In this two-part episode, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Meredith Lesueur, Ronda Callister, and Kevin Elkington share experiences and perspectives gained as non-normative Mormons who choose to remain engaged in their LDS wards even as they are recognized by many ward members as being somewhat non-traditional in their approaches? What reasons do they have for choosing to continue to serve, teach, and worship alongside others with whom they might strongly disagree?

Please listen and then share your own stories and experiences in the comments section below!

____

Articles/Essays mentioned in podcast:

“The Institutional Church and the Individual” by J. Bonner Ritchie (Sunstone, June 1999)

“Enduring to the End . . . in Joy” by Jim Sawyer (Sunstone, October 2002)

“For Better, For Worse, For Apostasy? How Faith Issues Affect Couple Relationships” by Ronda and Mike Callister, Page and Tom Kimball, Ruth Ogden and John Halstead (Sunstone, November 2006)

After listening, we hope you’ll read and then contribute to a great discussion below!

Links to Brent Beal’s two “A Mormon in the Cheap Seats” posts that provided a springboard to this discussion: Build Out, Not Up and On Testimonies

Here’s the question:  Do you really believe there is a prophet like Moses alive today?

My initial reaction is that this is a weird way to word this question, but I suppose it was done because “Moses” is probably the only Biblical prophet most people know by name (who does not know the story of Moses leading the animals onto the ark?).

First, the “official” answer given on the site:

Throughout history, God has chosen prophets, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others, to teach the gospel and direct His Church (Amos 3:7). It is no different today. We all need God’s guidance in a world that is sometimes confusing. Because God loves His children, He continues to send living prophets. Joseph Smith (1805–44) was the first prophet of our time. Thomas S. Monson is God’s chosen prophet today.

Just as God led the Israelites out of slavery and to a better place through His prophet Moses, He leads His children today into happier, more peaceful lives when they choose to follow His living prophet. We invite you to listen to the words of living prophets and consider how knowing God’s will can benefit your life.

Answers I generally liked:

• Moses as an allegory for a prophet.  It’s such a stretch to compare someone as highly mythologized as Moses with someone who is as contemporary as Pres. Monson.  To do so, you have to point to the man in the Moses myth or the myth in the mantle.  It can be tough to pull off, but many here do it pretty well.
  • “Who was Moses… a righteous man, not a perfect man.”
  • “Just as Moses’ people needed guidance in his day, we need guidance in ours as well.”
  • “You must remember that although Moses was a great prophet, he was a man. God calls men to be prophets.”
  • “Without Moses to lead them as a living prophet, would the Children of Israel have been led out of Egypt? They followed the prophet.”  This was a nice twist on the meaning of “follow the prophet” implying following a person’s example and doing what they do rather than doing what they say.
  • “He has been taught the teachings of God, like Moses. He has embraced God, like Moses. He’s committed himself, his life, his abilities, his heart, to God, like Moses.”
  • “Well, I’m not sure how much like Moses he is, but we certainly do have a living prophet today.”  Hear, hear.  Stupid question.
  • “In 1831, a Methodist preacher named Ezra Booth asked Joseph Smith Jr., “Do you believe that you are a prophet, like Moses or Abraham?” The Prophet replied, “I don’t think that what you believe and what I believe are all that different. You believe that God used to talk to man. I believe that he still does.”"  So, apparently someone else asked this same stupid question 160 years ago.
• Practical & personal.  Those that shared personal thoughts about the benefits of having a prophet were generally on point, IMO.  Generally, I was OK with testimony bearing here under that same umbrella, although I’m not sure how well that works in this medium and for a non-Mormon audience.  My favorites were those who linked the topic to their own conversion story.
  • “I know as I have followed God’s living prophet it has brought peace and hope into my life.”
  • “That is probably one of the first things I marveled at, the knowledge that a wise and loving Heavenly Father could show His love by this simple act. What parent would not want to guide their children back and what better way to show His love than to still speak to His children today. The heavens are still open and in my mind it would be odd to think otherwise.”
  • “He receives revelation directly from God. Revelation that has guided my life on a personal level.”
  • “Yes! This was something I was so excited to learn about when I was investigating the church and being taught by the missionaries. Growing up while attending a religious school, I was always taught about the prophets of the Old Testament and amazed at what incredible men they must have been.”
  • “Yep. This is one of the things that I understood and looked for in a church. I grew up reading the Bible and loved reading how regularly and consistently God spoke through his prophets so his people received clarity and direction, as a people, when they chose to listen. People say that God stopped talking to men as a group after Jesus’ death, but that’s not so.”
  • “I have had the privilege of meeting in person President Thomas S. Monson, current Prophet. He is a joyful person. He makes everyone feel like they are his friend.”
  • “Before I joined the church in college, I didn’t think prophets would still be used by God in this day. No other church I had studied had this belief.  In my process of joining the church, I prayed to know if there was actually a prophet, like Moses, on the earth today. Not surprisingly, I received direct revelation from God that there was, in fact, a prophet, and he was at the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
• Personal revelation caveat.  I liked those few who remembered to mention the fact that all members of the church are entitled to their own revelation for themselves, and to be able to discern truth through the spirit, not just blindly follow others.
  • “My personal prayers guide my own personal life, but the prophet’s counsel guides the whole membership.”
  • “When God wants YOU to know something, he’ll tell you personally if you’re listening. When God wants THE WORLD, collectively, to know something, he’ll pick someone, and tell him–simple as that.”  I thought this was the most straightforward answer.
  • “This does NOT mean that God doesn’t talk to me. The Holy Ghost still gives personal revelation to everyone who remains worthy since their baptism and who does the work to pay attention.”  Another favorite.
  • “That is not to say that I am exempt from working on my own relationship with God. Just as the prophet receives direction from God regarding the doctrines of the church, the organization of the church, and instruction related to the church and priesthood, I too must seek inspiration and instruction from God.”

Answers I didn’t like so much, or that might sound strange to non-Mormons:

• Culty-sounding stuff.  Even just saying the prophet speaks for God can sound a little nutty to those not of our faith without some level of caveat attached.  Any sort of prophet-worship also falls into this camp.
  • “Follow the prophet. He knows the way!”  Cue the spooky music.
• Apocalyptic answers.  These are answers that sound like “crazy uncle” talk about the world ending.  Why is it that we think Evangelicals are nuts for raving about the Rapture, but we hear similar things at church sometimes without raising an eyebrow?
  • “I believe that as we near the end of the world that there is no greater time for us to have spiritual direction from a chosen servant of the Lord then (sic) right now.”
• “The world is bad.”  These answers sound like fear-mongering and tribalism.  Inside the tribe, they sound OK.  Outside the tribe, they don’t ring true because those outside the tribe don’t generally think the world is full of invisible dangers.
  • “It gives me great comfort in this troubled world that I can look to the leaders of the LDS Church and know that I can hear the mind and will of Jesus Christ.”  Implying you can’t get your own revelation, of course.
  • “today’s world is a vast maze of concerns that could be very confusing without a prophet to see ahead and warn us of impending danger.”  This sentence got more and more alarming as it went.
  • “There is a constant attack against the commandments God has given to us. Immorality, violence, swearing, and an obsession with wealth are hugely common. There are wars and natural disasters like no other time on this earth. God’s commandments have not changed, but an increasing amount of people are fighting against them. The prophet today helps to protect the faithful members of the church from the influence of those fighting against God’s commandments.”  This one sounds a bit on the culty side to me.  Also, I suggest this person needs to crack open a history book based on some of these claims.
  • “Prophets were around in the Old Testament to lead people, to guide them, and to protect them from the evils of the world. Great prophets like Moses, Abraham, and so on all provided the people of the time with valuable knowledge that was tailored for them to combat the temptations of a wicked world. How much more wicked is our world today?”  I don’t know.  How much?
• Unintentional doctrinal mistakes.  I didn’t see any biggies here, which is good.
  • “Our prophet is a wonderful man.  I have met one of his apostles, and the spirit around them is incredible.”  Wait, the prophet has apostles?  I thought they were Jesus’ apostles.  Also, if you’ve only met one, how do you know what the spirit around “them” is like?
• Mormon-speak alert!  Many of these FAQs have highlighted some words we hear a lot at church but almost nowhere else.
  • Mouthpiece.  Does anyone else on the planet use this word?  What is a mouthpiece anyway?  It sounds like dentures.

What I might say:

• The likeness between our current prophet and Moses is best taken allegorically as the challenges faced in our day differ from those faced in a mythologized historical tradition.
• Prophets are people too.  We don’t believe they are infallible.  Unlike Moses, TSM has not killed any Egyptians (so far as I know), but he is also not perfect.
• Everyone is entitled to the guidance of the holy spirit and direct personal revelation.
• While prophets lead the church, they sometimes speak as a man, and sometimes inspired.  It’s up to us to discern the difference through our own personal revelation.
• Prophets provide advice, guidance and inspired insight.  A prophet doesn’t absolve anyone from responsibility for their own choices and actions.

What did you think?  Do you agree it’s weirdly worded?  How would you answer this question?  Discuss.

First of all, here is the phrasing of the question:  Why don’t women hold the priesthood in the Mormon Church?  How do women lead in the Mormon Church?

The first “answer” was just a quote by Gordon B. Hinckley, and frankly it was the one I liked best, although I worried a smidge about how outsiders might perceive part of it:

“Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way.  (Here we run the risk of sounding like we are saying “because the Lord, who is a man, told the leaders, who are all men . . .”  You get the point).  It is part of His program. Women have a very prominent place in this Church. Men hold the priesthood offices of the Church. But women have a tremendous place in this Church. They have their own organization. It was started in 1842 by the Prophet Joseph Smith (need I say “a man”), called the Relief Society, because its initial purpose was to administer help to those in need. It has grown to be, I think, the largest women’s organization in the world… They have their own offices, their own presidency, their own board. That reaches down to the smallest unit of the Church everywhere in the world…

“The men hold the priesthood, yes. But my wife is my companion. In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are co-equals in this life in a great enterprise.” (This is my favorite part of his quote).

Common member answers that I thought would be generally acceptable to outsiders:

• God sets the rules.
  • “Well, the quick answer is God’s priesthood, God’s rules. In reading the Holy Bible you can see that the priesthood of God has always been exclusive. I’ve heard lots of speculation on this over the course of my years in the Church, but I still think that the quick answer is only one we know for sure right now.”
  • “I have a pretty simple understanding of this question. It’s God’s priesthood. He can give it to, or withhold it from anybody He chooses. If I thought the church was led by men, instead of by God himself, then I might think that they were selfish, or old fashioned, or just wrong. But knowing that the head of the Church is God, I let Him govern His Church any way He so chooses. But from the outside looking in, I know that you might not know that God really is in charge. You might still be suspicious. I can understand that. Still, the true answer is to ask God. If this is truly His church, then we have less objections to Him choosing to run it His way.”
• Priesthood is always restricted.
  • “The Lord has throughout the scriptures given different responsibilities to different people, based on all sorts of things.”
  • “In the days of Moses, for example, not every man had the priesthood. It is only in our day that every worthy male may be ordained into the priesthood of God.”
• It’s only a matter of time.  (This seemed a bit progressive, but the censors didn’t object.)
  • “My faith is placed in God, and should He choose to extend priesthood to the women of the church, I’m okay with that idea. It’s His church, His priesthood, and I will follow Him any way He leads.”
  • “As to why women do not hold the Priesthood, my answer is it is a matter of the Lord’s timing.”
• Priesthood blessings are for all, and it’s only used for service.
  • “The priesthood is used to serve others and perform ordinances of the gospel, the blessings of which are enjoyed by both men and women.”
  • “The priesthood power is not a gift or a right but an oath and covenant that a worthy man makes with the Lord. It is not a power for man’s own gain and a man is not better off than a woman because he holds this power. Women and men are entitled to the same blessings and promises when they live righteously.”
  • “I have no doubt that I, woman, am as significant to my Heavenly parent as any man. If you understand that the priesthood is all about service, then perhaps you’ll see how this is a vehicle for men to serve God and their fellowman.”
  • “The priesthood however, is not to be used to benefit yourself, but to benefit others, such as the sick, or anyone else (family or otherwise) who is in need of a blessing from God.”
• Women hold key leadership positions in the church. Sample comments:
  • “There are certain positions that are held by men, and certain others that are only held by women.”
  • “There are innumerable opportunities for women to serve and bless the lives of others through their church service. In the church I have always felt important and cherished. I feel that my contributions are appreciated and needed.”
  • “Women do lead in the church in many callings, and do a spot on job of it.”
  • “The five women in my life are leaders. They know what they want and what they don’t want. When they speak, I know I had better listen. While they do not currently have the Priesthood, they do certainly influence me. So do women who lead the children (the Primary organization) and the women’s organization (the Relief Society) and those who speak or pray or serve in the Lord’s house, the Temple.”

