Testing God

I have to start with a disclaimer.  Science is pretty cool.  It gives us a way to understand many aspects of the world.  What's more, it's proven to be very flexible.  However, it's not really the best tool for everything.  For example, while modern machine learning systems are pretty decent at determining of a book is any good, that's a kinda stupid way to measure the quality of a book.  We've got a whole field dedicated to literature that has developed far better tools.  The same goes for art.  Why would I let science tell me if a piece of art is good?  My point is this, we can use the scientific method to draw conclusions and support hypotheses about God.  It works, but it's not really the best tool for the job.

Ok, on to the point.  My wife wrote a post on Facebook recently, and in a comment that followed was the following:

How are you sure that it’s God that is leading you, and not you attributing your intuition to God?

I’ve heard some people say that learning to trust God is like a science— we can test him and learn to trust him over time. What seems to be the difference to me, is in true science, we predict an outcome, and base our assumptions based on the realization of that outcome. For trust in God, we wait for the outcome, and retroactively attribute the premise to God.

These comments were not addressed to me, but I know the author well and I'm sure he'll welcome my input as well as hers.

First, I must challenge and reverse the first and simply pose the opposite question.  How are you so sure that your intuition is the result of your own intellect, and not simply a gift from God?  In suggesting that inspiration is simply intuition, you seem to ignore the possibility that intuition is, in fact, inspiration.

Now, on to the second statement.  I think that those who say learning to trust God is like a science are fools.  As stated earlier, we can certainly measure such claims scientifically, but there are better methods.  What's more, I agree with him that the argument is often weak.  As he implies, all to often people only "measure" God retrospectively.  And, frankly, it is fair to say that it is easy to manipulate oneself into a position in these cases.  So, how do we learn to trust and hear God?  Alma tells us all about it in Alma Chapter 32.  He describes an experiment, but it is not a scientific one.  It’s all about feelings (though I would argue that is not the same emotions, though we often seem to teach that it is).  In any case, I would encourage reading his guidance.

Nonetheless, I shall indulge those who would prefer we measure God scientifically.  There is no shame in this.  It is imprecise, but reliable.  I can’t answer for why billions of people believe differently than me and are sure God agrees with them.  However, I can speak about my own personal experiences, and why I cannot dismiss the confirmations I have received from The Spirit.  Denying the reality and reliability of inspiration in my own life would require far more mental gymnastics than believing in it.

I would say 90%+ of inspiration cannot be measured.  For example, some time ago my wife and I felt strongly that we needed to move our family.  So, we prepared, left a home we had just finished remodeling after 5 long years of construction, left friends and family we loved and miss, and left a town we will never forget.  Can I ever prove scientifically it was the right thing to do?  Nope.  We have a great life here, and have had lots of experiences we wouldn’t have.  But that’s all easy to justify in retrospect. 

So, can we ever measure revelation scientifically?  You bet.  When inspiration includes an actual prediction about the future, we can measure if that prediction comes true.  The more detailed the prediction, the less open to interpretation the results.  If we do this consistently, over time, we’ll have a large number of measurements to draw a conclusion from.  Have I ever had such experiences?  Yes, I have.  Have others?  You bet.  So, let’s talk about the results.

I will share two personal experiences, and one of an ancestor.  I could share many more, but most are too personal or too sacred to be comfortable sharing in this format.

The first comes from early in my marriage.  My wife had been experiencing an aggravating health issue that kept recurring, again and again.  She’d get healthy for a time, and then it would come back.  We’d finally had enough of it, and so we decided to opportune the Lord.  We prayed to know, “is it your will to take this away”.  After gaining confidence, by inspiration, that God was indeed willing and desirous to heal her, we turned to the next challenge – a blessing.  I’d given plenty of blessings by this point, but never one where I knew going in that I intended to heal someone.  We fasted and prayed, and then I gave the blessing.  As I spoke, words I did not intend nor want to speak came to my mind.  “You will be healed of this, and it will never again beset you” – or something along those lines.  I fought it.  I didn’t want to make such a bold pronouncement and risk being wrong and thereby hurting my faith and that of my new wife.  Nonetheless, I relented and spoke the words.  She was healed within days (not that miraculous), and in 14 years of marriage, she has never again had that condition return (very miraculous).  To this day I fight with doubts that someday it will return and I’ll not know what to say.  14 years I’ve struggled with such doubts.  And for 14 years, I’ve had my faith strengthened by the continuing fulfillment of that blessing.

The second is much different.  In 2016 (I think) my wife and I were asked to join the 4^th year young women on a backpacking trip.  One day to the base camp, one to scale the peak, and one to return home.  One of the girls that joined us was lagging far behind the others, so Heather and I (and one other girl) held back with her.  This hike is notorious for terrible thunderstorms that roll in like clockwork about 1-2 every afternoon.  As the day hike is almost all above the tree line, these storms are life threatening.  Thus, you head out early, and do all in your power to be off the mountain before the storms move in.  Well, we got out late, and we had a straggler.  About half way to the top it became clear that we wouldn’t make the summit at our current pace, so we split up.  About ¾ of the way to the top it became very clear this girl wasn’t going to make it, and the three of us with her would miss out too.  I wanted, badly, for her to have this victory, and I believed God wanted it too.  So, I prayed as I walked.  “God, I want her to make it, and I believe it is your will.  Will you confirm this to me?”  With time, such confirmation came.  Then my prayers changed.  “God, I’ve been entrusted with the safety of these girls.  I can already see the storm moving in.  We don’t have time.  If we put our faith in you, will you hold the rain?”  This prayer, too, was repeated as we hiked on.  Eventually, I felt strongly that I had my answer.  It wasn’t a voice, it was simply an assurance.  “If you, all of you, will unite in your faith, I will hold the rain until you all return to camp.”  And so, needing the added faith of the whole group, I set out ahead to enlist the prayers of the girls who had, by this point, reached the top.  Then, I set back down again to join the Heather and this one girl.  Slowly, we got her to the top.  By this point it was already almost 1:00, the clouds were fully formed, and short the assurances of God, I would have been terribly worried.  At this point I had told 4 other adults and all the girls (8? Maybe) that God had promised to hold the rain for us.  Talk about intimidating.  And, to be honest, I was worried. There was plenty of doubt.  What will these girls think if it starts to rain on us?  Worse, what if someone gets hurt because I trusted a “voice” that wasn’t real.  So, yes, even in some of my strongest moments, I’m full of doubt.

Ok, so let’s pause for a moment.  First, can we measure this prompting?  Yes.  Second, is the prediction unlikely?  You bet.  If you’ve ever lived in the Rockies, you know how these “monsoons” work.  That rain was coming, and coming fast.  Finally, is there ambiguity in the measurement?  A little.  What if it started raining, but no lightening?  What if it was just raining softly?

