Photos of My Mother

“When I got married, I just thought it would be another challenge. Little did I know what I was beginning. Of course, having married a wonderful, inspired, intelligent man who was not competitive, I didn’t have any adjustment to marriage. It was babies that were my Waterloo. I was never baby hungry and I was never domestic. I don’t like to decorate houses or clean them or do anything but live in them comfortably. I was used to doing things very well or not doing them at all. And I was used to getting a great deal of frequent, positive attention for the things I did.”

“So when I had my first baby, I was stunned. It was so much harder than anything I had ever done and yet I was never good enough and no one cared how hard I was working. It wasn’t pregnancy or delivery. It was the day to day living, realizing that whatever I did would have profound implications for many generations.”

“[Looking back] Every good thing I am, I learned from trying to build a mini-kingdom on earth.”

“I am so thankful I had babies, even when the whole world said not to, even when it was hard and I wasn’t really suited to do it.”

“I am so thankful God had mercy on me and led me to righteousness through his prophets, and that I had enough faith to follow. I am so thankful that He asked me do a job that I couldn’t do well so that I could learn humility, so that I could learn to lean on His arm instead of my own wisdom.”

“The idea that a career will give a woman the fulfillment that every person is looking for is just a flat out lie. The world of business just uses women and then when they get old, it spits them out without a backward glance. The same actually goes for men most of the time. A career just will never care about a woman when she’s old, ugly, fat, or tired. A family is just the opposite—you’re always working on something good and eternal, even when you’re just holding babies or going to the park. And when you’re old and tired, you’re revered for the work you did instead of rejected.”

“Pres. Faust once said that women can actually have it all—just not all at once. My life has proven him correct. There are times and seasons in a woman’s life, and if she’ll just keep the commandments, she can have seasons of many kinds of personal growth—seasons of having and raising babies, seasons of schooling, seasons of careers, seasons of being a care giver and a care receiver. If things are done according to the commandments and according to personal revelation, life is rewarding without sacrificing all the truly important things and we as women can look back without regrets.”

Therefore with great lore and wortcunning the master physician prepared remedies of bitter herbs and strong tonics. And so great was the number of the sick that the master physician called servants and sent them forth to carry the prescribed elixirs unto the sick that they might be healed.

And the servants delivered the elixir unto a man, and he refused it saying, behold, the smell thereof is offensive and the taste bitter; I will not partake. And by and by the man died cursing the physician, and all his household also.

And the servants delivered the elixir unto another, and the man said, behold, the smell thereof is offensive and the taste bitter; therefore will I dilute the elixir with all manner of pleasant liquors and honey until it is not offensive to the smell nor bitter to the taste. And lo, having diluted the strength of the elixir, by and by the man died cursing the physician, and all his household also.

And behold the servants delivered the elixir unto a man, and the man said, behold, the smell thereof is exceedingly offensive and the taste exceedingly bitter; nevertheless he received it and partook with great thanks. And by and by the man was healed, and all his household also.

And he praised the physician with great praise.

And again the servants delivered the elixir unto a man, and the man received and partook of it also. And by and by the man was healed, and all his household. And it came to pass thereafter that his neighbor fell sick and all his house. And seeing his neighbor’s sickness the man said, behold the elixir which was delivered unto me by the servants of the physician is offensive to the smell and bitter to the taste, therefore I will not give thereof unto my neighbor lest he be offended by it and cut me off. And behold, by and by his neighbor died, and all his household also.

And it came to pass that the the man’s other neighbor fell sick and all his house. And the man said, lo, I will give unto my neighbor of the elixir which was prepared by the master physician, but behold, the smell thereof is offensive and the taste bitter, therefore will I dilute it first with pleasant liquors and honey, lest my neighbor be offended by it and cut me off. And he gave it unto his neighbor, and lo, having diluted the strength of the elixir, by and by his neighbor died cursing the physician, and all his household also.

And behold, the man had an other neighbor and he fell sick also and all his house. And the man gave unto his neighbor of the elixir which had been prepared by the physician. And lo, the neighbor refused it, saying, behold, the smell thereof is exceedingly offensive and the taste exceedingly bitter; I will not partake. And the neighbor was offended and cut off the man. And by and by his neighbor died cursing the physician, and all his household also.

And they lamented the dead with great sorrow.

I have argued previously that so-called “Marriage Privatization” is not a real solution to the issue of same-sex marriage.

But there is a compromise on the issue to which I think most conservatives would have few objections. It’s called “Sex-Neutral” or “Sex-Agnostic” Domestic Partnerships.

Sex-Agnostic legal partnerships would allow any two people (or even three or four people) to enter into a domestic partnership for shared access to things like health insurance and tax breaks, inheritance rights, visitation rights, power of attorney, etc. REGARDLESS of whether they have a sexual relationship or not.

It would allow not only same-sex couples to create a legally recognized relationship that grants them significant shared rights and obligations, but would allow those same rights and obligations to siblings who live together and share lives, or to a parent and adult child who live together, or to three bachelor friends who have decided to share for a long time a substantial part of their lives and finances.

By leaving the definition of marriage out of it and taking the issue of whether the relationship is sexual in nature out of the equation, it makes the proposal almost entirely uncontroversial. I suspect it could be enacted in nearly every state quickly and with little opposition.