Common members answers that made me nervous:

• Priesthood?  No, thanks!  I’ve got my hands full with these dishes and dirty diapers, thank you very much!
  • “When I read or hear similar questions such as these I want to laugh. To me a question like this is akin to asking for more responsiblity, more accountablity, more work, more angish (sic) etc. . . . I guess my question would be, why would a woman want to hold the priesthood?”
  • “Honey, we women have enough to do! Why worry about holding the priesthood too? Just lovingly hold that dear husband of yours and support him as he honors the priesthood.”  I think I threw up in my mouth a little on that one.
  • “Personally, I would rather lead at home as a mother, than anywhere else.”  I have been rendered incapable of speech by that one.
• Men and women are inherently different.  Mommies have babies, and daddies do (insert awesome entitled stuff).  All right, that’s a very loose paraphrase.  But the old “boys and girls are different” routine often strays into sexist stereotypes easily sniffed out by investigators (unless they too are sexist).
  • “Just as men have not been appointed to bear children in this life, so women have not been appointed to bear the priesthood.”
  • “Men and woman have different responsibilites. The man has the responsibility of holding the priesthood and using those keys given to them (sic) in righteousness. Woman (sic) have another kind of responsibility that of bareing (sic) and rearing children.”  Seriously, what is up with the grammar and spell check on mormon.org??  There is clearly no basic editing.  (same comment)  “Each of us, man and woman have a sacred roll (like the shewbread of the temple?) like our Heavenly Parents that is not talked of much, but is essential just the same.”  I’m unclear what it is that is not talked of much.  The roles of parents seem talked about a lot.  Heavenly Father is talked about a lot.  So does this mean that Heavenly Mother is not talked about?  If so, there’s subject-verb disagreement in that sentence.
• Women have access through men.  This is really close to saying women still get the blessings, but it has the twist of sounding like men take care of women and women are dependent on men.
  • “As a woman I have total access to the blessings of the priesthood through my father, husband, bishop, and home teachers. Our home teachers visit my family in our home monthly and look after our well-being.”
• Women lead by example (aka being modest).  This one kills me with its irrelevance.  How do we go from a question about women and the priesthood to talking about how women should dress?  Yet, here we go.
  • “Many women in the Mormon Church also lead by setting an example of virtue, and do not follow the tight/low cut/body revealing fashions of this day but instead understand their true beauty is enhanced by their choice to be modest in dress.”
  • “Young girls need righteous examples of Christlike women to whom they can look as they try to make good decisions in today’s world. Women who are modest, caring, honest and virtuous lead these girls to Christ.”
• Men need the priesthood because women are better than they are (aka Male Guilt Syndrome).
  • “My wife is a remarkable woman, and does all of this without the priesthood. I, however, need the priesthood because I’m not a woman, and would fail miserably without it.”
  • “Because men are rather selfish and self-centered by nature, they need extra guidance and teaching to acquire compassion and selflessness. Serving in the priesthood is that schooling process for them. Women, on the other hand, are much more natural in their abilities to love and serve and teach. Priesthood is not required for them to emulate the Savior’s commandment to love one another.”

Here are some things I could possibly say if I were answering this question:

• I don’t know why women don’t.  Perhaps that will change at some point in the future.  Women do use priesthood power within temples (but it’s not suitable for mormon.org which is primarily focused on a non-LDS audience).
• We have no paid clergy at the ward level, so priesthood is not a career in our church.
• Women hold at least as many leadership positions as men at the ward level, and are probably more influential in these roles.  Women speak in church to the congregation every Sunday and teach lessons to adults.
• Our scriptures specifically state that anyone who uses “unrighteous dominion” loses his priesthood power.

What were your reactions to these answers?  Did you like some I didn’t like or dislike ones I liked?  What would your answer be to that question?  Are you motivated to create your own profile yet?  Discuss.

To take a line from Shakespeare — a pox upon both your houses. The Ex-Mos and TBMs continue to argue past each other and never the twain shall meet. While the thought of a kind, loving heavenly being comforts and then closes the ears of the believer, the list of inconsistencies, logical disconnects and “anti-Mormon” cliches assuages and then closes the ears of the non-believer.

Unless you frame your debate, it will continue to be unproductive, each side creating their own echo chamber of reinforcement until the cacophony makes it impossible for anyone to hear what is going on.

Here is where I would propose to take the discussion: How do you reconcile the conflicts? To quote this guy I once read, “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.” Bonus points if you can tell me who said that. The discussion then moves from cliche and rote response to a value and factual discussion in an attempt to find common ground.

For example: Blacks and the priesthood. The Word of God is for all of God’s children. You are punished for your own sins, not Adam’s transgressions (or Cain’s.) Racism is a rampant cultural and historical phenomenon which prompted violent conflict between those who thought racism violated God’s law and those who believed their race was chosen by God to rule over the lesser beings (both sides used religion as the basis for their beliefs — one of those contraries Joseph was talking about.).

The argument came to a head in the spring of 1820 (bonus points if you know what else happened in the spring of 1820) in the United States with a Missouri Compromise. The Compromise held the Union together for about forty more years until war broke out, but the entire time temperatures were broiling on the race issue in the United States. Northern (upper state New York) abolitionist leaning religions moving south into Missouri and southern Illinois were not well received.

Not surprising that depending on your viewpoint the ban on blacks holding the priesthood came from:
a) false doctrine;
b) the human capacity for self-deception while striving for self-preservation;
c) individual racism of some church leaders;
d) conforming to the current societal norms; or
e) some other reason arising out of the factual scenario.

The anti- and the pro- both believe that the whole racism thing was a bad idea, they just get there different ways. Conflict resolved, sort of.

So who is right? How should we define, the capital T, “Truth”? I’m going to come clean right now — I’m in the Joseph Smith camp on this one, at least for how to determine Truth. The reason I’m in the Joseph Smith camp is that he is also in the historical philosophical tradition of the American Enlightenment and the scientific method and he made one of the first attempts to apply that philosophy to religious thought. Joseph Smith also had a strong sense of American individualism — study it out and figure it out for yourself. How he succeeded can be argued, but I love the empirical, scientific approach to religion. (To avoid numerous digressions into atheism, geology, cosmology and science, I’m only talking in this post about applying an empirical, scientific approach to internal subjective experience.)

The scientific method gives us a mechanism for creating hierarchal judgments on different hypotheses — the hypothesis that is the most consistent with all the data is the most correct, the most true hypothesis.

Another way of saying this is Truth is inclusive. If you draw lines that exclude, you don’t have the Truth, you’ve left something out.

Joseph Smith believed this and it shows in his theology, for example eternal progression and baptism for the dead. He wanted everything included and this is a huge comfort point for believers. It leads to a Mormon mother’s common belief that a non-believing child can eventually end up in the temple and end up included, despite the past. What a comfort that must be to her, based on her own world view.

So I am looking at TBM’s hypothesis which says “my view is right because it is more inclusive, God’s plan provides eternal salvation for all mankind, even Ex-Mos.”

The conflicting Ex-Mo hypothesis is “my view is right because the reality and data coming out of the religion is that the religion does exactly the opposite of include all mankind, it excludes everyone except the elect.”

So there are the two contraries, how do we manifest Truth. In the spirit of Johnathan Swift, let me make a modest proposal: Eat the children to stop the famine (sorry literary joke that I couldn’t resist).

Seriously, the TBM’s hypothesis fails because despite the efforts of the Church at inclusion theologically, the reality is countless people feel excluded and some are even forced to be excluded by a process known as excommunication. Just makes the whole “one heart, one mind” thing seem a little narrow and false.

The counter hypothesis and its proponents equally fail because it fails to include the large group who devoutly believes. This makes it equally weak and equally vulnerable to attack by those believers.

My proposed hypothesis, neither of you are correct. I’ve studied it out. Thought about it. Prayed about it. I came up with the answer that neither of you were true. (Told you I was in the Joseph Smith camp).

First of all, this campaign is slick and attractive.  I applaud efforts to show the diversity that exists in the church, and to showcase some of the cool non-celebrities who are actual Mormons.  These are family-centric people with a wide variety of interests.  There are many of these people whom I would really enjoy on a personal level.  So, kudos on a very effective campaign!

On the downside, some of the answers to the difficult questions are problematic for various reasons (no more problematic than what you hear on a given Sunday from lay members, but they are now public):

• some answers contain factual errors, including some doctrinal mistakes (see below)
• there is no spell check or editing; perhaps this is “keepin’ it real”
• this exposes some of the most common speculations and assumptions that are comfort food to lay members on these tough issues; there’s an upside to this, too.  Perhaps this is an opportunity for the church to clarify or deal with some incorrect assumptions.
• some of the answers are not going to be very appealing to those outside the church.

So, first things first.  Let’s start with the FAQ on polygamy that members answered:  Why did your church previously practice plural marriage (polygamy)?

Reading through the posted responses, this is the one I liked the best.  He refrains from speculating or spinning pet theories that are easily debunked, and he simply talks about trusting God.  It’s not perfect because it really doesn’t answer the question, but it is a very tough question to answer given that it’s not relevant to our daily experience as church members:

I struggle with this question, myself. I believe, as I have been taught, that it was a commandment from God. I’ve heard many theories about why God commanded it but, as far as I can tell, none of the theories can be proven. I do consider the question from time to time but, in the end, I simply have to return to the fact that I trust God and do not understand all of His ways.

Another answer I somewhat liked was this one.  What I liked was that she talked about polygamy on a personal level, about her own family.  But again, it’s no justification for it (can there be?):

My great, great, great grandmother was a polygamist. She immigrated as a late teenager and would have had little opportunity to find a righteous and good husband had she not married my great, great, great grandfather as his third wife. She raised 6 children mostly on her own, since her husband died before their last child was born. The legacy she left continues to inspire me to be stronger and better. I believe she was a polygamist wife for the benefit of her posterity.

There are some other good statements as well, but I wanted to highlight a few that seem problematic for various reasons:

The Prophets have said “to raise up a righteous generation unto the Lord.” The righteous women in the Church outnumber the righteous men. That is another one of those male-female inequalities. This was especially true in the early days of the Church. Plural Marriage permitted every righteous women to be the wife of a righteous man and then to raise up a righteous family. The problem is not so severe nowadays.

The old romantic paternalist argument that women are more righteous than men.  It is demonstrably false that there was a shortage of marriageable men in the early days of the church.  Census numbers in Utah from 1850 to 1960 show more males than females in the state:

Utah population:
                       1850 total 11,380      male 6,046          female 5,334
                       1860 total 40,273      male 20,255        female 20,018
                       1870 total 86,786      male 44,121        female 42,665
                       1880 total 143,963    male 74,509        female 68,454
                       1890 total 210,779    male 111,975      female 98,804
                       1900 total 276,749    male 141,687      female 135,062

The caveat “righteous” is a bit of a two-edged sword; does that mean that Mormons of that era who did not practice plural marriage were unrighteous?  Because another defense of polygamy is that only a select few ever practiced it (see below).  Can’t have it both ways.  Here’s another comment I found troubling:

See the Book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon where the then current Prophet banned the practice because of the unrighteousness of the people. Will the practice ever come back officially? Only the Lord knows, and he hasn’t confided in me.

This seems mixed up or is just worded strangely.  It is not doctrinal that polygamy is the higher law only given to us when we are righteous; that’s the law of consecration.  The admonishment in Jacob is they were being unrighteous by committing polygamy.  My other concern is that leaving the door open that polygamy is coming back (alarming enough to suggest in its own right) just sounds creepy coming from a man.  I don’t see this one winning any converts.  Moving on.

Let’s look at some facts: in the 19th century, about three quarters of the world’s population lived in countries or societies where polygamy was sanctioned or even encouraged. In non-polygamous societies, like Europe, having a “mistress” was common and acceptable by society. I think it’s much more honorable to be legally and lawfully wedded to two wives, than to have one wife and a “mistress”.

It’s true that there are many societies that have allowed polygamy (encouraged might be a stretch), but do we really want to draw this parallel?  Many of these are the same countries that also allow stoning of women or wife burning.  I’m also not sure I would call all of Europe a “society” as if it’s all one country (apparently a society of adulterers – are we not also looking for European investigators to visit this site?  We just called them immoral here). And he just inadvertently classed polygamy in the same boat as keeping a mistress, as if both are simply inevitable, so you might as well make it legally binding.

In the early days of the Church, there were more women than men. In the harsh frontier times, survival for single women was difficult.

Again with this old chestnut that has been disproven.  There were not significantly more women than men (see above).  Yet I grant that frontier life was tough due to lack of fast food chains and toilet paper.

It’s my understanding that scarecely 3 percent of Church members practiced polygamy.

The 3% estimate is disproven.  More accurate estimates indicate 20-30%.  And the other issue is that it contradicts the notion that only the righteous practiced it (so between 70 and 97% of all church members were unrighteous?)

However, when the representative who speaks for God a prophet says that God wants you to do something, you do it. That is what happened back in the day. God told Joseph Smith that He wanted them to practice plural marriage and so they did.

This one sounds rather cultish, like saying “Shaddup and do whatcher told.”  I am quite sure most investigators would want more clarification on how God’s will is understood clearly and how you know when you should listen to this prophet and when not (since investigators don’t blindly follow leaders of a church they haven’t joined).  This is not a very useful answer to those outside the church, the target audience.

God has commanded humans to practice polygamy in many different instances throughout history. Readers of the Bible will remember that Abraham and Jacob Israel were affiliated with this practice. Even the great King David had multiple wives.

IIRC, it was the infertile wives (Sariah, Rachel and Leah) and conniving fathers-in-law (Laban) who were behind polygamy in the OT.  There is no scriptural account in the OT of God commanding polygamy.  These were people who wanted more children and didn’t want to wait for them.  Also, David and Solomon are not examples of God-sanctioned polygamy.  Whoever wrote that answer should read the Book of Mormon:  “for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” —Jacob 2:23-24

It was from God’s order out of necessity to take care of many women who were widowed with children and those who were alone.

Again with this old chestnut. I’m telling you, this is one of those very convincing very appealing explanations that we would love to find out is true, but unfortunately, it isn’t upheld by actual data.

OK, the point is not to pick these things apart.  I’m sure we’ve all heard more or less the same types of answers our whole lives in Sunday School, whether they are accurate or not.  And it takes a lot of guts to get on line and say these things with your picture plastered there, so I applaud the courage.  There are MTC volunteers who are reviewing for content and accuracy, so I suppose it is consistent with whatever average missionaries believe is accurate.  Since this is an external-facing campaign, that approach makes sense.  Feedback on doctrinal inaccuracies in the profiles can be submitted to bairdct@mtc.byu.edu.

I gave this some thought, wondering how would I answer such a difficult question for an audience of mainly investigators.  Here are the things that I could say in good conscience that might pass muster:

• I don’t know why.  (I really just have to bite my tongue on this and stop there because I am personally open to the idea that polygamy was not inspired, although that doesn’t bother me in the slightest since I view church leaders as fallible, which is also doctrinally sound.)
• Personally, I find it hard to imagine life under such an arrangement and am glad it is not something that is directly relevant to my own church experience today.
• I am hesitant to judge the actions of others who acted in faith in different times under circumstances that are so different from my own.  Many of those individuals made great personal sacrifices.

So, your turn.  How would you answer this question?  Do you have a mormon.org profile?  Which answers do you like the best and why?  How should the church address mistaken assumptions about things like this?  Discuss.

I’ve observed 4 general categories of struggles that people have in the church (possibly in any church, and there are likely parallels in any type of organization):

1. Cultural. They dislike aspects of Mormon culture, may feel they don’t fit in, or may simply not want to fit in (“I’m a loner, Dotty.  A rebel.”).
   • Examples:  Church activities, social norms, opinions people express, how people dress, unwritten rules of behavior, church standards.
2. Historical. They find aspects of our Mormon history unsavory (even faith-shaking) and white-washed or misrepresented (and sometimes have been unpleasantly surprised due to only having known the uplifting “correlated” version).
   • Examples:  Polygamy, BOM origins, aspects of church leaders’ lives, doctrinal changes, restrictions on priesthood, temple origins, events from church history.
3. Doctrinal. They disagree with certain doctrines of the church or the interpretations of those doctrines they’ve encountered.  While there may be some overlap between historical events that relate to truth claims, it is possible to view these items separately.
   • Examples:  Mormon view of the atonement, Godhood, marriage and sealing, priesthood authority, ordinances, historical claims that are related to truth claims may also fit here, plan of salvation, the role of prophets, Temple Recommend questions related to belief, interpretation of scripture.
4. Personal. They have had a personal issue that has harmed them and caused dissonance with the church.
   • Examples:  marital issue, abuse, interpersonal conflict, depression

It seems that a person could have issues in more than one of these areas, or may find that they are less impacted by a disconnect in one or more of these areas.  For example, one may find historical facts like Mountain Meadows Massacre troubling, but feel that they are personally less important because of no direct personal connection to the historical church.  If an area is of high importance and is also an area of strong concern, that’s when people leave if they can’t resolve their concern satisfactorily.

[poll id="183"]

[poll id="184"]

[poll id="185"]

[poll id="186"]

It seems to me that for people who care very deeply about a specific area (culture, doctrine, history, or personal experiences), they are more prone to disaffection for that issue if something goes wrong in that area.  Likewise, if it’s extremely important to them and it’s going well, that can strongly solidify their commitment to the church.  What are your observations?  And which of these areas are most important to you?  Have they caused you any cognitive dissonance?  Discuss.

Here’s the talk in a nutshell:

1. Why we need the spirit.
   • “Throughout the ages, many have obtained guidance helpful to resolve challenges in their lives by following the example of respected individuals who resolved similar problems. Today, world conditions change so rapidly that such a course of action is often not available to us.”  I think E. Scott just admitted that old folks haven’t necessarily “been there, done that.”  It’s kind of a radical thing for an octogenarian to say.  Frankly, I’m not sure all 80-somethings would admit that.  Kudos, E. Scott!
   • “Personally, I rejoice in that reality because it creates a condition where we, of necessity, are more dependent upon the Spirit to guide us through the vicissitudes of life. Therefore, we are led to seek personal inspiration in life’s important decisions.”  So, he’s saying we shouldn’t do things just because of tradition or what others who are older tell us to do, but we should find out for ourselves the best course.  Personal accountability–one, blind obedience to authority–zero!
   • “Spirituality yields two fruits. The first is inspiration to know what to do. The second is power, or the capacity to do it. These two capacities come together.”  Features & benefits of the Spirit.
2. How to get the Spirit.
   • “I am convinced that there is no simple formula or technique that would immediately allow you to master the ability to be guided by the voice of the Spirit.”  Decrying a formulaic approach to spirituality.  Down with checklists!  Spirituality is personal and subjective.
   • “Our Father expects you to learn how to obtain that divine help by exercising faith in Him and His Holy Son, Jesus Christ. Were you to receive inspired guidance just for the asking, you would become weak and ever more dependent on Them. They know that essential personal growth will come as you struggle to learn how to be led by the Spirit.”  I love the notion that we are supposed to live up to our potential, not just let others make decisions for us.
   • “Your confidence in the direction you receive from the Holy Ghost will also become stronger. I witness that as you gain experience and success in being guided by the Spirit, your confidence in the impressions you feel can become more certain than your dependence on what you see or hear.”  There’s a little bit of implied confirmation bias here, but by the same token, it’s how we develop decision-making ability and intuition:  through experience.  We learn what works and what doesn’t.
   • E. Scott shares 2 contrasting teacher styles and how each resulted in inspiration for him.  While the contrasting examples seem designed to reinforce the correlation committee’s guidelines (the first teacher stuck to the materials and the second one used archane and unusual references), both lessons resulted in personal spiritual guidance for E. Scott.  Of the second experience, E. Scott shared:  “I received such an outpouring of impressions that were so personal that I felt it was not appropriate to record them in the midst of a Sunday School class. I sought a more private location, where I continued to write the feelings that flooded into my mind and heart as faithfully as possible.”  I’m pretty sure he just admitted to ditching Sunday School to write in his journal.
   • “Impressions of the Spirit can come in response to urgent prayer or unsolicited when needed.”  I think it’s hard to chalk it up to the Spirit when it could be confirmation bias – unsolicited one-off ideas are more easily attributable to the Spirit, IMO.
   • “However, the Lord will not force you to learn. You must exercise your agency to authorize the Spirit to teach you. As you make this a practice in your life, you will be more perceptive to the feelings that come with spiritual guidance. Then, when that guidance comes, sometimes when you least expect it, you will recognize it more easily.”  Part of this does strike me as confirmation bias; however, I have experienced an unexpected idea to do something that if I followed it worked out, and sometime I have not and it didn’t work out.  To me, that’s the spirit.
3.  What prevents us from getting the Spirit.
   • “The inspiring influence of the Holy Spirit can be overcome or masked by strong emotions, such as anger, hate, passion, fear, or pride. When such influences are present, it is like trying to savor the delicate flavor of a grape while eating a jalapeño pepper. Both flavors are present, but one completely overpowers the other. In like manner, strong emotions overcome the delicate promptings of the Holy Spirit.”  I like the analogy.  The idea sounds true enough.
   • “Sin is spiritually corrosive. Unrestrained it becomes all-consuming. It is overcome by repentance and righteousness.  Satan is extremely good at blocking spiritual communication by inducing individuals, through temptation, to violate the laws upon which spiritual communication is founded.”  So, sin is bad then . . . right?
   • “With some, he is able to convince them that they are not able to receive such guidance from the Lord.”  I think this is a real issue for people.  I think many have these high-falutin notions of what constitutes “the Spirit” and anything short of meeting JC on the road to Damascus isn’t cutting it.  I think that’s a misunderstanding.  If you re-read E. Scott’s talk and substitute the word “instinct” or “inspiration” for “the Spirit,” you can get a real sense for how commonplace these experiences are.
   • “Satan has become a master at using the addictive power of pornography to limit individual capacity to be led by the Spirit.”  Let’s not make this a porn post, shall we?  But the rest of the talk is basically about how porn makes it impossible to recognize the Spirit.  Personally, I’m no fan of porn, and I think the point is valid.  Porn’s blocking of spiritual guidance is not the worst of its influence in society.  On the subject, E. Scott waxes eloquent.  Anyway, ’nuff said on porn.  Moving on.  Nothing to see here.

Here are some points I think worth discussing from the talk:

1. Does this jive with your experience feeling the Spirit or inspiration or whatever you kids are calling it these days?
2. Do you like the idea that you can be equally inspired in a lesson regardless the instructor?  I found these examples fascinating; although ostensibly the “not as good” instructor was “out of policy,” it had no adverse impact on the spiritual guidance received.  Doesn’t that mean that maybe we can quit wringing our hands over this?  Does that make church a BYOS (Bring Your Own Spirit) institution?  I say yes.
3. Have you ever felt the Spirit when in the throes of strong emotion?  If so, let’s have the deets!
4. Overall, did you like the talk or not?  I am of the opinion that not all talks are for all people.  This one was one I happened to like, but that doesn’t mean everyone should.

Discuss.

• I like the idea of Jesus as a lawyer for humanity.  Having a defense attorney, someone totally in your court who will fight for your cause is enormously appealing to me.
• I like the symbolism of the atonement:  olive press (Gethsemane), the name “at one” ment, the mingling of the divine and the human.
• I like the idea of Bodhisattva, a voluntary sacrifice for others.  But I like it more as one who might sacrifice than as one who would be the recipient of the sacrifice.  Similarly, I’m somewhat uncomfortable receiving gifts.  Although I’m not that comfortable giving them either.  So there you go.

What I have generally not loved about the concept of “atonement”:

• that it creates a religion of losers, appealing to the down-and-outers. Dennis Miller once observed that the prison inmates always seem to find Jesus when no one else down here will talk to them anymore.
• that it is a contrasting idea to theosis (the seeds of divinity within man), a concept which I find inherently more appealing. I’d rather focus on strengths & potential than weakness and shortcomings.  I’m just a cock-eyed optimist!  I do find sadness somewhat off-putting.
• the idea of justice and mercy that is represented feels man-made and not like something that God would be bound to follow. I don’t like the legalistic metaphors often used to explain the atonement.

Here are a few of the ways the atonement has been viewed over the centuries, each with a unique insight:

• Ransom Theory.  In this metaphor from the 4^th century, Jesus liberates mankind from slavery to Satan and thus death by giving his own life as a ransom. Victory over Satan consists of swapping the life of the perfect (Jesus), for the lives of the imperfect (mankind).  A variation of this view is known as the “Christus Victor” theory, in which Jesus defeats Satan in a spiritual battle and frees the enslaved humans from their captor.  (like an action movie with hostages being rescued).  This one sounds kind of cool in a Die Hard sort of way, but it also doesn’t ring quite true for me.  A variation of this I heard on my mission was someone buying a cage full of dirty, diseased birds with lousy attitudes.  Not my favorite perspective on humanity.
• Penal Substitution.  Another metaphor, from the 11^th century, is that man is in debt to a sovereign God who has the power to forgive debt, but also has to uphold the laws. In this metaphor, only a perfect sacrifice could satisfy the demands of the transgressed laws, and Jesus, being both God and man, was this perfect sacrifice.  A slight variation of this is the Protestant “penal substitution theory,” which sees sin as the breaking of God’s moral law, and Jesus takes the punishment in the sinner’s stead.  This is probably the most common metaphor used for the atonement, but it is very legalistic and leaves me cold.  I think we let the metaphor become the thing it symbolizes in this one.  I suspect the atonement is not entirely encompassed by this view.
• Moral Influence.  A third metaphor from the 11^th century, and speaks to the power of the image of a suffering Christ who sacrifices himself out of love for man, and mankind, moved by the extent of God’s love is transformed and healed by the power of the Holy Spirit.  I appreciated this one because I think we LDS tend to look at the crucifixion images in Catholic churches as ghoulish and morbid, but this metaphor explains their appeal to millions of worshippers in a whole new light for me.
• Theosis Metaphor.  Eastern Orthodoxy views the atonement as not a legal release, but a transformation of the human nature itself in the Son taking on human nature. The Orthodox emphasis is that Christ died to change people so that they may become more like God.  This is one I find very appealing, although it’s not one I ever recall hearing at church.  It lines up nicely with our idea that we are sons & heirs of God, with the seeds of godhood within us.

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we expand on these metaphors by recognizing and emphasizing some additional components to the atonement:

• Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane. Modern day revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants adds emphasis to the role of Gethsemane in the atonement process: “…how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not…. Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit…”  I like the focus in LDS theology on the sacrifice being deliberate on Jesus’ part, that he chose to do this of his own free will despite how hard it was.  I like the emphasis on free choice, not so much on the difficulty which feels like a major guilt trip (I suppose because it IS).
  • The name Gethsemane literally means oil press.  In Gethsemane, Jesus as the Son of God is pressed as the olives were.  Oil was and is used for all sorts of purposes: to perform priesthood ordinances, to anoint the body, and to heal the sick and restore them to health.  Metaphorically, Jesus is the ultimate healing and anointing oil.
  • In a talk on the Symbols of the Atonement in 1991, E. Russell Nelson said:  “Olive trees are special in the Holy Land. The olive branch is universally regarded as a symbol of peace. This tree provides food, light, heat, lumber, ointments, and medicine. It is now, as it was then, crucial to life in Israel. It is not a deciduous tree, but ever bearing—always green. Even if the tree is chopped down, life will spring from its roots, suggesting everlasting life.  Jesus came to the base of the Mount of Olives to affect the first component of the Atonement. This He did at the Garden of Gethsemane. The word Gethsemane comes from two Hebrew roots: gath, meaning “press,” and shemen, meaning “oil,” especially that of the olive.  There olives had been pressed under the weight of great stone wheels to squeeze precious oil from them. So the Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane was literally pressed under the weight of the sins of the world. He sweat great drops of blood—his life’s “oil”—which issued from every pore.  Jesus was accorded titles of unique significance. One was the Messiah, which in Hebrew means “anointed.” The other was the Christ, which in the Greek language means “anointed” as well. In our day, as it was in His day, the ordinance of administration to the sick includes anointing with the consecrated oil of the olive. So the next time you witness consecrated oil being anointed on the head of one to be blessed, and these sacred words are said, “I anoint you with this consecrated oil,” remember what that original consecration cost. Remember what it meant to all who had ever lived and who ever would yet live. Remember the redemptive power of healing, soothing, and ministering to those in need. Remember, just as the body of the olive, which was pressed for the oil that gave light, so the Savior was pressed. From every pore oozed the life blood of our Redeemer. And when sore trials come upon you, remember Gethsemane.”
• Empathetic purpose. Christ did not only suffer for the sins of all men, but also to experience their physical pains, illnesses, anguish from addictions, emotional turmoil and depression, “that His bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities” (Alma 7:12; compare Isaiah 53:4).  This empathy allows Jesus to be a more effective advocate and personal friend to us.  This sounds remarkable similar to the one about the image of the suffering Christ creating empathy in humanity (the reverse of this).  But I think when you put them both together, it adds some interest to the perspective.
• The relationship between justice, mercy, agency, and God’s unconditional love. We focus on the need for free agency.  Just as Jesus had the ability to choose to lay down his life, if we are truly penitent we will voluntarily come unto him to receive his grace.  We do this through the process of repentance.  I do find this idea useful – the focus on our personal choice.

I liked the idea that there are many different ways to interpret the atonement, and some of these are more appealing to me than others. How about you?  Were any of these helpful?  How do you feel about the atonement?  Discuss.

Optimization

Optimization largely rules our world. Virtually all of management, engineering, politics, and much of science is about optimization. Optimization, in this sense, is the process of determining the optimal solution given all the objectives and constraints. In management, the process may not be that formal. Perhaps there is a board of directors who gather around a table to discuss the optimal set of policies, the direction to go, etc. In politics it is likely similar. The President of the U.S. surrounds himself with experts on a particular topic, they then engage in discussion, and hope to land on the optimal answer given the objectives and constraints.

For engineers the process is much more formal and precise. Usually optimization takes the form of a cost function – a function incorporating, mathematically, all the objectives and constraints. An algorithm (and there are many) is then employed to “solve” the function resulting in the optimal solution. To demonstrate, here’s an example:

Suppose you are designing an aircraft. There are numerous design possibilities, a canard style, V-tail empennages, aspect ratio of the wings, length of fuselage, coating of the surfaces, wingtips, where to place the turbines, height of vertical stabilizer (if having one at all), etc. etc. We would like to find the optimal answer amongst all these parameters such that we maximize lift, maximize cargo space, maximize safety, minimize energy consumption, etc. Of course we also have constraints. We cannot physically manufacture a flexible fixed wing that is 800 ft long and thin as a toothpick. To solve the problem, we can write down a big, long, nasty equation that would mathematically characterize the physics, constraints, and objectives and then pick our favorite optimization algorithm and wait for it to churn out the answer (which may take a long time).

Bayesian inference is one algorithm that can be applied to such an optimization problem. Typically one would choose this algorithm amidst a cost function that was stochastic in nature, having noise and/or error in the system, that expressed our confidence.

Finding the Truth, Optimization Style

In some sense, the Bayesian inference mechanism I discussed in previous posts could be seen as an optimization method for finding the truth. If we assume that all the new information we regularly encounter has some (even if very little) truth therein, and we apply that information in the regular Bayesian inference sense, we could then reliably conclude that we have found the “truth,” with some probability (level of confidence), given all the information.

This is highly related to a comment FireTag made on my previous post. He asked

So there are routes to evolve our beliefs toward truth no matter where we start or whatever the order of our search algorithm?

In the context of this question, Bayesian inference can easily be seen as a search algorithm. And, in fact, if we used a Sequential Monte Carlo method, it really does feel like a search algorithm.

In expanding this notion, my response, in part, was:

Absolutely (at least in my book)! Though certainly some search algorithms are definitely worse than others and some starting places better than others! Otherwise what prayer in the world do we have (unless you’re absolutely certain that YOU’VE got it right, but I sure don’t)? I view my religion/spirituality as a compass that (I hope) points me in a good direction. My hope is that if/when the absolute truth is made manifest to me I will be humble enough (and my definition of humble is “openness to the truth”) to recognize it because/in spite of my current confidence distribution.

From this perspective, we might view the church (or whatever church you belong to), the Gospel, this life, and all our associated experience as tools to help us optimize for, and draw nearer to the truth given the objectives and constraints of our personal limitations and the limitations of this mortal existence. While I have encountered a very few number of Mormons who claim that we have ALL the truth, this is not the claim of the LDS church. Most of us, I believe, accept there are things we don’t yet know and don’t yet understand. The real challenge is to have an appropriate confidence distribution such that you will accept that truth when it is made known to you.

However, I finished my response to FireTag with the following:

However, this really opens another can of worms – namely, what is truth? My explanation thus far has been about our perception of truth which may or may not correlate with objective or absolute truth. To argue over whether or not our perception of truth is objective truth is to argue over what forms of evidence are acceptable and what weight we should apply to that evidence (which is the conclusion of this post and is an argument with no victor).

The Convert

John is a member of another Christian denomination and he was raised as a believer. He has had one discussion with the LDS missionaries and plans to continue these discussions. In the first discussion the missionaries built on common beliefs with John and challenged him to read a few verses in The Book of Mormon and to pray over them. They read Moroni 10:3-5 in which the Lord, through his prophet, provides a recipe for confirmation of the truthfulness of the message taught. John takes this seriously and reads the verses and prays over them. He also has a strong spiritual manifestation. He feels peace, warmth, and what he interprets as an assurance from the Holy Spirit that the message is true.

For John, he has had a number of spiritual manifestations and hence accepts this form of gaining knowledge. He has not had one quite this powerful before so he takes this manifestation as evidence that the LDS church is true. In Bayesian terms, we might claim that John had a confidence distribution with a mean of “my Christian denomination is true” with a fairly large standard deviation (since he was open to other religious possibilities). When he received this new piece of information (a spiritual manifestation of the truthfulness of the LDS message) he incorporated it into his confidence distribution. This, along with further discussions from the missionaries is enough to shift his distribution to one with a mean of “the LDS church is the true church” with a fairly small standard deviation.

In this scenario there are some interesting things going on with regard to faith, knowledge, and belief. John had “belief” enough to take a leap of “faith.” In essence, he was testing the “tail ends” of his confidence distribution by examining a foreign concept. In a Monte Carlo sense, his random walk was probing “less probable” areas of his distribution. For John, he found some valuable information that he then used to modify that distribution. It is easy to characterize his actions as “faith” as he probed heretofore untested waters. His experience exemplifies the allegory of faith given in Alma 32.

The Stereotypical Mormon

Bill is a lifelong member of the LDS church. He was raised in Salt Lake City and has been an obedient member of the church for all of his 39 years. Bill has a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel and all of its core principles and doctrines.

Bill has had many experiences which he interprets as support for his view of the Gospel. He has a successful career, a great family, good health, and an abundance of opportunities to serve which he attributes to his adherence to tithing, prayer, fasting, righteous living, and heeding the counsel of prophets. Bill has so much confirming evidence of his life choices and beliefs that his confidence distribution has a mean of “the LDS church is the true church” with a very small standard deviation. Bill acknowledges that others have some pieces of truth, but is grateful that he has the blessing of knowing the fulness. Indeed, Bill claims he “knows” the Gospel is true. He would live and die by this, and admits that nothing could persuade him otherwise.

In this scenario, faith, belief, and knowledge take on a bit different meaning. Bill hasn’t really taken the same kind of “leap of faith” that John did. He has put his beliefs to the test and received verification that they were correct. While he has somewhat probed the less probable regions of his confidence (the tails of his distribution) he interprets the information as confirming his beliefs. His confidence in his mean is so great it would be easy to classify Bill’s “faith” or “belief” as “knowledge” (which of course he does regularly at testimony meetings). Each successive spiritual experience or life event, properly interpreted, only adds more information which confirms Bill’s knowledge.

The Disaffected Mormon

Fred is in the same boat as Bill. He is a lifelong member of the LDS church, grew up in Salt Lake City, and did all he was asked to do. However, about a year ago he encountered some individuals that posed challenging questions to his worldview. Initially, Fred’s response was much like Bill’s, that is, he interpreted information to confirm his knowledge. But eventually the information became so overwhelming that Fred had to concede he might not have it quite right.

Fred has also had many spiritual manifestations, but his probing into psychology convinces him that much of it can be explained by regular, well understood psychological phenomena. Fred has also been richly “blessed” with a good career, great family, etc. but has to acknowledge that many non-Mormons have also been similarly blessed. For Fred, his confidence distribution is beginning to change. Each new piece of information, incorporated loosely via a built-in Bayesian inference calculator, shifts the distribution away from his mean of “the LDS church is the true church.” Initially, the information only increases his standard deviation as he acknowledges truth in other places, but eventually his mean starts to shift as well when he examines what he considers to be the lack of evidence for the historicity of The Book of Mormon, the myriad conundrums in Church history, etc. Most alarming for Fred is the feeling of betrayal by not realizing these things earlier in life which he attributes to white-washing by the LDS church.

In this scenario it would be easy to claim that “faith” is being destroyed. I think this is erroneous. Rather, I would say that “faith” is shifting. Fred now has faith in other things, though admittedly less faith in the LDS church being the true church. After a year of struggling, Fred admits he no longer has any confidence that the LDS church is the true church.

Contrasting the Scenarios

The commonalities between the scenarios are interesting. Each individual is doing what he thinks is most probable. John and Fred actually took a “leap of faith” to probe the less probable regions of their confidence distribution which turned up valuable information. Additionally, since some previous experiences had modified their distribution, their built-in Bayesian inference calculator was perhaps more able to objectively incorporate the new information. While Bill did occassionally probe the less probable regions of his distribution, the new information was interpreted to add more evidence to his beliefs.

This leads me to conclude that the biggest argument over “faith,” “belief,” and “knowledge,” actually has nothing to do with one’s “faithfulness” and everything to do with the quantity, types of, and weighting given to different types of evidence. For John and Bill, spiritual manifestations are a perfectly valid form of evidence, perhaps even the most important kind, which they weight appropriately. For Fred, this used to be the case, but as he discovered new information he had to modify his weightings, and began to reject some forms of evidence (spiritual manifestations) previously acceptable to him.

I subscribe to the “confidence distribution” model for understanding people’s beliefs, motivations, actions etc. because I believe it drives to the real issues which is what types of evidence are accepted by people, and what importance they place on that evidence.

This kind of reasoning also brings a different perspective to the word “doubt.” We could say that Fred is “doubting” and couch this in negative terms, but I think a more appropriate characterization would be to admit that Fred now accepts other forms of evidence and hence his faith has shifted. For Fred, he is being intellectually honest, as is Bill and John. This doesn’t make one more faithful, or more spiritual than the others, just different!

Bridges built using sound engineering principles are safe. The Bay Bridge was built using sound engineering principles. Therefore, the Bay Bridge was safe (at least when it was built).

This form of reasoning is reliable, at least as far as logic goes, producing correct conclusions from the premises.

In contrast, inductive reasoning is a form of reasoning in which the premises indicate some degree of support for the conclusion but which do not completely support it. For example:

All bridges I have walked across have not fallen. Therefore all bridges are safe to walk across.

This form of reasoning is unreliable in producing valid results. It is a logical fallacy. There are many forms that inductive reasoning can take; generalization, proof by analogy, causal inference, prediction, etc. These forms of inductive reasoning have different strengths and can provide a form of “information” that is most useful albeit simultaneously by themselves unreliable.

There are people at both ends of the spectrum regarding inductive reasoning. Some people are all too willing to throw out the premises since no conclusion can be reliably drawn. These people ignore the “information” contained in the premises. In “information theory” (a branch of stochastic theory), “entropy” (an uncertainty measure) is used to quantify how much “information” exists in a premise. EVERYTHING has some amount of “information” even if it is very little. On the other end of the spectrum are people all too eager to rely on inductive reasoning supposing they have made a fantastic argument all while ignoring the holes in their logic. These people seem to assign WAY too much “information” to the premises.

Of the possible inductive reasoning techniques, Bayesian inference has become the most influential and reliable. In fact, Bayesian inference continues to be extremely important and reliable particularly in fields of science and engineering in which a reliable conclusion is produced in the presence of noise and modeling error.

In my previous post I discussed why I feel faith is not well understood in Mormonism and why I think some knowledge of Bayesian probability, coupled with Bayesian inference does a good job of explaining what faith, knowledge, and belief are and how we can apply it in our lives. In this post I will elaborate on Bayesian inference as a form of inductive reasoning and try to show how I believe it influences our faith, beliefs, and knowledge.

Bayesian Inference

Bayes’ rule relates one conditional probability to its inverse through a prior and marginal probability (don’t worry this will become clear in a sec). The formula is:
[math]P(A|B)=\frac{P(B|A)P(A)}{P(B)}[/math]
A conditional probability (i.e. [math]P(A|B)[/math]) is the probability of some event A given that B occurs. This reads “probability of A given B.” Explaining the formula:

• Let [math]A[/math] represent a new hypothesis
• Let [math]B[/math] represent a new piece of evidence
• [math]P(A|B)[/math] is the posterior probability (i.e. the probability we are interested in) and is the probability of our hypothesis given our new evidence
• [math]P(B|A)[/math] is called the likelihood and is the inverse of what we actually want. This is the probability of our evidence given our hypothesis
• [math]P(A)[/math] is the prior (i.e. what we believe before we start)
• [math]P(B)[/math] is the marginal probability and represents the probability of witnessing the evidence under all possible hypotheses

There is also a form of Bayes’ rule that works for PDFs and/or distributions as well. It is a bit more difficult to follow but the idea is the same.

A Simple Example

A simple example from Wikipedia will help.

To illustrate, suppose there are two full bowls of cookies. Bowl #1 has 10 chocolate chip and 30 plain cookies, while bowl #2 has 20 of each. Our friend Fred picks a bowl at random, and then picks a cookie at random. We may assume there is no reason to believe Fred treats one bowl differently from another, likewise for the cookies. The cookie turns out to be a plain one. How probable is it that Fred picked it out of bowl #1?

Intuitively, it seems clear that the answer should be more than a half, since there are more plain cookies in bowl #1. The precise answer is given by Bayes’ theorem. Let [math]H_1[/math] correspond to bowl #1, and [math]H_2[/math] to bowl #2. It is given that the bowls are identical from Fred’s point of view, thus [math]P(H_1)=P(H_2)[/math], and the two must add up to 1, so both are equal to 0.5. The event [math]E[/math] is the observation of a plain cookie. From the contents of the bowls, we know that [math]P(E|H_1)=30/40=0.75[/math] and [math]P(E|H_2)=20/40=0.5[/math]. Bayes’ formula then yields
[math]P(H_1|E)=\frac{P(E|H_1)P(H_1)}{P(E|H_1)P(H_1)+P(E|H_2)P(H_2)}[/math]

[math]P(H_1|E)=\frac{0.75\times0.5}{0.75\times0.5+0.5\times0.5}[/math]

[math]P(H_1|E)=0.6[/math]
Before we observed the cookie, the probability we assigned for Fred having chosen bowl #1 was the prior probability, [math]P(H_1)[/math], which was 0.5. After observing the cookie, we must revise the probability to [math]P(H_1|E)[/math], which is 0.6.

The most important part of this example is to note that there is information (in a stochastic sense) in the evidence that we observed that a plain cookie was drawn. Bayesian inference gives us the tools necessary to characterize our belief about the bowl from which Fred picked the cookie.

A Practical Example

Let’s walk through a more practical and intuitive example to illustrate how this might relate to faith, knowledge, and belief.

Suppose Mary grows up in San Francisco, regularly traveling over the numerous bridges connecting the peninsula to the mainland. She has traveled over these bridges numerous times. She believes that these bridges were constructed using sound engineering principles. She also believes that standards were in place to help guide the engineers in making good decisions. She believes that steel is very strong, and that the materials used met some arbitrary specification for stress standards and strength. She also believes there are some engineers who regularly inspect the bridge for weaknesses and problems and would alert her if necessary.

These are all fairly reasonable assumptions in our modern society, and we might easily say that Mary “knows” that if she goes across the Golden Gate today that the bridge will not collapse. In this regard it likely takes little “faith” for her to go across the bridge. She doesn’t have to take a “mighty leap” as it were. She doesn’t grow spiritually by exercising this faith/knowledge to cross the bridge. Nevertheless, it is clear to everyone (I hope) that Mary, in fact, does not “know” that the bridge is safe. There is no way she can know. All she could say is that she knows that the last time she crossed the bridge it did not collapse.

In terms of my last post, we might say that Mary’s confidence distribution has a mean of “the bridge is safe” with a very very small standard deviation.

Now, let us suppose that one day Mary goes across the Bay Bridge (which is and probably will be forever under construction) and part of the bridge collapses. Fortunately, Mary is on the part of the bridge that remains safe. But she witnesses the tragedy, including the loss of many lives.

The question is, what information is contained in this observation and how should it effect Mary’s confidence/knowledge/belief/faith in her frequent bridge crossing? The conclusion is very difficult. If we use inductive reasoning we might say:

All bridges built using sound engineering principles will not collapse. The Bay Bridge collapsed. Therefore, all bridges are not safe.

Although this conclusion feels like a real stretch, if we place ourselves in Mary’s shoes it might seem like a reasonable conclusion given the fear associated with witnessing the collapse of a bridge. From Mary’s perspective, from a Bayesian point of view, the evidence she saw was so overwhelming, and she inappropriately placed such great weight on it, that the mean and standard deviation of her confidence distribution shifted wildly. At this point, her mean has likely shifted to “all bridges are not safe” with a very small standard deviation. Now, it does take a “mighty leap” of faith for Mary to cross the bridge, and she may grow spiritually/emotionally by taking that leap.

Of course to a third party concerned relative this conclusion is completely unreasonable. We can poke holes in her reasoning all day long. Just because the Bay Bridge collapsed doesn’t mean another will. Just because the Bay Bridge collapsed doesn’t mean engineering principles are invalid. We don’t even know the cause of the collapse. Just because the Bay Bridge collapsed doesn’t mean the system of inspecting bridges is broken. The list could go on and on. From our perspective, we might say that Mary’s confidence distribution shouldn’t change at all! But that would ignore the information contained in the observation and/or assign far too little weight to it.

The right answer is to acknowledge the information contained in the observation and assign the appropriate weight to it. Obviously this is a completely arbitrary and subjective exercise. Who is to say what the right weight is? Who is to say what the appropriate measure of information is? Bayesian inference gives us the tools to analyze the problem but it does nothing to help us know how to characterize the evidence and assign appropriate weight to our evidence.

The Application to Faith in Mormonism

Since this post is already too long, I’ll only weakly apply this to faith and save a more in depth analysis for my next post (though I think if you give it some thought the connections are readily apparent).

Bayesian inference can be a valuable tool for helping us understand how to apply evidence into our confidence distribution for a specific hypothesis. “Faith,” “knowledge,” “belief,” etc. are measures of confidence from which we conclude that we will perform various actions. The real question regarding our “faith” is what weight we apply to various kinds of evidence. How it effects our confidence distribution is very simply described using Bayes’ rule.

For most members of the church, spiritual manifestations are a critical piece of evidence that validate their beliefs. They therefore place high weights on those pieces of evidence, giving them a mean of “the LDS church is true” with a very low standard deviation. For others, spiritual manifestations may be too wrapped up in psychology, emotions, etc. to be reliable. Hence they place low weight on such evidence and although they may have the same mean, they may have a larger standard deviation on their confidence. Those who experience disaffection may throw the “baby out with the bathwater” and dismiss the experience altogether, eventually allowing their mean to shift to “the LDS church is NOT true” with a low standard deviation.

Humans have a very good Bayesian inference mechanism built right into their intelligence. We can perform Bayes’ rule calculations internally with very little effort and often very appropriately draw good conclusions amidst a plethora of evidence particularly when we have no psychological attachment to the outcome. But when we do have psychological attachment, it becomes VERY VERY difficult to not allow the internal Bayesian inference mechanism to become biased.

Our Concept of Faith

We typically turn to two scriptural sources for understanding faith. In Hebrews 11:1 we read:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Additionally, in Alma 32:21 it says:

And now as I said concerning faith – faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

In Mormonism I think we have a hard time reconciling faith in large part because of our scriptures coupled with the “faith” it requires to believe our foundational truth claims. For example, why doesn’t God just come down to all of us and show us an “unmistakable witness” such that everyone “knows” beyond doubt that he is God? Furthermore, rather than a prophet expounding God’s plan, he himself could give it to us so we “knew” it came from him. From The Book of Mormon we have several examples where such “knowledge” was quickly turned to doubt and sin. We use these examples to show that such “knowledge” doesn’t produce the faith required for salvation. Many Mormons will argue that if such manifestations occurred it would be too easy to “know” the truth and faith would no longer be required (which we know is unacceptable since faith is required for salvation). As a sidenote, I’d like to point out the irony that most members “know” the church to be true, which, according to this reasoning means faith is no longer required for most members.

This feels tragically flawed to me. Did Joseph Smith have faith? I think so, yet he ostensibly saw God and Jesus Christ many times and surely “knew” beyond a reasonable doubt that they existed. Was Joseph somehow at a disadvantage because he had actually seen God? Was his faith destroyed by his “knowledge”? Why was Joseph’s vision acceptable, not destroying his faith, but a “sign” would not be acceptable because it would destroy faith?

The situation gets even worse. When someone expresses doubt in the church’s truth claims, they are often labeled as lacking faith. This may feel (to the doubtful individual) like an accusation of being too weak to accept things on faith. Or perhaps that the individual must check their logic and reasoning at the door in order to have the faith necessary for salvation. It marginalizes those who have different thresholds of faith, belief, and knowledge, and elevates those who have faith no matter how ridiculous the claims may be. This type of sentiment may also be responsible for the cultural notion that the widow who sacrifices her last dollar to tithing, rather than buying food for her children is somehow more righteous/spiritual/faithful than one who would not. Examples of faith are couched in terms of individuals who appear to act irrationally to a non-LDS third party observer.

Stochastic Processes

Stochastic processes are processes that are non-deterministic. In other words, they are random, or based on probability theory. To fully elaborate on this theory we need some definitions (I apologize to the mathematics averse, but please bear with me as it will give us some powerful tools to discuss some very important topics):

• Random variable: a random variable is neither random, nor a variable (crazy I know). Rather it is a function (a mathematical function). A random variable maps the possible outcomes of a random event to a set of unique numerical values. For example, a random variable for a fair two-sided coin might be X=1 (if heads), 0 (if tails).
• Probability Density Function (PDF): the probability density function describes the relative likelihood for the outcomes of a particular random variable. An example of this could be a regular “bell curve” distribution describing how a group of students performed on a test. We may also refer (with an abuse of notation) to a PDF as a distribution. (NOTE: for the mathematically inclined, I am intentionally blurring the lines between discrete and continuous random variables. Additionally, for simplicity sake I am merging the concepts of probability density function and probability distribution, though they are in fact different)
• Frequentists: frequentists interpret probability as a measure of probability of an event in a large number of trials. For example, if I tell the frequentist that the probability of landing on either heads or tails of a fair two-sided coin are 1/2 the frequentist may reason as follows: since the probability of landing on either heads or tails is 1/2, that means if we toss a coin a certain number of times, I expect that half the time it will land on heads, and the other half on tails.
• Bayesians: bayesians interpret probability in a more subjective manner using probability as a measure of personal confidence. If I tell the bayesian the same information he/she may reason as follows: since the probability of landing on either heads or tails is 1/2, and I had to place a bet on what the outcome of one specific coin toss might be, I have no reason to have more confidence in the coin landing on one side over the other. Therefore placing my bet on heads is just as good as tails.
• Let A be an event or outcome (doesn’t matter what it is), P(A) is the probability of said event occurring.
• Mean (describes a PDF or distribution): let us loosely define this to be “the most probable event or outcome.” It could also be simply an arithmetic average, but the first definition is better for my purposes. In reality, the mean is the expected value of the random variable where expected value has a precise mathematical meaning analogous to the concept of the center of mass in classical mechanics.
• Standard deviation (describes a PDF or distribution): let us loosely define standard deviation as the variability from the mean. Often the standard deviation is an indication of how confident we should be in the mean. The proper definition is the square root of variance. Variance is the second central moment of a real-valued random variable.
• A normal distribution (Gaussian distribution, or bell curve): a normal distribution is the one you are all most likely familiar with – a regular bell curve.
• The prior distribution: our distribution of confidence before we add any data (may be a uniform distribution, indicating all things are equiprobable).
• The posterior distribution: the distribution of confidence after accounting for all the data.

Using Stochastic Theory

Stochastic theory allows us to quantify our uncertainty in various processes. This relies heavily on the bayesian concept defined above (for now let’s forget about the frequentists). Bayesians use probability to describe their confidence in a certain event or outcome. Let’s walk through an example:

Let’s suppose I have a class of 30 students. I am going to give them the same exam I gave a similar group of students 5 years ago. From my previous class the results yielded a very nice bell curve (normal distribution) with a mean of 75% and a standard deviation of 2. If I am to predict how well a single student will perform (ignoring all other extraneous information), I might say, with a fair amount of confidence, that the student will score a 75%. The small standard deviation gives me this confidence.

Conversely, let’s consider the same scenario, only this time the previous resultsyielded a bell curve with a mean of 75% and a standard deviation of 10. This time, I might be much less confident in predicting a student scores a 75%, but I still would predict a score of 75%.

We can see that a combination of the mean, and standard deviation, in this example, gives us a mechanism for predicting a student’s score as well as evidence for assessing our confidence in that prediction.

Faith as Confidence

The tools of stochastic theory give us a method of modeling and understanding our confidence in various outcomes or events. I propose a new mechanism for understanding and discussing faith, knowledge, and belief – namely the bayesian notion of confidence. I think this has several major advantages:

• It levels the playing field and creates understanding. We no longer have to argue over the semantics of faith, knowledge, or belief. We can shift the argument to what really matters – the evidence.
• It admits all forms of “evidence” including personal spiritual manifestations and allows each individual to weight the evidence as he/she sees fit. That “evidence” can then easily be incorporated into the confidence distribution.
• It removes the tendency to label. That is to say, it would be acknowledged that those who doubt truth claims have different weights attached to certain pieces of evidence. We might argue over the proper weighting one ought to give to a certain piece of evidence, but one’s weighting does not make him or her more or less faithful, just different.
• It is intuitively satisfying and generally describes human behavior. I don’t think I’m really elaborating on anything that most of you don’t already know or have thought about. I’m just spelling it out more clearly and hopefully giving you some technical tools for visualizing it.
• The only definition of irrational is not acting in accordance with one’s confidence. Even those who act according to a “whisper from the Holy Ghost” against their better judgment are seen as rational since they clearly weight the “whisper from the Holy Ghost” more than their judgment.

In part two of this post I will walk through an example of how I think this theory enlightens the faith discussion, levels the playing field, and accurately describes what we really mean when talking about faith, knowledge, and belief.

When Jesus was suffering on the cross at Calvary, those who put Him there surrounded Him to mock Him. They jeered, “If [thou art] the King of Israel . . . come down from the cross, and we will believe . . . .” (Matt 27:42)

I have emerged from the other end of a marriage that stripped me of my ability to trust myself. It is taking hard work to believe the things that I have survived. I have been accused of things I did not do in a court that seemed sympathetic to the other side. I have learned how to live with a measure of real and daily fear. I have witnessed almost every purpose of my life crumble in my hands. I have not, by any means, lived through the worst that life has to offer, but I have lived through my lot only to be confronted by those who cannot understand and so do not believe me.

My faith has also been left exposed to the elements, raw and aching. I have difficulty knowing what to believe or what to do. I have been confronted time after time with the choice to take the emotionally easy road, to accept what life is telling me, or to take a tiny, twisting and seemingly treacherous path without knowing for certain where I am going or if I can get there. So I think I understand a little better than I did those people who ask for proof.

I have noticed that sometimes those in scripture who ask for proof are given exactly what they ask for, such as Barak with Deborah, the people of Zarahemla, and the those of Ammonihah, while others are left to work out their uncertainty. Often, those who are given the sign they are seeking find that it doesn’t really change their opinions, in the end.

Perhaps the story of this type that I resonate best with is the tale of the man with the palsied son. When told that his son could be healed if he believed, he cried to Jesus, saying, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief!”

Time upon time as I have found myself weeping bitterness into my abused pillow, I have cried these exact words in my heart, yearning to feel the fruits of my faith. I ache when I see so many people here on the Internet crying out because they have found themselves at a point in their lives when they just stop believing in the gospel as presented by the LDS Church. I ache because I have looked into that abyss myself, and felt its depths.

The classic analogy to illustrate how that feels is the scene from Indiana Jones when his father lays dying behind him and he is faced with a choice of faith: to walk into a seemingly bottomless chasm, or to turn around and let his father die. He makes that choice, and luckily it works for him. One thing that is poignant about that story is that he almost fully expected to die when he took that step, but he took it anyways because the alternative was worse.

To me, this is raw, living faith. Right now, I am standing at the other end of a failed marriage, and almost every one of the things I have dedicated my life to lie crumbled at my feet. But I don’t keep going to Church and praying with my Father in Heaven because I know that things will work out for me or because I feel as though who I am now has anything to do with the Church and my ward. I pray to my Father and continue going to Church because the alternative—to give up on my dreams and turn my back on what I know (and I do mean know)—is far, far worse.

I don’t know what my future will hold. I don’t know what my Father has in mind for me. But I know Him, and I choose, with eyes open and fear in my heart, to trust Him. I will not wait to believe.

For the bulk of my not-so-long life I have been in a perpetual cycle of shame with varying frequency and intensity. My worldview was shaped by my Mormon upbringing and I worked diligently to fit the mold completely. I was a good kid. No, I was a GREAT kid! Seriously, I did well in school, got my Eagle Scout, served a successful mission, never committed any egregious sins, read my scriptures nightly all through my teenage years, never touched any coffee, tea, tobacco, or alcohol, and pretty much put a checkmark in every box in the proverbial Mormon checklist!

Nevertheless, this was part of the cycle. As long as I was perfect I never had any problems. I merrily went on my way convinced my worldview was a correct interpretation of my existence, assured that my lifestyle choice would reap rewards. I will not deny that this leaked over into a self-righteous attitude which, on more than one occassion, led to my snarkiness toward those whom I perceived were not living these standards. In fact, though I’ve not been told this, I hold this attitude responsible for destroying more than one relationship in my life.

But alas, I am not perfect. I make mistakes, and when I do, I beat myself up badly over them. Keep in mind I’m not talking about major things here like murder, or chastity sins, or something, I’m talking about little things – things that really should be in the noise. It’s these times when the shame monster rears its ugly head and takes a bite out of my otherwise healthy self-esteem. This isn’t just some sort of twinge of guilt I feel, but shame, pure, and awful! And it doesn’t go away until I beat myself up emotionally to a sufficient level. Obviously the shame is further aggravated by the sure knowledge that once again I have failed to live up the expectations my worldview dictates.

It’s during these times the control freak in me is like a belligerent 5-year old, wanting to get his way, using all sorts of behavioral tricks, tantrums, pouting, all to try and restore order, control, and most importantly that self-confidence that has been shredded! During these times the result might be anger, or a bout with depression. Perhaps the object of frustration becomes those I love. In any case, until the control freak is able to restore self-esteem, things will be a bit rough.

Needless to say, such a paradigm is not healthy for me in the least!

And yet, at least one solution is as easy as allowing the control freak to dictate the terms on which I accept my involvement in my tribe. Through my faith crisis I learned this lesson very poignantly. I was in charge of my spirituality – not the church, not my bishop, not my teachers. And just as I could not blame them for my unhealthy worldview, I could also not allow them unchecked access to it either. It is me that decides what I should do and why I should do it. I get to decide the terms on which I participate in my culture. It’s true that I cannot choose the consequences, but my power of choice also allows me the possibility to insulate myself from them in my tribal context.

This empowerment was very enlightening to me during a dark period of my life in which I nearly left the church. I was able to resolve and separate concerns with leaders, history, the organization itself, etc. I could stay a member of my tribe but it would be on my terms, and it would be for my own benefit.

But it is hard to supplant a worldview. Unfortunately I find myself occassionally slipping into the old cycle. Sometimes in an ungaurded moment, the control freak forgets the conditions of my participation and leaves me vulnerable, allowing unchecked access to my healthier, but still budding worldview. The shame soon sets in as I again realize I do not measure up to the completely impossible standard my former worldview erected.

It is a perpetual struggle, one that is naturally built into my personality, but is aggravated, and made to be unhealthy, by a strict culture with high standards. Pulling myself out of the cycle is an exercise in meditation, prayer, challenging false beliefs, understanding, and above all, modifying my expectations!

When someone has been disappointed and broken, it affects all of his or her relationships. A broken heart could just be the cause of that cutting remark someone made to you, or even the rude gesture someone made out of a car window.  There’s a passage in the Old Testament that really comforts me when I am feeling the weight of loneliness and sorrow that sometimes comes over me.  It also comes to mind when I’m wondering how I can possibly make a difference in someone’s life who is hurting so badly.  Here’s my poetic interpretation of Isaiah 61:1-3:

He hath sent me to bind up the broken,
To cry to the captives: Behold, ye are free!
‘Tis the year of Jehovah’s good graces
Then eyes that are fettered, at last they shall see.
Day of our God’s just avenging:
All mourners in Zion shall comforted be.

I shall give to them beauty for ashes,
The oil of rejoicing in place of pain,
The garment of praise for sad spirit;
That strong trees of righteousness they might remain.
Oaks of Jehovah’s own planting,
That ever may be for His glory and gain!
(BiV’s Isaiah 61:1-3)

In the Garden of Eden narrative, we are taught that there is an opposite to everything.  Joy and sorrow are opposites, so are pleasure and pain. When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their eyes were opened and they were able to experience all of these things.  In the Isaiah passage above, it speaks of eyes being opened through the experiencing of some of these opposites: beauty/ashes, rejoicing/pain, praise/sadness.  These figures show us the value of living in a world where suffering exists.  A broken heart opens us to insights that we wouldn’t be able to see without it.

The Messiah figure in this passage also opens us up to embrace dependence.  I think humans have a tendency to adulate self-reliance.  With this comes pride and even solitude.  As we become more open to dependence — on Divine guidance, on a Savior and on each other, we learn love and community.  These are things which can heal the brokenness that is a part of living in a fallen world.  Isaiah 61 is a Messianic prophecy which teaches of a Savior who is sent forth by God’s spirit to replace pain with rejoicing, to give beauty for ashes.  But it also teaches us that we can go forth in the same spirit to bind up the broken.

I heard a story about a young man who proclaimed to have the most beautiful, flawless heart. As the crowd watched, he bared his chest to show a shining, golden, perfectly shaped heart.  Then an old man challenged him.  He came forward to show the crowd what his heart looked like.  It was beating strongly, but was misshapen and full of holes and scars.  It appeared that some pieces had been removed and others had been put in, but didn’t fit quite right. The old man looked at the young man, “I would never trade my heart for yours. Every scar represents a person I’ve given my love — I tear out a piece and give it to them. Sometimes they give me a piece of their broken heart, which I fit along jagged edges. When the person doesn’t return my love, a painful gouge is left. Those gouges stay open, reminding me that I love these people too. Perhaps someday they will return and fill that space.”

Over the years, my heart has come to resemble that old man’s.  What a Messiah means to me is recognizing this connectedness and interdependence.  It is knowing I am not as complete with a golden flawless heart that has never felt the great wrenchings.  It is opening myself to love and sorrow and rejection and recognizing that I can’t do it all on my own.  And then it is doing my best to give others a piece of my heart to help heal theirs.

It is Sunday, and Mike and his new bride, Valerie, are up visiting Mike’s family for the weekend. Mike is a physics major and has just finished finals. He is looking forward to some much needed freedom, as well as catching up on neglected chores. Although Mike’s parents typically plant a garden each year, this time Valerie is particularly interested in harvesting her own set of vegetables. The ground was prepared last weekend, but rain has prevented them from planting, and even more rain is in the forecast for the coming week. Now is the time to plant! Unfortunately, contrary to the weather forecast, it also rained yesterday. That means today, Sunday, is likely the only day Mike and Valerie will be able to get their vegetables planted.

But Mike is concerned. He wants to keep the Sabbath Day holy. He approaches his mother and asks “Mom, is it okay to plant the vegetables today, even though it’s Sunday”? “I think it’s okay, but you should do what you feel is right.” she responds. “Do you think the vegetables will grow okay? Do you think they’ll be safe for us to eat”? Mike asks innocently. “Why wouldn’t they be”? mom questions. “Well, because, you know, we’re planting them on Sunday”?

Mike’s mom smiles a little at this, but recognizing the innocent nature of the question responds “You know Mike, in today’s global economy there’s a good chance some of the vegetables you buy at the store were planted, nourished, or even harvested on Sunday. And yet they grew large and ripe, and you don’t get sick when you eat them.” Still a bit apprehensive, but feeling more confident, Mike and Valerie proceed to plant the garden on Sunday after church.

Mormonism has its roots in the magical worldview. While this worldview has been molded and shaped, and is admittedly less prominent than in times past, it still carries on in subtle ways. I admit that I shared this worldview, in similarly subtle ways, before my faith crisis. Perhaps some of this is nothing more than innocence of youth, or one’s choice of friends, or one’s longing to be a dedicated Saint, etc. But I think the language we use in church settings encourages this worldview, and sets our youth (and adults in many cases) up for disappointment, and disaffection.

Recently, in priesthood opening exercises, a councilor from the Stake Presidency was giving us a special message. The Stake Presidency had been in our ward that day, and we had already heard from the Stake President. The topic was missionary work, and the presidency was emphasizing the goals of our stake to share the Gospel with more people. Specifically, this particular goal was for each member to invite at least one person to hear the missionary discussions each month. The Stake President, in sacrament meeting, had recapitulated this goal, and testified he had, since stake conference (when the goals were set), met this goal. The councilor, in priesthood opening exercises, also had met this goal, but admitted all his invitations had been turned down. The councilor then said (paraphrasing) “I testify that as we live righteously, and strive to complete the goals our Stake President has set for us, the Lord will place people in our path who are ready to hear the Gospel.”

I think this type of promise is a fairly common one. We promise, and testify of many great things that will happen if we are obedient to God’s commandments. Paying tithing, keeping the Word of Wisdom, reading scriptures daily, all have associated promises from the Lord. Because the promised blessings are vague, however, if one obeys a commandment, they have license to claim anything they want as a direct blessing from God. It is certainly a valid claim that one has financial success because he/she paid tithing. This may or may not be supported by reality but the claim, at least according to scripture, is a valid one.

From D&C 130:

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated-
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

In logic, these scripture verses can be taken as sufficient and necessary conditions. That is, obtaining a blessing from God implies we obeyed the corresponding law.  And similarly, if we obey the law, we receive the blessing.  This works in the negative as well.  If we do not obey the law, we won’t get the blessing, and, worst of all, if we don’t get the blessing we didn’t obey the law.

These two verses, along with misinterpretations of “blessings” and “laws” upon which blessings are predicated, coupled with the vernacular of grand promises in our meetings, gives rise to the magical worldview.

Having said that, I actually think the solution to squelching the magical worldview (if it indeed ought to be squelched) is also found in those same verses. It is up to us to appropriately understand which laws are associated with any particular blessing. Financial success (blessing) is not predicated on tithing. Rather, it is based on making sound financial decisions, wise investment, saving, and thrift (law). Growing large, ripe, non-poisonous vegetables (blessing) is based on watering, healthy soil, proper sunlight, and other proper growing conditions (law). Additionally, spiritual growth, particularly in the Mormon context, may be predicated upon adherence to tithing, keeping the Sabbath Day holy, fasting, etc.

I think as we more closely scrutinize the blessings and associated laws, our tendency to make grand promises for physical life, predicated upon adherence to spiritual laws, will decrease, thereby diminishing the magical worldview.

What say you?  Is the magical worldview a setup for disappointment and/or disaffection?  What do you think causes it and what can be done to diminish its significance in the lives of people?

Because of her family’s hospitality toward searching and studying, Sister Kimball says, “I’ve always had an inquiring mind. I’m not satisfied just to accept things. I like to follow through and study things out. I learned early to put aside those gospel questions that I couldn’t answer. I had a shelf of things I didn’t understand, but as I’ve grown older and studied and prayed and thought about each problem, one by one I’ve been able to better understand them.”

• polygamy
• priesthood ban
• historical issues / MMM / Joseph Smith / BOM historicity / BOA / restoration detail discrepancies

• experiences they’ve had as a detective since that case have given them new perspective
• new evidence has emerged.  For example, DNA evidence and fingerprint evidence (and other forensic sciences) have changed substantially over the last decade, casting new light on old crimes.
• similarities to subsequent crimes can change the overall understanding of the case
• evidence relating to witnesses or suspects or even victims can emerge or change over time

So, this analogy works better for me, but also puts these issues in the realm of “hobby” in my mind.  These are issues that are a curiosity, something fun to explore, and while they are personally important to the individual, they may or may not be “solvable” or “conclusive” cases.  We just have to make a decision based on the evidence we have, or move on and revisit them later.  Once you’ve made a decision on a case, right or wrong, you tend to move on past it and work on another issue.

Does the “cold case” analogy work for you?  What are your cold cases?  Are there cold cases you’ve ultimately solved to your satisfaction or do you hang onto them and mull them over again every so often?  Discuss.

• 
• The unrepentant sinners & the unconverted.  The rebellious.  There are stories of missionaries who went out because they were essentially bribed with a promised car or job because parents hoped that a mission would “clean them up” or get them back on track from their wayward existence.  Anyone who served a mission before the change (like I did) probably knew a few of these guys.  If this group used to make up about 3% of the mission population, it has now been eliminated.  These guys were probably pretty independent and resilient; cars and jobs are powerful motivators.  Of course, the ones I knew were mostly self-serving jerks and not very good missionaries unless their acts did in fact get cleaned up on the course of their missions.
• The repentant sinners.  In E. Ballard’s original address on Raising the Bar, he said, “The day of the ‘repent and go’ missionary is over.”  Eliminating these from the pool probably has some preventive value (shame avoidance is a powerful motivator).  My guess is that this used to be a pretty high percentage of missionaries – maybe as high as 25%.  Or else I was just in a unique mission.

 Although we’ve all heard great stories of hardened sinners who found their souls while serving a mission, I think we can all agree that might not be the best method of conversion.  But losing the repentant sinners feels like a loss on a few fronts:  1) everyone is a sinner, and demarking between degrees of sin doesn’t feel quite right to me, 2) I disagree with the implication that they are more likely to slip into those same sins again on their mission (at least that’s not what I saw), 3) who better than the repentant sinner to relate to potential converts, and 4) they are far more likely to have the life experience needed to live independently without going off the deep end.

 In practice, if not based on the actual instructions to “raise the bar,” who was left in?

• The worthy.  Candidates who had no serious (confession-worthy) sins in their past to repent.  This group is the long-standing majority of missionaries both before and after the change.  I’m going to estimate this constituted 60% before the change, which would put it at 83% after the change.  If the goal was a higher percentage “worthy” missionaries, mission accomplished.
• The sheltered.  Children of helicopter parents.  These are the missionaries who have never lived away from home, don’t know how to cook, clean or care for themselves if they get sick, and haven’t had much experience dealing with people (e.g. a companion) outside their own family.  I’d ballpark this at 3% of the mission force before the change, but with the change, that boosts it to more like 4.2%.  These guys seem slightly higher risk for not making it through a mission.
• The mentally unstable.  It’s not a sin to have a mental illness, and depending on the mental illness and its treatment or lack thereof, it can prevent one from making missteps that would lead to a repentance issue.  However, this same issue could create problems for the missionary, out on his or her own, trying to cope with the stresses of a mission while also coping a mental issue.  Before the change, I would have ballparked this at 1% of missionaries, but with the change, this moves to 1.4%.  This group should be shrinking, but according to a SLTrib article, it may go unreported due to the stigma of not serving.
• Those with health issues.  Again, not a worthiness issue at all, but this can impact someone’s ability to complete their mission, especially if they are in an area with unfamiliar climates, foods, exposure to other ailments, and different doctor care.  I would have ballparked this one for my pre-bar-raised mission at about 3%, and based on these estimates, probably 4.2% now.
• The socially isolated.  Those that couldn’t get a date, much less commit sexual sin.  Poor social skills.  Possibly poor hygiene.  Could include extreme introverts.  OK, there’s a reason missionaries are occasionally mocked for their dorkiness.  I would have pegged this at about 5% of missionaries before the change.  With the change (if my original estimates are anywhere near right), that moves this to 6.9%.

In a talk by L. Tom Perry in the 2007 November Ensign, he said:  “Full-time missionary service is a privilege for those who are called through inspiration by the President of the Church. Bishops and stake presidents have the serious responsibility to identify worthy, qualified members who are spiritually, physically, and emotionally prepared for this sacred service and who can be recommended without reservation. Those individuals not able to meet the physical, mental, and emotional demands of full-time missionary work are honorably excused and should not be recommended. They may be called to serve in other rewarding capacities.“

• Stigma of not serving.  It seems that this idea of honorably excusing those who are not fully prepared is not well understood.  Someone who is unprepared emotionally, physically or spiritually is considered damaged goods by the lay membership.  Average members often still consider those who don’t serve a mission as unworthy, regardless the reason, not as “honorably excused.”
• Reluctance of local leaders to offend.  In some of these cases, a local leader determining that a young man or woman is not ready to serve a mission is an indictment of members’ parenting skills or social skills of the candidate.  This can result in hurt feelings and drive people away who are asking to serve.
• Lack of self-awareness.  Self-reported social, physical and emotional readiness may be unreliable, especially for young people with little exposure outside their family circle.
• No external assessment.  We determine worthiness based on the interview questions, mostly related to confessable sins.  But we don’t consistently apply as much scrutiny to issues that are in fact less reliant on self-reporting errors:  physical health and mental wellness. Both of these could be assessed in a clear manner through professional instruments and interviews with health care professionals.

What could we do differently?  Here are some suggestions (some of which are doubtless being done to varying extents):

1. Quit babying the youth.  YW and YM leaders should treat the youth who lead the quorums and YW groups to lead those groups, giving them clear opportunities to organize, lead, and instruct others.  Parents should push their kids to take on more reponsibility, not less.
2. Mainstream viable mission alternatives that are viewed as equal, non-token assignment with no associated stigma.  These can’t be populated with just those who are physically or mentally unable to serve a proselyting mission, or the stigma remains.
3. Require some minimum time living independently prior to serving (not just in dorms which often act as substitute parents).  This one might be a problem for those who don’t have the financial means to make it a reality, but there is something to be said for having to cook your own Ramen noodles and wash your own clothes regularly while living with people who aren’t related to you.  Perhaps serving “temporary” field missions would be a good approach; this was done with young members who were not yet old enough to serve missions when I was on my mission.
4. Provide better instruction on mission preparation that includes social skills (a bit tough to assess), emotional resilience, independence, and so forth.  Use external assessments to assist local leadership in good decision making.
5. Ensure better balance in considering all requirements:  social skills, emotional resilience, physical health, and worthiness / repentance.  Allow the repentant to serve, provided they are clearly ready in all areas, including the spiritual.  Technically, the guidelines do allow for this, but the wording of the original talk and instruction was so direct that there seems to be a reluctance to allow for it among local leaders.

Others have blogged on this topic here (friendly) and here (hater).

Have we lost something by preventing the repentant from going?  Or should we cut further to eliminate those who are socially unprepared or coping with mental or other health issues?  What are your experiences?  Do you disagree with my guesses at percentages above?  Do you have any great stories (who doesn’t) about the unconverted, the socially awkward, or the rest?

Discuss.

Butt-prints In The Sand

One night I had a wondrous dream.
One set of footprints there was seen.
The footprints of my precious Lord,
But mine were not along the shore.

And then the strangest print appeared.
I asked the Lord,” What have we here?”
This print is large and round and neat.
“But Lord, it’s much too big for feet.”

“My child,” He said in somber tones,
“For miles I carried you alone.
I challenged you to walk in faith,
But you refused and gained no strength.”

“You laid quite still. You would not grow,
This walk is not for me, you know.
So I got tired. I got fed up.
And there I dropped you on your butt.”

“Because in life, there comes a time,
When one must walk, and one must climb,
and one must rise and take a stand;
Or leave his butt-prints in the sand.”

Generally, in LDS culture, when you determine that someone doesn’t have a TR, it’s human nature to automatically assume you know why based on reasons you think are most common; it’s also a little awkward to ask, which is why most people skate by on assumptions.  (Just because you assume a reason does not necessarily mean that you attach a judgment to that reason).  Do you assume they are behind on paying their tithing or that they have committed some serious sin?  Or do you assume they are being too self-critical in how they answer the questions?  Do you consider some reasons more “acceptable” than others?

[poll id="145"]

In your opinion, are some of these bigger issues than others (actually more important to temple admittance), in your opinion?  Here’s my ranking (I put these into groups that denote their importance).

 Definitely out:

• Adultery or fornication.  Kind of obvious.  I can’t imagine too many people disagreeing with me on this one.
• Not paying a full tithe.  If I quit paying my Lifetime Fitness membership, they won’t let me in either.
• Abusive family relationships.  Of course, the trick is whether someone admits it.  It assumes that an abusive person has the sociopathy to abuse people, but also is enough of a good guy to admit it.
• Polygamous affiliations.  Unless you are a recurring character on Big Love.
• Embezzlement / fraud.  Again, provided you are confessing such a thing. If you’re willing to commit fraud, what’s a little lying?  But I suppose if you’re imprisoned for fraud, you’re not getting an R&R pass to go to the temple anyway.

Subjective areas:

• Recently resolved issues related to those on the definitely out list, once restitution is made
• Struggling with porn or masturbation
• Emotional affairs
• Struggling with WoW, but intending to follow
• Failure to pay child support, but intending to pay it
• Affiliations with groups whose ideologies conflict (other than polygamous sects)
• Doubting, struggling with belief
• Intermittent garment wearing
• Church activity intermittent but recently improved

Not a TR issue:

• sexual thoughts, no actions
• struggling with anger in family settings, no abuse
• disliking but obeying the standards
• things not on the list like drinking Coke, playing face cards, being a Democrat, gambling, or opposing Prop 8
• church activity intermittent due to work commitments or health reasons

My own lists indicate that I view it as subjective based on your intentions and how long your intentions have been temple-ready.  So, how do your lists differ from mine?  Do you somehow avoid making these types of assumptions?  Discuss.

This recording forms part of the many testimonies that are available from Wilford Woodruff concerning “the Last Charge,” a council meeting in Nauvoo where the Twelve were given authority to “bear off the kingdom,” and interpreted by President Woodruff to be the foundation of the succession policy of the Church.  Holzapfel’s announcement was that on one of the three wax cylinders upon which the recording was made, the rest of the First Presidency consisting of George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith added their witnesses that they had heard Wilford Woodruff bear his testimony.  We thus have the early voice of another president of the Church, the only recording of Cannon, and the addition of “two or three witnesses” to respond to the succession question.

I guess you’d really have to be a Mormon history afficionado to consider this information a “bombshell.”  There were a select few in the audience who were moved by the revelation, but the majority took the news calmly.  Holzapfel, in contrast, could hardly restrain himself as he built up his presentation and delivered his revelation in the final moments.  He mentioned that he had difficulty waiting the few weeks before the symposium to tell anyone this exciting news.

Interestingly, a point was mentioned in passing which grabbed my attention far more than the recording.  Apparently Holzapfel and some other historians have recently collaborated on an article discussing for the first time the fact that Sidney Rigdon was not present in the morning meetings at the Nauvoo Temple on March 26, 1844, when the Last Charge was given.  This is stunningly important to Mormon history, because it implies that Rigdon was not given the same keys that the rest of the Twelve received at that time.  Not only did he lack the right to succession, but he may not have understood the pattern Joseph presented that day in the same way as the members of the Twelve who were present.

I’m enjoying the Symposium so far, and I’ll be back to summarize some more of the proceedings soon.

A middle-aged single brother moves into your ward.  He has been divorced for nearly 10 years.  He was married in the temple.  He has been inactive for many years and is just starting to come back to church.  He would like to go back to the temple.  During your Temple Recommend interview, he confesses to having had sex with a woman about a year after he was divorced.  This relationship went on for several months, and then he broke it off.  He has not had any other Law of Chastity issues since then, for over eight years.

[poll ID ="97"]

Would your answer change if he had not been endowed?  Would your answer differ if the infraction had gone on longer or been more recent (e.g. 4 years ago or 2 years ago)?  Would your answer differ if this was a woman’s confession rather than a man’s?  Discuss.

Ash argues that we commit spiritual murder when we destroy the testimony of another person.  He argues that our sins can do this and thus he believes Alma’s counsel to his son is to help him see the damage that he has caused, ‘for when [the Zoramites] saw your conduct they would not believe in my [Alma’s] words’ (see Al 39:11).

Ash argues that there two things people need to wary of, if they are to avoid committing this sin.  First, our actions, like Corianton, can destroy the testimony of another.  Second, is sharing information with people that might damage their faith, like ‘the stickier parts of early LDS Church history or scriptural difficulties’ [1].  Now Ash also notes that the intent’s of our hearts are what is important when it comes to deciding who is guilty.  So Richard Bushman is not guilty of spiritual murder, but presumably Fawn Brodie might be and the Tanners are certainly in trouble.

Yet, although I accept his interpretation of this passage of scripture I am not sure I can fully accept how he then goes on to define spiritual murder.  For example, when are our motives ever directed by one factor?  We are often influenced by a multiplicity of ideas whenever we do something.  So I am not convinced that we ever wholly desire to do right or wrong.

Further, if the information shared is the same and true regardless of with what intention it is shared, why does this issue of sincerity become a factor at all.  Maffly-Kipp, in another Sunstone article, has argued that issues around sincerity are part of a Protestant theological tradition that seeks to categorise people into the righteous and the unrighteous.  This assumes that only the good or sincere can do Gods work, but the scriptures have examples of people who may not have been ‘righteous’ or ‘sincere’ but who nevertheless were used by God.

Is it possible that Fawn Brodie was directed by God to do what she did?

This question of spiritual murder also raises important questions about how this issue is dealt with within the Church, in relation to Church discipline.  I recall Paul Toscano, when speaking to John Dehlin, asking at his Disciplinary Council that someone ‘show [him] the body count?’  He argues that he was excommunicated on the possibility that what he had written might damage people’s faith.  Now although I would argue that it is difficult to prove that one person has destroyed the faith of another; it seems that the Church would never excommunicate someone because they could have killed someone in doing something dangerous.  Then why are comfortable in excommunicating someone that might damage someone’s faith.

It seems to me we need to careful about how we use this concept, if it is to become something that is used in the Church (again).

Questions:

How would you define spiritual murder?

Should it be necessary to prove spiritual murder before someone is excommunicated?

Notes:

1. Michael R. Ash, The Sin “Next to Murder” in Sunstone, 2006, p. 34, 40.

Let’s first tackle the implications of the different things we might follow:

• The Prophet. Even toddlers are taught the song “Follow the Prophet,” not a personal favorite either musically (it’s the ”100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall” of the Primary songbook) or lyrically (the line “if you don’t believe me / go and watch the news” sounds like something Archie Bunker or Sean Hannity should be saying acerbically, not tiny tots singing sweetly).  Frankly, listening to an angelic chorus of youngsters sing this song makes Mormons sound creepy and cult-like.  I’d totally sign a petition to kill this song.  However, there’s no doubt that Mormons are taught to follow the Prophet, the living head of the church who is responsible to define the gospel for Mormons globally during his tenure (which only ends when God “releases” him / he dies).
• The Brethren.  This is similar to the Prophet, but generally includes all modern-day apostles, both living & dead, but all white (with an emphasis on the living ones).  Some would expand that beyond the apostles to include other high level leaders such as the 70, and possibly even the unseen correlation committee.
• Christ. Obviously, the purpose of the church is to come unto Christ.  Of course, this implies that WWJD covers all the scenarios you encounter, and that you feel confident in your interpretation of WWJD.  Of course many who wear a WWJD tee shirt are doing all kinds of things I don’t personally think J would D.  So, there is some interpretation here.  Are you really following Christ, your interpretation of him, your best version of yourself, or what others have told you?
• The Gospel.  Because there are many ways to interpret some aspects of the gospel for specific situations, this would usually mean the gospel “as you understand / interpret it.”  You might base your interpretation on some favorite scriptures, teachings of leaders, personal experiences, etc.  But your basis and understanding may differ from others’ in some particulars.  For cafeteria Mormons (and there really are no other kinds), it’s whatever is on your tray.
• The Spirit.  In Mormonism, this can mean different things to different people, but it generally means that when you need to know what to do, you seek personal spiritual guidance through whatever means have worked for you in the past:  prayer, thinking about it, dreams, reading scriptures or other inspirational materials, etc.  The more superstitious folks might use means like “Bible dips” (opening the scriptures to a passage and then using that to determine their course of action).
• The dictates of your own conscience.  This can mean using your own personal life experiences, wisdom, opinions, and preferences to determine your course of action.

A few times in leadership trainings, I have done what is called a Rokeach Value Survey.  In this exercise, you are presented with various values or life goals, most of which are probably desirable to you, and you have to rank order them.  This is done by comparing two of them and asking “If I could have A but not B, would I prefer that or to have B but not A.”  Basically, through this “false dichotomy” exercise, you determine which is your most dearly held value.  (Values considered are things like:  freedom, human love, a comfortable life, health, etc.)  Consider these types of dichotomies for yourself personally as you answer the poll.

• What if something a current Prophet says differs from something the Brethren have said?  Do you assume the prophet has more authority and is more timely than the other statement?  Does how you feel about what is being said (the dictates of your own conscience) change your feeling?
• What if a spiritual prompting differs from the dictates of your own conscience?  Would you take a leap and follow the spiritual prompting or would you assume it was indigestion?
• What if something the Brethren say differs from your interpretation of the Gospel?  Do you (generally) assume they know better and get on board?  Or do you assume they are mistaken and that your view is correct?

I’d like each of you to consider the following possibilities using this same methodology to choose the most important one to you personally.

[poll=94]

Were you surprised by your results?  Do you object to false dichotomies on principle?  If so, get over it!  Discuss.