Ok, so what happened?  Well, the main group took off down the mountain as quickly as possible.  Heather, myself, and this one girl took a slower steadier pace down.  And the rain kept threatening.  Being totally straight, I think I felt at least two or three drops on the way down.  Who knows, maybe it was a few dozen.  Again, and again, I reassured my two companions, “God will hold the rain, but when we hit that camp, it’s going to unleash.”  Well, guess what?  We made it down.  Within 30 seconds of reaching camp and our shelters, that storm let loose.  Torrential rain, lightening, wind, it was amazing.  No where near the worst storm I’ve ever seen, but certainly nothing I’d have wanted to be out in, much less above the tree line.  This was probably 3:00 or so, maybe later.  In any case, much later than normal for the afternoon storms, and much later than the storm moved in the day before or the day after.

Looking back, I’m still amazed that God loved this one girl enough to hold the storm so she could learn that she could do hard things.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, I must say there has been one exception to this pattern in my life.  One time when I was confident God had spoken to me, and the message did not turn out as I expected.  I once gave a blessing in which I made a proclamation that appears to have been false.  I felt very strongly about this proclamation, and it persisted even after I initially dismissed it.  I struggled, and continue to struggle with this.  I cannot explain it.  I have some theories, and they will be proven out with time.  But, in the meantime, I choose to wait patiently for the understanding to come.  The preponderance of evidence requires that I not dismiss the vast majority of experiences for the one exception.

Final story, and I’ll keep this one short.  My 6^th (I think) great grandmother’s aunt is Marie Madeline Cardon.  At 6 or 7 years old she saw a vision of three men.  She felt, at the time of the vision, that she must look at them as she would see them again some day and might remember them.  One of them spoke and told her he was a messenger from God sent to share a message with her.  They then taught her a great deal, and vanished.  Years later her father was visiting a nearby town and heard three missionaries preaching the same concepts she had been taught.  He hurriedly fetched her and upon seeing the men she confirmed they were the men from her vision.  The family soon converted to this new faith and eventually sailed to join the saints in America.

Here again, the vision was easily testable.  The claims were far from vague, and precisely measurable.  Not only did she recognize the men, but they taught the very message she heard in hear dream.  Either she is lying in her memoir (why?), experiencing significant false memories (perhaps the details, but surely not the overall story), or she indeed saw what she claims, almost a decade before it happened.

So, herein lies my faith.  I’ve learned to recognize a source of knowledge in my life.  It is different than my emotions, and different than my “gut”.  Over the years, I’ve learned to distinguish between the three relatively well, though plenty of ambiguity remains.  With that one exception, in each measurable case where my confidence was high that I was hearing from God, the results have been conclusive.  Thus, I have determined that I can trust this source of knowledge.  Or rather, I have now enough confidence in it that I choose to trust it, or rather Him.  And there you have it, my scientific support for the voice of The Sprit.

How, I wonder, do the doubters explain such things?  Plecebo effect?  Some mysterious capability to subconciusly detect barometric pressure and predict weather?  Perhaps pure coicidence?  Or do they, like the believers, choose to focus on the narratives that support their position, and dismiss those that don't as mysteries yet to be understood?  I welcome your comments from either side of the discussion.

How "I" lost my faith in light, and then in science.

This story is purely fictional, but I hope it sheds some light on how I think the world handles contradictions in the religious space.

When I was in 9th grade, I took a physics class, and my life was forever changed.  You see, this was the begging of my journey of discovery that led to me eventually losing faith in science.  This is how I came to know that science was not true.

It all started in the first few weeks of class.  We began our unit on light, and I was enthralled.  I had always loved light, and found it rather fascinating.  Light was all around us, but I really knew very little about it.  I would soon learn that my teachers and other great prophets of science were just as clueless.  They had been making things up for years.

One of the first experiments we conducted with light involved passing a light through two thin slits of paper.  When I saw what happened I as amazed.  The light passed through the slots, but rather than casting two slits of light on the other side, they produced dozens of thing bars of light.  Those bars in the center were the brightest, those further out where increasingly dim.  It was really cool.  My teacher then explained that light is, in fact, a wave.  All waves, it turns out, have this "diffraction" behavior.  We spent the next few days exploring the wave-ness of light.  One experiment after another proved, without any doubt, that light was a wave.  My faith in light's wave-ness grew, as did my faith in science and in my teacher.

Then the ball dropped.  One day, I was reading on the internet, and I found a website that declared they would uncover the hidden secrets of light wave believers.  They claimed, and it seemed so absurd, that light was not a wave at all.  It was actually a PARTICLE.  My first reaction was to laugh.  I'd just spent weeks proving that it was a wave.  My second reaction was to congratulate myself on being more intelligent and pious than these fools.  I, of course, disregarded them entirely.  But, over the next few weeks, a few things happened which made me think more about the issue.

One afternoon, I found out that one of my good friends was a light particle believer.  I couldn't believe it.  He was smart, well rounded, and very scientific.  How could he believe such an absurdity.  Well, after talking for a few hours, and trying to bring him back to reality, I discovered that he had a lot of evidence too.  So I went home and started reading.  I found out that there were dozens of experiments you could do that would prove that light was actually a particle, and not a wave as I had been taught.  For example, you could put a thin plate on a special piece of equipment that was very sensitive to contact forces.  You would then point a bright light at that plate, and you could actually measure the light particles pushing on the plate.  Not only that, but scientists had built a "sail" that had actually been used in space to push things around with light.

I was dumbfounded.  Apparently, all the "real" scientists already knew that light was a particle.  They'd proven it time and again, and they'd done real practical things with it.  So I went to my teacher and told him what I'd found.  His reaction surprised me.  He said that it was all a big conspiracy.  The particle scientists were just offended by something and had left the wave scientists in protest.  "Notice," he said, "that all of their 'experiments' require special equipment that you could never get access too."  They claim the science is very complex, because that ensures that simple minded persons can't question them.

Well, I was relieved for a time, but the more I thought about the issue, and the deeper I looked, the less comforted I was.  I became increasingly convinced that the particle experiments were not fake.  I didn't know where to turn.  I had witnessed the wave experiments first hand.  I couldn't find any real flaw in them.  Yet the particle experiments were sound too.  I was stuck in two parallel contradictory worlds.  Both were correct, yet they fundamentally contradicted one another.  What was I to do?

Eventually the answer was simple, I must abandon science.  After all, both theories rested solidly on the scientific method.  If both were "true" by this method, and both were contradictory, then science itself was flawed.  It was so obvious and clear.  Science was simply unreliable.  No longer did I live in a split world.  Of course, I still had no idea if light was a particle or wave.  And I could no longer reason with things in a "scientific" way, but at least I was free of the lie that was the scientific method.

---

Now, I think we can all agree that this is INSANE.  After all, there is no reason that light must be either a particle or a wave.  There is no real contradiction, as one does not negate the other.  That said, I do still find it funny that scientists have yet to really resolve the matter.  They simply coined the term "wave-particle" to describe the phenomena.  At least once per generation they come up with a new, but inadequate, explanation for the behavior.  But I digress.

