Dan Peterson: "what It Feels Like To Be A Mormon 'apologist'"

[jkwilliams]

So they disagree on the interpretation.

OK.

The point is that Dada says it's all interpretation. If you disagree, that's your prerogative. Dadaists would say that the conscience is contingent, so its still just interpretation contingent on your cultural context.

Once you start with the notion that it's all interpretation you have to stick with it to be consistent. So saying the conscience does not allow it is just saying your interpretation does not allow it.

That's nice but it doesn't really say anything new.

I guess it's progress that you're now mocking me for being consistent.

[mfbukowski]

Actually, I covered several definitions of "rationalize," including the negative one you are using here.  Then I demonstrated other meanings, including interpretation, which fits right into Mark's approach to understanding the social construction of reality -- something it would behoove all of us to take more seriously.

 

 

Of course not, but I didn't suggest that it did.  What I was attempting to point out was the importance in Mormonism (and in other mystery religions) of rationalizing ritual via myth, which (for scholars anyway) carries no negative implication.   The scholarly bent is to be fully aware and reflective of all such discursive theological methods of interpreting reality.

 

Moreover, scholars generally prefer to find their definitions of words from usage and context -- best obtained via the Oxford English Dictionary and a close reading of any given text.

Thanks Bob

 

See here is the bottom line that no one seems to understand.

 

We believe that revelation can reveal "truth".  "I know the BOM is the Word of God" - someone says "How could you know that?  It's just inside your head!"

 

And around it goes.

 

That whole belief system that there's a difference between "what's in your head" and "what's outside of your head" is centrally flawed and that central flaw has been pointed out by philosophers for the last 200 years!

 

That dualistic bifurcation of reality has been destroyed, in my opinion, by views such as social constructivism and Pragmatism, and phenomenology and ordinary language philosophy and even as I pointed out, contemporary views about art and even literary criticism.

 

It's dead.  Over.  No foundation, doesn't work.

 

That's GOOD NEWS for LDS because we want to be able to rationally say that "revelation gives us truth", and that saying "I know the BOM is true" is every bit as valid as saying "I know science is true".

 

Truth is relative to a context.  Change the context, you change the truth.  For LDS that's a good thing.  Polygamy can be "good" in the right context.  You can get a different "true" revelation from me because the context of your life is different and you need a different "truth"

 

Truth is a knowledge of things "as they are" and things "as they are" is the way they are interpreted.  Period, end of story.  That's true in ever field of human endeavor.  And yes even that last statement is true only in the context of discussions about truth.

 

A good relational truth guy knows that even statements about relational truth are only true relationally.  No problem with that. Truth depends on what question you are asking.

 

"Is the Eiffel tower to the right?"  "Yes- two blocks and make a left".  Are those instructions "true"?  Yes!  But if you ask them in a different location they could be totally false.

 

So Mormons say things like "Postmodernism is a bad fit for Mormonism" without even knowing what they are talking about.

 

Without a relativistic, paradigm-oriented way of seeing reality based on "interpretation" science disproves Mormonism.  Period.  Dawkins and the boys win. 

But Dawkins is wrong.  He is missing 200 years of philosophy which vindicates our view of the Restoration.

 

And when was the Restoration?  200 years ago.

 

Gosh what an odd coincidence!!  

 

Social constructionism says that humans create reality through language from matter unorganized.  Mormonism says a Human, social God created reality by the Word from matter unorganized.

 

See any similarities there maybe?  

 

And this is a "bad fit" for Mormonism??

 

But we are waking up and seeing the roses at last- or actually our sensory inputs and olfactory bulbs are creating the beauty of roses and we use words to describe that thereby creating a reality we can share.  

 

Nietzsche said god is dead, and he was right, 200 years ago.  Across the Atlantic a Human view of God was being understood for the first time at the same time the old god was being pronounced dead, precisely because there "are no facts, just interpretations"

 

Ironically that very way of thinking- that Nietzsche stole originally from Kant- was just coming to fruition the world over in phenomenology, Pragmatism, even Marxism and every other humanistic way of seeing the world that can be imagined.

 

But we Mormons see it as a "bad fit for Mormonism"??  Ridiculous!  Bottom line, it is the only way to rationally make a testimony or a revelation about anything "TRUE".  There is no other way.

