The Road to Middoni: Misreading 1 Nephi 4 (Part IV)

As I focused on keeping myself open to the promptings of the Spirit, I started to understand logically where my frustration with the text of 1 Nephi 4 was coming from. I came up with a list of explanations, and tried my best to explicate each one, recording why I found the first four explanations unacceptable before arriving at the fifth one. Briefly, I’ll recreate that here.

Explanation #1: God is a changeable God

I took for my assumption in this and other explanations that God desires all His children to return and live with him, even children as unreachable as Laban. As such, God sees life as sacred--the longer life extends, the more chances we have to repent and return to his way. The more chances we have to exercise our agency to do what is right, the greater the likelihood that we will eventually turn to him. Granted, this result does not occur as often as he would like, but the fact remains that life and the ensuing opportunities for agency are sacred. From there it follows that murder or any other artificial shortening of human life is sinful and contrary to the God’s plan. It is from this feeling that commandments like “Thou shalt not kill,” Christ’s “Turn the other cheek,” and the repeated Book of Mormon lessons on the risks of offensive warfare originate.

One might argue that the laws given from God to man also apply to the lawgiver, God, himself. I will discuss that further in the second explanation below.

If that assumption is granted, one possible explanation that justifies Nephi’s murder of Laban is that God has matured. From rough and barbarous Old Testament beginnings when the slaughter of ancient tribes with prior claims to the promised land was not only sanctioned but commanded, the omnipotent being actually matured in knowledge. This explanation would have us believe that God learned lessons from the massacres and tragedies of the first several thousand years of godhood. It might even see the Babylonian captivity as a chance for God to ponder and rethink his strategy so that, by the time Palestine saw the rise of Jesus Christ, a new and improved message, the gospel 2.0, was ready for a new jump start. Perhaps we could even ascribe the rapid ascent of Christianity throughout the Western world as evidence that God had finally struck on the nimble, almost counterintuitive strategy that would finally lead his people to cultural hegemony.

This explanation is unacceptable for a number of reasons. Not only is the changeability of God’s knowledge and ability rejected in multiple books of scripture, it strikes at the very nature of deity. The omniscient Father becomes a guess-work tinkerer.

A God who lacks omniscience and a divine plan for our existence isn’t a God worth worshiping. Rather, it makes him a God worth ignoring. I already had reasons to stop believing. If this were the only explanation I could find, then my quandary was over, and my spiritual life with it. But it’s not the only explanation I could find. So, instead of ascribing Nephi’s crime to an imperfect tutor giving imperfect commands, I decided to make God’s omniscience and deliberate nature my second assumption.

Explanation #2: I don’t know God as well as I think I do

If I make these two assumptions (First, that God loves all his children and second, that he is omniscient and deliberate), then there’s a new problem to confront. If an omniscient, loving, and deliberate God gave Nephi the command to kill Laban, then perhaps I don’t understand God’s will, plan, or nature as well as I thought. If that’s the case, I would need to somehow delve into an apologetic discourse of how it’s ok to kill people sometimes.

I reject this possibility outright. I hold fast to the teaching of turn the other cheek, of Christian pacifism, and of only bearing arms to defend homes and families. I think it’s quite clear throughout scriptural teaching, from Christ’s act of compassionate healing in the Garden of Gethsemane after Peter’s burst of violence to Mormon’s refusal to lead a blood-thirsty army, that killing and violence do not receive divine sanction. In fact, even in the Old Testament, the intricate ceremonies and policies to prevent or expatiate the shedding of blood lead to this conclusion.

Perhaps this is me making God in my own, pacifistic image. Perhaps. But this is the God I choose to worship, the God I believe created the world and gave us our divine nature. And if his nature is instead to jealously incite his children to violence against each other, then I reject him. But I don’t want to reject him, and I don’t think the problem lies with God. The possibility that rises up next, then, is that perhaps I need to reject Nephi.

Explanation #3: Nephi lies

If God is an unchangeable, just, loving, deliberate, and omniscient God unwilling to give capital punishment commands to his children, then the next possibility is to question the integrity of Nephi’s account. There are two lies Nephi could have told.

Potential Lie #1: That he killed Laban.

If Nephi lies about killing Laban, that raises the possibility that either Laban was never even part of the picture or that Nephi did meet Laban but stole his raiment without ending his life. The first possibility is remote, since Nephi does use his Laban-look-alike ability to obtain the brass plates and, if you remember, scares the snot out of his brothers (and then Zoram). So Nephi got the clothes from somewhere on the dark streets of Jerusalem, and stealing them from Laban is more likely than Nephi boldly breaking into Laban’s home, finding his wardrobe, playing dress up, and escaping without anyone seeing or hearing him.

