When Compass Needles Collide
Posted by Tyler on September 14th, 2006
Journeying through life, nothing matters as much as my moral compass. Fixed on true North, it will lead me home; pointed any other direction, it will lead me somewhere, anywhere, but the destination won’t matter because it won’t be the one I seek. The necessity of a true compass begets important questions: where is North? What magnetism sways my compass’ needle? In everyday spiritual life, what is my compass? This last question, especially, is difficult, even if I can answer the first two questions satisfactorily: assuming I know North and assuming that pole exerts some invisible sway on my pointer—where do I look, day in and day out, for that direction; I have no physical Liahona: whence concrete spiritual guidance?
1) Where is North?
Jacob recognized the peril inherent in looking “beyond the mark.” He also recognized the Mark, which he described this way: “Behold, they believed in Christ and worshipped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name, and for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.”
Elder Maxwell pithily put it: “and the mark is Christ.” Christ is North, focusing on Him sanctifies all other parts of the gospel; hence, all principles are only appendages to the Atonement. Christ is the Gospel’s anatomic heart: he pumps life into all other entities, without Him anything else dies. In Him, both principles and people find life and purpose far beyond pedestrian origins: words become scripture, farmboys become prophets, buildings become temples, rituals become ordinances, and humans become gods.
2) What magnetism sways my personal needle toward Christ?
Christ’s love is insistent and eternal—I cannot negate it any more than I can gravity. Whatever I do, Charity always draws my needle toward North. Still, just as a small magnet in my backpack can persuade my compass needle to point any direction the little magnet chooses, local influences—be they my own, the world’s, or the devil’s—can distract my needle from it fixed point. Some of these I recognize easily—the ads in this morning’s paper, for instance. Other’s are more subtle: a good job, a secure future, an elite degree, lauding from the crowd (any of many crowds, actually)—all of these exert their own pull on my needle, but none of them actually overcomes true Spiritual Magnetism. Take any of them away and Christ’s love still prevails—hence, necessary humbling and tutoring often consists in quitting from us the small magnets that make our compasses spin.
3) Finally, though: how do I read my compass? Where do I look—right now, today, this minute—to find where the needle points?
In part, I focus on daily discipleship. I know if I want to see and read the compass clearly I need to be in tune with the Spirit. Reading the scriptures, praying, attending the temple, lifting the down-trodden, feeding the poor, cheering the sad, and taking the sacrament are all necessary if I would follow true North home. Considering this answer, though, let me ask a more pointed question: assuming we are living in tune with the Spirit, how do we actually receive and interpret spiritual direction? In other words: if I have a question about how to proceed in a matter, or what to think about an idea, or how to react to some situation—where do I look for the answer?
Several answers present themselves. We usually look within. As we attempt to live in accordance with the commandments and as we seek access to the power of Atonement, our internal moral compasses should stay true and lead us aright. Similarly, we are blessed with many external compasses: modern Prophets, scriptures, the Ensign, trusted spiritual advisors, and many more. The Lord, I believe, provides these sources of direction to help us find our way in a world where the path home is often obscured by clouds of darkness.
Here, though, is the most difficult question: as covenant members of the Kingdom, what are we to do when the internal and the external compasses point in different directions? Many members of the bloggernacle, for instance, faced such a situation with regards to the First Presidency’s direction to support the SSM amendment. I do not believe any of those who chaffed at following this instruction chaffed because they were horrible people or because doing the right thing was unimportant; I am quite sure most all of those who dithered did so because they honestly believed a personal moral compass—one oriented, mind you, toward Christ—advised them to do something different than what the First Presidency seemed to instruct. When such a paradox presents itself, what is the moral decision?
It is tempting to believe we ought to be true to ourselves, period—that is, we should follow our internal compasses, regardless of any direction from other sources. Usually, this is relatively easy since most members’ compasses usually point toward the North the Church describes. Still, when disagreement between the two needles arises, there is something vaguely existential and noble about following an internal compass, come what may.