 

True directions are always dependent on the direction we are travelling.   God is the perfect teacher and he teaches us the directions we each need to follow to return to him.

 

For some that's down two blocks and to the left, for others its hop on a plane to India, but the final destination is always the same, sitting with Him in his Throne in unity to Him as our Father.

[mfbukowski]

I guess it's progress that you're now mocking me for being consistent.

This speaks for itself.

[jkwilliams]

This speaks for itself.

I don't know why I have held out hope that you were interested in discussion. But all I get is cheap shots and total distortions of my position.

[MiserereNobis]

Mark, John, does this little spat mean that the bro-date at Tito's is called off...?

 

Edited November 4, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

 

Quote

Wouldn't this appeal to a jihadist?

 

Yep scary stuff.

Truth is ultimately “rational,” but it is not always or immediately clear to our present reason.

 

See this is the problem.  This shows precisely where Creedal Mormonism leads.  It's perfectly rational from his assumptions.  It follows perfectly but he is wrong in his assumptions.  That's not his fault- it is the fault of the Creedal Protestant intellectual heritage of Mormonism we need to leave behind.

 

His view is that Truth is unchanging, "out there" and can be accessed by Reason.  He is worshiping at the pagan Greek temple of Reason.

 

Our consciences vary, but truth does not so instead of following our consciences, we must follow the invariable Truth which we approach through Reason, some Platonic Form of perfection eternal and unchangeable.

 

What's "in your head" cannot be "true", only the eternal and unchangeable Truth can be True.

 

That view is inconsistent with a belief in testimony.

 

Unfortunately the only way we can know that we SHOULD obey what God teaches us in our testimonies is through testimony itself!

 

The only basis he has for his unyielding obedience is his "conscience" itself- testimony.  

 

So his conscience tells him to obey regardless of what his conscience tells him?  There's a little problem there I think

[jkwilliams]

Mark, John, does this little spat mean that the bro-date at Tito's is called off...?

Nope. Still on, but I'm less inclined to talk about about postmodernism.

[mfbukowski]

Mark, John, does this little spat mean that the bro-date at Tito's is called off...?

 

How does one judge the winner of a fight between two passive aggressive personalities?

 

You square off with dueling pistols, turn and take five paces.  Whoever then shoots himself wins?  

[jkwilliams]

How does one judge the winner of a fight between two passive aggressive personalities?

You square off with dueling pistols, turn and take five paces. Whoever then shoots himself wins?

I am not trying to be passive-aggressive. Just frustrated as hell.

[mfbukowski]

Yep scary stuff.

See this is the problem.  This shows precisely where Creedal Mormonism leads.  It's perfectly rational from his assumptions.  It follows perfectly but he is wrong in his assumptions.  That's not his fault- it is the fault of the Creedal Protestant intellectual heritage of Mormonism we need to leave behind.

 

His view is that Truth is unchanging, "out there" and can be accessed by Reason.  He is worshiping at the pagan Greek temple of Reason.

 

Our consciences vary, but truth does not so instead of following our consciences, we must follow the invariable Truth which we approach through Reason, some Platonic Form of perfection eternal and unchangeable.

 

What's "in your head" cannot be "true", only the eternal and unchangeable Truth can be True.

 

That view is inconsistent with a belief in testimony.

 

Unfortunately the only way we can know that we SHOULD obey what God teaches us in our testimonies is through testimony itself!

 

The only basis he has for his unyielding obedience is his "conscience" itself- testimony.  

 

So his conscience tells him to obey regardless of what his conscience tells him?  There's a little problem there I think

But now I have read more of Eugene England's stuff, very briefly

 

I am not familiar with his overall positions, and they seem to contradict what I said here.

 

So if I got it wrong, I apologize.  But I still think that perhaps the strawman of what I THOUGHT he was saying is found in the church- I just do not want to paint his position erroneously.

 

So if I am wrong, I am wrong and apologize for it.

[Robert F. Smith]

But now I have read more of Eugene England's stuff, very briefly

 

I am not familiar with his overall positions, and they seem to contradict what I said here.

 

So if I got it wrong, I apologize.  But I still think that perhaps the strawman of what I THOUGHT he was saying is found in the church- I just do not want to paint his position erroneously.

