My children will not be obedient

September 1, 2016 9:01 am

My children will not be obedient and I will never teach them to be obedient.  Obedience is to betray your own sense of morality and instead substitute someone else’s.

Obedience is to do what you’re told regardless of what is right.
Morality is to do what is right regardless of what you’re told. –Unknown

I believe we have an obligation to act morally rather than obediently.  This is one of the fundamental issues that puts me at odds with LDS theology.  LDS theology defines morality as obedience.

For example, the Book of Mormon starts out with a story of Nephi being commanded by God to murder and rob a drunk man lying in the street in order to then go to the man’s home and steal a book.  The LDS Church teaches that this was a great and noble act of obedience and we should all strive to be as obedient as Nephi.  The lesson is that we all must be willing to commit murder if we believe God is commanding us to do it.

Similarly with the story of Abraham and Isaac.  We are taught that we should be so obedient that we will murder our own children and this is adored as virtuous.

The LDS lessons on obedience range from disturbing, to completely nonsensical, to truly concerning.

One of the more disturbing lessons I’ve come across was given by Staheli of the Quorum of the 70 in the April 1998 General Conference:

While I have had my share of lessons on obedience during my life, one of the most memorable was taught to me as a young boy by my dog and my mother. When I was about eight years of age, my father brought home a puppy which I promptly named Spot. We became the greatest of pals as I tried to teach him a few tricks and obedience to my commands. He learned well, except he could not conquer an overwhelming desire to chase and bark at cars as they came down the dusty street by our home in our small southern Utah town. As hard as I tried, I could not break Spot of his bad habit. One day a neighbor came speeding by in his large truck. He knew Spot and he knew Spot’s bad habit. This time, just as Spot approached the truck in his usual aggressive manner, this man swerved toward Spot, running over him with the rear wheel of his truck.

With tears streaming down my face, I cradled Spot in my arms and ran to the house, calling to my mother and brother for help. As we washed the blood from his head, it soon became apparent that Spot’s disobedient act had dealt him a fatal blow. As the burial of Spot was completed and the tears dried, my mother then taught me one of the great lessons of life as she explained the principle of obedience and its application in my life. She made clear that seemingly small acts of disobedience can result in longer-term consequences of unhappiness, regrets, and even fatal results. –Staheli

The lesson here is clearly not that the neighbor who willfully and intentionally murdered his dog was at fault.  Nor was Staheli himself at fault though he was responsible for the dog’s welfare.  It was dog’s fault for being disobedient.  And if we’re not obedient we might be murdered too.

Here’s one example of a nonsensical lesson from a Young Women’s lesson manual (manual 3, Chapter 25):

Explain that one of the primary aims of science is to discover additional laws. When scientists discover these higher laws and obey them, marvelous things can happen. The successful landing of men on the moon is an example of the importance of obedience. Men spent years concentrating on discovering and obeying the natural laws that governed gravity, jet propulsion, and other things. Their obedience resulted in the successful landing of a man on the moon. –YW Lesson Manual

The laws of physics are not something you can choose to obey or not.  The entire paragraph makes no sense in the context of trying to teach that obedience is a virtue.

And finally, the lesson that I find truly concerning and really highlights that in LDS theology there is no greater act than obedience.  In 1980, Ezra Taft Benson gave a talk, “The Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” in which he quotes Marion G. Romney from the October 1960 General Conference:

I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.” Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, “But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.” –Marion Romney

There are two fundamental problems in this quote.  One is that the prophet is infallible.  If “the Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray” then the prophet must be infallible as far as leading the Church is concerned.  Which contradicts the “leaders are not infallible” explanation that is used whenever doctrine has to be revised.

But the truly concerning part of that quote is that we’re told to obey the prophet even when he tells us to do things that are wrong.  That our own sense of morality and our own exercise of agency is so irrelevant that if the prophet tells us to murder our neighbors we need to be obedient and not question else “[we] become [our] own prophet. [We] decide what the Lord wants and what the Lord doesn’t want” (same source, N. Eldon Tanner).  And for some reason a God that granted us agency will find this not only acceptable but laudable.

I find that Galileo had a much more appropriate view on the matter:

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. –Galileo

Obedience has been used to drive people to great evil throughout history.  I don’t want people learning obedience.  I don’t want my children learning obedience.  Obedience is too easy to corrupt and can only be unblemished under the direction of a benevolent and infallible dictatorship.  Since the LDS Church readily admits that no mortal is infallible (despite teaching that the prophet cannot lead the Church astray) we should really be wary of the constant demand for obedience.