Still, I don’t find this argument entirely persuasive. Nate Oman, for instance, pointed out on a T&S thread that covenanting to follow the Prophet is of little worth if we only do so when we agree with what the Prophet says—there is no need to commit to following someone if you only plan to follow when he instructs you to do what you would have done anyway. Plus, refusing to follow the Prophet when he instructs us to do something we feel we ought not reeks of spiritual hubris—it implies my faith in my own understanding of morality is greater than my faith in the Prophet’s. In most other circumstances (that is, if other people were attempting to dictate my moral direction), this faith might be well-placed—we must trust our own moral direction most of the time. It seems to me, however, that part of accepting the restoration is admitting that my sense of ethics is not paramount—God knows things, even about ethics, I do not; further, he may communicate this understanding to His people via His prophet.
It seems to me that the concept of “watchmen on the tower” may explain how a Mormon dedicated to the ethical life can follow the Prophet even when the member’s internal moral compass would dictate otherwise. Part of our faith in the restoration implies that the Prophet sees things we do not see—he may even understand morality and ethics in a way we simply cannot. Limited vision limits our ethical understanding and, therefore, we are ethically vindicated in doing as President Hinckley instructs—even if doing so seems to violate our understanding of morality.
I realize, of course, this line of reasoning has potential problems. To put it bluntly: if we are going to follow the Prophet when that requires violating our personal moral constitutions, we had better be sure the Prophet is a shepherd and not a wolf. Still, isn’t that what testimony and covenants are about? Doesn’t a testimony that president Hinckley is God’s prophet inhere acceptance of the Prophet’s direction? Difficult questions, to be sure, and queries that offer no easy answers. Still, in the end, I think I would argue that firm testimony in the restoration of the Gospel validates us in following the Prophet, even if we at first doubt the direction.
Tyler,
Great post! I don’t see any problem with your reasoning. I posted a while ago on “blind obedience” and I took some thoughts from Elders Oaks, Packer, and Kimball, basically saying that we follow prophets not because we have a testimony of what they say today, but because we have a testimony of what they said yesterday. We followed, we were blessed; now if we follow again, we trust that we will be blessed again.
I was looking for more discussion of the Liahona in your post. Remember, it has two spindles—any thoughts on that?
Comment # 1 left by BrianJ on September 14th, 2006
Some want a Liahona, others prefer an iron rod.
I do believe there will be a few times when we need a significant calibration of our compass. I believe this should require a level of ‘religious experience’ in order to accept. Absent of this religious experience (often the result of study and prayer) we at times should be cautions.
Our church leaders really do not ask us to do anything that is all that shocking - at least to those who have headed the call previously. The example of supporting a SSM bill seems like a simple thing. I one has heard what prophets and read what scriptures have to say about homosexuality, such instruction should not be all that much of a surprise. Our internal compasses should have been pointing there all along. The ‘conflict’ if one exists, should have been obvious years earlier to the long time member. With ample time for a calibration.
It is mostly what we do day-to-day which maintains a proper calibration. Once a crisis comes up it is often to late. The instrument is delicate.
Very good post here Tyler. Welcome back!
Comment # 2 left by Eric Nielson on September 14th, 2006
BrianJ–
Thanks for the vote of agreement. Let me comment a bit about the Liahone in response to Eric’s comments.
Eric–
I agree that calibration may sometimes by needed, but I think some dedicated members view the issue as being more complex than the argument you outline. It is true that prophetic teaching concerning sexual chastity makes it clear that homosexual behavior is inappropriate. It is just as clear, however, that Christ’s teaching, as well as thouse of the Prophets, make it clear that we are required to demostrate compassion toward those who suffer. Regardless of our thoughts concerning the bases of homosexual tendencies (genetic, environmental, volitional), there is little question that many people, including members, with homosexual tendencies suffer because of the cruelty of others. Some would argue that institutionalizing a ban of same sex marriage in the constitution codifies this mistreatment or persecution in a way that inherently un Christian. Members who believe, in this case, that compassion should trump concern for sexual morality may feel that their compasses have already been calibrated to that of a higher power. Some members may even feel they have had significant spiritual experiences that validate the supremacy of compassion in this matter. My question, though, is this:
Is it ethical for such a member–whose heart and mind would dictate otherwise–to follow the direction of the First Presidency? If so, what is he to do with his contrary feelings? Does this constitute a leap of faith?