So why lie about killing Laban? Perhaps Nephi feels compelled to lie about Laban’s demise to quiet the fears of his family or ensure that Zoram accompanies them to the wilderness rather than return to Jerusalem and raise the alarm before the brothers can successfully distance themselves from the city.

Potential Lie #2: That he heard a voice telling him to kill Laban.

A second lie that could work in conjunction with the first is the aspect of the story involving divine injunction. A divine stamp of approval, evidence that Lehi’s original instruction to leave Jerusalem was still valid, would have pleased Lehi as Nephi retold the story.

Just as easily, however, Nephi could be scrambling for a justification for a violent act done in the heat of the moment. Adopting the language of his prophetic father would not have been much of a stretch. Nephi is adept, as we see throughout his narrative, at convincing others to do and believe things they’re not inclined to do or believe: to untie him, build a ship with him, and start a colony with him.

One other potential explanation in conjunction with his potential lie about killing Laban is that he adds in a divine element to make his story sound better, to allay suspicion about his ability to cold-bloodedly kill Laban. Haven’t you ever embellished your account to misdirect attention away from the central mistruth? Especially when you’re the youngest of a rough group of brothers?

These possibilities are potential explanations, but while they may have improved Nephi’s prophetic reputation with his contemporaries, they do little to recommend him to a more sensitive and more detached generation of thinkers. What’s more, the starkness of deliberate dishonesty tarnishes Nephi’s prophetic mantel beyond redemption. If you’ll remember, Moses is prevented from entering the Promised Land because he failed to give adequate credit to God when he struck a rock to produce water (for the second time). What do you think God would do with a prophet who created new commandments that didn’t actually originate from the heavens?

Finally, and I admit that I’m now departing from logic and going by feel, artfully lying Nephi doesn’t mesh well with the rest of his account. Yes, it is his account, so he could manipulate the story however he saw fit, but deceiver Nephi doesn’t mesh well with tormented Nephi of 2 Nephi 4. If Nephi thought it worth baring his soul to his readers in that chapter, why would he choose to perpetuate a lie years after its exigency had disappeared? Much like the first explanation, I reject this not because I can prove it, but because I’m hoping for an explanation that both makes sense and establishes faith.

The final 2 explanations to be continued on Wednesday.

The Road to Middoni: Misreading 1 Nephi 4 (Part III)

Each time a missionary companionship would “fail” one of these pivotal encounters (and I, in turn, would back away from the precipice of doubt long enough to restore the missionaries’ self-confidence and prepare them for a redo appointment with a much less adamant Salvatore), I would talk to them about how Salvatore was misreading 1 Nephi 4. Perhaps deliberately so. We would discuss how that level of antagonism, especially in someone with whom they already have a relationship, often indicates deeper concerns. I advised them that next time, when they ran into something like this where a concern about something sidetracked everything else, to start asking their investigator, with love and humility, if they had experienced setbacks in living any of the commandments or in keeping any of their other commitments.

Fundamentally, that advice was good advice. It was true. Preach My Gospel even had an illustrative image of an iceberg to make just that point. But if asking my missionaries my tough gospel questions was an act of naive faith that placed great hope on their calling and spiritual sensitivity, my sidestepping of the fundamental issue was surely an act of cowardice. By letting them believe Salvatore was misreading 1 Nephi 4, I allowed them to forget about his doubt and move on in their studies and practices, but I did not think Salvatore’s reading was wrong at all. At least, I had no compelling evidence to the contrary.

Years passed, and I continued to ponder this chapter, looking to the chapters that precede and follow to augment my understanding. I began to read the Old Testament to better glimpse the actions and expectations of Nephi’s time. I tentatively began dialogues with close friends to see if they, like my missionaries, would try on this problem and come up with a more satisfying solution than I had.

Most importantly, I began to repent of my own sins, serve faithfully in the church, and change habits and actions that would keep the Spirit from being my constant companion. I recognized that the distance I felt from the scriptures, the church, and its teaching had one of two possible sources.

1. The church was not actually true, or some part of it was not actually true, and that my sadness came from my intellectual realization of the facts. The prospective possibility of leaving a culture (and likely being left by a family) I loved so well was forming a core of depression I could no longer ignore. OR
2. The church and its teachings were true, but my viewing of pornography, evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed, pride in my own understanding, and any other unholy or unclean action I chose to do distanced me from the divine presence that could buoy me up. My sadness came from that distance from God, a distance I had created.

I had no logical reason to decide one hypothesis was more right than another. If I truly wanted to eliminate all uncertainty, I had no choice but to repent, live worthily, and continue to ask questions of the Lord with confidence that no action of mine would prevent my hearing the answer.