Far better to practice morality rather than obedience.  Morality is to determine for oneself what differentiates right from wrong; to develop your own, internal standard of behavior.  Morality is harder than obedience.  You have to study, ponder, wrestle with, and defend your actions.  You don’t get to explain your actions with, “I was just following orders.”

I will not teach my children obedience.  I will teach them morality.  And I do so with the recognition that morality is harder to teach than obedience.  Teaching obedience can be done with nothing more than fear.  Teaching morality requires teaching awareness, compassion, reasoning, justice, mercy, introspection, empathy, and self-confidence.  I will feel a failure as a parent if my children ever defend their actions by saying, “I was just doing what I was told.”

LDS theology is that our purpose on Earth is to exercise our agency and learn to discern right from wrong.  Supposing that is accurate I have a hard time believing that when we die and stand to be judged that the correct answer to “Why did you act that way?” will be “Because you said so.”

Heather’s First Day of TK

August 22, 2016 7:52 pm

Today was Heather’s first day of public school: Transitional Kindergarten.  TK was created when they moved the enrollment cutoff from Dec 31 to Sep 1.  It’s billed as helping the kids prepare, but it’s only for the kids born during Sep-Dec.  Which makes no sense since those kids will now be the oldest in their classes.  The only logical explanation I can come up with is that it only exists to appease the families that weren’t planning on paying for another year of daycare.  Which, to me, means it should have only existed for a couple of years while the school system transitioned.  But it’s here to stay even though it makes no sense.

Anyway, Heather falls in that range so she’s enrolled.  5 hours every day.

She had a blast.  So hopefully that continues.

In the morning, ready to walk to school:

IMGP5390a IMGP5390a_01

I held my off-camera flash arms-length to my left which filled in nicely I think.

Coming out when school was over:

IMG_20160822_133241523_BURST000_COVER_TOPa

And Corinne coped by perching herself on the window sill, with a frog (that’s the coffee table under her feet):

IMG_20160822_143629205_BURST000_COVER_TOPa

The Role of Police

August 4, 2016 12:01 pm

I’ve been meaning to write this blog post for a while, but haven’t been able to figure out how to state it correctly.  But it needs to be written and I’ll try my best.

The role of police should be to keep people alive so the justice system can attempt to do its job.

Our country has had too many examples in recent history of police officers escalating situations until some needless tragedy occurs.  But there are examples of “doing it right” as well.

One example, in particular, of the wrong outcome comes to mind: the LAPD manhunt, standoff, and killing of Christopher Dorner in 2013.  Dorner was a suspect in the murder of several people including members of law enforcement.  Police eventually surrounded Dorner in a rural cabin.  Police used equipment to knock down most of the walls of the cabin and then launched pyrotechnic tear gas canisters into the cabin setting it on fire after which Dorner shot himself in the head.  The police defend the use of the pyrotechnic tear gas canisters as “their only option.”

Dorner now will not stand trial and it appears that officers were acting out of anger rather than a duty to uphold the law.  It’s hard to believe that maintaining a safety cordon and “waiting him out” was somehow an impossible option.

On the other hand, the Boston Police provided a better example of carrying out their duties in a more professionally detached manner during the manhunt and capture of the Boston Marathon bombers also in 2013.  Once Tsarnaev was located hiding in a boat, police surrounded the area.  One officer, unfortunately, did open fire, but was immediately ordered to stop.  Tsarnaev was then taken in to custody and brought to a hospital for medical treatment.  He will stand trial for his crimes.

Even more recently we can find an exemplary example in how law enforcement handled the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in 2016.  Rather than “storm the castle” or light it on fire, law enforcement simply waited until their options improved.  They were able to arrest all but one suspect.  The one was killed by arresting officers after, reportedly, reaching for a firearm.  That means 9 suspects will stand trial and the justice system will attempt to fulfill its purpose.

Police need to be trained in de-escalation techniques.  They need to be trained in working to keep everyone alive–not just themselves.  They need to be trained in alternative problem-resolution techniques to force.  They need to be trained to be patient.  Yes, this will likely result in an increased level of risk to officers.  I recognize that.  That’s the job I’m asking them to do.  Training, support, equipment, and compensation should reflect that risk.

