My Dear Brothers and Sisters, Aloha!
I would like to thank my colleagues, the Faculty Advisory Council, and the leadership of Brigham Young University–Hawaii for the invitation to present the 2025 David O. McKay Lecture. I pray for the Spirit to be with us and help us learn.
I am grateful for this event because it allows us, as faculty members of this university, to share how we apply gospel principles in our respective fields of study and how our work helps us grow as disciples of Jesus Christ.
During the groundbreaking dedicatory prayer of BYU–Hawaii, then Church College of Hawaii, which happened 70 years ago almost to the day, on February 12, 1955, President David O. McKay said,“We dedicate our actions in this service unto thee and unto thy glory and to the salvation of the children of men, that this college, and the temple, and the town of Laie may become a missionary factor, influencing … millions of people … .” [1].
Later, during the Church College of Hawaii dedicatory prayer, President McKay said, "Thou hast emphasized the responsibility that rests upon Thy people to carry the message of the Restoration of the gospel to all nations. [In this way] Thou emphasize the fact that it is not sufficient merely to testify to the world of the Restoration but to present the principles of the gospel in an intelligent manner that the honest in heart may be convinced of the truth and may be led from paths of error into the way of righteousness.” [2]. In his groundbreaking talk, President McKay also said in his well-known prophecy that this school will have the capacity to
produce “[people] who cannot be bought or sold, [people] who will scorn to violate truth, genuine gold.” [3] These words describe very well why the Church values and invests so much into education and BYU–Hawaii. Because God's work and glory are, as President McKay said in his dedicatory talk, "to bring to pass the eternal knowledge and everlasting existence of man.” [4]
As a scientist, in very general terms, I study the mechanisms and principles that govern cellular communications. The focus of this lecture will be not my discoveries in the field of Biosignaling but rather how the daily use of the scientific method helps me learn how to obtain, assess, and validate facts in order to reveal truth.
What is truth, and why do we want to know the truth?
Truth can be a simple statement of observable facts. It is real, eternal, and everlasting. Truth can be received by revelation from God or derived from continuous and reproducible experimentation. Talking about certain aspects of truth can also be challenging and confusing. But we want it because the knowledge of truth will make us free, free to choose to live by it.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy writes the following about truth, “Truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. It is also one of the largest. Truth has been a topic of discussion in its own right for thousands of years. Moreover, a huge variety of issues in philosophy relate to truth...
It would be impossible to survey all there is to say about truth in any coherent way.”
Doctrine and Covenants 93:24 states, “And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;” Later, verse 36 says, “The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.” [6]
In his epistle, John wrote, “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” [7]
President Russell M. Nelson, in his address "What Is True?" during the October 2022 general conference, said, "Dear brothers and sisters, God is the source of all truth. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces all truth that God conveys to His children, whether learned in a scientific laboratory or received by direct revelation from Him.” [8]
Is there a way for us to know what is truth?
Sunlight is considered white light. It is well known that, technically, it is not white, but when all visible colors produced by the sun are mixed together, the resulting beam of light appears white. As a matter of fact, white does not exist as a color in the visible spectrum. The true nature of while light is revealed by passing it through a glass prism that separates the various colors. The nature of white light can also be observed, almost daily in Hawaii when the sunlight passes through raindrops, forming a rainbow. As objects around us absorb and reflect certain portions of the white light, they acquire a given color. All of this existed and was observed by humans for thousands of years, but no one knew the true nature of white light until the 1660s when the English physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton first showed that white light is composed of multiple colors.
According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, all humans are, basically, genetically identical. “Any two peoples’ genomes are, on average, ~99.6% identical and ~0.4% different.” [9] This is an established fact, but look around you, would you say you are identical to someone else? Even more, would you say you are identical to your biological brother or sister (except, of course, if he or she is your identical twin)? After all, brothers and/or sisters have the same parents. We now know that the human genome is, simply put, a blueprint describing the building of a human body. However, how the genome is used by the different cells in our bodies varies. We don't fully understand how these variations work but they are sufficient and substantial enough to produce a unique human being that never existed and will never exist again by following a blueprint that is basically identical for all of us.
If the outside temperature is 60o F (15o C), a person raised on a tropical island would probably say that it is cold, while a person raised in Alaska would probably say that it is warm or at least comfortable outside.
Which of these examples represent truth–is sunlight white or not, are all humans identical or not, is it cold or warm outside when it is 60o F? The irrefutable truth in these cases is the facts–sunlight appears white, but we now know it is made of many colors; all humans are genetically identical, but our appearances and behaviors are not identical; the temperature outside is 60o F (15o C), but people describe it differently because we have different comfort levels with respect to temperature. Facts are facts; they are what they are, and we cannot dispute that. The problems begin when we interpret the facts and then use the interpretations as foundations for our actions.
When scientists make discoveries, they base them on facts acquired during experiments or observations of natural phenomena. As long as the experimental setup and collection were done correctly, the obtained data or the facts are not disputable; they are what they are. What can become disputable is how the findings would be interpreted, what theories would be generated, and their application in life. Often, the interpretations but not the facts are labeled as truth. This is usually the reason why some, including myself, say that truth, which is based on interpretation of facts, can be relative.
So, is there a dependable way for us to know what is true?
We usually begin to discern truth by using our cognitive abilities, such as thinking, reasoning, and making conclusions. The issues with that are that our knowledge is limited, varies from person to person, and we are imperfect and prone to errors. The scientific method is also imperfect, limited, and prone to errors because it relies on human-designed methods, interpretations, and theories. Nevertheless, the scientific method is our best option for evidence-based conclusions that pave the way to the truth. But if the scientific method is flawed, and most people are not scientists, is there a reliable way for all to learn truth?
Learning begins with faith.
We are taught that God is the ultimate source of truth. As the creator of our world and the universe, God is aware, governs, and is subject to all universal laws. From God's view, truth is absolute because God has established its validity, which does not depend on humans’ understanding. From a human's perspective, that same truth can become relative because it is being interpreted based on a person’s awareness and understanding of it, and it can also be altered to serve selfish purposes. The secular and temporal world we live in does not accept God as evidence for scientific truth because current secular methods cannot prove conclusively, reliably, and vividly God's existence and presence in our lives. And that is OK because, in this world, we are meant to live relying on faith in God. As we know, faith is not certain knowledge. Faith requires trust, and trust requires uncertainty or incomplete knowledge.
During the university courses we teach or take, we talk about principles, laws, stories, theories, and rules we personally have not discovered or witnessed. We accept all that on faith and continue learning and working, trusting what we have learned. In principle, I see very little difference between any form of learning, secular or spiritual. Learning begins with faith. Every day, we make decisions to trust what other people have said or written and our own ideas, thoughts, and feelings. Then, we try and test the information we have acquired, collect and assess data, make conclusions, and apply or live according to what we have determined to be true based on our experiences. In essence, this describes the scientific method. The only way to confirm how well what we have learned aligns with the absolute truth offered by God is through the Spirit or the Holy Ghost.
Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf, in For the Strength of Youth: The Savior’s Message to You, talks about the parable of the house built upon a rock. He says "A house doesn't survive in a storm because the house is strong. It also doesn't survive just because the rock is strong. The house survives the storm because it is firmly attached to that strong rock. It's the strength of the connection to the rock that matters.” [10]
Scientific research provides us with facts by conducting experiments and making observations, but the meaning of these facts and their interpretation is personal and depends on the researcher. To make correct interpretations, we must first have the correct facts. Then, we must focus on the principles that govern what is being studied. We have to be invested in the work, be prepared, work hard, and love what we do, and we must have a strong connection with the source of eternal truth, our Father in Heaven. A strong connection through the Spirit makes it more likely for us to recognize the true meaning of the facts we have and ultimately be closer to the truth.
Facts and truth are not always the same.
A scientific law states how a given process in nature will behave under certain conditions. The law is based on the results of many experiments, and it is frequently written as a mathematical equation demonstrating how given variables depend on each other.
An example of a scientific law in chemistry is the rate law for single-reactant reactions. The rate or speed of such a reaction is governed by the mathematical expression, V=k[S], where V is the reaction rate or how fast a reaction is progressing, k is the reaction rate constant, which is simply a number based on the conditions of the reaction, and [S] is the concentration of a reactant or substrate that will be converted to a product by an enzyme. The equation states that the rate or speed of a reaction will increase with the increase of the substrate concentration.
The equation predicts a linear relationship between rate and substrate concentration. If you perform an actual experiment, the resulting graph will appear different. Why? Is the law wrong, or is the experiment not done properly? The truth is that the law is correct, and the experiment was done correctly. However, applying the law in a real-life experiment cannot be literal because there are limiting factors in the experiment that are not considered in the equation. For the law to be perfectly followed, a reaction must not be limited by any factor, enzyme, substrate, or condition. To realize that the law was obeyed, we must focus on the spirit and the letter of the law. Even though the predicted and experimental data did not align very well, that doesn't mean the law was not obeyed. In fact, if we look at the beginning of the reaction when the amounts of enzyme and substrate do not limit the progression of the reaction, the law was obeyed, which is demonstrated by a linear relationship between the reaction rate and substrate concentration.
Doctrine and Covenants 130:21 states, “And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” [11] President Nelson taught that “whenever a blessing [I would also add knowledge] is received, it's because a law has been obeyed. And that means certain procedures will always work–not just most of the time, not just some of the time, but every single time without exception." [12]
An experience with a defective wire, while Dr. Nelson, at that time, was placing a pacemaker in President Kimball’s heart, taught him again the principle behind blessings, and I would also add knowledge. He said, "I was reminded yet again that blessings are predicated on obedience to law. The patient can pray, the families can pray, I can pray, but if I make a mistake, all the prayers in the world won't compensate for an error. Because the law has to be fulfilled. … So, I learned absolute obedience to the laws of God.” [13] President Nelson further elaborates, “The same applies to what the Son of God had to go through in order to fulfil the law that would give us the privilege of eternal life and exaltation. The Savior had to fulfil the Atonement.” [14]
Many scientists make discoveries based primarily on their best interpretations of observable facts and data from research without searching for or acknowledging help from God. That doesn't mean they are wrong. If they follow the correct process, principles, and laws to obtain proper facts and results, they will reach the correct conclusions and formulate the correct theories. On the opposite, those who profess to know the truth of God but do not follow the right process, principles, and laws for obtaining proper facts and results will not reach the correct conclusions or formulate correct theories.
Professing or even living according to the standards of God does not give one unconditional and unlimited access to blessings, including knowledge, without satisfying the laws upon which they are predicated. Just like the work of a scientist without divine influence can be incomplete or misleading, so can the faith of a believer be in vain or misguided if they don’t trust truth revealed by following correct principles regardless of who brought them to light.
It is not always easy to recognize truth. Facts are facts, but their interpretation and meaning are a different matter. I would like to relate an experience shared by Elder David A. Bednar from the time when he was the president of BYU–Idaho. During student question-and-answer sessions, some students would ask, "I prayed and felt good about my relations with a person I've been dating. But it didn't work out. Why did God change His mind?" In his book The Spirit of Revelation, Elder Bednar used this example to demonstrate the line-upon-line principle when it comes to revelations, including learning, and that our interpretations of answers, impressions, or facts don't always align well with the truth. He wrote, “A variety of patterns for learning and receiving knowledge by the Holy Ghost can operate in our lives. The first step may be that you date a person who is incredibly controlling or has some other issues that you have never encountered before. After a few dates together, perhaps you begin to wonder, "How could I have gotten a yes about this person?” Well, perhaps the yes was not, “Marry this person.” The yes was, “Learn.” [15]
As humans, we like absolutes and clear black-and-white answers because absolute knowledge makes it easy to recognize right from wrong and helps us make the right decisions. We love it when we think that we know the truth. There is power in the statement “I know the truth.” No one feels comfortable when they are told partial truth. But the reality is that our world is filled with truth, partial truth, and lies, and it is up to us to discern one from the other. It sounds unsettling, but remember, we chose this plan—to live in a world with a certain level of uncertainty, exercising our faith in God by studying from the scriptures and the best books, experimenting and trying, and following the Spirit, always.
Learning is a function of faith, a product of trust and proper actions. Moroni in Ether 12:6 says, “…faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.” [16] The fact that knowledge comes after the trial of our faith, implies that learning is also a gradual process as described in 2 Nephi 28:30, “For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.” [17]
The principles of learning and truth I have discussed so far have been demonstrated to me very well during my work as a scientist. To illustrate that, I will share one example from the early years of my scientific career. As a graduate student, I started working in Barry Willardson’s lab at the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at BYU. At that time, the main focus of the lab was investigating the function of two related proteins, Phosducin and Phosducin-like Protein, which we called PhLP. The current understanding at that time was that they are negative regulators of G protein signaling by binding and inhibiting the function of the Gbg protein complex. Many hormones and neurotransmitters, such as adrenalin, histamine, glucagon, serotonin, and many others, also vision, smell, and taste perception, and a large number of medications signal or regulate cellular signaling through G protein-coupled signaling pathways. Our lab was making steady advances, showing how PhLP was down-regulating the function of G protein-coupled signaling pathways. My first scientific publication was focused on the interaction surface between Gbg and PhLP. In addition to this project, I was also given the task to study what happens with G protein signaling when the protein level of PhLP is very low. A new technology, for those days, allowed us to decrease the protein level of PhLP by 90%. We expected G protein signaling to increase or at least not to change when the protein level of the “inhibitor,” PhLP, is very low. You can imagine our surprise when the obtained results were completely the opposite of our expectations. Multiple repeats and additional experiments confirmed our initial finding. We determined that when the level of PhLP was very low, only a small amount of Gbg submit complexes were produced, and G protein-coupled signaling was significantly decreased. We were excited and perplexed at the same time. The results I was getting opposed completely the current theory. But facts are facts. What is the truth? We had to answer the question, why the cells cannot synthesize Gbg submit complexes when PhLP is not available. Is it because PhLP was required for the transcription of the Gbg genes? Is PhLP needed for the stability of the mRNA, meaning that the transcription of the genes is normal, but the product gets degraded too fast in the absence of PhLP? Or is PhLP a factor required for the translation or protein synthesis of Gbg? Lastly, is PhLP needed for the post-translational processing, folding, and assembly of the newly synthesized proteins? By following a stepwise approach, we were able to show that instead of a negative regulator for G protein signaling, PhLP was required by assisting in the expression and folding of the Gb protein by the cytosolic chaperonin complex, CCT and the assembly of a functional Gbg submit complex. After we published our study almost twenty years ago, PhLP was no longer considered an inhibitor of G protein signaling.
In light of our topic today, does that mean that the discoveries made prior to this study were not true? Well, facts are facts, and the obtained results were just that, facts. If those prior experiments were repeated today, they would still give the same results. However, because our current knowledge has increased, we now know that the initial interpretations labeled PhLP as an inhibitor because PhLP and the fully functional Gbg can still bind, not as well, but they still can. When PhLP is added to a reaction designed to test G protein signaling, it will inhibit it because it will bind Gbg, preventing it from binding and passing on the signal to its intended targets. The ability of PhLP to bind Gbg was initially misinterpreted, but it became a reason for discovering the true purpose of phosducin-like protein.
This example demonstrates that science is not perfect, but it is our best way to get evidence-based information.
Facts are facts, but for their interpretations to be true, they must be everlasting.
Truth and perceptions of truth come to us from all directions. They can give us joy, direction, and certainty or become reasons for confusions, confrontations, and even wars. Some truth is revealed, driven by human curiosity and a deep desire for understanding. It is revealed by observing, testing, and reasoning. This truth can enrich knowledge and propel progress in all aspects of human life. Other truth, however, is reviled and peacefully yet powerfully confirmed, privately and individually, by a still small voice testifying of its validity. This truth, while hard to prove by secular methods, is given to test the true desires of the human heart and shows if we truly want to become like Jesus Christ. This truth builds faith, gives hope, and teaches love that “endureth forever” and is “bestowed upon all who are true followers of Jesus Christ” so they may “become sons [and daughters] of God.” [18]. There should be a place for all truth in us because as the individual puzzle pieces build a whole picture, to achieve “eternal knowledge and everlasting existence” [19] requires embracing “all truth that God conveys to His children, whether learned in a scientific laboratory or received by direct revelation from Him.”[20] I hope we all continue our journey ahead searching and embracing all light and truth!
Thank you very much for your time and attention!
I say this in the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ, amen
Notes:
[1]David O. McKay, Groundbreaking & Dedication of CCH/BYU–Hawaii, Feb 12, 1955
[2]David O. McKay, Church College of Hawaii Dedicatory Address and Prayer, Dec 16, 1958
[3]David O. McKay, Groundbreaking & Dedication of CCH/BYU–Hawaii, Feb 12, 1955
[4]David O. McKay, Church College of Hawaii Dedicatory Address and Prayer, Dec 16, 1958
[5]Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Truth
[6]Doctrine and Covenants 93:24 and 36
[7]John 8:31-32
[8]Russell M. Nelson, "What Is True?," Ensign or Liahona, October 2022, 30
[9]National Human Genome Research Institute. How do peoples’ genomes vary?
[10]Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “For the Strength of Youth: The Savior’s Message to You,” For the Strength of Youth, March 2024
[11]Doctrine and Covenants 130:21
[12] Sheri Dew, Insights from a Prophet’s Life: Russell M. Nelson, [2019], 49
[13] Sheri Dew, Insights from a Prophet's Life: Russell M. Nelson, [2019], 152
[14] Sheri Dew, Insights from a Prophet's Life: Russell M. Nelson, [2019], 154
[15] David A. Bednar, The Spirit of Revelation, [2021], 25
[16] Ether 12:6
[17] 2 Nephi 28:30
[18] Moroni 7:47-48
[19] David O. McKay, Church College of Hawaii Dedicatory Address and Prayer, Dec 16, 1958
[20]Russell M. Nelson, "What Is True?," Ensign or Liahona, October 2022, 30