As I explored the marvelous power of the Atonement to bind up my wounds and give me the strength to confess my sins to those whom I had wronged, I began once again to feel the Lord’s presence in my life. I did everything I was asked to do, from semiannual membership audits to taking youth across state lines to the temple. I studied and prayed. Now, I thought, I could begin my quest for truth again.

I prayed for answers and comfort. Most of all, I asked to be guided to that which was true. I looked upon the problem of 1 Nephi 4 with new, more humble, eyes, keenly aware of both human beings’ penchant towards damning imperfection and our Heavenly Father’s supreme love, manifested through his son, Jesus Christ, despite (or perhaps because of!) our imperfection. Time and again he not only deigns to use us, broken vessels that we are, to achieve his purposes, but he also seems to relish the opportunity.

To be continued next week

The Road to Middoni: Misreading 1 Nephi 4 (Part II)

What Salvatore found distasteful and devilish was the action, famous among LDS audiences if only because it happens so early in a book we start, restart, and false start so many times, of Nephi killing Laban to obtain the brass plates.

The chapter that contains this story features stirring passages of spiritual confidence and testimony (“Let us go up again unto Jerusalem, and let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord; for behold he is mightier than all the earth, then why not mightier than Laban and his fifty, yea, or even than his tens of thousands?”), scriptures mastered by the youth of the church (“And I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do”), and a singular episode of seemingly unethical violence framed as the will of God.  

Salvatore, whether by his own intellect or by using discussion on the internet, had struck upon a significant intellectual tension in this narrative. Does God truly command his children to hurt one another? The reaction of most Western thinkers (especially post-1945) is not difficult to anticipate. Absolutely not. Sure, the Old Testament’s genocides seem to set a precedent, but those awful events are contained so far back in the past that it’s much easier to forget and doubt the validity of any divine source. Not to mention, both rabbis and historians have dedicated lifetimes to uncovering the fact that the genocidal “ban,” as it’s called, was rarely, if ever, fully undertaken. As long as the New Testament outshines the Old in its relevance and closer chronology, we don’t have to deal with the slaughter of women, children, and animals among the previous denizens of the Promised Land too often, and when we do, we can ignore those passages and focus on others that teach about obedience or humility.

The Book of Mormon, by nature of its claim to be fresh, undiluted scripture, cannot hide behind the same intellectual acrobatics. Nor does it try to--this story occurs less than 10 pages in. Neither Nephi, Mormon, nor Joseph Smith had any thought of abridging out this episode. They told it in all its gory detail. We cannot think Nephi’s actions away, nor can we justify them as barbarous expectations of the times, because we expect more from the Book of Mormon. We must face this difficult theological question without rhetorical backflips.

Salvatore’s response was telling.

“You know who else talks about God commanding them to kill off their enemies? You know who else says that the result of divine hit squads will make the world a better place and save it from wickedness and unbelief? Osama bin Laden. Ever heard of him, americani?”

His reasoning caught us speechless, but we recovered and tried to stutter forward, trying desperately to disentangle this impossible relation between a man we had cultivated so much hatred for (this took place in 2004) and an ancient prophet of God. And we failed. Salvatore walked away, vindicated in his decision not to join the Church after all, and we never saw him face to face again.

The aftermath was spiritually devastating, and, as has likely been made clear, this experience still pains me to this day. As hundreds of other wonderful people cycled in an out of my life throughout the rest of my mission, the dilemma Salvatore had raised with 1 Nephi 4 stuck with me.

This dilemma and the others I accumulated over 2 years of service, provided a foundation of doubt and anxiety that I carried right up to the time previously related as I designed “progressing investigators” for the missionaries I taught. Companionship after companionship, month after month, a promising investigator named Salvatore (or Rafaele, Monica, Patrizio, etc.) whom the missionaries had committed to setting a baptismal date suddenly broke down and began asking hard questions about 1 Nephi 4 (or the priesthood ban, or polygamy, or Proposition 8) and refusing to accept the typical, unsatisfying answers. The missionaries, slightly deflated that their prepared scriptures failed to address my concern, worked all the harder. They, in a way that made me quite proud of them, came up with every explanation I ever had and more.

1. Laban had wronged Nephi and his family so many times that ancient law allowed for violence as a path of resolution in those times.
2. “Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes..”
3. …”It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.”

1. This nation referred to Nephi’s family.
2. This nation referred to those remaining in Jerusalem. Laban was a powerful wicked influence, and the Lord hadn’t given up hope that he could stop the imminent destruction of Jerusalem.

To their sincere explanations, I responded with counterpoints.