I have outlined my answer, or at least part of it, in my post–but I still think the question is difficult.
Thanks for the welcome back.
(More on the Liahona later)
Comment # 3 left by tyler on September 14th, 2006
I would think part of the calibration would be individual prayer seeking from God himself an understanding of what is behind the prophets instruction. It may take a leap of faith to follow the prophet at times, but that leap should be rewarded with confirmation afterward. I have faith that we are entitled to a divine reassurance. Faith in a true principle need not be blind.
Comment # 4 left by Doc on September 14th, 2006
I would think that the belief that compassion and a concern for sexual morality is incompatible is a mistaken belief. But, this is just an example. Your general point and question is still good.
In most cases I would believe that the leap of faith is humbly considering the possibility that I might be completely wrong in my opinions and feelings. Sincerely seeking the Lord’s will in this frame of mind would surely be rewarded.
Oh, and the Liahona is one of my favorite religious ‘artifacts’. I even wrote a hymn about it. Let me try to include the link:
Liahona
Comment # 5 left by Eric Nielson on September 14th, 2006
I read an interesting article a few years back about the Liahona from a technical standpoint. The author mentioned how redundancy is used in computer systems to verify the data being received. For example, you might have a number that has 8 bits (0s and 1s) and only 7 of the bits are actual data - the last bit (the parity bit) tells the receiver if the data cannot be trusted or not.
The comparison to the two spindles on the Liahona is an interesting one. With one needle circling around the Liahona, it is impossible to know the accuracy of the way it is pointing. With a redundant second needle, there can be a verifiable way of knowing whether or not the needle’s direction can be trusted. If, for example, both spindles line up perfectly, one would then know that that was indeed the correct direction. If the needles were unaligned, that then would indicate that you should not trust the direction shown.
Comment # 6 left by Connor Boyack on September 14th, 2006
While I don’t remember the source off the top of my head (perhaps someone else does?), I heard once that when we strive to follow our leaders, namely the prophet and apostles, we will be blessed, even if they have a temporary lapse in judgment. In other words, even if for some reason a leader is mistaken in doing what he is called to do (lead us), it is our responsibility to follow. Now, I do believe that extreme circumstances could possibly present themselves, in which a leader goes completely apostate, but this, I think, is unlikely. Most of the time, he really is trying to follow the Lord’s guidance, and it would behoove us to sustain him in doing so. And as we strive to be obedient, as our hearts are desirous to do what is right, we will be blessed, and will not be led forever astray.
So, I’d venture to say that as the general rule, we should seek to follow our leaders, and then, as Doc mentions, to seek to understand. Might there be exceptions to the rule? Certainly. Are they frequent? Probably not. Inherent in this is a feeling of humility in knowing that we do not always know what is best. Really, that is the whole purpose behind prophets - to guide us when we do not fully know or understand. Sometimes, we just need to let them do their job.
This is not to make light of the difficulty of the question - indeed, it is a struggle when internal and external forces are cognitive dissonance-inducing. Still, I think in the church, we talk a decent amount about submitting our wills to that of the Lord when they conflict. Less discussed, however, is submitting our wills and perhaps even our feelings of what is right to the Lord’s chosen leaders.
Comment # 7 left by preethi on September 14th, 2006
This is a fabulous post and discussion reflecting much of what I think about quite often. Thank you.
A thought: I think also sometimes there is that initial leap of faith to follow what the prophets say. John 7:17 says that we will know if something is from God if we first DO what we have been asked to do. That has been my experience. When the whole gay marriage thing got heated a few years ago where I live, I did a lot of studying and discussing and pondering. Even though I am a passionate prophet-follower, this was an issue that I had to take on faith. After years of holding to the position our leaders have taken, I feel my understanding and conviction of the rightness of their position has increased. It was never a one-time experience, but more an unfolding. Following the prophet is often a significant spiritual exercise, complete with the need for stretching and maybe even some pain. But my experience has been that my spiritual muscles are ALWAYS strengthened, and it becomes easier to follow in the future. I guess I could say I feel in better spiritual shape when I consistently follow the prophets.
This will be long, but I think the following from Elder Eyring is very relevant.
In our house, we talk to our children about practicing obedience. I think that is some of what Elder Eyring is saying, and gets to what Eric said above. Elder Eyring said in his last conference talk that it will be harder, not easier, to keep our covenants as we go along. That knowledge sobers me and makes me that much more concerned about following the prophets’ words with exactness. I know of no other way to safety. I simply don’t trust myself enough to really know the big picture of how to truly stay safe. And I worry for those who do trust themselves that much.
Comment # 8 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on September 14th, 2006
“Is it ethical for such a member–whose heart and mind would dictate otherwise–to follow the direction of the First Presidency? If so, what is he to do with his contrary feelings? Does this constitute a leap of faith?”
Not in any Kierkegaardian sense. If somebody is following a particular rational or calculus utilizing the success rate of prophetic words (former and present) and authority of those persons, then what faith is required?
Comment # 9 left by alyosha on September 14th, 2006
Connor,
I read that same article (I think). I have my doubts about it’s explanation: Nephi states that one spindle pointed the way they should go, not both spindles.
I wondered if Tyler might have some explanation for the second spindle based on the subject of his post.
Comment # 10 left by BrianJ on September 14th, 2006
Alyosha,
“then what faith is required?” The faith of remaining faithful to the witnesses you have already had. Can one ever have faith without basing that faith on some prior witness—however small and insignificant that prior witness may be? Alma afforded the Zoramites a seed to begin their faith; Christ afforded a mustard seed.
Comment # 11 left by BrianJ on September 14th, 2006
BrianJ:
I found the article, it can be accessed here.
Both spindles would not point the way they go - that is the purpose of the first spindle, indicating direction. The only purpose of the second spindle would be to indicate reliability.
Comment # 12 left by Connor Boyack on September 14th, 2006
The ‘leap of faith’ was an idea created by Soren Kierkegaard (and later adopted by Indiana Jones). A leap of faith is a purely personal and subjective experience that cannot be understood by another person. Thus, to point to an outward standard such as the success rate of prophets for justification for believing and acting a certain way would not qualify as a leap of faith.
Comment # 13 left by alyosha on September 14th, 2006
I think Tyler is asking some great questions. He finishes with the question “Doesn’t a testimony that president Hinckley is God’s prophet inhere acceptance of the Prophet’s direction?”
Some important questions that must be asked to give this question meaning include:
What is a testimony?
What is faith? (This is a term that is often thrown out by members without reflection on the meaning of the term itself)
What is a prophet?
What is a Prophet?
What does it mean to have faith in a prophet?
What does it mean to have faith in a Prophet?
What does it mean to say that ____ is God’s prophet?
For Nephi and Lehi, the liahona was an instrument that guided these prophets. Can an appropriate analogy be made equating a prophet with the liahona?
Comment # 14 left by alyosha on September 14th, 2006
great quote on your blog Alyosha.
Comment # 15 left by Ryan on September 14th, 2006
I have no physical Liahona: whence concrete spiritual guidance?
Harold B. Lee once said that to best test the truth of something spiritual, it must be put two four tests.
1. It should not be inconsistent with scripture.
2. It should not be inconsistent with prophets, living and dead.
3. It should not be inconsistent with personal inspiration.
4. It should not be inconsistent with divine love.
The more tests it passes, the better; with the gravity of each test increasing from the first to the last.