Why is it that this story seems so absurd, yet we see the same thing in religious contexts all the time.  I see people lose faith when the learn that scientists "know" humans came from apes.  Or that the world is older than "the Bible says".  Seeming contradictions result in a loss of faith, rather than a deeper search for truth.  Personally, I have found that most contradictions between the gospel and science (or even within the gospel itself), are the result of a lack of understanding of one, the other, or both.  In most cases, there was never a contradiction at all.  When there was, it was generally because I didn't understand one side well enough.  In other words, the facts did not contradict, but my understanding of them did.

There are still many situations where I have not yet resolved contradictions.  Things I do not understand.  But they do not hurt my faith.  I see no need to chose a side simply because two things I believe are in contradiction.  When I can't find an explanation, I simply file the data away in a special part of my brain.  I revisit from time to time, and see if new information helps, but I can't deny the huge quantity of data in favor of each side, simply because of contradictions in a tiny subset of that data.

Contradiction, Doubt, and Finding Greater Knowledge

Abraham Chapter 1 presents to us a man who is driven from his home by dual motivations.  First, he "saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence" - as anyone would after their own father offered them up as a human sacrifice.  Second, he says that he was "desiring also to be one who possessed great  knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge".  In the next several entries in this blog, I want to talk about that quest for Greater Knowledge.  

I have long been a knowledge seeker.  Throughout my life, many have seen me as little more than argumentative.  I've been told I can argue any side of any discussion, regardless of what I actually believe, and that sometimes I seem to accept the exact opposite of whomever I am talking to.  This view of me is simply a reflection of my quest for knowledge.  I discovered young that contradiction is critical to finding "greater knowledge".  If we simply settle for conformity, we rarely dig deeply enough to see greater truth.  However, contradiction is scary.  It makes us question what we thought we knew, and for some, that leads to doubt.  

Doubt is the enemy of the quest for knowledge.  Satan has carefully tried to craft the world into a mindset that contradictions should breed doubt, rather than learning; this principle has gained wide acceptance outside of the wold of science.  In particular, the world has been taught that when religious matters are contradictory, the only resolution is to either reject both views outright, or to abandon one in the face of the other.  Interestingly, we do not take the same approach to scientific contradiction.

In science, contradictions are considered opportunities for discovery.  The principles of relativity, which contradicted newtonian physics, did not cause scientists to declare newton a fool; nor did they abandon the time tested theories and formulae he had developed.  Rather, they realized that there was more to the puzzle, dug deeper, and came out the other side with a more complete set of tools.  They realized that newton wasn't wrong, but his system was a simplified version of reality.

Why do we insist that religious contradictions should breed a loss of faith, which scientific contradictions should bree discovery and knowledge?  Worse, when it is science that contradicts faith, we are taught to universally discard faith for science.  
"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God." - 2 Nephi 9:28-29

My next post will be an analogy of sorts.  What if scientists took such a foolish approach to knowledge?

Insights on Christmas

Some time ago, I was at a stake holiday party.  We were watching a video about the birth of Christ, and as the Shepherds arrived to see the new child I saw something I'd never considered before; Marry and Joseph seemed surprised to see them.  Of course, this made perfect sense; why would they have been expecting anyone to help celebrate the sudden birth of their child, in a far away town, in a stable.  Not even their closest friends and family could have known where to find them.  This got me thinking, what else had I taken for granted in the Christmas story.  So I decided to tell Joseph's story, from his own eyes.

At first, I thought I'd tell it first person, but as I considered what I'd say, I realized that I'd have to make many assumptions.  Eventually, I decided it would be best to keep the story third person, but still write it with Joseph directly in mind.  Well, time went on, and I completed my review, and decided that the story format just wasn't going to work for me.  So here are some nuggets, take them for what they are worth (which may not be much).

Spiritual Maturity

I was particularly struck by the manner in which the various actors in the nativity learned of the Savior.  I will use the word, revelation, to refer to any spiritual manifestation of truth. See if you don't detect a pattern:

Mary

Mary was a young woman.  Though the Bible does not give an age, tradition as well as culture suggest she was between 12 and 16.  While she was, no doubt, among the most righteous, worthy, knowledgeable, and sanctified of our Father's daughters, she lacked earthly experiences.  Yet, she was "highly favored among women", and wise enough to submit herself to the will of God.  Mary was told of the Savior by an Angel, prior to his being conceived.  This is the only revelation that I'm aware of Mary receiving. 

Joseph

Joseph was a carpenter, and the fiance of Mary.  Like Mary, we have no real information on his age.  Some accounts indicate he was a widower and perhaps as old as 80 or 90.  Others seem to suggest he was a teenager.  Frankly, it is not a critical issue, but I tend to lean toward his being a younger man.  Joseph, like Mary, was likely foreordained to the role of Jesus's earthly father (or adopted father if you will).  It is likely that he was selected for his unique abilities, talents, and personality.  If, like Mary, he was still quite young, we could also say that he lacked the wisdom and experience that comes with age.  He received several revelations regarding Christ.  The first was some time after Mary was "found with child".  We'll talk more in a minute about how he may have felt to discover his fiance was pregnant.  Nonetheless, as he pondered on the mater of her pregnancy, he was visited by an angel.  The angel told him not to worry about the pregnancy and to follow through with the wedding.  The implication of Mathew 1:24 is that he officially married her very quickly after this visitation, and Luke 1:39 implies that she left shortly thereafter to visit her cousin Elisabeth.

Elisabeth

Elisabeth was the "cousin" of Mary, though probably not an immediate cousin.  Unlike Mary, who was of the house of Judah, Elisabeth was of the house of Levi.  She was not a young woman, and had long given up hope of having a child of her own.  Nonetheless, it was through her husband that she learned she would, in fact, see such a blessing.  She was, it appears, afraid of loosing the child (understandably) and thus hid herself for the first 5 months of pregnancy.  (yes I'm making a huge assumption as to why she did so, but it makes sense to me).  In any case, it is during the 6th month of her pregnancy that Mary learns of her own impending pregnancy.  We do not know how, exactly, Elisabeth learned of the identity of Mary's child, but when Mary arrives at her home, Elisabeth is well aware of who she carries.  She feels her son leap within her when she hears Mary's voice, and testifies "whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" 

Shepherds

We know little about the shepherds, though I've heard they were actually tending to the temple flocks (meant for sacrifice).  It sounds cool, but I can find no real evidence of it.  Nonetheless, they are visited by an angel and told of the birth of the Savior.  

Simeon

Simeon was a just and devout man.  We are led to believe that he was old, though I suppose it doesn't directly say so.  He had received a promise "by the Holy Ghost" that he would not see death until he had seen "the Lord's Christ".  When Christ comes to the temple at 8 days old to be blessed and circumcised, Simeon immediately recognizes him and pronounces a blessing and prophecy.  

Anna

Anna was a prophetess.  I love that title, though we don't have a detailed understanding of what it means.  She is interesting to me in that she "departed not from the temple" and "served God with fastings and prayers night and day".  I would imagine her as a modern day "temple worker" were it not for the fact that she was of the tribe of Aser, not Levi.  Not that we have any evidence of women working in the Levite temple anyway.  Nonetheless, she was a very old woman.  A widow of 84 years, and having been married for seven.  If I understand the customs of the time, that means she was no younger than 103, which was a rare age in those times when life expectancy was in the 40-50 year range.  Anna is nearby when Simeon makes his declaration, and immediately joins him.  Like Simeon, she speaks to anyone who is there to listen and testifies of his divinity and mission.  Like Simeon, she appears to simply recognize him without the need of an angel to tell of his identity.