1. Don’t we expect better of Nephi than to follow ancient practices of revenge? And if we can’t expect better of Nephi, shouldn’t we expect better of the Holy Ghost, whispering over his shoulder and both constraining and goading him to kill another one of God’s children?
2. That’s right. The Lord can slay the wicked. He can bring a wicked army, he can strike someone down with a bat of the eye. Why get blood on Nephi’s hands?
3. That might very well be true. But Laban was passed out drunk. Why did Nephi have to decapitate him in order to steal his clothing? Wouldn’t a good hit to the head for good measure do it? And wouldn’t clothes without blood stains make a better spectacle for the credulous Zoram later in the chapter?

• And if Laban really did need to die because of his obstruction of the gospel in Jerusalem, see #2.

What’s more, the missionaries rarely succeeded in seeing the central tension. Often, frustrated with the lack of answers, I would mimic and caricature Salvatore’s words. “You’re no better than jihadists. I would expect better of you Americans and the way you mourned the tragedy of September 11. So you would submit if God told me right now that it was his will that I kill you?”

They answered no.

I answered I wasn’t interested in joining the Church any longer and politely asked them to leave. I wasn’t interested in a return appointment.

The missionaries despaired.

I moved into damage-control mode, told them they could try again tomorrow, and taught them that in these cases where we didn’t know the real answer, to humbly ask to move on, to challenge the investigator to continue reading the Book of Mormon with this concern and ultimately ask God in prayer if the Book of Mormon, even if it contained some imperfection, was true.

The missionaries thanked me for this important lesson in humility.

I continued to despair.

To be continued next week. 

The Road to Middoni: Misreading 1 Nephi 4 (Part I)

I’d like to start off with a story of power wielded selfishly against innocent victims. The wielder was me. The innocent bystanders, bright, eager, and trusting new missionaries preparing in the Provo Missionary Training Center (MTC) to serve successful missions across the ocean in Italy.

I had been teaching at the MTC for at least a year. I was finishing my undergraduate degree in English from Brigham Young University, and getting a job teaching Italian, the restored gospel, and some missionary skills to passionate and powerful newly minted missionaries was the best job I had ever had. Their testimonies lifted and sustained mine while I struggled with new things I was learning about the Church’s past, alternative theories on church leadership and doctrine, and my own spiritual malaise that was complicated, no doubt, by a persistent personal struggle against a pornography addiction. In a word, I was a mess. But walking up that long, gradual slope to the MTC five or six days a week was a chance to ponder my spirituality, to beg my Heavenly Father for forgiveness (and just one more chance!), and to strategize how to protect my (whom I then thought of as) naive charges against the pernicious influences and ideas that buffeted my testimony and my soul. If all else failed, I knew a combination of verb drills and practice door approaches would get us all through the evening.

About a year in, though, that changed. I became increasingly desperate to find answers to my questions. In what I now consider an act of faith and trust in the Lord’s appointed servants (though at the time I vacillated between seeing it as a cruel trick and an inspired teaching strategy), I began introducing the missionary companionships whom I taught to “progressing investigators,” individuals modeled off of people I had known and loved and who, in most cases, had not decided to join the Church, some of whom had gone as far as having a baptismal interview and some who had never even attempted to read the Book of Mormon and pray to know of its origins. These individuals, in the course of their interactions with dozens of missionary companionships, expressed the doubts, quandaries, and hard ideas I was struggling with. And just like that, I set the missionaries to work, preparing sometimes on a daily basis, to really teach me.

One of these investigators, whom I named Salvatore, was particularly difficult. He represented one of the most difficult moments of my own mission to Italy, a failure to follow the Spirit that has continued to haunt me, to some degree, to this day. Salvatore, or rather the man he represented, was a charismatic and delightful human being. His story, or rather the ways our stories intertwined, bore all the hallmarks of something you would write in a letter to the Ensign. My companion and I met Salvatore just before it was time to go inside and prepare for the next day of proselytizing. One of the main pedestrian thoroughfares of Ravenna, a road called Via Cavour, was busy and crowded this Saturday night. Attempt after attempt to interest a passerby in the message we had to share proved unsuccessful. The feeling of being surrounded by people who could be helped by the gospel was frustrating, even infuriating. To make matters worse, I had been unsuccessful in Ravenna for about four months already, had, in my eyes, been passed over for promotion to senior companion, and constantly compared the baptisms and blessings I had experienced in my first city with the spiritual barrenness of this one. I felt responsible for the small, fragile branch that had held on tooth and claw for so many years.

Then I had an impression. The kind you read about and hear about, the kind that sent Wilford Woodruff to the United Brethren, the kind that made Parley P. Pratt ask to borrow that copy of the Book of Mormon. The impression pushed me to approach a middle-aged gentleman whom I never would have approached otherwise. He looked like all his energy for the past week had gone into preparing himself for this stroll along Via Cavour. His shirt and slacks were carefully ironed, his shoes expertly polished, even the tuft of chest hair poking out of his shirt was expertly prepared. He was the vision of middle-aged Italian masculinity. So I went up to him and complimented him on his shirt. Asked him where he purchased it.

He had stopped. We were talking. This was my chance.

Then, in my typical rough transition, I asked him if he had ever spoken to missionaries like us before. His response blew us away. “No, but I have been walking up and down this blasted street all evening hoping you two would stop and talk with me.”

What followed was an incredible story.

Salvatore had recently moved to Ravenna, prompted by a change of scene. He had been addicted to gambling and it was one late and drunken night, after losing almost everything he had, that he wrecked his car between casinos in the north of Italy. Hitting rock bottom, he left for slightly sunnier climes. He was trying to re-enter the oil industry, where he had had some success in past years but whose demands had ultimately ended his marriage and family. The first day after he had moved in, he spotted us and saw a spiritual opportunity. He bided his time and, lo and behold, an opportunity to speak with us on Via Cavour came shortly thereafter.

Salvatore quickly expressed admiration and happiness at learning the principles of the gospel: amazement at the story of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, comfort in the plan of salvation, humility towards the Atonement of Jesus Christ. He started to make and keep commitments, culminating in his letting us take all the alcohol from his house and throw it in a nearby dumpster (it was no small amount). The great ease of conversion, however, dulled us to warning signs. He rarely, if ever, read the Book of Mormon alone, rather expressing a desire to read it together. Baptism was his goal, so we did not blink too much when he began accepting commitments like paying tithing with verbal circumlocutions and dependencies. This all led up to a difficult failed baptismal interview in which he refused to commit to paying tithing after his baptism.

Members and missionaries alike tried to testify of the blessings and rewards of obeying this commandments, but the embarrassment of a failed interview and what amounted to a creeping suspicion that these mormoni were out to get what years of gambling had left behind embittered Salvatore.

I blamed myself for not being spiritual enough to have discerned this spiral. Our meetings with Salvatore grew less frequent and more confrontational, despite our best efforts. We stopped meeting in Salvatore’s home, instead briefly meeting up in public places. The last of this series of public meetings led to the caricature of Salvatore I later played for MTC companionships.

We had been begging Salvatore for weeks to read the Book of Mormon on his own so that he could gain a witness of its correctness and divine origins. In this meeting, he told us, he had acquiesced to our request, beginning the book from the beginning. And here, he smiled, was finally the proof he had been looking for. My companion and I also smiled, looked at each other, and waited to hear what Salvatore, in his usual dramatic manner, would say.

“I’ve found evidence that the Book of Mormon is not, cannot, be true,” he said.

We were dumbstruck. How could this be?

“Turn to the story of Nephi, chapter four. This is not the action of a prophet. This is an action of the devil. This is the wolf in sheep’s clothing I suspected. This is not the word of God. You, my dear boys, have been deceived and have dedicated your lives to deceiving others.”

To be continued next week

The Road to Middoni: Learning to Sustain a Living Prophet (Preface)

In the coming weeks, I'll be posting in serial form a narrative I've been writing that is the culmination of many years of effort, both mental and spiritual, to understand the role of prophets, their relationship to God, and my relationship to them. I'll try to tailor each segment to be blog-readable. I welcome your comments.

Today, I'll post the preface that gives some background into the genesis of this project. I'll then post weekly until I've inflicted the whole darn thing on the internet.

Preface

I began thinking about this book several years ago, in the throes of Proposition 8. If  you’re unfamiliar with the term “Proposition 8,” let me give some brief background. Proposition 8 was a voter-determined proposal to amend the California state constitution to include a clause stipulating that marriage could only be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Needless to say, that type of specificity in that type of document troubled many, including me. I took no public stance (since I did not live in California) but counted myself among those opposed to the amendment.

This wasn’t to say that I did not believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman. I just did not believe that popular will should determine an amendment that seemed likely to curtail the rights of perhaps the nation’s worst-persecuted minority, homosexual couples. In fact, I had a hard time seeing what was wrong with gay marriage and still do.

Thus, you can imagine my inner turmoil when the church leadership in my married student ward in Provo, Utah announced that the church was asking all its members in Utah to engage in a social media campaign to publicly support the amendment. What’s more, the leaders encouraged us to contribute financially to action committees in California running ads and funding grassroots attempts to sway the electorate towards supporting the marriage amendment.

I still find it difficult to put into words the sadness and confusion I felt at that time. The Lord, through his representatives, was asking me to do something that I found profoundly distasteful, misanthropic, and plain mean. My anguish was further confounded by the seeming glee demonstrated by many of my fellow brothers and sisters of the church. At last, it seemed, they had received sanction to express in political terms their visceral distaste for gays. Unfortunately, this unwelcome side effect of the Proposition 8 coordinated action has had a bitter effect to this day.

I wrestled, not for the first time during that period, with serious spiritual decisions. Did I sustain the prophet? You may remember that Proposition 8 occurred shortly after the passing of President Gordon B. Hinckley, a man I loved deeply, and a man well known for being a voice for compassion, charity, and understanding. President Thomas S. Monson, a voice and presence I had known and loved for years as a leading elder in the church, had recently ascended to the position of President of the Church, inheriting the prophetic mantle and responsibility from President Hinckley.

It was quite easy to jump to the conclusion that perhaps, at long last, I was witnessing a prophetic mistake on par with Brigham Young’s barring of black men from the priesthood because of their skin color and dubious biblical heritage. Or, even worse, that I had been participating for the last several decades of my life in a farcical religious fraud where wise old men whispered platitudes from an opulent conference center, soothing our souls and welcoming our hard-earned cash.

I will admit that I entertained both of those thoughts, sometimes for long periods. However, wise friends and a faithful companion inspired me to exhibit patience. To wait for the Lord’s direction, light, and comfort.

I waited.

And waited.

Three years later, I read the chapter in Alma in the Book of Mormon from which I’ve taken the title of this book, Alma 20. For the first time, I felt comfort and communication directly on the questions I had ineffectively buried in my soul. Over the next two years, in bits and pieces, additional truth and knowledge came to me. You will find, in this book, that none of that knowledge spoke directly about gay marriage, homosexuality, or for that matter, the priesthood ban, women and priesthood, difficult moments of church history, or idiosyncrasies in the texts of the Restoration.

Instead, the light and knowledge I slowly received taught me about my relationship with a prophet of God. I learned that it is not enough raise your hand every 3 – 6 months in mechanical devotion. Nor is it enough to teach your children the names of the prophets. The relationship between a child of God and God’s living mouthpiece is complex and beautiful, requiring an attitude patterned off how we must interact with our Savior and Father in heaven. I hope to show you some small piece of that.

I close this introductory preface with my own testimony. I sustain President Thomas S. Monson as prophet, seer, and revelator and as the representative of Jesus Christ on earth in these latter days. I sustain him unequivocally, and I will support those who succeed him in the same way. I support the church he administers and ministers to steadfastly, I try, in my own small way, to follow his example of spiritual preparedness and service. I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true-and-living church on the face of the earth because I know President Monson is a prophet of God. That knowledge buoys my testimony that Joseph Smith was also a prophet, as were the men who followed him, from Brigham Young to the present day. I know the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. Perhaps most appropriately, it is through studying the Book of Mormon along with the Bible that I have slowly come to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who lives. He suffered for our trespasses and rose from the dead, not for his own glory, but so that he could glorify the Father by leading us towards that sacred success of our return to heavenly glory.

The theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is profound. The teachings sublime. The history inspiring and sometimes troubling. The application of principles confusing. The leadership imperfect. But the leadership is also inspired. The application of principles taught by this church is the most perfecting thing any of us can do with our lives. Learning the history of the Church will give us a sense of the humanity of the men and women who have gone before us, which should increase, not decrease, our compassion and witness of the restored gospel’s truth. As such, we must dedicate ourselves to teaching the principles of the gospels that make up such an awesome and cosmic tableau of universal meaning.

What follows is 100% my own imperfect understanding. I don't speak for the church, globally or locally. Just for myself. But I share my understanding with you with the best of intentions, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

My Presidential Politics - 27 Points

With 550 days to go until election day, the absurdly long presidential election cycle is now in full swing, with candidates making bold statement that they will eventually walk back in the event they secure their party's nomination for the general election.

I've long considered starting my own political party that would avoid the historical ossified baggage that plagues both parties. Some Republicans are so obsessed with individual freedom that they forget their ethical obligations to others. Some Democrats are so obsessed with social justice that they refuse to consider innovative new ideas that work outside the confines of government.

I haven't started anything yet, but I'm going to use this post to outline my platform as it stands right now. I hope to write subsequent posts that provide data, reasoning, and perspective on each of the choices I've made. With 550 days to write them, I'm confident I can write about at least a majority of them.

Most importantly, I invite you to challenge my ideas or agree with them. Or point out an issue I've missed. I invite you to comment below. Even better, I invite you to author a guest post as an argument for or against one of the positions outlined below. Change my mind. All I ask is that you avoid bombastic and divisive rhetoric and that you give adequate air-time to counterarguments, perhaps even describing the circumstances in which the opposition may have a point.

550 days from now, the presidential candidate the matches most closely to this list receives my vote.

Without further introduction, my political platform (in alphabetical order):

Abortion - I believe abortion is a horrible, heart-wrenching action, never to be taken lightly. I also believe in a woman's right to choose what happens in her body, and that she should have adequate time to recognize a pregnancy, process her options, and make this important decision. Because of this and because of extreme cases like rape and incest, we cannot outlaw abortions. But we also, out of respect for the rights of the unborn, cannot allow late-term abortions. I support an abortion limit with timing around the end of the first trimester. It it then up to individuals, with support from family and community, to make the decision that's right for them.

Budgets and Deficits - We have to fund a government that is able to effectively perform its necessary functions. For that, we need reliable tax revenue (see Taxes below). We also need to be good stewards of the nation's future. The government's annual budget, with few exceptions (massive recession, national emergency) should not only balance, it should service existing debt, a little principal at a time, each year. We won't pay off the deficit in my lifetime, not realistically, but we can reduce it. I don't support a balanced budget amendment, but I do support fiscal responsibility.

Civil Rights - LGBTQIAH - I support laws guaranteeing same-sex marriage and equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation or its absence. Sexual preference should have no bearing on a person's life as far as government is concerned.

Civil Rights - Race - We must look closely at ourselves and recognize how race still affects our society. The Civil Rights Act is still relevant, and the Justice Department still has a duty to investigate charges of racial discrimination and prosecute when appropriate.

Civil Rights - Religion - This freedom is guaranteed by the first amendment. But it is not a preeminent right. Indeed, all "rights" have limits. If someone wishes to bring religion into business, they may, but only under certain circumstances: the customer can acquire the service or goods somewhere else without hardship, the business is family owned and employs fewer than 20 people, and the business erects signage approved by the government broadcasting religiously-based discrimination. If business owners choose religious principle, they must also accept limits to their growth beyond earning a living and be transparent about their prejudices.

Death Penalty - No death penalty.

Diplomacy - We must recognize that other nations want to be as successful as we are, and that it is in our best interest to help them succeed in that desire.

Drones - Drones are cowardly and counterproductive. End all drone strikes. If we feel the need to kill our enemies, then we should go kill them face-to-face.

Drug Policy - Decisions about legalization should be made based on scientific evidence, not societal precedent. If a substance, like marijuana, has fewer harmful effects than tobacco and alcohol, than it should be legalized, regulated, and taxed. If it has harmful effects at the level of or worse than tobacco and alcohol, it should be outlawed and producers and distributors should face stiff prison sentences for their part in the illegal trade.

Economy - Growth is important only so far as it ends poverty and provides good jobs for a growing population. Policies that trumpet unlimited growth and wealth at the expense of other values like environmental stability and safety are simply promises for short-term gain and long-term problems and should be avoided.

Education - We must foster a enviornment in our schools that incentivizes good teachers to keep teaching, to try out new ideas, and to share those ideas with others. Increasing teacher pay, providing a fair evaluation process that rewards good teaching, allowing charter schools to flourish (and, eventually, bringing them and their successes to the larger education system) are three key changes we must make.

Energy - We must significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, even when they are cheap. We must invest in alternative energy sources, more energy efficient technologies, and a smart grid. We should not leave nuclear energy out of the equation. We should not undercut wind and solar technologies.

Environment - The key word here is stewardship. Just like we must live within our means personally and as a nation, we must live within the resources that the earth gives us. We must make sure the the way we use water, air, soil, wildlife, and the land in general involves long-term wisdom and careful consideration of future generations of both humans and other forms of life.

Free Speech - Like all basic rights, this is both guaranteed and limited. The public sphere should allow all ideas. But it cannot allow hate speech. And we must find a way to limit the offensive and psyche-damaging spread of pornography.

Government Surveillance - If it feels surveillance is important for national security, the government can spy on enemies. If those enemies are in other countries, we must cooperate with those countries. But there is no place for generalized surveillance of citizens' phone records, email, or other data. That must stop.

Healthcare - Single-payor. Healthcare should not primarily be a business. It should be a right.

Immigration - Non-felons are always welcome. Always. If they want to stay for a short time, they should receive a visa. If they need asylum, they should be granted it. If they want to become Americans, why stop them?

International Presence and Responsibility - We have a responsibility to intervene in human rights disasters anywhere in the world. We also have the responsibility to do so with the international community, not on our own.

Law Enforcement - We must respect and obey law enforcement officials. Law enforcement officials who break the law must be tried as citizens, not as police. They should not receive special treatment because of their badge. To protect themselves, law enforcement should use available technology to make a record of all interactions with the public.

Nuclear Armament - We need to lead this effort. We should not only reduce, but eventually destroy all of our nuclear arms. Only then will we be justified in helping to eliminate them worldwide.

Post Office - Here's a perfect example of wasteful government spending. It was important that the federal government ran a postal service in the past. It's not necessary now. This money can be better spent, and the private sector is more than capable of taking on this responsibility. Close the post office.

Prison Reform - We incarcerate far too many people for far too long with far too few resources spent on inmate education, rehabilitation, and support. We need a national focus on reducing recidivism and reducing prison sentences for minor crimes.

Social Security - We must protect this safety net. No matter what.

Taxes - We need a simplified tax code. A flat tax for the majority of Americans (and no income taxes for the poor). An equal tax for all income, regardless of its source. We need to eliminate tax breaks that do not serve a holistic good for society. For example, society needs children. Keep that tax break. Society doesn't need everyone to own their own home. End mortgage tax breaks.

Trade - Trade really does create wealth and growth. Efforts like the Transpacific Partnership should be transparent, but also encouraged. More importantly though, trade creates bonds of international friendship, cultural exchange, and understanding. More trade = less conflict. The results of that trade can be creatively destructive, so part of the wealth created by trade must be channeled into retraining for victims of that destruction.

Unions - If a sector's employees want to unionize, there should be no effort made by employers to prevent that unionization. But employees should not be forced into unions either. Closed shop practices are as unethical as union prevention.

Welfare - We need to reform welfare so that there's an individualized focus on goals and personal growth. We also need to recognize that there will always be people who are disabled or otherwise unable to work, and we must embrace the opportunity to care for them as a society. 

Music Review - Despair: Or, How Mumford Made Me a Postmodernist

About once a year, almost on cue, my mother and I have a polite and good-natured disagreement about the Beatles. It usually goes a little like this:

Me (baiting my mother): The Beatles are still one of my favorite bands. I love how they developed their craft over time. [To a present third party] But me and Mom differ about what their best work is. I think Sgt. Pepper's is our only area of overlap.

Mom (falling for my bait): I just have such great memories of the earlier records. We had so much fun with that music.

Me (fake-furious rant): How can you say that? The Beatles can't be taken piecemeal!! Theirs is a story of constant growth and experimentation that binds their entire catalog together. You need Please Please Me to appreciate what comes after, but the White Album, Abbey Road, and Let It Be have no competition. Would you rather have "P.S. I Love You" or "Oh! Darling"? "I Saw Her Standing There" or "I've Got a Feeling"? "A Taste of Honey" or "Get Back"?

At this point, I would sit (because I would have undoubtedly stood to maximize rhetorical effect), secure in the knowledge that my musical structuralist thesis was sound. There was meaning and order to the universe. I understood how musicians, true artists, had an arc, a telos, which they would achieve chronologically.

That all changed yesterday.

Interestingly enough, it was during my last rehearsed rant of Beatles structural coherence that my mother mentioned that Mumford and Sons had released a new single. Brilliant! I thought. I had fallen for that band hard.

And as I've gotten older, busier, and less hip, I fall for bands less and less frequently. Requiems for my coolness aside, that's a lot of pressure on the new bands I've grown to love over the past half-decade. I had heart palpitations the day several years ago when I read that Mumford and company were parting ways on an indefinite hiatus.

What tragedy! I thought. This can't be. They've mainstreamed a powerful form of musical expression. Mumford quotes freakin Shakespeare for crying out loud! Don't do this!

And a joy that matched such pain powered a 24-hour smile when I learned that they were producing a new album.

And then I heard the album.

This is not Mumford and Sons. This is the worst kind of musical melting pot of uninspired influences and musical choices. Rolling Stone uses words like "subtle" to politely (and positively with 3.5 stars) describe this album as evidence of a maturing sound.

Perhaps. But only if maturing means their stardom moldering six-feet-under as bottom-feeders wait for the perfect vintage recycled sound. Or if maturing means that Coldplay (sans Chris Martin) and the latest "rock" act from Simon Cowell or L.A. Reid had a child, and that child was an unresponsive teenager convinced of his musical genius as he strums 3.5 chords on his acoustic guitar with his door locked and a yearbook open to his eternal crush (not that I speak from experience here).

What made Mumford and Sons so good was their powerful difference. Stage-rocking, banjo-tastic difference. And that's all gone in this album.

Obviously, this rattles my belief in telos to its core. This is the Yellow Submarine I always try to forget or artfully dodge in my structure of artistic coherence. If I agree with Rolling Stone and other critics that this is the kind of album that sends artists in a new direction or artistic expression, than I will become too depressed. Because where does that direction lead? Millions for Mumford and masochistic solo-listening parties for me. I must think of this as an aberration. I must embrace a larger paradigm shift, that art lacks structure. I must embrace that perhaps there is no coherence to a musical catalog.

It is only with my embrace of this postmodernist maelstrom of playful meaning making that I can hope for a return to form for Mumford and friends. At which point, I'll forget Wilder Mind and once again proselytize for convenient narratives of genius at work, reaching to the highest echelons of polyphonic bliss.