Comment # 16 left by the narrator on September 14th, 2006
Preethi’s argument is an interesting one; I might paraphrase it this way: though the Prophet may not always be right on every subject, he will almost always be right (and he will always be right in eternally significant matters) and, we will always be blessed for following him, even if, in some small matter, he gives incorrect counsel. The virtue, then, is in our reliance on the Prophet, even more than in what the prophet directs. A very interesting interjection.
I enjoy M&M’s conception of the “unfolding of an explanation.” Elder Maxwell once commented that, while God sees the end from the beginning, we are stuck in the mortal muddled middle. Inherent in this idea, I suppose, is that one day we leave the fog and, if we faithfully followed God, see the why behind the dictated path. Coincidentally, I remember quite clearly listening to Elder Eyring give that talk because I had never thought of repetition as an indication of importance..
Alyosha,
What if my acceptance of the Prophet comes not from external calculus mean to gauge a prophet’s “success” but, instead, from a personal spiritual conviction that the Prophet is God’s representative on Earth? What if my testimony is a personal, ineffable, inexplicable, and irreplicable spiritual experience? If I follow the prophet despite personal reservations based on this experience, I am leaping in faith?
Connor and BrianJ,
I only read the article abstract, but that seems a plausible explanation for the second pointer. As the author of that article points out, some mechanism would be necessary for verifying the validity of the first pointer’s direction–it is always pointing somewhere. I had always thought that, if they did not follow, those in Lehi’s party would have realized it upon getting lost or running into trouble, or from some inner-spiritual discord, but this seems a much simpler mechanism.
Comment # 17 left by tyler on September 14th, 2006
One more nugget (grin) from Elder Eyring that I LOVE:
“Sometimes we will receive counsel that we cannot understand or that seems not to apply to us, even after careful prayer and thought. Don’t discard the counsel, but hold it close. If someone you trusted handed you what appeared to be nothing more than sand with the promise that it contained gold, you might wisely hold it in your hand awhile, shaking it gently. Every time I have done that with counsel from a prophet, after a time the gold flakes have begun to appear and I have been grateful.”
I have had the same experience. I just find gold in what the prophets say, especially when I look for those patterns, those repeated truths and counsels that just keep showing up. I love riveting my attention, because I have confidence in the safety it will bring me. Does that mean I’m perfect at it? No. Does it mean I never struggle with it? No, I shared above how I had to go on faith for quite a while on the gay marriage thing (and still do to a degree, but now with much more confidence and clarity than before). It’s such an awesome experience, very Alma 32-esque.
Comment # 18 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on September 15th, 2006
Tyler-
What if my acceptance of the Prophet comes not from external calculus mean to gauge a prophet’s “success” but, instead, from a personal spiritual conviction that the Prophet is God’s representative on Earth? What if my testimony is a personal, ineffable, inexplicable, and irreplicable spiritual experience? If I follow the prophet despite personal reservations based on this experience, I am leaping in faith?
That’s an interesting question. I’m guessing that Kiekegaard would say that the desire to follow the prophet brought on by an unexplainable religious experience an be considered a ‘leap of faith.’ However, the particular actions chosen because of a prophet’s instructions would not be a leap of faith, but rather an act of resignation. That doesn’t mean it is wrong, it just isn’t faith anymore. For Kierkegaard, faith is a rarity that is difficult to find because we are all too willing to give up our subjective freedom for the simplicity of an objective standard.
Comment # 19 left by alyosha on September 15th, 2006
Alyosha,
Thanks for the continuing discussion. I am somewhat familiar with Kierkegaard’s discussion of “leap of faith”, and is it a concept I am not wholly convinced is correct (though, it is possible that I read a bad translation or I simply misunderstood). So while my way to define faith may not agree with Soren’s, I think it does agree with God’s. (Which, I hope it is clear, is not to imply pride on my part; I didn’t invent or discover that definition, after all.)
Comment # 20 left by BrianJ on September 16th, 2006
M&M–
Ah, that is the nugget I sought. My answer is “yes,” I would carefully shake that fistful of sand–my faith is that the gold is there, though hideen.
Comment # 21 left by tyler on September 17th, 2006