Wise Men

We know little about the wise men other than that they came from the East and that they had seen a star that somehow indicated his birth.  I believe that they had scripture, possible books we know nothing of, that provided a detailed prophecy regarding the birth of Christ and came to worship him.

What interests me in all of these is the variety of manifestations.  Some saw angels, others seem to have used scholarly skills, while a few simply knew by the power of the spirit.  Also interesting is that the older (and more experienced) did not see angels, while the younger ones did.  I think there is something to that, and it gives me hope.  I've met some amazing people in my life, people who I would believe have seen and spoken with God.  I've often wondered how one can become that amazing, and I've come to understand that years have a lot to do with it.

OK.... So I guess I'll leave the rest for a part 2, because this is already pretty long.

Ordain Women - The Curse of Pride

So, about a year ago I heard about a great movement called Ordain Women.  I went to their website and saw their mission statement.  I can't say for sure, but I think it was worded a bit differently at the time.  Regardless, what caught my attention was that this group seemed to support a few things.

1. They earnestly believed, as did I, that the Priesthood was not eternally a Male thing.
2. They believed that the time had come for Women to receive the Priesthood.
3. They understood that revelations generally come to/for those who ask.
4. They wanted the Brethren to take this matter to the Lord.

My understanding at the time was that this movement intended to gather supporters by word of mouth and education.  In time, they planned to gather signatures and send a letter to the brethren asking that the matter be taken to the Lord.  I was thrilled!  This is how the Lord works, I thought.  He inspires us to help one another prepare for a blessing, and then he reveals it to the Prophet.  I almost created a profile on their site.

Sadly, the tone changed pretty quickly.  By October 2013 conference, it was clear that the leaders of Ordain Women were getting a bit pushy.  Nonetheless, the still claimed to be bringing the message to the brethren in order for them to take it to the Lord.  I still defended them, but I certainly thought they were walking a fine line.  Fast forward to April 2014.  By this point it was clear that Ordain Women was an outright protest movement.  Word of mouth was no longer good enough; they wanted media attention, and a lot of it.  The quotes from their leaders were increasingly negative and critical, and their actions were more and more demanding.  When they announced that they intended to line up for priesthood session AGAIN, I was a bit annoyed.  I thought, "Clearly you realize that your voice has been heard"?  There was no question that the brethren had heard what they wanted, and there seemed to be no good that could come of being even more vocal.  So I was not surprised when the church released a statement requesting that they not come get in line, and specifically indicating that if they wished to demonstrate they could do so in the area that had been set apart for demonstrators.  In other words, if you want to raise a spectacle, do it with the other protesters.  What did surprise me, however, was that they didn't back down.  They even went as far as to say, "that was a request from the pubic affairs department, not the brethren".  Really!?  

This has all culminated, not surprisingly, in a disciplinary hearing for the leader of the movement.  She was "shocked", she said, that such a hearing was called.  I think she may be the only person who was shocked, and frankly I doubt she was either.  After all, she'd been told 2+ months earlier that if she continued on the path she was on, just such a hearing would come about.  Sadly, we only get one side of the story, as her leaders are not (and should not) publicly commenting on the situation.  I'll agree, assuming her facts are true, that it's a bit odd that her Bishop never expressed reservations about her behavior until he sent her a letter regarding this action.  I'll also say that, given the public profile of the case, I'd call for a high council court, rather than a Bishop's court.  Nonetheless, it is clear that this group has blown it.  What started as a call for united faith and a request for prayerful consideration, has turned into a foot stomping spectacle.  I'll never know for sure where things started, but I have little doubt where they have ended.  

What would happen if Sister Kelly received a letter from President Monson?  If he told her, today, "we've taken this matter to God in prayer, and the answer is no?"  Would she walk away from it all?  Would anything change?  And if that letter would be good enough, what about one from a Seventy?  And if that one is good enough, why not the one from her own Stake President?

And the strangest twist; she and her supporters accuse Salt Lake of coordinating the disciplinary action.  Yet, we're left with two possibilities.  A. They are right, in which case it is clear that the highest leadership in the Church has asked you to stop.  B. They are wrong, and they should stop saying otherwise.  Which is it??

UPDATE:
Shortly after being excommunicated, Kelly released a copy of the formal letter she received from her Bishop explaining the terms of her excommunication.  In this letter - which she, not her Bishop, made public - her Bishop tells his side of the story.  It appears that he had actually counseled with her several times regarding this matter, as had her stake president.  Both had patiently attempted to help change her behavior over several months.  When it became clear that she was leaving the area, they felt it was crucial to put a hold on her records (a very common practice for anyone in the midst of these sorts of discussions).  In any case, it is more clear than ever that she was far from honest about the situation. 

Women and Priesthood Authority

Ok, so this post has been churning in my head for at least a year.  I haven't written it yet because there's just so much to say, I don't know where to begin.  So, I'm sorry that this is a rambling mess, but I need to finally get it out.

My family history is full of strong (and strong headed), faithful, capable, and amazing women.  My Grandad and my Pa (Grandfather and Father) were my example of what it meant to be a good man, and how to treat a woman.  Each treasured his wife as the greatest gift he had ever received, and treated her like a queen.  It was far more than holding doors; I always knew that their happiness was the single most important priority.  My mom was "boss" in my home.   Ultimately she had decision making authority over all matters relating to the home.  She was the book keeper, the cook, the maid, and the caregiver.  But she was also the craftsman, the yard worker, and the source of sometimes two additional incomes.  Likewise, my father was the bread winner, but he also cooked frequently, cleaned often, and loved his children passionately.

My grandmother was primary president for most of my childhood.  She was also a book keeper and clerk for the local building supply company.  She taught piano and was always in control. She'd have made an excellent politician if she were willing to lie enough.  With that upbringing, I have become what I would call a traditional feminist.  I believe that women are great, and should be treated with great love and respect.  However, I find little in modern feminism with which I can agree.  I think it is a great insult to womanhood that modern feminists want to measure a woman's success with a man's measuring stick.  I could write about that for days, but it's not the point of this blog post.

I was first exposed to the idea of women holding the Priesthood several years ago.  My knee jerk reaction was to laugh and dismiss the idea;  however, further contemplation and discussion changed my views considerably.  I immediately considered the great women of the scriptures, and then what little I knew of the great women of the restoration.  I realized that there was a great power among the sisters.  Later, it was pointed out to me that Sisters officiate in saving ordinances in the temple. (which I knew, but had never thought about).  As I studied the topic more, I learned a great deal about the early Relief Society and the sisters who sat at its head.  I became a believer, and began to consider how ordination of sisters to the priesthood would impact the church.  Would they hold the Aaron and Melchizedek  Priesthood, or some other order?  Would they hold the same offices?  I concluded that it was unlikely that sisters would hold the same offices, for example female bishops.  Anyhow, this had all been stewing around in my head when the notion of Feminist Mormons resurfaced in 2012-2013.  And that gave me a lot more to think about.....