There would certainly still be strong disagreement about the issue of adoption. But the issue of who should be qualified to adopt children can be bracketed and addressed separately with variation in different states over time. In the mean time, a substantial improvement to the ability of not just same-sex couples, but many other people to rights and benefits would be accomplished in a reasonable way.

Does everybody get what they want? No. That is the nature of compromise. Are there dangers of slippery slopes? Sure.

But it diffuses much of the antagonism because it allows for broad access to benefits and legal recognition of relationships without making a statement in any way about the acceptability of certain kinds of sexual relationships and behavior. It allows people with strong disagreements to acknowledge each other’s legitimate concerns and be sympathetic and merciful without having to compromise fundamental beliefs while still leaving doors open for honest disagreement.

Why isn’t this something that is on the table?

They have used self-referential echo chambers to amplify propaganda and magnify the perception of support based on demonstrably faulty data and unfounded claims.

They’ve organized protests for women to break LDS cultural norms during worship services by wearing pants to church and run media campaigns and petitions to pressure the church to allow women to give prayers in the LDS Church’s General Conference.

And they have blatantly misrepresented facts in order to stir up outrage at church leaders.

But now they have taken things to a whole new level.

Back in 2010, when the LDS WAVE (Women Advocating for Voice and Equality) was launched by feminist bloggers they were very careful to say that they were not agitating for the priesthood to be extended to women.

In September of 2010, the spokeswoman for the group, Tresa Edmunds (who also goes by the pseudonym Reese Dixon) explained in an interview for the Salt Lake City Weekly:

“We’re trying very hard to be viewed as faithful members trying to contribute, rather than some evil feminists,” Edmunds says. The key to avoiding such confrontations will mean primarily avoiding contentious issues such as reclaiming female ownership of priesthood authority. This authority is given only to male members of the church, but was granted to women in the early years of the church’s history, between 1830 and the 1850s. While restoring that authority has been a battle cry for many Mormon feminists, it’s not on WAVE’s agenda.

“There’s no mention of priesthood on our website,” Edmunds says. “We think there’s a lot that can happen before that ever becomes an argument.” Edmunds says possible future campaigns range from asking the church to make budget funding equal for Young Women and Young Men groups to something as simple as putting changing tables in the men’s bathrooms in chapels.

Edmunds sees the organization less as a lobby group and more as a think tank. “As devout members, we sustain and affirm our leaders as prophets and revelators, and we long to give them the information they may not have since they are not women.”

In response to the article, Jonathan Stapley, who has done research on the topic, wrote a blog post debunking the false notion in the article that the priesthood had been given to women in the early days of the church and was then taken away.

In the comments of his blog post, Sister Edmunds further explained that WAVE was not lobbying for priesthood ordination for women:

Yeah, I know WAY better than to make such a ridiculous claim. My statement ended with the quotation mark, the rest was all the very nice reporter [...] You might also notice that the next quote from me mentions that we’re specifically NOT advocating for the priesthood, so it would be a bit weird for me to talk about some alleged return to a priesthood we’re not actually advocating for.

Oh and, I never would have used the word “lobbied” that appeared in the headline, and since the author said in his article that we’re NOT lobbyists, I’m thinking that was an editorial decision.

And she reiterated in additional comments:

I wouldn’t say that WAVE doesn’t intend to lobby ever, but I don’t think that as a characterization of our efforts is accurate. Especially right now. We’re not talking petitions or protests. We’re wanting to honestly communicate our feelings with our leaders. Even when we’ve talked about doing a letter writing campaign, there would be no form letter or position to take, it would be up to each person to write their own experiences, whatever those might be.

[...]

So a lot of our early efforts will encourage women to work locally. But all of it coming from a place of faithfulness.

I think the suggestion of lobbying assumes a method of doing business that doesn’t really fit inside a religious model, particularly this religious model.

Now fast forward two and half years to the present (the spring of 2013). Most of the things mentioned at the outset of this post have happened within the last few months to a year. This represents a clear shift away from that original idea that lobbying assumes a method that is particularly inapt or inappropriate for use in the LDS Church. It also is a clear shift away from encouraging women to work quietly with local leaders to a focus on media attention and public pressure on the church as a whole.

Until this week the actual changes for which they have been agitating were not very controversial. The backlash that they have received has been mostly in reaction to their activist methods, not so much the specific changes they are requesting.

But that changed this week. This week a new website launched specifically agitating for the church to extend priesthood ordination to women. And who is prominently featured on the the site? Tresa Edmunds. She is now openly lobbying the church for exactly what she said they would not. And she has been consulting with professional activists and decided that the time has come for “large scale demonstrations”. In case there is any question, she is still listed on the board of LDS WAVE.

One of the tactics used by political activists is called “Moving the Overton Window“.  They intentionally promote ideas even less acceptable than the fringe ideas they are currently working toward with the intention of making the current fringe ideas acceptable by comparison. It’s a form of reverse-psychology. The movement has both a radical arm and a less radical arm. The radical arm acts as a foil to make the less radical arm more palatable by juxtaposition, and over time they shift the norm until what was previously far outside acceptable norms can be achieved.

While it is impossible to know for sure, there is some evidence that this devious tactic is being knowingly embraced by at least some of the participants in the Feminist Mormon movement. Just weeks before the Ordain Women website appeared, the originator of the wear-pants-to-church protest wrote on her blog:

“People who are scared by the more radical stuff will often become more sympathetic to the moderate view-point in response. I can’t take absolute credit for this idea, one of those great Mo Fem friends pointed it out to me. Essentially, every movement needs a radical fringe to make the moderate viewpoint sympathetic.