 

So if I am wrong, I am wrong and apologize for it.

Yeh, could be.  After all, the late Gene England is the guy famous for laying hands on his dead car, blessing it, and seeing it come back to life.  

[Calm]

. But all I get is cheap shots and total distortions of my position.

Not reading what Mark says about your stuff that way at all.

[mfbukowski]

Yeh, could be.  After all, the late Gene England is the guy famous for laying hands on his dead car, blessing it, and seeing it come back to life.  

Yep and then there's this- one thing I just pulled up from Google trying to figure out what he is about.

 

Even after a revelation is received and expressed by a prophet, it has to be understood, taught, translated into other languages, and expressed in programs, manuals, sermons, and essays—in a word, interpreted. And that means that at least one more set of limitations of language and world-view enters in. I always find it perplexing when someone asks a teacher or speaker if what she is saying is the pure gospel or merely her own interpretation. Everything anyone says is essentially an in­terpretation. Even simply reading the scriptures to others in­volves interpretation, in choosing both what to read in a par­ticular circumstance and how to read it (tone and emphasis). Beyond that point, anything we do becomes less and less “au­thoritative” as we move into explication and application of the scriptures, that is, as we teach “the gospel.”

Yes, I know that the Holy Ghost can give strokes of pure in­telligence to the speaker and bear witness of truth to the hearer. I have experienced both of these lovely, reassuring gifts. But such gifts, which guarantee the overall guidance of the Church in the way the Lord intends and provide guidance, often of a remarkably clear nature, to individuals, still do not override individuality and agency. They are not exempt from the limitations of human language and moral perception that the Lord describes in the passage quoted above, and thus they cannot impose universal acceptance and understanding.

 

http://www.eugeneengland.org/why-the-church-is-as-true-as-the-gospel

[mfbukowski]

I first came across the idea—that "whatever God commands is right" even if it goes against our conscience—in Eugene England's essay, "On Fidelity, Polygamy, and Celestial Marriage." Regarding Abrahamic tests, England wrote:

God apparently uses such a unique and uniquely troubling test because it is the only way to teach us something paradoxical but true and very important about the universe—that trust in our personal experiences with divinity must sometimes outweigh our rational morality. Obedience to the divine commands that come directly to us must sometimes supersede our understanding of earlier commands if we are ever to transcend the human limitations of even our best inherited culture and religion. We must learn, sometimes very painfully, to be open to continuous revelation. We must learn such a lesson partly because truth and history are too complex to be reduced to simple, irrevocable commandments—even from past prophets—like “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shalt always have only one spouse.” Truth is ultimately “rational,” but it is not always or immediately clear to our present reason.

 

 

Re-reading Nevo's post in relation to the previous post I think the problem is that Nevo got it wrong and we all bought into Nevo's interpretation.

 

The only way England is saying "whatever God commands is right" is if that commandment is given to us in personal revelation- he says to "trust in our personal experiences with divinity must outweigh our rational morality".

 

That is the opposite of the way Nevo took it- he is not talking about doing anything against our conscience at all, but always to follow it!

 

At least in this passage

 

In short, that is the opposite of what we might expect a jihadist to do!

Edited November 5, 2015 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

Re-reading Nevo's post in relation to the previous post I think the problem is that Nevo got it wrong and we all bought into Nevo's interpretation.

 

The only way England is saying "whatever God commands is right" is if that commandment is given to us in personal revelation- he says to "trust in our personal experiences with divinity must outweigh our rational morality".

 

That is the opposite of the way Nevo took it- he is not talking about doing anything against our conscience at all, but always to follow it!

 

At least in this passage

 

In short, that is the opposite of what we might expect a jihadist to do!

That is interesting, the Abrahamic test for a jihadist might be exactly the opposite of what it would be for me. That doesn't stop me from seeing the whole Abrahamic test, found in scriptures, to be one hell of a scary teaching. Really? God would take us to that extreme? I'd probably gladly kill myself before I'd kill my innocent son. If I ever felt God had told me to kill my own innocent son, I'd probably check myself into a mental hospital. It's more likely, though, that I'd convince myself all the other messages running around in my head, most of which would suggest killing my son would be stupid and is evil, would have me convinced that God didn't tell me to kill my son at all.

I can imagine Abraham was a real person. I doubt the stories we've gotten about him are all that authentic. They're to teach us something in the minds of those who gave them to us, I suppose. Maybe those who gave them to us are simply wrong.

Oddly, I feel strongly that personal inspiration/revelation is important and should guide and direct individuals. It's awful to think that people with that mindset go out and kill people. Luckily people go out and kill people without that mindset at all.

[Nevo]

That is the opposite of the way Nevo took it- he is not talking about doing anything against our conscience at all, but always to follow it!

 

Perhaps we need to define "conscience" then. It seems to me that England's point was that God's command to sacrifice Isaac militated against Abraham's morality, his sense of right and wrong. But perhaps you are right that Abraham's "sense of right and wrong" is not the same thing as his conscience. Presumably Abraham felt morally justified in slaughtering his son (since God had commanded it) even though it went against his own feelings. Was he following his conscience then or going against it?

[jkwilliams]

Perhaps we need to define "conscience" then. It seems to me that England's point was that God's command to sacrifice Isaac militated against Abraham's morality, his sense of right and wrong. But perhaps you are right that Abraham's "sense of right and wrong" is not the same thing as his conscience. Presumably Abraham felt morally justified in slaughtering his son (since God had commanded it) even though it went against his own feelings. Was he following his conscience then or going against it?

My impression from my prior correspondence was that my apologist friend believed that you should always follow the spirit/personal revelation and/or church leaders, even if you believe what you are being asked to do is wrong. He said basically that you have to get to the point at which you trust God and his prophets more than you trust your own "sense of right and wrong." He used the Nancy Rigdon letter to illustrate and gave Nephi's killing of Laban as an example.

Of course, lots of people have done terrible things by following what they thought was the spirit. The Laffertys, for one, and Rodney Lundberg, the seminary teacher who felt "moved by the spirit" to kill his infant son as an Abrahamic test of faith (only no angel stopped him).

One of the things I like about the church is the sort of "check and balance" between personal revelation and counsel of church leaders. Presumably, had the Laffertys or Mr. Lundberg gone to their priesthood leaders, they would have been counseled not to kill. But from what my correspondent said, there's no check the other way: if the prophet tells you to do something, you should do it, even if you think it's wrong. I think we are always free to say "no" when asked to do something that violates our sense of right and wrong.

Edited November 5, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Nevo]

Here's a bit more of Eugene England's thinking regarding Abrahamic tests:

 

This was indeed an “Abrahamic” test, and just as that biblical story offends me—that story of the prophet, who also after three days struggle, agreed to obey God’s command that he sacrifice his only son as a burnt offering—so the story of Joseph’s testing of Heber and Vilate offends me. I can find no way to be at peace with either story, yet I believe that both are true and sacred stories and terribly important. These particular trials are radically different from the daily ones that require that we give up, for the Kingdom, our sins, our weaknesses, our pleasures, the things most dear to us, or our mere preferences.

 

Abraham and Heber were asked in the name of God to turn against, in some sense to deny, the very ideas that had brought them to God in the first place and to the higher ethical and spiritual vision to which God had called them—asked to prove loyalty to God (or his servant) by obeying the direction of God or his servant to transgress the very things God had taught them. It is a supreme trial, a paradox, a cross, a mystery.

 

But it will not do merely to say that Joseph or the author of Genesis—or God—made mistakes or that such tests are unfair. Unfair or not, the universe, I believe, reveals something crucial about itself in these stories. And it is a failure of the test, and a form of idolatry, simply and easily to choose one of the poles of the paradox of obedience versus integrity, redemptive covenant versus individual freedom, that these tragic myths pose.

 

— Eugene England, "Joseph Smith and the Tragic Quest," in Dialogues with Myself: Personal Essay on Mormon Experience (Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1984), 13.

 

[T]he tension between the conflicting values of individual integrity on the one hand and on the other obedience to a God we believe is acting through his servants, a tension which exists at all levels of the Church and from earliest times, is a tension that should not be resolved in favor of one or the other of those conflicting values. . .

 

These images I have recalled of the perennial struggle between obedience and integrity, together with those of Abraham and Isaac, of Heber Kimball and Vilate, must remain before us, not forgotten or rationalized away. They are images that, if they had been remembered and imaginatively perceived, may have helped us deal better than we did with the modern Abrahamic test for Mormons, the denial of priesthood to the blacks. In that test God, through his servants, asked us not only to sacrifice our political and social ideals and the understanding and the good will of our colleagues and friends, but he seemed to ask us to sacrifice the very essence of his own teachings to us. It appeared necessary to deny our understanding of the divine potential, based in an eternal existence coequal with God and each other, of all God’s children, and the higher ethical vision of possible exaltation for all people through progression after death, concepts that are among the most attractive and vital features of our Mormon faith.

 

Those who failed the test, I believe, are those who thoughtlessly obeyed, even rationalizing the mystery away by finding some way to blame the blacks because of their supposed lineage or pre-existent mistakes. On the other hand, those also failed who emotionally opted for their own personal vision, rejected the authority of the Church and loyalty to their community, and blamed Brigham Young or the current prophet or other supposedly racist Mormons, never themselves. My personal hero from that time is President Hugh B. Brown, who wrote the First Presidency message of 1969 that urged all Mormons to pray, and thus prepare, “that all of the blessings of the Gospel … become available to men of faith everywhere,”which could only mean when blacks would be given the priesthood. Neither of the groups I mentioned that failed the test—whether conservatives or liberals—took that suggestion seriously, and thus they did not find a resolution to the paradox of obedience and integrity through their personal preparation nor did they help God prepare us to live the higher law of priesthood for all.

 

If, in our consideration of these examples of a central paradox from our heritage, we suppose there were simple solutions, if we imagine that we could have chosen easily and more wisely, I think we dishonor the great men and women who took part in these dramas and the full anguish with which they touched, and we must touch, the tragic heart of human experience. . . .

 

The general resolution of the paradox of individual and group, of integrity to conscience and obedience to law or commandment, is, I believe, found in covenants, of which eternal marriage is one form. A covenant is not, contrary to popular cliche, merely a contract between individuals, or between God and the individual, with mutual benefits. It is, in the words of the fine Bible scholar, George Mendenhall, “[a] free, voluntary acceptance of ethical obligation on the basis of and as response to past experience.” A covenant is a free, conscientious binding of the individual will to God, to an eternal partner, to a community and its land and history and sacred texts. It is not made blindly but out of gratitude and hope based on real experience. It turns neither the individual will nor the community into an idol that holds ultimate authority but reserves that ultimate authority to God, who is known and served both through the self and the community. One remains perfectly free to break the covenant but is bound in conscience to the reality, of his experience with the divine, both as an individual and through the experiences made possible to him only in the community.

 

— Eugene England, "Obedience, Integrity, and the Paradox of Selfhood," in Dialogues with Myself: Personal Essay on Mormon Experience (Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1984), 19–35 passim.

 

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

My impression from my prior correspondence was that my apologist friend believed that you should always follow the spirit/personal revelation and/or church leaders, even if you believe what you are being asked to do is wrong. He said basically that you have to get to the point at which you trust God and his prophets more than you trust your own "sense of right and wrong." He used the Nancy Rigdon letter to illustrate and gave Nephi's killing of Laban as an example.

 

What a completely appalling abrogation of personal responsibility. Absolutely shameful that the Nuremberg Defense continues to be reincarnated generation after generation. Not a surprise, of course, what with songs like 'Follow The Prophet' being taught to the Primary kids. Seems to me like the entire point of D&C 121 is to dismantle authoritarianism; pretty sad that we're more authoritarian in 2015 than in 1852: 

 

You are getting a little too close to Godwin's Law.

 

 

Millennial Star 14/38 (13 November 1852):

Because of...the apparent imperfections of men on whom God confers authority, the question is sometimes asked,—to what extent is obedience to those who hold the priesthood required? This is a very important question, and one which should be understood by all Saints. In attempting to answer this question, we would repeat, in short, what we have already written, that willing obedience to the laws of God, administered by the Priesthood, is indispensable to salvation; but we would further add, that a proper conservative to this power exists for the benefit of all, and none are required to

tamely

 and 

blindly

 submit to a man because he has a portion of the Priesthood. We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark, that they would do any thing they were told to do by those who presided over them, 

if they knew it was wrong

: but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God, who seeks for the redemption of his fellows, would despise the idea of seeing another become his slave, who had an equal right with himself to the favour of God; he would rather see him stand by his side, a sworn enemy to wrong, so long as there was place found for it among men. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty (!) authority, have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the Saints were told to do by their Presidents, they should do it without asking any questions.

 

When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience, as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves, and wish to pave the way to accomplish that wrong; or else because they have done wrong, and wish to use the cloak of their authority to cover it with, lest it should be discovered by their superiors.

[jkwilliams]

Here's a bit more of Eugene England's thinking regarding Abrahamic tests:

Thanks for that. A couple of thoughts:

 

It turns neither the individual will nor the community into an idol that holds ultimate authority but reserves that ultimate authority to God, who is known and served both through the self and the community. One remains perfectly free to break the covenant but is bound in conscience to the reality, of his experience with the divine, both as an individual and through the experiences made possible to him only in the community.

This is what I mean about the check and balance between the individual revelation and priesthood authority. I think the key is never to do anything thoughtlessly, and when in doubt, make sure your personal revelation aligns with counsel of leaders. If it doesn't, it's a question of deciding which takes precedence.

 

Those who failed the test, I believe, are those who thoughtlessly obeyed, even rationalizing the mystery away by finding some way to blame the blacks because of their supposed lineage or pre-existent mistakes.

There's that word again: "rationalizing," though I think he is being clearer than I was in adding "away" to indicate inappropriate justification. But that's the sense in which I was using it.

Edited November 5, 2015 by jkwilliams

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for that. A couple of thoughts:

This is what I mean about the check and balance between the individual revelation and priesthood authority. I think the key is never to do anything thoughtlessly, and when in doubt, make sure your personal revelation aligns with counsel of leaders. If it doesn't, it's a question of deciding which takes precedence.

There's that word again: "rationalizing," though I think he is being clearer than I was in adding "away" to indicate inappropriate justification. But that's the sense in which I was using it.

Good summary!

[jkwilliams]

What a completely appalling abrogation of personal responsibility. Absolutely shameful that the Nuremberg Defense continues to be reincarnated generation after generation. Not a surprise, of course, what with songs like 'Follow The Prophet' being taught to the Primary kids. Seems to me like the entire point of D&C 121 is to dismantle authoritarianism; pretty sad that we're more authoritarian in 2015 than in 1852:

Obviously, I disagreed with his assertions.

[jkwilliams]

Good summary!

That may well be a first, as I don't think you have ever agreed with me before.

[Thinking]

Here's a bit more of Eugene England's thinking regarding Abrahamic tests:

 

I think that too often behavior that seems to go against what we believe to be right or wrong is classified as an Abrahamic test.

[mfbukowski]

That is interesting, the Abrahamic test for a jihadist might be exactly the opposite of what it would be for me. That doesn't stop me from seeing the whole Abrahamic test, found in scriptures, to be one hell of a scary teaching. Really? God would take us to that extreme? I'd probably gladly kill myself before I'd kill my innocent son. If I ever felt God had told me to kill my own innocent son, I'd probably check myself into a mental hospital. It's more likely, though, that I'd convince myself all the other messages running around in my head, most of which would suggest killing my son would be stupid and is evil, would have me convinced that God didn't tell me to kill my son at all.

I can imagine Abraham was a real person. I doubt the stories we've gotten about him are all that authentic. They're to teach us something in the minds of those who gave them to us, I suppose. Maybe those who gave them to us are simply wrong.

Oddly, I feel strongly that personal inspiration/revelation is important and should guide and direct individuals. It's awful to think that people with that mindset go out and kill people. Luckily people go out and kill people without that mindset at all.

Agreed.

Abraham was not conflicted with following a prophet.

That whole portion of the argument has nothing to do with the story.

Abraham followed his conscience/heart/testimony/revelation - pick your word- regardless of social norms. Yes it was extreme, yes his actions are debatable, but this story is not about obedience to anything but what you think God wants you to do.

That's the only issue in the actual story.

Edited November 5, 2015 by mfbukowski