Around the time that Ordain Women and "Wear Pants to Church Day" started to stir up controversy, I was starting to read articles and blogs about gender inequality in the church.  Like most things I read online, I found a lot of garbage, but as my wife will tell you, I have a knack for finding great things mixed in with garbage (literally and figuratively).  Mostly what I found was an invasion of "modern feminism" into the church, and it made me sick.  Unlike traditional feminism, which celebrates the greatness of womanhood, modern feminism does two things.  1. Blames gender inequality for ANYTHING I don't like about my life.  2.  Insists that women should be "equal" to men, which translates to "measure a woman's value, ability, talent, and desires the way you measure the same things in a man".  In essence, it is the exact opposite of traditional feminism.  Rather than lifting up women as amazing in and of themselves, it insists that women are only great if they are manly.

But, I digress; as I said, I found some great gems and jewels in this prolonged study.
1. I learned that I was no alone in feeling that the future would hold more authority and power for women
2. I learned that there are many cultural issues in the church that hurt women and men
3. I learned that there are many ways to empower women without any direct intervention from God
4. I learned that I don't understand the priesthood as well as I thought
5. I learned that Preisthood ordination and Preisthood power/authority are very different things.
6. I became convinced that God is actively preparing his daughters for something dramatic

Well, I was going to write more, but this is already getting long.  So I'm going to split the rest of this into a few blogs.  The first, which I'm about to write, is about the Ordain Women movement, and why it makes me sad, angry, disappointed, and frustrated.

Generations and change

There has been a great deal in the news over the past several years about a generational dichotomy that is leading to a massive exodus of young people from the Church.  We have a very colorful past as a Church, and there are a lot of thing in our past that are uncomfortable, scary, and down right disturbing.  Traditionally, the approach taken by the leaders of the Church has been to, in effect, ignore those difficult subjects.  "If it's not uplifting", the saying goes, "then don't teach or speak of it".  I don't disagree with the approach, and for many decades it was a reasonable approach.  Those who never ask hard questions will never have their faith tried by answers that are not a simple as they had hoped.  However, that does, in my estimation, sell people short.  It reduces apostasy, but it also reduces faithfulness.
Additionally, that approach has not been viable for the better part of a decade, and it gets less realistic every year.  For decades the Church controlled the narrative, and had control of most of the records, journals, etc about our history.  We were able to, in effect, hide the ugliness.  The advent of the internet, however, has changed that dramatically.  Our detractors make the same claims, but now they can back them up with sources that can actually be read by an average member.  And, when faced with only one interpretation of a sub-set of the facts, it is VERY easy to be misled.  Unfortunately, the Church continued to ignore the issue, assuming people would simply ignore the anti-Mormon literature out there.  That is, until very recently.  The last six months have been very refreshing for me.
You see, I spent the better part of 5 years deeply studying the literature of our opponents, and it was really hard work.  I read their claims, checked their references, and in many cases had nothing left to stand on but my testimony.  I knew that the Church was true, as was the Book of Mormon, and Joseph was a prophet.  Yet, those facts were not consistent with many things I learned in those years.  Ultimately, I prioritized absolute truth - that truth I had received from God - over partial truth - that truth I'd discovered in my own research.  When the two appeared to conflict, I assumed I was missing some facts.  I'm forever grateful for the perspective to take that approach.
What's more, after I learned to avoid the anti-Mormon stuff - it never was very uplifting or fulfilling to me - I was still left sitting in Elders' Quorum meetings that were full of nonsense.  We'd talk about polygamy, for example, and someone would always mention things like "only a small number of men were polygamists, and they were always called to it by the prophet, and their wife always had to approve, and......."  Or we'd talk about the issue of race and the priesthood and all sorts of ideas would fly about why and when and so forth.  I was always certain that these "facts" were baseless, but I never had the resources to debunk them.  I also heard people downright deny some of our tougher historical realities.  The Saints were not just victims of mob violence in Missouri; our members were, at times, the initiators of such violence.  The Mountain Meadows Massacre actually happened.  It was real, and it was members of the Church that committed that heinous crime.
So what's changed?  Well, several things.
First, there was Elder Uchtdorf's talk in this past conference.  In it, he freely admits that we (as a Church) have made mistakes.  Inspired leaders are not perfect, and not every decision they make is by direct and total revelation from God.  It shouldn't need to be said, but it needed to be said.  God doesn't have prophets on Earth because he wants to micro-manage the kingdom.  If he wanted to make all the decisions, he'd be down here leading it directly.  Rather, he wants us to do our best, and steps in when he feels it is particularly important we get things right.
Secondly, there have been two excellent articles added to LDS.org in the last month or two that deal directly with our most visible challenges - polygamy and race.  The first one released was entitled Race and the Priesthood, and laid out what most researchers have been saying for a long time.  The priesthood ban was, more or less, a direct impact of culture.  We got caught up in the racist culture of the time, and once the policy was in place, revelation was required to fix it.  It's a great read, albeit a little dry, but very honest.
The other article Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah, is also a frank look at a traditionally ignored subject.  I've met many members who had no idea Joseph had more than one wife, and I can't blame them.  We did two years in Elders' Quorum and Relief Society from the Joseph Smith manual, and I don't recall any references to any other wives, and the term "his wife" is used often.  This article debunks many "well known" myths that I've heard spread for years in lessons.  My favorite excerpt:
Still, some patterns are discernible, and they correct some myths. Although some leaders had large polygamous families, two-thirds of polygamist men had only two wives at a time.¹⁸Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women. Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages; remarriage was also readily available.¹⁹ Women did marry at fairly young ages in the first decade of Utah settlement (age 16 or 17 or, infrequently, younger), which was typical of women living in frontier areas at the time.²⁰ As in other places, women married at older ages as the society matured. Almost all women married, and so did a large percentage of men. In fact, it appears that a larger percentage of men in Utah married than elsewhere in the United States at the time. Probably half of those living in Utah Territory in 1857 experienced life in a polygamous family as a husband, wife, or child at some time during their lives.²¹ By 1870, 25 to 30 percent of the population lived in polygamous households, and it appears that the percentage continued to decrease over the next 20 years

For me, these articles and this talk represent a turning point for the Church.  A new approach to face our past head on, with honesty.  No longer are we leaving doubters to seek answers from those who hate us.  Rather, we are giving them good and honest answers to some really hard questions.  I really hope the trend continues.