Worried that the “crazy” feminists with their radical demonstrations will make you look bad? They might. But they also might make you look really good and reasonable. Plus, everything that was once radical eventually becomes the new normal. We need the radical “fringe” people to help normalize the “moderate” stuff we are doing now.”

Whether intentional or not, the Ordain Women arm of the Feminist Mormon Activist movement has the potential to play the functional role of the radical arm. It has the right amount of contrast and the right timing. It manipulates our normal desire to compromise by giving the impression that the less extreme demands are reasonable in contrast.

Many LDS church members find this kind of political activism directed at a church we believe to be guided by real prophets, seers, and revelators to be very troubling. And combined with the misinformation tactics cited at the beginning of this article and the clear contradiction between 2010 assurances and current actions, we have good cause for alarm.

Desert View Watchtower photo by Talie

Some of the responses to my recent post about rejecting living prophets by following future prophets have predictably raised the issue of prophetic fallibility.

Among those members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who have decided to publicly oppose the apostles and prophets of the church, prophetic fallibility is almost invariably invoked to justify their rejection of the policy or teaching they find objectionable. It’s their catch-all defense for disobedience.

Question: How can you, a believer, reject the words of the prophets of God on this matter?
Answer: Because of Prophetic Fallibility. Q.E.D.

It is absolutely true that the church does not believe that its prophets and apostles are infallible. There is no infallibility doctrine. The prophets are undeniably human beings and subject to normal human error. That fallibility provides a helpful framework for understanding some of the complex parts of the history of the church.

But often these appeals to prophetic fallibility represent simplistic and sloppy reasoning. It’s used as a shortcut argument; a presumed trump card, invoked without careful thought or consistent application. And while fallibility may be appropriately cited, it must be done with circumspection and great precision, not with reckless, albeit convenient abandon. Because prophetic fallibility has natural logical limits and is a matter of grave consequence.

The whole point of having a prophet in the first place is that a prophet is a metaphorical “watchman on the tower”. While his eyesight may be just as fallible as anyone else, the tower upon which he stands provides him with a view superior to those with equally good eyes but who are not situated upon the tower. His view is better not because his eyes are superior but because his location on the tower allows him to see farther and more; not because of something inherent or different in his person, but because of something inherent in the position in which he has been placed for the protection and benefit of all.

There is a limit to how fallible a prophet can be and still rightly be called a prophet. At some point claims of prophetic fallibility make a prophet SO fallible that it amounts to saying that that the watchman is not actually on the tower at all! Or otherwise that his fallibility is so great that the natural advantage afforded by the tower is completely nullified; in which case they are claiming not only ordinary fallibility, but extraordinary fallibility because if the watchman suffered from only ordinary fallibility his position on the tower would still be superior to those on the ground– they proclaim not that he has average eyesight then, but that he is nearly blind!

The church doesn’t have a doctrine of prophetic infallibility but it does have a doctrine of living prophets and apostles.

While those who appeal to prophetic fallibility are constantly ready to call out anyone who appears to imply the prophets are infallible (that unattainable upper boundary), they often show little awareness or respect for this lower boundary, which if crossed makes the doctrine of prophets and apostles itself incoherent.

To complicate the matter for those who wish to appeal to fallibility, the church is not led by just one watchman on the tower, but by 15 men who profess to be prophets, seers, and revelators who regularly claim to be guided through revelation from God in guiding the church.

The watchman on the tower metaphor is again instructive here. One watchman has a superior view to those who are not on the tower, but still may make mistakes attributable to normal human error. Those errors can be mitigated and minimized, however, by requiring that what he sees be confirmed by additional watchmen, similarly set on towers of defense. If one raises a warning cry, his warning should not be cavalierly ignored though wrong he may be. If seven of the fifteen raise the same warning, we should be loath to reject their warning simply because we cannot perceive the danger that they profess to see. And if all fifteen of the watchmen raise the warning in unanimity, then it would be a very serious thing indeed to declare to your fellows that you know that they are wrong and that they should be ignored or even resisted.

Now, all metaphors have their limits, and we ought not take the analogy beyond its applicability, but it is a very valuable image to help us understand how the church leadership is structured and the kind of protection it affords.

The Presiding High Priest of the Church, his Councillors, and Council of the Twelve Apostles guide the church through careful deliberation and unanimous decision. Here is a must-watch video of an excellent explanation of the process by Elder Henry B. Eyring, an Apostle:

Video: Elder Henry B. Eyring [start at 0:45s]

So appeals to prophetic fallibility must account for whether the thing which is believed to be in error has been taught by just one or two of the prophets or apostles or many of the prophets and apostles; taught repeatedly by past prophets as well as current ones or taught unanimously by the living prophets and apostles.

It is far more acceptable to cite fallibility to disagree with an idiosyncratic idea promoted by a singular apostle, or even a couple of apostles or prophets, than it is to disagree with a doctrine that has been promoted repeatedly by multiple prophets and apostles or a decision which was made by the prophets and apostles in unanimity.

And it is truly a serious matter to publicly contradict or wrest a relatively rare joint proclamation by the First Presidency and Council of Twelve Apostles, signed in unanimity and offered to the world.

And yet most appeals to prophetic fallibility are lazily made without any regard for these crucial distinctions and risk thereby becoming de facto declarations that the prophets are not prophets at all.

Additionally we need to carefully differentiate between knowing WHAT God wants us to do, and WHY he wants us to do it. While there are revelations that are explanatory, which are the type we often see in canonized scripture, more often than not revelation tells us what we should do but not the reason why. So it isn’t enough to cite past mistakes made by the prophets and apostles, even in unanimity. We have to be precise about exactly how they were wrong.

Were they wrong about what the the Lord wanted them to do? Or where they only wrong about why he wanted them to do it?

Getting wrong the reasons why God wanted something done is inherently different and less serious than getting wrong what God wanted done.

When I was single, I dated a wonderful girl who I thought I would marry. One day I knelt to pray about what I should do to make the relationship work and the Holy Spirit told me very clearly that I needed to break up with her right then. I knew what I was supposed to do and I did it.

I immediately went to her and broke up. But in my mind I started looking for the reason why. I had friends who had broken up and their break up counter-intuitively acted as a catalyst for them to evaluate what they really wanted and they got back together and got married. I semi-consciously believed that was what would happen with us too.

But I was wrong. We didn’t get back together. Years later I look back and in hindsight I am so grateful that it didn’t work out as I wanted. I was wrong about the why, but right about what God wanted me to do.

Were the prophets and apostles wrong about the reasons why polygamy was practiced and why the priesthood was withheld from members of African descent? Yes. Without a doubt. Speculations that monogamy was bad and that polygamy the ideal were wrong. Justifications for the priesthood restriction based on speculation about the pre-mortal life or the curse of Cain were wrong.

But getting wrong the reasons why does not automatically mean that polygamy was therefore a mistake, nor even that the priesthood restriction was itself necessarily a mistake.

In connection with the appeal to fallibility, some have suggested that while authentic, revelation from God to the prophets is filtered through their fallible human minds and muddled by their personal prejudices, culture, and tradition. This is an attractive construction for anyone who feels to justify actions that are directly contrary to the directions of God through his prophets while still claiming to have a testimony that the prophets are true (after a fashion).

But on closer inspection, saying that the prophets cannot receive clear messages is really saying that God is not powerful enough to make his will known; it is not an expression of doubt in the prophets, but a veiled disbelief in a God who speaks.

A god who is unable to pierce the smog of human fallibility and make his will clear to even his own official human spokesmen is certainly not much of a god; perhaps he’s a mumbling god whose word is sharper than a blunted spoon (to the dividing asunder of both oatmeal and grits!).

But the God of the Restoration, who revealed himself to Joseph Smith– the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Nephi– is a God who speaks. It is true that he reveals his will line upon line and precept upon precept, but when it is revealed there is little doubt about what he requires at the time, even when the reasons why may not be comprehensible.

It seems reasonable to say that the limitations of our humanity make it difficult to understand or comprehend the reasons why. But if we believe in prophets at all then we have to believe that God can at least make what he wants us to do right now sufficiently clear. A God who speaks should at least be able to answer yes-or-no questions, even if the explanation of why is beyond our ken.

But if the prophets are unwilling or unable to hear the voice of the Lord, can they still be accurately called prophets? Not with coherence.

In the biblical story of Jonah, who is the archetypal fallible prophet, Jonah never has any confusion about what God wants him to do, even if he rejects the message initially. And when he finally submits, he does not really understand why, or accept that the people of Nineveh will actually repent. His fallibility lies not in knowing God’s will but in resisting it and misapprehending to what end he has been asked to act.

Another example of prophetic fallibility from the restoration is the loss of the first 116 pages translated from the gold plates. But even in this case the will of the Lord was not hazy or ambiguous. Martin Harris didn’t accept the clear message received after the first inquiry and he convinced the inexperienced prophet Joseph to pester the Lord until God granted them their desires, to their own condemnation and the detriment of the church (though the Lord had long prepared other means to compensate for the loss).

If anything, the lost 116 pages is not a warning about the fallibility of revelation to human beings, but a warning to those who dislike or disagree with the directions delivered from God by the prophets. It is the same warning as the the bible teaches about the Israelites who requested a king of the prophet Samuel. Members of the church who disagree with the prophets on the issues of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, or some other thing, risk playing the part of Martin Harris in asking for additional revelation until the Lord relents and grants them according to their desires, to their own condemnation and the detriment of the church. The prophets likely learned their lesson from Joseph’s experience and wouldn’t make that same mistake. But have the members of the church learned?

This raises perhaps the central problem with appeals to prophetic fallibility. If God is capable of making his will known to you then why not to the prophets? And if his power to make his will known is limited by their human frailty why is it not limited by your own human frailty?

In other words, appeals to fallibility to defend disagreeing with the prophets almost always fail to account for how come that same fallibility principle does not call into question the ability of the one making the appeal to discern the will of God. Fallibility Boulevard is a two way street. Yet critics who cite prophetic fallibility rarely exhibit a self-awareness of the irrational asymmetry of their appeal. Their confidence that their own view is correct while the prophets are wrong because prophets are fallible is self-contradicting. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you!

And if fallibility were to be applied symmetrically it would still be problematic, because (returning to the watchman analogy) the idea that the critic and the prophet are equally likely to be wrong (because of fallibility) is implicitly a denial that the watchman is on a tower at all! Symmetrical fallibility inherently places both the critic and the watchman at the same level, on the ground. It assumes that there is no tower. In other words it is inherently a denial that the prophet is a prophet by denying that his vantage point affords him a superior view. All else being equal, there is safety in trusting the guy with the superior view; even if he may not get everything exactly right, he is far more likely to be right than you are.

That is why, while it may be a useful framework for understanding the past, the prophetic fallibility argument is nearly useless as a defense for rejecting prophetic counsel in the present or for the future. It can only ever be employed as an excuse, not a proof, because in so far as it casts doubt on the prophet, it casts an equal amount of doubt on the dissident. It is incapable of resolving the disagreement in favor of one or the other, and is at its root a de facto denial that the prophets have any kind of superior view.

Faith is trust. Faith is the ability to make the right decision with insufficient information. It’s doing the right thing without knowing for sure why it is the right decision.

In complex systems, cause and effect are not necessarily linear or proportional. What seems to our limited minds to be unquestionably good can have disastrous results in the aggregate. We use faith to make choices when we don’t have enough information to gauge the consequences; which is essentially always.

That is why we have to make decisions using the Holy Ghost, because we are not even really capable of successfully evaluating any but the most immediate consequences on our own. God defines success, not us. His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. He’s operating on a much higher level and he knows the end from the beginning.

That is what is so dangerous about definitive public declarations that this or that policy imposed by the prophets is or was wrong. Saying that you know that it was wrong is implicitly a declaration that you know that God did not command such a thing, or that you know that the purpose God had in mind was not accomplished. But how do you know?

That is the question that is almost always left unanswered whenever prophetic fallibility is cited to justify a public disagreement with the prophets. By what measure do you judge? And why is that measure less fallible than the 15 prophets, seers, and revelators who lead the church? Most attempts to answer that question are an implicit denial that the prophets are true prophets or else present an incoherent idea of what it means to be a prophet.

Some may suggest that the problem lies in the watchman-on-the-tower definition of prophet I am using here, and that the definition is wrong. But that approach has a fundamental flaw: the prophets themselves, from Joseph Smith onward, and throughout the scriptures, have repeatedly described themselves in these terms. They actively claim, as in the video of Elder Eyring above, that the they are the Lord’s spokesmen; that they are the Lord’s watchmen on the tower. They describe themselves as prophets, seers, and revelators and audaciously request that the membership sustain them as such regularly. They actively claim that God is leading the church through revelation to them ( See for example this recent conference sermon by Elder Christofferson who like Elder Eyring is one of the Twelve Apostles ). I have heard them do it personally in private meetings on multiple occasions as well as in public. They authorize Sunday school manuals that are used throughout the church which knowingly perpetuate that claim and they encourage children to sing “Follow the prophet, don’t go astray…” Do they claim infallibility. No. But they certainly claim to be prophets after the fashion described here. So if that definition of prophet is wrong, then they are most certainly not prophets, because they would be claiming to be something that they simply cannot be.

Joseph Smith reportedly taught: “I will give you a key that will never rust,—if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.”

A close look at the scriptures shows that there few instances of apostasy by the prophets themselves. Individual apostles have apostatized and the Doctrine and Covenants contains provisions for replacing the prophet should he sin. But throughout the scriptures, in nearly every case, it is the members who reject the word of the Lord delivered by His faithful prophets. Do prophets make mistakes in the scriptures? Undeniably. But the clear, overriding theme of the scriptures is that of the people rejecting the prophets. The message for us is clear. We should be far more concerned about us rejecting the prophets because it goes contrary to what we want or what society teaches than we should be about whether the prophets are leading us astray.

The consequences for declaring that the prophets have sinned when they are doing what the Lord has truly command them to do are quite dire:

“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.” – Doctrine and Covenants 121:16

Prudence and humility would suggest that those who believe in the prophets ought to be exceedingly hesitant to ever raise the cry that the prophets act contrary to the will of the Lord. Those who are not hesitant and flippantly throw around prophetic fallibility to excuse their actions expose themselves to the justifiable question of whether they really do believe, as the paragraphs above attempt to demonstrate.

For all of these reasons, many orthodox members of the church sense that often the way in which prophetic fallibility is invoked is an attack on their faith even if they don’t know exactly how or they are not able to articulate it in the detail presented here. Because it IS often used as an implicit attack on their faith: not because they necessarily believe that the prophets are infallible, but because they believe, with good reason, that the adjective “prophetic” puts real limits on the word “fallibility”.

To be clear, I have never said that good, faithful members cannot disagree with the leaders of the church on a whole number of things. We can and do. Especially on questions of why or how,  but even occasionally on questions of what (albeit with far more caution).

But that disagreement should be expressed privately to the authorities or delegated local leaders, and to the Lord directly through private personal prayer. Once we have a personal witness of the Holy Ghost that the church is true and its leaders are prophets, there should be a presumption that they are in fact following the Holy Spirit, that the watchmen are on a tower which affords them a superior view, that they have good reasons for what they do, that there is safety in their unanimity, and that a great deal of deference should be granted to their authority and stewardship.

There are appropriate ways to dissent and seek for change. As we privately consult with those in authority, we as well as they can move toward a more perfect understanding.

If we only follow the prophet when it happens to coincide with what we already believe then having a prophet is virtually meaningless. Why have a watchman on the tower if you are only going to listen to him when he tells you what you already believe and you ignore him when he tells you something you don’t like or believe?

As Jesus said to his Twelve Apostles:

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.” John 15:18-20 [emphasis added]

We do have true prophets. God does guide his church through them. They are our spiritual watchmen on the towers. They are not perfect. But we should heed their warnings. We can trust them to lead us right even if it requires us to incur the displeasure and persecution of society.

Card was hired to write a story for a comic book series called The Adventures of Superman. But after some fans of the comic complained because of Card’s outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage the illustrator walked away from the project and so DC Comics has apparently decided not to run his story.

One of the things that many outraged critics cite is a quote from Orson Scott Card in which they say he advocates for the violent overthrow of the government if same-sex marriage becomes legal. But is that what he really said?

Here is the quote to which they refer, taken from an article published in July 2008:

“If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn’t require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?”

“What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.”

“How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.”

“Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.”

A cursory reading of Card’s words might appear to confirm what the critics are saying, but a careful reading show that it is not so simple.

The context of the article is important. It’s the summer of 2008. Judges had recently overturned California’s democratically passed law defining marriage as only between man and woman. The campaign for California Proposition 8, to counteract the judicial decision by putting the definition right into the California state constitution, is in full swing. Card is outraged by the threat of having the definition of marriage changed by judicial decree and foisted upon an unwilling majority.

While his words are not limited to judicially imposed same-sex marriage, that is the context of the article’s outrage.

In his own dramatic way he proposes a hypothetical future (what do you expect from a famous author of speculative fiction?) in which America becomes a place where “children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught” that their religious views on sexuality and marriage are false.

Then in the context of THAT hypothetical future he wonders how long it would be before the hypothetical victims of such action would turn against the government. The words “… any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down…” are the words of those who have hypothetically had their children taken from them and forcibly educated contrary to their parents moral and religious views. To say that the “my” and “I” in these sentences are references to Card himself in the present, real world is taking the words out of context.

So to say that Card personally advocated for the overthrow of the government in the event that same-sex marriage is legalized is simply inaccurate. He predicted that if the legalization of same-sex marriage leads to a future of severe State persecution and suppression of those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage, those people would likely be justified in turning against the government.

Frankly, if we ever did reach the point where the government would forcibly take our children away from us and make them accept same-sex marriage as a legitimate construct through state indoctrination, there are a lot of people who would see that as legitimate, justifiable grounds for possible revolt.

Card’s article says a lot of things that I think are true and that I agree with. I encourage you to read the whole thing rather than just react to out-of-context excerpts.

Those of us who believe in traditional marriage should be really concerned about how Orson Scott Card is being treated.

If he were writing a superman comic in which the characters or plot were speaking and acting as proxy for his beliefs, then those who disagreed could refuse to spend their money on a product that they found offensive or distasteful.

But that is not what is happening.

Interested groups are working to prevent a product he is creating, which no one has claimed will contain any material representing his personal views on this topic, from even being created or marketed in the first place. In other words they are trying to prevent him from working in the industry because he stands up for traditional marriage and religious belief.

Here is an illustrative comparison: Imagine if Card were a software developer instead of a writer. He gets hired by Google to create an exciting new product that allows people to use the Internet using special glasses. He starts working on the project, but part way through LGBTQ groups, who don’t like the fact that when he is not at work he writes letters to the editor opposing same-sex marriage (something that he had been doing long before being hired), start to pressure Google. They tell Google that they wont buy the new glasses because one of the developers opposes same-sex marriage. Google knows it can’t break the contract because that would be religious discrimination. So the LGBTQ groups try to create enough controversy that the Google employee who is working on the hardware portion of the project becomes uncomfortable and responds by refusing to continue to work on the project because he refuses to work with someone who opposes same-sex marriage. Google then uses the fact that this other employee refuses to work with the developer because of his personal views (which have no bearing on the project itself) to scuttle the project and lay off the developer.

That is essentially what has happened to Card. Just change the industry to comic books instead of technology.

“No Mormons Need Apply.” Is that the world we want to live in? Where those of us who have honest, good reasons to oppose same-sex marriage will be blackballed, denied jobs, and have people publicly refuse to work with us because of our religious and political positions, even when those views have nothing to do with our qualifications, quality of work, or the products we create?

And this is only the beginning. Doesn’t this treatment only serve to reinforce and legitimize the kind of future that Card fears may come? By persecuting him they are making his predictions seem more likely to come true, not less.

Let’s hope Card is wrong about the future.

Speak up and let others know you support Orson Scott Card’s right to publicly oppose same-sex marriage.

Tangentially, if you do support the legalization of same-sex marriage, or haven’t made up your mind yet, or you want to see marriage “privatized”, or even if you already oppose same-sex marriage, you need to read the recent book by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George called:

What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense.

The authors make a non-religious, philosophical case for a legal preference for the traditional, conjugal definition of marriage and against the new revisionist definition upon which same-sex marriage depends.

Nobody can claim to have made a truly informed decision on the legalization of same-sex marriage until they have honestly considered the information in this book.

Recently some LDS activists made the news with a viral campaign about breastfeeding in church sparked by an anonymous victim who they claimed was released from her duties in church because she was breastfeeding during church services. They also said that she was threatened with having her access to the LDS temple revoked if she refused to cover up or breastfeed in private. The activist called for a letter-writing campaign in protest.

Similar to the process I outlined in my post last year, the story built buzz among LDS blogs and in social media until it was picked up by local news outlets and then echoed into national news by their affiliates.

Now it turns out that the original claims about the anonymous woman made by the activists are not entirely accurate. Cheryl, who blogs at RealIntent.org (which is currently running a series of blog posts on the controversy) has done some investigation into the matter and found that:

• The woman had specifically asked for her story to be kept private
• The woman was not released from her calling because of her actions, in fact, the woman asked to be released from her calling
• The publicity given to her experience has hurt both the woman and her leaders

There is a world of difference between being dismissed from a position and asking to be relieved of a position.

Be sure to read all of Cheryl’s further commentary in the same post about the dangers of viral information in general.

My wife recently wrote about the same topic in a blog post that is particularly appropriate to this specific controversy that I highly recommend as well. She discusses how Internet gossip can essentially murder the reputation of other people: Murder on the Internet Express.

It is so easy to pass along false or misleading information on the Internet. I’ve done it myself. In the last couple of weeks I have corrected conservative friends who inadvertently posted fake quotes attributed to historical figures, or who posted false information about U.S. money.

Seemingly small public actions in social media can have disproportionate consequences for real people. It is appropriate to be cautious and charitable.

As President of the Twelve Apostles, Ezra Taft Benson warned: “Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.” (Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, 1980)

Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained further: ”…the most important difference between dead prophets and living ones is that those who are dead are not here to receive and declare the Lord’s latest words to his people. If they were, there would be no differences among the messages of the prophets.” (Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall, 1992)

I’ve noticed a troubling parallel among some progressive members of the church: Rejecting living prophets in favor of what they anticipate future prophets will do*.

It works like this: They believe that the living prophets are wrong regarding some policy or doctrine, such as same-sex marriage or women holding priesthood. They are convinced that these teachings are not of God but merely expressions of false cultural traditions. They look at past changes that the church has made, like discontinuing the policy of withholding priesthood from black members, and they extrapolate that the future prophets and apostles will change these other positions as well. Convinced that their words and actions are in harmony with what the future prophets will undoubtedly teach, they proceed to act right now as if the future prophets have already made the change that they anticipate. As a result, at an emotional level they feel like they are following the prophet and that those who disagree with them are rejecting the prophet.

But just like fundamentalists who reject the living prophets by following dead prophets, progressives reject the living prophets by following anticipated future prophets.

In reality the future prophet that they are following is just a projection of their own views in the present. In other words they are setting themselves up as an alternative authority to the current prophet by attributing their contrary positions to a future prophet who does not yet exist. Whether by reason or supposed personal revelation, they are claiming to know which direction the church should take better than the current prophets do.

This is true even if the change they anticipate in the future ends up being correct.

Most readers probably remember Hiram Page, who in the early days of the church began to receive revelations through a seer stone concerning the organization and location of Zion. In the revelation that Joesph Smith received about the matter, the Prophet was instructed to tell Brother Page that the revelations were not of God, that Satan had deceived him, with the explanation that “these things have not been appointed unto him…”.

We often assume that because the revelations were not of God that the information contained in the revelations about the organization and location of Zion must have been clearly false. But that is not what the revelation given by God to Joseph says.  It says that those things had not been “appointed” to Hiram Page and that no one at the time was appointed to receive commandments and revelations for the church except for Joseph Smith, the Prophet.

So even if, hypothetically, Hiram Page’s revelations had been correct about the future location of Zion, because it violated the order of the church and undermined the authority of the Prophet, it was not of God.

Likewise, even if progressive members of the church are correct that the future prophets will change the church’s position regarding same-sex marriage (though I believe it is very, very unlikely) or some other policy, their opposition to the directions of the current, living prophets is still a violation of the order of the church. Like Hiram page they set themselves up as an alternative source to receiving the truth.

We are required to follow the current, living prophet who has the authority and keys, not some future prophet whose future directions we conveniently imagine will match that which we currently believe which is contrary to current teachings.

In a discourse which I have cited in the past, Elder Glen L. Pace compared the church to a locomotive:

“While on the train we can see the world and some of our own members outside laughing and having a great time. They taunt us and coax us to get off. Some throw logs and rocks on the tracks to try and derail it. Other members run alongside the tracks, and while they may never go play in the woods, they just can’t seem to get on the train. Others try to run ahead and too often take the wrong turn.”(Spiritual Revival, 1992)

There is great danger in trying to run ahead of the church according to our own wisdom and light. Following the living prophets provides a framework for members to adjust to changes in the church, even when those changes may be different than their expectations or desires.

This actually happened with Brigham Young when Joseph Smith received the vision recorded in section 76 of the book of Doctrine and Covenants. Brigham Young said that he found the doctrine of the three degrees of glory in the vision so contrary to his traditional understanding of the afterlife that at first he could not understand it. But he did not reject it.

But following what we imagine future prophets will do rather than what living prophets require now provides no framework for dealing with changes in the church unless they always conform to personal expectations.

Those who anticipate that the church will change to accept same-sex marriage or extend the priesthood to women need to ask themselves “What if it never happens? What if, on the contrary, the prophet receives a revelation in which the Lord reaffirms and entrenches the church’s current position, it is unanimously accepted by the presiding councils of the church, and the new revelation is canonized? What then?”

If the answer is that they know that that is not the Lord’s will, then they have set themselves up as a prophet themselves in competition and opposition to the prophets and apostles of the church. Which of course raises the same issues of stewardship and authority that we confront with fundamentalist leaders who place their own revelation and authority in opposition to that of the church. They may be right or they may be wrong, but there should be no illusion about what they are claiming (even if it is obscured by projecting their prophecies onto future prophets).

In the scriptures, rejection of the living prophets has grave consequences.  God holds us accountable for our reception or rejection of his living servants and the warnings and directions they give for us now, not what he may or may not require of us in the future.

[* This idea of following presumed future prophets is not my own. Credit goes to my friend Bruce Nielson who first articulated it to me in a conversation.]

UPDATE 03/18/2013 – I have posted a follow up to this post and its resulting conversations.  Read it:

Watchmen on the Tower – On the Limits of Prophetic Fallibility

This isn’t a movie review, but I did want to mention something about the film that I liked. While the movie was not about religion, the characters were unambiguously religious. 

Here Comes the Boom has a scene in which a character quotes the bible without irony and without fanfare. While complimenting the resolve exhibited by the character played by Kevin James, he refers to the story of Jacob’s wrestle with God in Genesis as a perfectly normal part of his everyday idiom.

Later, just before the big fight at film’s climax, the main characters, including James and Winkler, pause to grasp hands and quietly offer a prayer before James enters the arena. The scene is portrayed in the most natural way. They weren’t trying to impress anyone. There was no irony or comedy. And it wasn’t over emphasized and preachy. It was not laden with gravitas and pregnant with meaning. It wasn’t awkward or controversial. It just was.

Religious belief, prayer, and scripture were presented as normal, unexceptional parts of real life for respectable people. So normal that they needed no apology, justification, or emphasis.

And I really loved that.

It also made me sad.  It made me sad because the understated assumption of religious belief portrayed in the film was so rare in most films and on television that it really stuck out to me in contrast. Being religious should be unexceptional. The fact that it is exceptional in our entertainment media is a problem.

Too often in modern Hollywood movies, religion is portrayed negatively or unseriously. Prayer has long been played for laughs. And scripture, if it is used at all, is quoted ironically or for juxtaposition.

Kevin James is a devout Catholic who has talked about glorifying God in all he does. I already liked him as an actor and comedian.  But now I am a fan. We need to support him in that endeavor.

We need more unabashed, yet understated religion in our entertainment. Religion is normal and it should be displayed that way. I encourage you to support this kind of depiction by renting the film, buying it, and recommending it to others. Send a message by what you recommend and how you spend your money.

Here Comes the Boom is rated PG by the MPAA.

Sometimes you stare at a problem for so long that you need to get away from it for a while and when you come back the solution just pops out at you. Ping-pong ends up being an excellent way to get your body moving and exercise different parts of your mind while getting to know some of your co-workers better. And the games are quite quick so you don’t take too much time before getting back to your job.

I can’t claim to be a great player, but I do enjoy it.

In September of last year I came up with my own variation on standard ping-pong which I have dubbed “Black Knight Battle Ping-Pong” or just “Battle Ping-Pong” for short.

It’s named after the famous “Black Knight” scene from the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. You’ll soon understand why.

I tried the concept out with some co-workers and refined some of the original rules based on our experience. I think it is a lot of fun.

Here is how you play:

Black Knight Battle Ping-Pong

You can download a printable, single-page PDF document of these rules here: Black-Knight-Battle-Ping-Pong-1.0.pdf

Definitions

Hit or Shot

The ball makes contact with a part of the body which stops or significantly changes the direction of the motion of the ball.

Graze

The ball makes contact with a part of the body but continues in mostly the same direction as it was going prior to contact.

Toxicity

A ball is toxic when it can damage a player. The ball is toxic to a player after it has been hit by his or her opponent’s paddle until it hits his or her own paddle or touches the floor. The ball does not have to land on the table to be toxic. Once the ball has touched the player’s paddle or the floor it is no longer toxic to that player even if it is still in motion.

Appendages

A player’s arms above the wrist, including the shoulder up to the collarbone, and a player’s legs above the ankle, including the thigh.

Headshot

The ball hits, not grazes, a player’s head, including the neck or face.

Bodyshot

The ball hits, not grazes, a player’s torso including the groin or butt.

Game Play and Rules

Play ping-pong normally with the following additions:

• If a player is hit or grazed no points are awarded to either player for the rally
• If the ball hits an appendage it becomes incapacitated and it can no longer be used for the remainder of the game. If it is a leg the player may still touch the ground with his or her toes for balance but may not stand or rest any significant weight on it.
• If the ball grazes an appendage it has no immediate effect. If the same appendage is grazed a second time then it counts as a hit and the appendage is incapacitated.
• Hitting or grazing an appendage that is already incapacitated has no effect.
• If both legs are incapacitated the player continues to play while kneeling or sitting in a chair. If both arms become incapacitated the game ends and the player loses the game regardless of the score.
• A bodyshot subtracts 2 points from the player’s score. However, the score may not be less than zero.
• If the ball grazes a player’s torso it has no immediate effect. If it is grazed a second time it counts as a bodyshot.
• A headshot ends the game and the player that received the headshot loses regardless of the score.
• If the ball grazes a player’s head one of the player’s eyes becomes incapacitated and he or she must continue play with one eye closed. If the ball grazes the head a second time it counts as a headshot.

That’s it!

As with any game, the players are welcome to modify the rules as long as they both agree to the modification before the game begins.

If you have access to ping-pong equipment, give it a try and let me know what you think.

Have at you!