Alcoholism and Homosexuality

My uncle died of alcoholism. He most likely had a genetic predisposition to alcoholism and by the end of his life, he couldn't stop drinking even though it was killing him. He literally drank himself to death. I have no hard feelings for my uncle because of the choices that he made and I would defend his right to make those choices. But I don't rejoice in his decisions. And I don't think anyone would "celebrate" his lifestyle or his choices to engage in destructive behavior. You might say that my uncle, having been born with a predisposition for this addiction, was simply born that way and that it was natural for him to drink himself to death. Certainly the first drink was his own choice, but once that addiction was awakened within him, maybe it was proper for him to simply follow the lifestyle he was born to follow.

I have heard many people claim that people with homosexual tendencies are born with them. I don't know for myself whether this is true. If it is not true, then homosexuality is simply a choice. However, let's examine the alternative a little more closely because I think it's very possible that it is true and it is the basis on which much of the defense for the homosexual lifestyle rests. The argument seems to run as follows. Since homosexual people are born that way, there is nothing they can do about it and rather than ostracize and persecute them, we should embrace and celebrate their right to live the lifestyle they were born to live.

I hope I have portrayed the argument correctly. If I have, I believe the argument uses bad logic to reach both good and bad conclusions. We certainly should not ostracize, persecute, or make people feel guilty because they pursue a different course than we would choose. This is the good conclusion. We should love and embrace those who make such choices. Making fun of the minority is always easy, but never justified. However, the idea that we should embrace and even celebrate their lifestyle does not logically follow from the idea that it is part of their nature. This presupposes that everything nature does is right and just.

Nature does seem to fit us with certain abilities, inclinations, etc. for a purpose. And I believe we can make teleological arguments that help explain why certain characteristics are to be found in the human species. I'll skip the argument and make the claim that sex is a gift that I think has two purposes: 1) procreation (a continuation of the species) and 2) unity (a special bond between two people who engage in the sexual act). Homosexuality may be said to fulfill the second purpose, but certainly doesn't fulfill the first.

So, we have two alternatives as I see it. Either 1) homosexuality is a positive inclination given us by nature to fulfill the purpose of creating a bond between two people who love each other or 2) homosexuality is an exception to the natural inclination for sexual union given to the majority of the species for the two purposes I cited above (or other purposes if I've missed any), since it only partially fulfills the natural objectives of sexuality. Aristotle, in his work "Metaphysics", speaks of universal truths of which specific things are individual instantiations. However, he adds a qualifier to the requirement that individual instances derive exactly from the universal principles - in the Greek, "hos epi to polu" or roughly "for the most part."

If nature has equipped us with sexual inclinations in general for the purposes stated above, perhaps this only applies "for the most part" and there are exceptions to this universal manifest by some humans being born with a "natural" inclination toward homosexuality. Since it doesn't fulfill the objectives I've outlined above completely, it seems to me that the homosexual inclination, though perhaps natural, is a less useful inclination and perhaps even a negative one. Does nature always have to endow us with what is good for us? Or is it possible that nature has given us certain predispositions that can be destructive, like the predisposition to alcoholism that ultimately killed my uncle? I don't know whether homosexuality is destructive, having never had such inclinations myself, but it seems to me that it is less useful than the more common heterosexuality and possibly even harmful to those who engage in such acts. Perhaps in celebrating homosexuality, we're celebrating something wrong.

Perhaps not everything nature does is "good". Perhaps nature equips us with both productive faculties and weaknesses. Perhaps those weaknesses are a blessing in that they require us to struggle and overcome and thereby grow and become more like God. Perhaps homosexual inclinations are one such weakness that in our society has come to be celebrated or denigrated, neither of which is an appropriate reaction. Those who have weaknesses should be loved and encouraged. We all have weaknesses; why do we persist in judging one another when we are all in need of forgiveness and mercy? Maybe some of us think we're better than others because our "sins" are smaller in our own eyes than the sins of others?

It seems to me that any sin, no matter how big or small, keeps us from God, stunts our growth, and prevents us from achieving our full potential. Rather than denigrating those who commit sins we consider heinous (i.e. homosexuality), let's love them. And on the flip side, rather than celebrating choices that are sinful, destructive, or otherwise negative, let's examine our lives and consider whether we shouldn't first combat the evils or weaknesses within ourselves (homosexual tendencies) before attempting to correct the evils we perceive in the world around us (the prejudice of others).

Update (6/25/12): I have not modified my original post above, but I want to amend it based on something I read today. In a blog a couple of weeks ago, a man with homosexual inclinations "came out" and described his experiences coming to love a woman and create a family with her. His post is extremely well written and identifies a nuance I didn't capture above. There is a difference between 'homosexuality' and the act of same-gender sex. My post above identifies a difference between inclination and action, but I used the terms differently and I think my language becomes confusing. His is very well thought out - after all, homosexuality is something he has dealt with for most of his life. If you're interested in this topic, I highly recommend you read his post here. His comments about love and intimacy are worth reading all by themselves.

Epistemology and the Tongue of Angels

Episteme is a Greek word (ἐπιστήμη) meaning "knowledge". Epistemological studies have to do with what knowledge is, how we come to know it, and how we know that we know it. It is a philosophical construct for examining truth and our access to it as humans.

Part of the problem of knowledge is in the question: 'What is knowable?' One solution that has worked pretty well for philosophers since before the time of Socrates is: "Nothing." Since the sources we have for obtaining knowledge (e.g. our senses, intuition) are flawed, maybe nothing is knowable. Our senses can be deceived, our intuition can't claim any absolute authority, our ability to reason can be corrupted by infirmity of the body and mind and even if it's not, there's no guarantee that our mind is capable of reasoning correctly. We can all see the exact same event and interpret that event very differently; while some of our conflicting perspectives could be simultaneously true, it seems unlikely that the wide range of conflicting opinions of various events could all be true. A lot of us are interpreting things incorrectly. Maybe all of us are. Maybe we're simply incapable of understanding anything. I often feel like my own vision is obscured ... as if I "see through a glass, darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12). I think there's a lot of truth in this skeptical position, but I refuse to be completely skeptical. The answer to the question, for me, is not "nothing." But it's pretty close.

Some of the best modes of obtaining knowledge/truth that I have discovered are found in science, philosophy, and religion. I think any field of study offers us potential truth. But each of these fields has problems. Science and philosophy rely on methods of inquiry that are probably sound, but the actors are all humans. The interpretations of data and conclusions are drawn by humans who may have biases, prejudices, or who can't see or reason clearly for some other reason. Both fields have a great track record of seeking truth carefully and methodically, but the diversity of conflicting views in both fields tells me that neither can be perfect. There is bad science and bad philosophy.

And bad religion. Religion is potentially a clear conduit to truth. In its truest form, religion is an attempt to connect humanity with divinity. If this divinity (God) has access to truth in a pure form, then perhaps a connection with God will enable us to find truth without the corruption of our own imperfect perceptions. So how do we connect with the source of truth?

Religion seems to offer a couple of options. The first obvious one is to 1) work through intermediaries like prophets, priests, ministers, rabbis, etc. Some person, who is authorized or simply better connected with God than we, can speak to us on behalf of God. Well, now we're back to the same problem presented to us by science and philosophy. If these intermediaries are humans, they are fallible. And if we believe these people are authorized to speak for God, we still need to be careful about what we accept as truth because they can make mistakes. And of course, how do you know they speak for God? If it comes to that, how do you know there is a God?

Another option religion offers is something called 2) scripture. These are words recorded by the intermediaries described above. This has the benefit of allowing the intermediaries to carefully craft their words to be as close to truth as possible without the problems associated with public speaking in which they sometimes spout off whatever pops into their heads at the time (which could be a good or a bad thing). But it's still potentially fallible because it came from fallible humans. And its ability to convey truth is subject to the reader's imperfect ability to interpret what is written.

A third option religion offers is a method or methods of 3) connecting directly with God. You have to take a leap of faith to accept the possibility that such a method could be valid in order to conduct an experiment to find out if it works. This includes accepting the possibility that God even exists in order to conduct the experiment. If successful, we may come to a belief that there is such a being since we connected with something. Such a connection usually involves some preparation and may include prayer, meditation, or other method to quiet the soul. If this works and you actually do connect with God, it is usually thought that He communicates directly with the soul. If you have that kind of experience, it can offer a foundation for relying on the two previous methods. But even with this method, most of us don't "think" with our soul. The truth we attain must eventually become available to the mind and thus becomes subject to our own interpretations through our reason.

It seems to me to be really hard to find pure truth, but I'm not a complete skeptic. I believe that truth exists independent of us and that it can be attained. But I think it's wise to be aware of the problems with these mechanisms and to be careful with how we go about our journey of obtaining truth. In studying these problems, it has become clear to me that there is no one infallible source of truth ... and that's what makes the search interesting. If we could correctly interpret what God says when He speaks to us, that would be perfect. But I think it's helpful to rely on many different methods including the three religious methods I described and compare their results.

When using the religious methods, if there is a conflict with what I feel God wants me to do and what I have been taught by some religious authority, I examine both carefully and try to weigh the competing demands by what I know from those and other sources in various cases. I don't pretend to know God perfectly, but as I have come to know Him better, I have come to rely more and more on those impressions that come to me during the quiet times. When I feel confident in those impressions and my interpretations of them, I rely completely on that source. I believe God is the only infallible source of truth and His words constitute the ultimate epistemological authority for me.

Many years ago, a man named Brigham Young, the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the time, pointed out the problem of relying too much on religious authorities. He said:

"... how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned?... if I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, 'I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right!' ... It would not sit well on the mind, for you are seeking after the things of God" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, p. 205)

This man, Brigham, who claimed to be a prophet, seems to indicate that there is a possibility that he might teach things that aren't true. But if he did, he had faith that the people would recognize it as false because they themselves are seeking guidance directly from God on matters of truth. I'm not sure I share his faith; I think we're often too quick to believe anything our leaders tell us. But Brigham recognized the importance of balance in how we place trust in sources of truth. We should be careful not to endow any one source with ultimate epistemological authority. Doing so makes us closed-minded, intellectually lazy, and dogmatic. If anyone deserves such a trust from us, it is God. I believe that the only sure, final epistemological authority is God Himself. But the fact that He doesn't speak on every subject tells me that there's value in not making it too easy for us. The intellectual struggle of analyzing multiple sources of truth can help us grow and may even be the way God intends for us to become more like Him.

Portrait of Brigham Young

A Book of Mormon prophet named Nephi taught a concept that he called the "tongue of angels." He writes,

"after ye [have] received the Holy Ghost ye [can] speak with the tongue of angels ... Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ." (2 Nephi 32:2)

He claims that we can speak the words of Christ when we receive the Holy Ghost, which according to other scriptures is God's mechanism for communicating with our souls. It sounds like that source of inspiration can enable us to speak the words of God.

Another scripture teaches of those who speak what the Holy Ghost gives them,

"whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, ... the mind of the Lord, ... the word of the Lord, ... the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." (D&C 68:4)

I believe God authorizes men and women to lead and guide others. With or without that authority, men and women can be inspired by God to bless others with wisdom and knowledge. The authority by itself is not sufficient. But when so inspired, the words that those people speak become as good as scripture to those who hear them because the words come from God. And it is up to the hearer to determine for him/herself whether those words come from God or from man. If from God, the hearer can rely on those words as an epistemological foundation, as valid as if they came from God Himself.

A person who speaks with the tongue of angels once isn't guaranteed to do so every time ... nor should we assume that any authority they may have from God takes away their freedom to make mistakes. Authority doesn't grant us any gift by itself. Many in authority never figure that out. Some assume that their authority is all-sufficient and thereby abuse their authority, never putting any power behind it. Unfortunately, I have seen authority abused in this and other ways all too often. Thankfully, I have also seen authority used well and hope to see that more often in the future. Regardless of what others are doing, when someone speaks with the tongue of angels, I believe you can recognize it if you know how to speak with God yourself. And when that happens, the person who speaks can be a really big blessing to those who are listening.

If you don't know what it feels like to "hear" God's voice, spend some time quietly trying to get to know God. And if you do know what it feels like, don't get too cocky. Just because you have some of God's truth doesn't mean you have it all. Finding truth is the quest of a lifetime ... and will probably take much longer than that. Humility isn't just a good idea; it's essential if we're going to obtain new truth as we go through life. And that's my goal.