Three IFs

If.  What a powerful word for both good and evil.  Three scriptural stories will set the scene:

Our first two stories come from the middle of Alma, in the Book of Mormon.  In fact, I suspect that their placement and emphasis was very intentional on the part of Mormon (the editor), as the message is all the more clear as a result.  We start with the story of Korihor, in Alma 30.  Korihor was preaching, throughout the land of the Nephites, that there would be no Christ.  After being cast out of a few cities he was eventually bound and delivered to Alma and the Chief judge.  As Korihor continued to preach his message, Alma confronts him, and bears testimony of the Savior.  To which we get this reply, with our first use of the word if:
"And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then I will be convinced of the truth of thy words."  Alma 30:43
and then later:
"except ye show me a sign, I will not believe." Alma 30:48
You may recall that Korihor received his sign (he was struck dumb), claimed to believe, and begged to have his sign taken back.  However, Alma foretold that if he were healed he would go back to his old ways.  I call this the only if.

The second story comes only a few chapters later, as Alma and Amulek teach the Zoramites.  In Alma 32, as the poor among the Zoramites come to Alma and Amulek to learn, we get the famous analogy comparing faith to a seed.  After referencing Korihor in verse 17, Alma goes on to describe a different attitude around the word IF.
"Even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work within you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words."  Alma 32:27
As these humble Zoramites did as Alma instructed, they were blessed with a firm knowledge of the truth.  This is what I call the longing if.

Finally, we go across the ocean and back several hundred years to Babylon.  Here we meet Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, three young Israelite in a foreign land.  These young men have been placed as magistrates over portions of Babylon.  They actually held political leadership positions in this foreign land.  At some point, the King builds an idol and commands that everyone should fall down and worship it.  Having refused to do so, the three Israelite magistrates have been taken before the king:

"Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?
15 Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?
16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up." Daniel 3:14-18

The three are then thrown into the furnace where the Lord joins them and speaks with them, and they are not harmed.  This is what I call the but if not.

So here we have three IFs, only if, longing if, but if not.  Each unique, and each showing forth a different attitude.  The first, only if, is Faith destroying.  It is a selfish demand that God deliver what you want, when you want it.  And a refusal to believe if he fails to do so.  It reminds me a bit of the toddler who thinks he can get whatever he wants by refusing to breathe.  As though somehow our refusal to believe it God will cause the truth he has spoken to go away.  I think we fall into only if faith more often than we realize.  What happens, for example, if we pay our tithing but still can't pay the bills?  What if we pray for our child, even give them a blessing, and they don't get better?  At times, it can be hard to grow beyond only if faith.

Longing ifs are faith generating.  They re-direct our hearts to be open and honest and humble.  When we truly have longing if faith, we are like the father who comes to Jesus with his horribly sick child.  He begs the savior, "if thou cans't do anything, have compassion on us".  When the savior responds, "if thou canst believe...", the man answers, "Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief".  Realizing his shortcomings, the man does not say "Only if you heal him, then I will believe".  No, with longing if faith, he states his belief, and then begs the Savior to supplement that belief.  But his quest for belief, even for a sign, is not conditional.  He does not say, I won't believe if you don't heal.  That is the key difference between only if faith and longing faith, it is unconditional.  We still want the Lord to give us what we want, but we don't demand it.  Which brings me to the final, and ultimate variety of faith, the but if not faith.

You see, true faith in the Lord Jesus Christ recognizes that our will and his will do not always align, and that our thoughts are not his thoughts.  It recognizes that what we think we want, and what we would want if we knew everything he knows, are not always the same thing.  This sort of faith leads us to respond as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego;  "I believe the Lord will answer my prayer, but if not, I will still believe and worship him."  It is a total submission to the will of the Father and the Son.

Elder Bednar gave an exceptionally compelling talk recently about this type of faith, which he termed the faith not to be healed.  He told of a young couple that he visited with recently; they were fairly newly married when the husband was diagnosed with cancer, and the outlook was very poor.  When this couple asked Elder Bednar for a priesthood blessing, he felt prompted to speak with them a bit first.  During this conversation, he was inspired to ask this couple, "do you have the faith NOT to be healed?"  This was a new concept, even to Elder Bednar, but led to a conversation about trusting in God.  The blessing was given, and the young man, for a time, was better.  Two years later, he again was in the hospital for treatments, and was once again considering this concept of but if not faith.

So here we have three IFs, each with it's own reward.  It is up to us to choose which type of IF we will use in our life.  And it is up to us to choose what sort of faith we want to practice.  Will we be like Korihor, the Zoramites, or the Israelite Magistrates?  The choice is yours.

Prophets are men too

Perhaps one of the most pervasive and damaging false doctrines in the church is the notion that the Lord somehow calls perfect men to lead it.  Generally we couch that by saying, the prophet is a man, but when he speaks to the church he is perfect - or other similar language.  However, that is not doctrinal correct.  Joseph Smith put it more clearly, "I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught."  Or, as the Lord himself has put it, "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." (D&C 68:4)

Let me be clear how this works, because often we misrepresent D&C 68.  When this revelation was given, we didn't have Apostles yet.  It was not about Prophets, it was about 4 missionaries (though I believe it applies to EVERYONE).  You see, the requirement is the same regardless of position in the Church.  "When moved upon by the Holy Ghost."  So the things I teach when moved upon by the Holy Ghost are also the will, mind, word, and voice of the Lord.  The same is true of Prophet's and Apostles.  Where we may sometimes err is in assuming that they are being so moved anytime they speak.  This takes me back to the fact that they are not perfect.  Furthermore, the Lord councils that "it is not meet that I should command in all things."  God does not want to have to give us all the words we ever speak.  

This is important because Church leaders make mistakes.  There, I said it.  They don't just make them at home, in their journals, or in small private settings.  I think that mistakes are more likely in those situations (because they feel more free to speak about things that are less certain).  Nonetheless, there are plenty of instances of errors in General Conference Talks.  Perhaps my least favorite General Conference talk of all time was given in October 2011.  Elder Tad Callister's talk The Book of Mormon - A book from God was rife with poor logic and false teachings.  Perhaps the most concerning to me is when, about half way into the the talk, he reads several wonderful quotes from the Book of Mormon.  The then states:
"Could these statements from the Book of Mormon have possibly been authored by the evil one? After the Savior cast out certain devils, the Pharisees claimed that He did so “by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” The Savior responded that such a conclusion was nonsensical: “Every kingdom,” He said, “divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every … house divided against itself shall not stand.” And then His compelling climax: “And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?” "
When I heard this I thought to myself, wow, if that's the measure of Good vs. Evil....   I guess that means that the Koran was the work of God (which I don't really question).  In fact, pretty much every holy book from any religion would pass this test.  I'm reminded of the old - and truly disturbing - analogy of the dog poop brownies.  By Elder Callister's measuring stick, those brownies must be good.  After all, how can anything that contains such wonderful ingredients like chocolate and sugar be bad?  You see, I've learned in my life that Satan can tell the truth!  In fact, he has been most effective in my life when he has told me 95% truth, and with conviction.  So much conviction and truth that I managed to ignore the 5% lie he told.  That does not make Satan "divided against himself".  It makes him crafty, cunning, and dangerous.  Were I to take to heart Elder Callister's measuring stick, I might well fall victim to many many such traps in my life. Now, lest you think I have a problem with this wonderful man, I will point out that he spoke again in April of 2013.  The Power of the Priesthood in the Boy was a fantastic talk.  I loved it.  

