claims (and indeed, pretty much all historical truth claims of espoused by the religions of the world) as to miraculous beings/events (God, spirits, revelation) are faith-based, tested through personal experience, and are not empirically testable or falsifiable via scientific inquiry/testing. Carroll's work is fascinating physics, but applying it to "disprove" religion ventures into philosophy—where it is one voice among many. Thanks, -Smac

This is just a laughable falsehood. I think it is demonstrably correct. Interesting that you left off this part of that letter, found in the very next paragraph: Here the First Presidency acknowledged the lack of revelatory provenance, while earlier speaking of "{t}he attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes" as being "not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time." This statement ("they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time"), as we now know, does not address Elijah Abel/Able/Ables, Moroni Abel/Able/Ables, Elijah R. Ables, James Brown, Jr., Henry G. Church, Robert R. Church, William F. Church, and Q. Walker Lewis. President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.” This sentiment was, I believe, repeated a number of times, including in the very 1949 statement you are citing here. In contrast, there has never been, to my knowledge, any such sentiment expressed regarding the Church ratifying same-sex marriages. And there have been ample statements which fairly firmly show that the Brethren do not expect any such development. As for the the 1949 article, I found these comments (from a FAIR article) worthwhile: That seems about right. Good stuff, this. I can't help but think that some of us construe racialist sentiments as an unpardonable sin, just as some others may see same-sex behavior as an unpardonable sin. Both sentiments are incorrect. Thanks, -Smac

I have previously said this: Marriage is about the union between a man and a woman, and their having children, and their familial relationship (ideally) being preserved in the eternities, and all of this has been extensively addressed by both ancient and modern prophets as being ordained of God. These are the fundamental attributes and purposes of marriage, and they are wholly absent from same-sex marriage. See my above "de minimis" comments. Thanks, -Smac

No. That's your concept, not mine. I believe the Law of Chastity is in the Scriptures, and has been systematized and summarized by inspired prophets and apostles. I reject the premise. It did not. The priesthood ban has no known revelatory provenance. In contrast, the Law of Chastity is found amply throughout the Standard Works. I respectfully disagree. What "man" did do, however, was radically re-define "marriage." Time will tell, I suppose. Gay relationships have a fertility rate of 0.00%. Gay relationships by design lack either a husband or a wife. Gay marriage is qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from "marriage" as set forth in scripture and in counsel from modern prophets and apostles. Frankly, I'm glad that you are happy. I also have a friend who is "happy" in her relationship with a man to whom she is not married (and which man is instead married to another woman). My paradigmatic worldview characterizes marriage as not only intending to create happiness now, but also to procreate, and also to be perpetuated in the eternities. You do not share that worldview, and I respect that. Would like to see some examples of this "preaching." I don't think that has happened. Marriage between a man and a woman was and is instituted by God. I do not believe that same-sex marriage is similarly situated. Marriage between a man and a woman is designed to facilitate procreation, and to give a child a mother and a father. Same-sex marriage is not so designed, and instead has a fertility rate of 0.00%, and if any children are involved, they are by design deprived of a mother or a father. Marriage between a man and a woman is a bond that I believe can persist into the eternities. I do not believe that same-sex marriage is similarly situated. In a roundabout way, I sort of agree with you. I think the net effect of same-sex marriage has been to weaken and lessen the legitimacy of the institution of marriage overall. Indeed, this seems to have been the result sought by some in the movement: "{O}nly the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality." "{I}s marriage really something we need anymore?" "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry ... to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." "{W}e are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage." "Marriage is the proverbial burning building. Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!" "We must aim at the abolition of the family." "The institution of marriage is going to change ... I don’t think it should exist." Do you think these folks, having succeeded in re-defining marriage, can say "Mission Accomplished" as to "the death of marriage," "radically alter{ing}" it, "stoking the flames" of its destruction, abolishing "the family," working so that "the institution of marriage ... {does not} exist"? You have, for many years now, drawn a one-to-one correlation between the Church's priesthood ban and, well, pretty much anything you don't like. For you, it is the smoking gun that the Brethren just make stuff up willy nilly. For me, however, it's the exception that proves the rule. And the OD-2 is the rule nullifying the exception. Or maybe not. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things. Thanks, -Smac

Same standard, disparate impact. Not sure what you mean by "not the same for all of us." The speed limit is "the same for all of us," but some of us - those of us more prone to driving fast - are more impacted by it. Not because the law unfairly targets some people, but because some people are less willing to abide by it. Right. And those "certain conditions" apply to everyone in the same way. Nobody can commit adultery, even if the other person is "someone you are romantically and sexually attracted to." Same with fornication. Same with same-sex behavior. And a heterosexual person cannot have sexual relations with someone they are romantically and sexually attracted to and not married to and keep the law of chastity under any conditions. I don't deny the reality that sexual relations are verboten under "certain conditions." Thanks, -Smac

"That is why I said I was criticizing narrow, 'specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain.'" "On a few occasions I’ve tried to limit the conversation to discussing one specific example: what your church teaches about spirits. I did this because it is relevant, important, and directly addressed in detail in Sean Carroll’s book." I said: I retract this and apologize. It's not that Carroll's reasoning only applies to Latter-day Saint truth claims. Rather, you are choosing to invoke Carroll in a "narrow" and "limit{ed}" way so as to focus on the Church's teachings supposedly being "flatly disproven" by "science." Meanwhile, I hope you can eventually lay out the "scientific" methodology for how "science" will "prove" that the Church's miraculous truth claims are "impossible and hence did not happen," that miraculous events in The Book of Mormon "did not happen," that "spirits don't exist," that "physics that shows basic truth claims of Mormonism, such as the existence of spirits and revelation, are flatly disproven," and so on. In my view, "science" by design cannot test non-empirical or non-falsifiable claims. A God and spirits that do not produce repeatable, detectable violations of physics are simply outside its jurisdiction. Science operates, or should operate, under methodological/empirical naturalism, and hence it has epistemic limits. I sure would like to see you explain how "science" could empirically disprove the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ approximately 2,000 years ago, or His appearance on the Road to Emmaus. Or the story of an angel appearing to stop Laman and Lemuel from beating Nephi. Or Christ's visit to the Nephites in 3 Nephi. These events all "interact{ed} with observable reality," and so are - according to you - "within the purview of science," susceptible to empirical falsification using "scientific" methodologies. Thanks, -Smac

Done. Thanks, -Smac

I doubt this. Homophobic banter was endemic in youth culture both inside and outside the church. My (Tahitian) brother has told me that he endured racist taunts in the neighborhood. However, I did not hear any such things. As for "homophobic banter," again, I never hear derogatory comments about gay folks in a church setting. Not in Sunday meetings, not in weekday events (youth, scouts, etc.). I heard use of "qu**r" and "don't be a f*g" in school. From the pulpit. In the three-hour block. During weekday activities. I never heard any racialist comments. My brother did, though (he was the target of them, sadly). Please stop comparing two single men or two single women being interested in each other to unfaithfulness. It is a silly analogy. I think I'll keep the comparison. I will likewise keep the comparison to fornication. There are a variety of ways to violate the Law of Chastity. None of them is appropriate for Latter-day Saints. Yeah, you’re just going on a ‘vibes’ based thing here. No, I'm going on a "published to the world statements from the Church" thing here. The EoM is not a source of doctrine, but I think Elder Bednar's comments, which I quoted, are a good guy. No, that's not the point. The Church does not prohibit same-sex behavior because of uncomfortable vibes. Rather, Elder Renlund explained things rather well: Sex, then, is something intended by God to A) take place only between husband and wife to B) facilitate procreation and/or C) strengthen the relationship between husband and wife. Fornication does not comport with God's purposes. Nor does adultery. Nor does same-sex behavior. "Standard bit" = reasoned counsel from modern prophets and apostles. A good and appropriate one, though. It gives each of us the benefit of the doubt. I suppose it is theoretically possible to intentionally cultivate "same-sex desire" in one's self (see, e.g., this Wikipedia article discussing "Bisexual Chic," with "bisexual" being a label sometimes used to describe someone who is "free of taboos, experimental, in touch with both masculine and feminine aspects of themselves"), but I am more inclined to think of sexual "identity" categories being superseded by the concept of "sexual fluidity," which in turn results from " a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." YMMV. Well, no. Not the "opposite." Romans 1 speaks of "vain" and "foolish" people who succumbed to "the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves" and "vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" and "men" who similarly "{left} the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly." I've never thought of this as a descriptor of any category of persons except those who volitional behavior placed themselves within it. Or, put another way, "{same-sex} attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is." I think the modern guidance we have received is more helpful and clear. I would like that, too. But meanwhile, I find the current counsel to be amply sufficient. Out of curiosity, if the Presiding High Priest were to stand up in General Conference, announce the receipt of just such a "clear-cut revelation" prohibiting same-sex behavior, present it for a sustaining vote, and then (assuming the vote is sufficient) canonize the revelation in our Standard Works, would you accept it and obey it? I have previously said this: So that's where I stand. Some, perhaps. But "hatred" of what? Or He has not spoken yet. Or He expects us to listen to prophets and apostles, who have spoken amply about this. Well, no. From the Church: I have a good friend who died a few years ago. His death was slow, and he knew it was coming, so we had plenty of discussions. He had spent a good portion of his life living, as he put it, "the lifestyle" of a gay man. But over time he repented, changed his behavior, returned to Church, and died in full fellowship. Near his final days he spoke of how important it had been for him to reject the "identity" of "being" gay. He said he didn't like the label, as it allowed him to justify immoral conduct. There are all sorts of perspectives on this stuff these days. Is it possible that the "change" you note above ("the standard bit about same-sex desire not being a sin but that acting on it is" and "LDS don’t generally teach these verses much. At least not anymore.") is specifically intended to not "ignore" biblical condemnations of same-sex behavior (laden as they are with connotations, contextual gaps, etc.), and to re-state the Lord's will in a way that is more clear, more compelling, more accurate? Thanks, -Smac

Yes, I can see differences. Marriage is a difference. Age is a difference. I also see similarities. A Latter-day Saint engaging in same-sex behavior does so in violation of the Law of Chastity. A Latter-day Saint who has sex outside of marriage also does so in violation of the Law of Chastity. Same-sex romantic behavior is discouraged and/or prohibited for members of the Church who wish to remain in good standing in the Church, and who wish to obey the Law of Chastity. From the Church: And here (from the kerfuffle at BYU a few years ago about the Honor Code) : The foregoing is what I had in mind when I spoke of "romantic behavior." I'm not particularly interested in a "how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin"-style arguments about the exacting parameters of this principle. This would be akin to trying to parse out how much behavior can I get away with in interacting with or dating a woman other than my wife, short of actual sexual intercourse, before I violate my covenants to her and to God. That's just not how a Latter-day Saint should approach the Law of Chastity. I am well aware that the church does not give the priesthood to women. But that is not what I was talking about was I. You said: "Can a married gay couple hold the priesthood?" I responded: The Law of Chastity is exactly the same for all of us. Nobody in the Church is allowed to enter into a same-sex marriage, or engage in same-sex behavior. The Law of Chastity is propounded throughout scripture, as have the Church's teachings regarding same-sex behavior and the divinely-instituted meaning and purpose of marriage. But c'mon. You are not really asking these things. We've had these discussions dozens of times over the years. You have, for many years now, drawn a one-to-one correlation between the Church's priesthood ban and, well, pretty much anything you don't like. For you, it is the smoking gun that the Brethren just make stuff up willy nilly. For me, however, it's the exception that proves the rule. And the OD-2 is the rule nullifying the exception. Broadly, we sorted things out. The OD-2 is coming up on its half-century mark. The Church's growth in Africa is doing quite well. The priesthood ban apparently had no revelatory provenance. The same cannot be said for the Church's teachings on the Law of Chastity and marriage. No. You have long relied on an anything-I-don't-like-in-the-teachings-of-the-Church-I-summarily-declare-to-be-manmade line of reasoning, helped along with a few healthy doses of the No True Scotsman fallacy. There is no reasonable dispute about what the Church teaches regarding the Law of Chastity and marriage as being between a man and a woman. None. It's pretty easy to find in any number of places. The Scriptures. The Church's website. Various church manuals. For the Strength of Youth, and so on. Now, is there a reasonable dispute about whether these things are - as you have previously put it - "given by God?" Sure. But then, pretty much everything we believe is, in the end, a matter of faith and choice. Positivism. Fundamentalism. Hyper-literalism. Proof-texting. Legalism. These are your go-to resources whenever same-sex marriage and/or homosexual behavior comes up on this board. But they just don't work. Your insistent "Show me chapter and verse where God descended from heaven and prohibited homosexual behavior" legalisms just don't work, any more than, say, someone trying to argue that injecting heroin is okay since it's not itemized in the Doctrine & Covenants, or that pornography is acceptable because it is not specifically prohibited in the scriptures, and on and on and on. If the Church were to issue a published-to-the-world, "Thus Sayeth the Lord"-style "revelation," and canonize it in our Standard Works, would you accept it? Thanks, -Smac

A protracted dodge. I'm happy to be corrected on the point you raise above (that "The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known”), but not the next one ("these completely known laws of physics provide formidable evidence against supernatural beliefs, including your own"). As you claim, "everything that interacts with observable reality is, in principle, within the purview of science." So I have asked you to demonstrate your claim by using "science" to prove or disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ and/or the Road to Emmaus story. Does Effective Quantum Field Theory disprove these claims? If yes, then all your song and dance about you invoking Carroll only has application to Latter-day Saint truth claims ("That is why I said I was criticizing narrow, 'specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain.'") doesn't really hold up, does it? If no, then all your song and dance about "science" being able to "prove" or "disprove" religious truth claims doesn't really hold up, does it? Again, by what testing / processes / methodologies does "science" propose to utilize to prove/disprove the foregoing matters? Thanks, -Smac

Well no, you have not. You speak of purported differentiations which supposedly isolate Latter-day Saint truth claims from the truth claims of other religious truth claims ("That is why I said I was criticizing narrow, 'specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain.'"). You make sweeping pronouncements about "science" disproving/falsifying Latter-day Saint truth claims, as if they are unique because they "interact with observable reality." But then when I point out that Christ resurrecting from the dead "interacts with observable reality," a belief shared by billions of people in the world alongside the Latter-day Saints, you gloss over and ignore that. So, with this "Purview of Science" precept in place, please explain how "science" could empirically disprove the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ approximately 2,000 years ago. This event necessarily "interact{ed} with observable reality," right? I would really like to see the methodology by which such an endeavor would proceed. How would "science" propose to empirically test and disprove this religious truth claim? Or how about "science" disproving Luke 24? Well? "All I claimed is that the supernatural elements of the book are impossible and hence did not happen." "It takes Dr. Carroll several chapters to lay out the framework for how we can and do have positive evidence that these (for lack of a better word) 'supernatural' forms of matter and energy do not exist, rather than merely not being discovered yet. But he does make the case." "I pointed out that we know from Effective Quantum Field Theory that the miracles in and around the Book of Mormon did not happen." Luke 24 speaks of miraculous (what you call "supernatural") events. A resurrected Jesus Christ walking with two of His disciples. These disciples were affected ("holden") by some miraculous means, such that they did not recognize Him. They spoke with him, and he with them. He then "vanished out of their sight." The disciples then said that while speaking with Him, their "heart{s} burn{ed} within {them}." As you claim, "everything that interacts with observable reality is, in principle, within the purview of science." So this fits the bill. So soes Effective Quantum Field Theory disprove these claims? If yes, then all your song and dance about you invoking Carroll only has application to Latter-day Saint truth claims ("That is why I said I was criticizing narrow, 'specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain.'") doesn't really hold up, does it? If no, then all your song and dance about "science" being able to "prove" or "disprove" religious truth claims doesn't really hold up, does it? Dandy. So lay out the "scientific" methodology for disproving these things. In my view, "science" by design cannot test non-empirical or non-falsifiable claims. A God and spirits that do not produce repeatable, detectable violations of physics are simply outside its jurisdiction. Science operates, or should operate, under methodological/empirical naturalism, and hence it has epistemic limits. You are asserting otherwise ("and within the purview of science"). Let's start with the testing of the story of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. By what testing / processes / methodologies does "science" propose to utilize to prove/disprove this event? You have previously said: "All I claimed is that the supernatural elements of the book are impossible and hence did not happen." "It takes Dr. Carroll several chapters to lay out the framework for how we can and do have positive evidence that these (for lack of a better word) 'supernatural' forms of matter and energy do not exist, rather than merely not being discovered yet. But he does make the case." "I pointed out that we know from Effective Quantum Field Theory that the miracles in and around the Book of Mormon did not happen." Do you likewise assert that the miraculous ("supernatural") elements of The Bible "are impossible and hence did not happen"? What "positive evidence" do you have which disproves the reality of Christ's resurrection, or of the Road to Emmaus event? How does Effective Quantum Field Theory allow us to "know" that these events "did not happen"? Thanks, -Smac

.

Yes, yes. Also Carroll: To answer these questions, the answer is no regarding "the existence of God, spirits, etc." The reason for that is that "God, spirits, etc." are undefined. And yet you have characterized Carroll's theory as "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that it is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and that it "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist." So Carroll has "proven" that these "undefined" things (God and spirits) "don't exist?" That's what "science" can do? Disprove the existence of something that isn't even defined? "What it implies about the likelihood?" What happened to "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist"? Do you see just a wee bit of difference between (A) a theory that "provisionally" (as Carroll elsewhere put it) "implies" a "likelihood" of the non-existence of spirits versus (B) a theory that, as you assert, is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla" and "proves" the non-existence of spirits? I'm getting whiplash reading your posts. Thanks, -Smac

Right. Even though neither he nor you can even define those "other things." Also, do you see any inconsistency Carroll's proposition that "Science isn't in the business of proving things" and also his proposition, as you frame it, that "we know is enough to 'rule out' some other things"? What is the difference between "ruling out" something and "disproving" it? "{I}n an undefined sense." This seems evasive. No need to retract substantial overstatements or substantiate them by defining their essential terms. You just seem to be waving off the substantial inconsistency in your position by employing the phrase "in an undefined sense," the meaning of which itself is obscure. Roger: "The 'other things' it rules out don’t include 'God' or 'spirits' in an undefined sense." Also Roger: "Earlier in this thread, smac97 asked me when, precisely, science proved that spirits don’t exist. The answer to that question is that this knowledge started to emerge in 1989 when the Large Electron-Positron Collider was first fired up." Also Roger: "I've presented evidence from mainstream physics that shows basic truth claims of Mormonism, such as the existence of spirits and revelation, are flatly disproven." Also Roger: "{T}hings like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science because they make concrete claims about the real world. As I've shown on this thread, the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science, the theory that is as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla, proves that spirits and revelation don't exist." Also Roger: Do you know how silly that sounds? I trust that you are not intentionally talking out of both sides of your mouth. But it seems difficult to conclude, in the alternative, that you just do not perceive how profoundly inconsistent your statements are with each other. You are far too intelligent for me to readily reach that conclusion. So I'm not sure how to proceed. Thanks, -Smac

Are you sure? Reasonably, but not totally, yes. And you've agreed with me, except when you haven't. Spencer: Science {} cannot definitively prove or disprove God, spirits, or non-falsifiable "supernatural" or miraculous claims. Roger: "While it’s true that science can’t prove the existence or non-existence of {God}..." "The 'other things' it {science} rules out don’t include 'God' or 'spirits' in an undefined sense." I've been pretty consistent about this. You have not. To borrow a quote from True Grit: "I do not entertain hypotheticals. The world as it is is vexing enough." Neither you nor Carroll can even define the thing the existence of which you propose can be definitively and empirically tested and proven/disproven. Well, no. A God and spirits that do not produce repeatable, detectable violations of physics are simply outside the jurisdiction of "science." Carroll seems to concede this, but you do not ("{T}hings like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science..."). But at other times, you do concede this ("While it’s true that science can’t prove the existence or non-existence of {God}..."). In any event, feel free to explain how "science" could empirically disprove the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ approximately 2,000 years ago. I would really like to see the methodology by which such an endeavor would proceed. So do all sorts of broadly Christian truth claims. Like the resurrection. Jesus Christ is said to have risen from the dead, had His disciples touch him, and he ate fish and honeycomb. And a while later He ascended into heaven. All this would have happened 2,000 years ago or so. How would "science" propose to empirically test and disprove these claims? So you say. So lay out the "scientific" methodology for disproving it. I look forward to you defining things like "spirits" and "interact with" in ways that are necessarily binding on the Latter-day Saints, are empirically testable, etc. From the May 2024 thread: Seems aptly repeated here. Carroll: "Science isn't in the business of proving things." Roger: "While it’s true that science can’t prove the existence or non-existence of {God}..." --- Also Roger: "Earlier in this thread, smac97 asked me when, precisely, science proved that spirits don’t exist. The answer to that question is that this knowledge started to emerge in 1989 when the Large Electron-Positron Collider was first fired up." Also Roger: "I've presented evidence from mainstream physics that shows basic truth claims of Mormonism, such as the existence of spirits and revelation, are flatly disproven." Also Roger: "{T}hings like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science because they make concrete claims about the real world. As I've shown on this thread, the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science, the theory that is as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla, proves that spirits and revelation don't exist." Also Roger: "All I claimed is that the supernatural elements of the book are impossible and hence did not happen." Which of you, Roger or Sean, is accurately stating what "science" is in the "business" of doing? Thanks, -Smac

"Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be." It's not quite fatalism, but it's something of an expression of powerlessness to cause change, so we must just accept whatever is. A man has gotta know his limitations, even regarding things about which he has strong feelings. It is not within my stewardship or province to administer the affairs of the Church. I can express my viewpoint (if I did, I would do so privately and with decorum), but that's about it. Fatalism is a form of inevitability thinking that denies meaningful influence, while realism is evidence-based acceptance that still leaves room for agency and hope within constraints. I think the latter is more accurate than the former. In a sense, yes. The metaphor can only go so far. I do not think the Lord has multiple "tents" in the world (insofar as tent = divinely-ordained institution containing the Lord's priesthood and helmed by the Lord's only Presiding High Priest), but I do think He can and does work with other groups and institutions and individuals far more than we Latter-day Saints may be prone to think. I think because the Lord's Plan is to redeem us from our sins, not in them. Helaman 5:10-11 ("And remember also the words which Amulek spake unto Zeezrom, in the city of Ammonihah; for he said unto him that the Lord surely should come to redeem his people, but that he should not come to redeem them in their sins, but to redeem them from their sins. And he hath power given unto him from the Father to redeem them from their sins because of repentance; therefore he hath sent his angels to declare the tidings of the conditions of repentance, which bringeth unto the power of the Redeemer, unto the salvation of their souls."), Matthew 1:21 ("And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins."), Alma 11:27, 34 ("And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins. ... And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word."), Mosiah 15:26 ("But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection.") Heterosexuals who violate the Law of Chastity likewise face this issue. "It" being what? To invite people to come unto Christ without repenting of their sins? Yep. Here's how I see it: God endows His children with agency, sends them to Earth, gives them prophets and apostles to testify of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and exhort us all to repent and obey God, and then let each individual's exercise of his agency play out. And that playing out will inevitably result in some people choosing to not enter into the tent, or not stay in it. Thanks, -Smac

I don't. Of course, I was 4 years old in 1978. I do not recall hearing any disparaging remarks about black folks in a church setting. I heard some at school and in my neighborhood. Same with this. I never heard derogatory comments in a church setting. I did hear encouragement to keep the Law of Chastity. Unfortunately, I heard some derogatory comments in school and in the neighborhood. In hindsight, I had some friends and classmates who were gay, but did not broadcast or talk about it. Oh, I think things have changes a lot in the Church in the last many years. A lot. From the handbook, all people—including those who identify as gay or have same-sex attraction—are welcome to attend sacrament meetings, other Sunday meetings, and social events like dances. The emphasis is on creating a welcoming environment. Identifying as gay or experiencing same-sex attraction isn't considered a sin and full participation in the Church (callings, temple attendance if living the law of chastity, etc.) is encouraged for those striving to keep covenants. That said, the Church draws a clear line on behavior. It teaches the Law of Chastity as sexual relations only between a man and woman who are legally and lawfully married. So "overt romantic behavior" (which could include things like prolonged holding hands, kissing, or anything seen as romantic/sexual in context) is discouraged at Church events for everyone, not just LGBTQ+ individuals. The intent is about maintaining an atmosphere where the Spirit can be present and respecting age-appropriate guidelines. Dances are meant to be wholesome, with dress, grooming, lighting, styles, music and behaviors to be aligned with that. If I as a married man took a woman other than my wife to a dance, and behaved romantically with her, that would be discouraged as inappropriate, as a deviation from another aspect of the Law of Chastity (and, for that matter, of basic notions of decorum and respect). Generally, friends are welcome at social events. No official policy bars inviting non-member gay friends, and many wards/stakes are inclusive in that way. Couples do not "hold the priesthood." Individuals do. A person openly violating the Law of Chastity, regardless of sexual orientation, would face limitations on his/her membership. See Section 32.6.2.5 of the Handbook. A person openly violating the Law of Chastity, regardless of sexual orientation, would not be able to attend the temple. See Section 32.6.2.5 of the Handbook. You have asked this question many times over the years. King Benjamin taught, “I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them” (Mosiah 4:29). Respectfully, I reject the notion that the Church can only be governed by "Thus Sayeth the Lord"-style published revelations. The canonized scriptures are the foundation of our doctrine. Here's an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine": God also knew that His people would live in an era where substance abuse is rampant. And yet the Word of Wisdom says nothing about marijuana, or cocaine, or meth, or heroin, or GHB, and so on. Why weren't any of these things mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon? Or why haven't we received a canonized revelation about these substances? The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine." This article summarizes things this way: Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article: I said this to you in 2021: Thanks, -Smac

I attend church services every Sunday. I suspect there may be people in my ward who have "shaky and weak testimonies," who have "doubts and varying degrees of disbelief." I don't really know which is which. We all come, and we are all welcome. An individual may go out of his way to broadcast his "doubts" or degree of "disbelief," but even then, he would be welcome. We are all on a journey together, after all. The calculus may change if and when an individual seeks to persuade others to join him in his doubts and disbelief, or sets himself up as a voice of authority alternative and superior to that of the Brethren, or tears down the faith of others rather than build it up, or sows dissension and discord - rather than harmony and unity - in the Church. Such a person would not be trying to strengthen or enlarge the tent, but to damage it, or even burn it down. I think we all know people who have gone through periods of doubt and disbelief. Some of us have done so. Hopefully, the momentum arising from years of effort at keeping our covenants will carry us through such turbulent times until we again find peace and solace in the Restored Gospel. Thanks, -Smac

I took this second bullet point and supplementing/complementing the first. The Church as a "big tent" is "not a call for doctrinal pluralism" because the "tent has firm 'poles': faith in Jesus Christ," etc. Thanks, -Smac

Metaphors are nice that way. Our lot, then, is to leave such things to the Lord and His servants. Thanks, -Smac

We will always have room to improve, I suppose. But in the main I think the Church is trying very hard, with some real success, to accommodate members, invite new ones, and preserve the doctrines of the Church from pressures to alter them to conform to sociopolitical preferences/demands, and also respect individuals' right to autonomy and agency. Will the Church always succeed at this? No. I am open to hearing what you have to suggest about how the Church could improve. Okay. Thanks, -Smac

A fair point. I think "diversity" amply exists in terms of race and nationality. We still do not have much of a presence in some parts of the world, but not for lack of trying. "Diversity" as to "orthodoxy" is, in my view, broader than I would have thought, but still has some real parameters. Amasa Lyman is a good example. Actively speaking/working against the Church, while a member of the Church, appears to be unworkable. I think there is a lot of conflict about "diversity" touching on a relatively few current topics: marriage, Law of Chastity, same-sex behavior, women and the priesthood, abortion, use of church funds, origins of The Book of Mormon, and so on. Yes and no. "Doctrinal pluralism" as to the propriety/morality of same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage? Yes, lots of "pluralism" going on there. This is perhaps the single biggest doctrinal stumblingblock in the Church (in the U.S. and other western nations, anyway). The challenge is that it is effectively impossible to square these things with the Restored Gospel, such that those who want to ratify them within the Church have to stake out a precarious doctrinal position. Same goes for abortion. Issues having both a "doctrinal" and substantial sociopolitical dimension can be difficult where those dimensions do not mesh well. This sort of thing seems more like a theoretical than actual controversy/stumblingblock. Yesterday I taught my ward's Sunday School lesson about Noah and the Flood. I included a slide about whether the flood was global or local, and it garnered the least amount of interest and comment. I think active and observant Latter-day Saints are find with "diversity" as to doctrinally unsettled topics, provided that the unsettledness does not become disproportionate or grow into rebellion/apostasy. Once that question takes center stage, the metaphor has failed, I think. I wonder how much of this ostracism is more perception than reality. I also wonder how much of this ostracism is about "doctrine" (e.g., should women be ordained to the priesthood) as opposed to sociopolitical issues that are being mostly imported into the Church (e.g., ratification of same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.). It's all about the presuppositions. I think it is difficult to have a preconceived, and strongly-held, position on this or that sociopolitical issue, and then reconcile it with the "big tent" concept where that position seemingly conflicts with the Church's clear guidance/doctrine. Thanks, -Smac

Again, that depends upon one's presuppositions. I think many (most?) faithful, observant Latter-day Saints see the Restored Gospel and membership in the Church as intended for the entire world. Indeed, that is how it is presented to us in scripture: 1 Nephi 14:42 - "And the time cometh that he shall manifest himself unto all nations, both unto the Jews and also unto the Gentiles." 1 Nephi 19:17 - "Yea, and all the earth shall see the salvation of the Lord, saith the prophet; every nation, kindred, tongue and people shall be blessed." 1 Nephi 22:28 - "But, behold, all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people shall dwell safely in the Holy One of Israel if it so be that they will repent." 2 Nephi 26:33 - "He inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." 2 Nephi 30:8 - "And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall commence his work among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, to bring about the restoration of his people upon the earth." Mosiah 15:28 - "And now I say unto you that the time shall come that the salvation of the Lord shall be declared to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people." Mosiah 27:25 - "And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters." Alma 5:33 - "Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you." Alma 5:49 - "And now I say unto you that this is the order after which I am called, yea, to preach unto my beloved brethren, yea, and every one that dwelleth in the land; yea, to preach unto all, both old and young, both bond and free; yea, I say unto you the aged, and also the middle aged, and the rising generation; yea, to cry unto them that they must repent and be born again." Alma 13:22 - "Yea, and the voice of the Lord, by the mouth of angels, doth declare it unto all nations; yea, doth declare it, that they may have glad tidings of great joy; yea, and he doth sound these glad tidings among all his people, yea, even to them that are scattered abroad upon the face of the earth; wherefore they have come unto us." Alma 29:8 - "For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have." Alma 37:4 - "Behold, it has been prophesied by our fathers, that they {the Brass Plates} should be kept and handed down from one generation to another, and be kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord until they should go forth unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, that they shall know of the mysteries contained thereon." 3 Nephi 18:22 - "And behold, ye shall meet together oft; and ye shall not forbid any man from coming unto you when ye shall meet together, but suffer them that they may come unto you and forbid them not." 3 Nephi 21:28 - "Yea, and then shall the work commence, with the Father among all nations in preparing the way whereby his people may be gathered home to the land of their inheritance." 3 Nephi 28:29 - "And it shall come to pass, when the Lord seeth fit in his wisdom that they shall minister unto all the scattered tribes of Israel, and unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, and shall bring out of them unto Jesus many souls." D&C 38:33 - "And from thence, whosoever I will shall go forth among all nations, and it shall be told them what they shall do; for I have a great work laid up in store, for Israel shall be saved, and I will lead them whithersoever I will, and no power shall stay my hand." D&C 39:15 - "I have kept in store a blessing such as is not known among the children of men, and it shall be poured forth upon their heads. And from thence men shall go forth into all nations." D&C 42:58 - "And I give unto you a commandment that then ye shall teach them unto all men; for they shall be taught unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people." D&C 43:20 - "Lift up your voices and spare not. Call upon the nations to repent, both old and young, both bond and free, saying: Prepare yourselves for the great day of the Lord." D&C 45:71 - "And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy." D&C 58:9 - "Yea, a supper of the house of the Lord, well prepared, unto which all nations shall be invited." D&C 88:103 - "And another trump shall sound, which is the fifth trump, which is the fifth angel who committeth the everlasting gospel—flying through the midst of heaven, unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people." D&C 101:78: "That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment." D&C 133:8 - "Send forth the elders of my church unto the nations which are afar off; unto the islands of the sea; send forth unto foreign lands; call upon all nations, first upon the Gentiles, and then upon the Jews." Moses 7:52 - "And he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand." Isaiah 66:18 - "For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory." Matthew 24:14 - "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Matthew 25:32 - "And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." Matthew 28:19 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Mark 13:10 - "And the gospel must first be published among all nations." Luke 24:47 - "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Acts 10:34-35 - "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Acts 17:26 - "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." Galatians 3:28 - “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Romans 16:26 - "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." Of course, agency is involved. Nobody will be compelled in these things. Faith, repentance and obedience are also involved. Entering into and staying in the "tent" is difficult, perhaps impossible, without these things. Whether it is the most accurate characterization is another question. Thanks, -Smac

I concur. Grok commentary on its own should be taken with a grain of salt. Hence my open acknowledgment of both the queries and the responses. Much of the responses, though, seem to be pretty clinical. Nothing I wrote can be remotely characterized as "openly fascist or full anti-Semite or whatever." So it is not an empirical fact but Grok has an opinion on where it falls. Hence my query about presuppositions. I think Grok did a pretty good job of summing up the "big tent" and "small tent" positions, and in acknowledging the role and import of presuppositions. Thanks, -Smac