We need society to have trust in our law enforcement personnel. We need law enforcement personnel to behave in a manner that retains that trust.

When that trust breaks down violators on both sides will use it as an excuse to escalate their own actions.  And more people will be denied the right to see their families again.

Scientific Models

July 25, 2016 3:10 pm

Something I think gets lost in scientific education is what a “model” truly is.  We blur the line between model and reality until we forget that a model is exactly that–a model.

This conflation of terms is understandable when we talk about things we experience in our day-to-day lives.  We say things like, “when I toss a ball it moves in an arc,” and not, “we can model the motion of the ball using an arc.”  We don’t worry about whether the ball actually moves in an arc or not–that distinction isn’t particularly meaningful.

But when we start learning about more complex phenomena the distinction between the model and reality can become very important. A model is simply a representation of some process or phenomenon that we observe.  An acceptable model will match the observed behavior in a consistent, coherent manner.  And a good model will allow us to make accurate predictions about future events.

The “accepted” model for an observed behavior tends towards the model that allows us to make the most accurate predictions.  Utility is the lifeblood of models.

But a model, even one that allows us to make very accurate predictions, may not tell us anything about what’s really happening.

I stumbled upon an interesting example of this dichotomy between models and reality while reading Blind Watchers of the Sky.  Through the 16th century it was “known” that celestial bodies moved in circles.  This was an accepted fact because celestial bodies were created by God and uncorrupted by man, God is perfect, and circles are the perfect shape.  The celestial bodies clearly moved, so they must move in circles.  This was the dogmatically accepted model of the time.

With crude measurements the concept of the planets moving in perfect circles seemed to fit well enough.  But, eventually measurements got better and it became clear that they couldn’t be moving in just simple circles.  Since the perfect aspect couldn’t be challenged, the discrepancies were accounted for using epicycles (smaller circles moving along the larger circle) and other such complexity.

The model became more accurate, but was that truly how the heavens functioned?

Eventually Kepler proposed a radically different model.  But rather than what his new model was, the pertinent part is how he presented it.  He essentially said something like, “Hey everyone, look, we all know circles are perfect, and the heavens are perfect because God created them and God is perfect; I’m not saying anything otherwise.  However, I found out that if we model the motion of the planets using ellipses the calculation is easier and the results are more accurate!”

The argument wasn’t whether the planets truly moved in circles or ellipses, that was a foregone conclusion at the time.   Instead it was the presentation of a model that allowed for more accurate predictions.  How the planets really moved didn’t particularly matter.

—

An example I like to use to help separate the concepts of models from reality is this:

There is a thing on my desk.  I believe I can accurately predict how it will behave if I apply the model “spoon” to it.  I pick this object up and use it to eat soup.  My “spoon” model was accurate.  Jess now comes in the room and asks to use the item and proceeds to use this object in a way that no “spoon” I know of can be used.  She uses this thing to stab food and put it in her mouth.  The way she uses it would be better modeled by what I call a “fork.”  So is it a spoon or is it a fork?

I could claim that sometimes it’s a fork and sometimes it’s a spoon.  That seems rather bizarre, yet it matches my observations.  Sometimes it acts like the things we call “spoons” and sometimes it acts like the things we call “forks.”  But that doesn’t mean it is both or that it transforms from one to the other.  It is what it is.  It only means that these models can both be useful in describing this thing depending on the circumstances.  However, a more accurate model is to realize it’s something else entirely.  We need a new model we’ll call “spork.”

—

As one attempts to comprehend modern physics one is forced to separate “model” from “reality” if for no other reason than sanity.  When sub-sub-atomic particles were detected and their properties mapped scientists really just needed words to assign to these things they were observing that could only be indirectly observed.  So we ended up with terms like “spin” where nothing is really spinning, and “color” when nothing emits a visible-light wavelength, and other properties.  Then a fundamental set of 6 particles with various values for those properties was identified and needed names and we ended up with “Up”, “Down”, “Charm”, “Strange”, “Top”, and “Bottom” quarks.

I don’t know what reality really is, but we keep building models with greater and greater accuracy that enable us to better predict future events.  At some level the distinction becomes irrelevant, but that’s only true right up until reality does something our model says is impossible.  And then, it’s time for a new model.