So, if you can't trust everything you hear, even in General Conference, how will you know what to believe?  Sorry to break this to you, but you'll actually have to do some work.  You see, this is about the Holy Ghost.  How do I know when one is moved up on by the Holy Ghost?  Well, it is actually quite simple.  If the speaker is speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost, then I will receive the message by the same power, if I am worthy and listening.  It really is that simple.  But there can be danger here too!  What if the speaker says something I don't like?  How easy is it to let my pride interfere with the Holy Ghost?  It's pretty easy.  The Savior gives us a good guide:

Go ye unto your homes, and ponder upon the things which I have said, and ask of the Father, in my name, that ye may understand, and prepare your minds for the morrow, and I come unto you again. 13. 3 Nephi 17:3.

I have two other rules I use to keep myself safe.  If something is taught in any setting, and I don't feel particularly comfortable with it, then I study and pray about it.  If I find I am not receiving personal witness of it, then I do not teach it to others.  And I then follow the Savior's advice.  I don't ask "is it true".  Rather, I pray "that I may understand".  Elder Callister, for example, was over simplifying a true doctrine.  As I prayed to understand his teachings, I was able to understand what he was trying to teach, even if it was poorly delivered.  At other times I have had similar experiences.

The second rule is crucial in my mind.  Teachings are one things, commandments and guidance are another.  When a Church leader gives a commandment (not just thou shalt commandments), I obey first!  Unless the spirit forcefully constrains me to do otherwise, I will always try to follow the council of my leaders.  Even when I am confident they are wrong.  Never have I received a prompting to the contrary, and I suspect it is very rare that I would.  The Lord blesses obedience.   I am sure that he would warn me against any council that was detrimental to my salvation.  But if a leader gives misguided, but harmless guidance, the Lord would want me to obey.  And so I do.

One final word:  I believe it is rare that our leaders make mistakes.  Particularly those who have been called, prepared, and chosen as Prophets.  They are men of God, and they are far wiser and more spiritually mature than I.  Mistakes in their teachings are so rare that I don't even look for them, but I do recognize that they can happen.  When they do, it does not bother me, nor does it make me doubt that they are inspired in their leading of the Church.  So please, don't focus on it, but also don't be so confident in their infallibility that it causes you to stumble if they make a mistake.  

The Word of Wisdom

How much have you really considered the Word of Wisdom?  What is it?  Why do we have it?  Has it always been so?
CAUTION:  This post is chalk full of opinion, though I try to support it with scripture.  Prepare to be offended and disagree.

I have often been amazed the lengths that members of the Church will go to in defending the Word of Wisdom.  I almost find it humorous, as they seem to have little understanding of the principles contained therein, but it also has a very dangerous undertone.  Some background will help set the stage here.

The Word of Wisdom is a very modern commandment.  In fact, far more modern that most members seem to realize.  You see, while the revelation in D&C section 89 was given in 1833, it was not until 1851 (or later, potentially as late as 1945) that it began to be considered a commandment.  In fact, the text itself clearly states that the revelation was not given  "by commandment nor constraint".  This has little bearing on today, where we have been clearly commanded to follow the Word of Wisdom, but it is an important point to consider for reasons we will get to.

The question of why we were given the Word of Wisdom is crucial to a proper understanding of it.  Some suppose that it is a law of health.  In fact, many of our lesson manuals refer to it as such.  However, the Lord never uses that term.  I've hear dozens of "reasons" for the Word of Wisdom, but I find most of them to be full of folly.  I recall an Elder I served with telling an investigator that Coffee was against the Word of Wisdom because it contained tanic acid, which is used in the tanning of cow hides.  I had to kindly thank him for sharing what must have been a direct revelation from God, since I was sure God had never revealed such a specific reason to anyone I was aware of.  Luckily, we don't have to guess or postulate at God's reasons.  He is VERY specific in the revelation about the EXACT reason for it.  He says,

"Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of^aevils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of^bconspiring men in the last days, I have ^cwarned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation"

Thus, we get from the mouth of the Lord the reason for his revelation.  It is not that this or that is bad for your health - though we now know many of its prohibitions are bad for us.  It was given because of the evils and designs of conspiring men.  I can't say for certain what that means, but I can say that it gives me great peace.  Why, you may ask.  Well, here are some of the challenges that members often face with regards to the Word of Wisdom and a poor interpretation of it.

Medical studies sometime appear to contradict the Word of Wisdom.  We can start with an easy one - a glass of wine a day can reduce the risk of hear disease.  Many members will get up in arms about this.  They will cite studies they have never seen (nor confirmed the existence of) that show grape juice will have the same impact. (I have confirmed those studies by the way, and they are real and not done at BYU)  However, with a proper understanding of the Word of Wisdom, I could care less what the studies find.  I am wholly open to the idea that some things prohibited in the Word of Wisdom may actually be good for me.  God told me not to drink wine, he didn't say it was bad for me.

On a related note, many struggle when faced with scriptural accounts of wine.  I have actually hear it suggested that Jesus didn't really turn water into wine, but into grape juice.  After all, Jesus would have obeyed the Word of Wisdom.  Well, there are two huge flaws in this logic.  First, there is NO BASIS for the idea that the word wine meant anything other than wine.  Second, there was no Word of Wisdom for Jesus to obey.  It is a modern law, given specifically to the saints, and specifically due to the designs of men in the LAST DAYS.  In other words, it doesn't matter if Jesus and Nephi and any other scriptural individual drank wine.  If you don't believe it was alcoholic then you have to answer three points for me.  1. How did the people of Lemhi get their captors drunk enough to pass out with just plain old grape juice?  2.  How did Labon get drunk and pass out on grape juice.  3. (and this is the hard one) How did ANYONE keep their grape juice fresh for more than a week?  You leave a glass of grape juice out of the refrigerator for a week.  Tell me what it tastes like after that.

OK, one more example and I'll wrap up.  How do you feel about medical marijuana?  Ignore the fact that it has been very poorly implemented in American society, and is highly abused in our existing system.  Pretend for a moment that you could only get it as a pill, and you had to have a real prescription from a real doctor, and buy it at a real pharmacy.  Would you ever take a pill filled with marijuana to relieve pain?  I used to have an easy answer to this.  NEVER!  It's a drug.  But that changed one day.  My friend suffers from chronic pain.  She's been on every pain medication out there, and has been addicted to at least 2 of them at various times.  After dropping a medication that was causing as much trouble as it was good, her doctor suggested that she give marijuana a shot.  Assuming it would make the decision easier, she went to her bishop.  She figured he would tell her she couldn't, and that would be the end of it.  Her Bishop, a MD himself, said something that caught her off guard, and dramatically changed my perspective.  I wasn't there, but I imagine the conversations went something like this:

"Sister, how many medications have you tried?"
"Dozens."
"And how many of those were narcotics or opiates (nasty drugs)?"
"Most of them."
"And would you consider those medications drugs, if someone who didn't need them medically used them?"
"Well, yes, I guess I would."
"You know a thing or two about marijuana.  Would you consider it a more or less serious drug that most of those narcotics?"
"Well, I guess I'd say it's pretty mild."
"So the concern is really that your narcotics come from a pharmacy, and marijuana does not?"
"Well, when you put it that way, I guess that is true."
"And perhaps that Marijuana is illegal?"
"Yes, that is certainly concerning as well."
"Do you know what the Church's policy is regarding the use of marijuana?"
"I assume it's against the Word of Wisdom."
"Actually, no.  The Church has no position.  It is left to the local leaders to guide.  Clearly you are not interested in using marijuana as a drug, but as a medication.  Therefore, I see no problem with it."

Now, in the end, my friend didn't end up going to marijuana - though the option is still there.  But it was an enlightening concept.  When we get a drug from a doctor or pharmacy, we don't think twice.  Most of the women I know have taken narcotics after they gave birth.  Many of them probably didn't even realize that the drugs they were taking were worth hundreds of dollars per pill on the black market as recreational drugs.  Vicodin, Codine, and so forth, are NASTY drugs.  Incredibly powerful and highly addictive.  Certainly mind altering.  Yet, we don't think twice.  The Word of Wisdom states that God gave us every herb of the field to be used with wisdom and thanksgiving.  I'm confident that some of those herbs, like tobacco, are meant to be used as medicine.  Tobacco is a great herb for bruises.  Heals them very quickly.  But I can only imagine the looks I'd get from church members if they saw me buying a pouch of tobacco at the store.  My point isn't that we should all support medical marijuana, nor that we should be using it.  My point is that we need to actually think and consider deeply before coming to a judgment that is based more on culture than on doctrine.

Finally, to wrap up, I want to make a few things clear.  First, the Word of Wisdom is modern day commandment.  We are all commanded to obey it, and nothing I've said today should change that.  Second, do not let your testimony be damaged by those things which appear to contradict the Lord's commandment.  Man does not understand all that God does.  The deeper lesson here is that it is dangerous to ascribe reasons to God's commandments.  While you may think you know why he commanded x y or z, you could be wrong.  And if you have the reasons wrong, you may find yourself in a very troubling situation.  When the world's wisdom contradicts the reasons we think God has given a commandment, it is sometimes because man's wisdom is wrong, but it is also often because we misunderstood God's reasons.  Lastly, do not judge others for things you do not understand.  You may think they are in sin, but it is quite possible that it is you who does not understand the situation.

Four Flavors of "Doctrine"

What is doctrine, and how is it established?  I have come to recognize four categories of beliefs that often get labeled as doctrine, though only one of them truly is.  I find this framework is very helpful in understanding the doctrine of the Church, and in understanding why there are many flaws in the church. (notice the big C vs the little c).

True Doctrine (with a big D)

The Doctrine of Christ, and the various other Doctrines which surround it, are the only teachings which can truly be attributed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  For a teaching to be considered Doctrine, it must be consistently and frequently taught by Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.  This does not preclude "deep Doctrine", but it does separate the true "Mysteries of Godliness", from the non-doctrines.  For me personally, an item is only true Doctrine if I can find it taught by at least 3 different Prophets (or Apostles), and only if I can see it taught by them with some consistency over multiple years.  Once that has happened, I consider the teaching to be well established, and I am entirely comfortable teaching it in any setting (unless it is of such a nature that I feel it should be reserved for certain settings).

False Doctrine

False doctrine is the polar opposite of true Doctrine.  These are teachings which have been consistently and frequently described as false by the Prophets and Apostles of the Church.  Like true Doctrines, I expect to see a consistent pattern of clear statements over time.  When I hear a false doctrine taught in any setting, I will quickly as respectfully speak up.  Generally I find that a simple question will resolve the issue without hurt feelings.  "Where did you learn that?"  Generally the answer is, "I got an email (or Facebook, or read a website)...."  I can then explain that the "quote" they read was never spoken and that the teaching is not consistent with Doctrine (for reason XYZ).

Non-Doctrine

Non-doctrine is a very interesting concept.  I came across this concept a few years back.  Basically, non-doctrine are thoughts and ideas upon which there is no consensus or consistency among the leaders of the church.  This includes principles that are taught in General Conference even, if such principles are not taught consistently by multiple individuals.  It also includes any concepts that may be discovered individually, or taught by individuals who have no authority to contribute to doctrine.  McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" is an excellent example of this.  It was written before he was an Apostle, and introduces numerous ideas that were not taught with any consistency among the Brethren.  In fact, many of the things taught in that book were refuted by other Apostles.  There are, particularly in the early church, many examples where the Brethren openly taught conflicting concepts.  These instances where there is disagreement (a lack of consistency), constitute non doctrines.
I want to point out that there is nothing wrong with non-doctrine.  It is not necessarily false, but it requires careful thought.  First, we need to be very sensitive to the spirit when considering these principles.  Through the spirit we can be enabled to understand truth and determine the worthiness of such principles.  Second, we need to be particularly caution when sharing non-doctrine.  Whenever possible, it should be made clear to our listeners that the principle we are teaching is not established doctrine.  We can certainly bear testimony of it if we have received such a witness, but it should still be made clear that this is a personal witness, and not an established church teaching.  Finally, non-doctrines should rarely be discussed in a formal church learning environment (Sunday School, etc).  These are principles best kept for more private and intimate discussions with those who clearly understand that they involve a degree of conjecture.
Finally, a short word on the source of non-doctrine.  Many of these teaching originate with individual members and their personal thoughts.  However, others arise from church leaders.  In many cases, they come from journals or private teaching environments where early church leaders often felt very comfortable theorizing and contemplating.  Modern leaders are much more cautious about such teaching, specifically because church members are too quick to treat such teachings as doctrine.  So let's keep in mind that being an Apostle does not mean that you instantly know everything, nor does it mean that God suddenly chooses to correct every mistake you make.  How unfortunate that would be for those men.  They too deserve the opportunity to grow and discover gospel truth.

Cultural Doctrine

The final category, and one I've only recently come to consider, is cultural doctrine.  These are teachings and practices that are a result of culture, not gospel truth.  Personally, I consider them some of the most damaging to the spiritual growth of church members.  For example, we teach and claim to believe in the Gifts of the Spirit.  However, very few of the these gifts would be tolerated in a modern church meeting.  the Gift of Tongues, as an example, is now treated as somehow synonymous with "learning a language fast".  We tell stories about our history that clearly show that wasn't always the case.  I can only imagine the reaction of church members if we were to see the same miracles as were experienced at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple.  I think most of our members would be very uncomfortable by such a manifestation.  Other elements include the way we generally teach chastity, modesty, and many others.  When, and how, did it become important that Priesthood holders wear business suits?  Is the power of the priesthood really somehow connected to my tie?  If so, what color was Moses tie when he parted the Red Sea?  I'll probably blog a great deal about cultural doctrines because I genuinely feel they are detrimental to the personal growth of church members; both those that espouse them, and those who are hurt by them.

Well, there you have it.  That is my framework for considering Gospel principles.  Oh, and there was a great talk along those lines a few years back.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng