I checked into Facebook earlier today and in my timeline was a link to an article in the December Ensign. (The Ensign is a monthly magazine published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) The article, entitled “The Answer to All the Hard Questions,” was shared by John Dehlin, a vocal and prominent critic of the Church.
He took exception with the linked Ensign article. He started his commentary by saying “There is a lot to say about this article. Here is the money quote:”
“Some of the hardest questions come when what we believe is challenged by changing cultural fashions or by new information, sometimes misinformation, that critics of the Church confront us with. At such times, it may seem that our doctrinal or historical foundations are not as solid as we thought. We may be tempted to question the truths we’ve taken for granted and the spiritual experiences that have formed our faith.
“What do we do when doubt seeps into our hearts? Are there really answers to those hard questions?
“Yes, there are. In fact, all the answers—all the right answers—depend on the answer to just one question: do I trust God above everyone else?”
John then went on to point out that his biggest problem with the article is that the author really meant “do I trust LDS priesthood authority above everyone else.” After forcing words into the mouth of the article’s author, John worked his way to his ultimate feelings about those who lead the Church:
To me, this is perhaps the most insidious and damaging thing about 21st century LDS authority. After almost two centuries of often egregiously disappointing behaviors, LDS church leaders still expect church members to equate the church’s will with God’s will. So damaging. And so disappointing. We deserve better. You deserve better.
Advice is fine. Suggestions…ok. But please stop insulting (and damaging) us by perpetuating the idea that you speak for God. You don’t. You do your best…and sometimes your best is helpful, and sometimes it is very, very damaging. And so it is more important than ever that we learn to discern for ourselves.
As John makes abundantly clear, he doesn’t like or trust LDS leaders. In his words, those leaders have been disappointing him for “about 184 years now.” That is an amazingly broad-brushed dismissal and damnation of Church leadership. Even if those leaders provided the apology that John says is needed, it is doubtful he would stop wielding the broad brush he uses.
It boggles my mind (and has for some time) that John chooses to stay a member of a church whose leadership he openly distrusts; a leadership who he sees as “damaging” members through their actions. Yet he stays.
That is a topic for a different post, though. The point I wanted to bring out here is that John effectively created a straw man and then, with righteous indignation, bludgeoned the straw man in the public square. He did this to the accolades of the crowd who “liked” his comments quite a bit.
What was the straw man? It can be easily seen by looking at the original article, right after the “money quote” that John used:
Truth isn’t always obvious, particularly when it has to compete with alternatives presented in attractive packages. Often we understand the truth only in part, while the whole remains yet to be learned. And in the learning, we face the uncomfortable prospect of abandoning imperfect but heretofore comforting understandings. But trusting that God has all the answers, that He loves us, and that He will answer all our questions—in His way, on His timetable—can simplify our searching. It may not always be easy, but simply trusting in God’s counsel can safely steer us through clouds of confusion.
In other words, the article’s author isn’t equating trust in God with trust in LDS priesthood authority; that is John’s straw man. The author really meant that we should trust God. We look to Him for answers; we look to Him for help in changing our imperfect understanding; we look to Him when our faith is weak; we look to Him to provide solace when we hurt.
I agree with the author of the article in the Ensign. Every one of us sees through a glass darkly, and we need to seek God’s will and God’s understanding. We need to approach Him for answers and then trust that He will provide them.
John has some of the answers, just as we all do. But he doesn’t have them all. In my opinion he has this particular answer completely wrong. His righteous indignation borders on hubris as he willfully misunderstands or misuses the words of another as a springboard to uncharitably judge the intents of those he clearly mistrusts.
==============================
Edited to add:
Because of the ephemeral nature of Facebook posts, I figured I would include John’s Facebook post here, in its entirety, so that it is available for all to see, in context.
There is a lot to say about this article. Here is the money quote:
——–
“Some of the hardest questions come when what we believe is challenged by changing cultural fashions or by new information, sometimes misinformation, that critics of the Church confront us with. At such times, it may seem that our doctrinal or historical foundations are not as solid as we thought. We may be tempted to question the truths we’ve taken for granted and the spiritual experiences that have formed our faith.
What do we do when doubt seeps into our hearts? Are there really answers to those hard questions?
Yes, there are. In fact, all the answers—all the right answers—depend on the answer to just one question: do I trust God above everyone else?”
———-
I will just say this.
While they boil “the answer” down to a single question: “Do I trust God above everyone else?”….what I think they mean to say is, “Do I trust LDS priesthood authority above everyone else?” Because in their mind, obeying God = obeying LDS priesthood authority.
The problem is that (when we have been given all the information) — so many of us have been disappointed time, and time again by LDS priesthood authority. For about 184 years now (and counting). But they act as if their record is spotless.
For me, the essential question that I believe we all should be asking ourselves in 2014 (as LDS church members) is:
* (For those who still believe in God) — “Do I trust my own ability to discern God’s will for me and my family?”
* (For those who don’t believe in God) — “Do I trust my own reason/instincts/intuition/inspiration/emotion, along with those whom I love and trust, to discern what is right/best for me and my family?”
To me, this is perhaps the most insidious and damaging thing about 21st century LDS authority. After almost two centuries of often egregiously disappointing behaviors, LDS church leaders still expect church members to equate the church’s will with God’s will. So damaging. And so disappointing. We deserve better. You deserve better.
Advice is fine. Suggestions…ok. But please stop insulting (and damaging) us by perpetuating the idea that you speak for God. You don’t. You do your best…and sometimes your best is helpful, and sometimes it is very, very damaging. And so it is more important than ever that we learn to discern for ourselves.
What we need is an article that says, “We’re really, really sorry. And we’ll try to do better. And we can learn from you as much as you can learn from us.” What we need less of, is articles like this.
The problem with hard line critics is that even when they get what they want, they can’t see it, and they continue to be critical. Here the church publishes an article saying “Hey we don’t know everything, but in the end what matters is what God want’s from us individually”. The article states that somethings will be hard and we will have to work through those in various ways while trusting in God.
Unfortunately for the critic like John, his entire stance is that the church leadership is wrong. So even though he should agree with what is being said here, the only thing he actually can do is twist the words so that he can criticize the church and it’s leadership. He must find fault in all things to maintain his position.
Pingback: John Dehlin: setting up a strawman to the nations? | dearjohndehlin
First, let me say that I enjoyed your treatment of this topic. I also found Dehlin’s Facebook sayings curious, and wrote the following, which you may perhaps enjoy, and deals with a few angles other than those you particularly addressed:
http://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2014/11/23/john-dehlin-setting-up-a-strawman-to-the-nations/
I’m sorry this is not a straw man fallacy. It may be Non Sequitur, but you’d have to rewrite your whole argument, as it isn’t very strong.
Actually, John does make a straw man argument. Here is the definition: “A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument.”
The Ensign article’s author made the point that we should trust God. John misrepresented that point as “we should trust Priesthood authority.” He then sought to rhetorically demolish the misrepresentation he had created.
That is a classic example of the straw man fallacy.
Now, John may have also committed a non sequitur, but there is nothing that says a non sequitur is mutually exclusive with a straw man fallacy. He is, of course, welcome to utilize as many logical fallacies as he desires.
How is it a misrepresentation when he gives the reader the quoted text, only then to misinterpret it, or assign different meanings himself? Misrepresentation is found in straw man, this is misinterpretation.
The misrepresentation part is evident in the way he substituted his preferred reading for the words of the Ensign article’s author:
When he says “…in their mind…” he is not only mindreading (‘here’s what the author really meant’), but he is telling his readers that the author was being underhanded and sneaky in his wording. In other words, he was misrepresenting not only the words of the author but also the intent of the author.
I disagree. He may incorrectly misinterpret, but he isn’t misrepresenting an argument. He is merely trying to associate terms that don’t necessarily correlate (God and LDS authority). They could. The meaning could totally be the intent of the author, as it very often is with LDS leadership, but it isn’t explicit.
Allen. I was born and raised in the LDS Church both in the SLC area and Arizona. WE are all taught that the prophet and apostles speak FOR GOD. Period. Oh, sure. We can pray to receive personal confirmation of things said. But we all have to raise our arm to the square and confirm the Brethren as prophets, seers and revelators. There is no strawman in John Dehlin’s post. He made a very obvious and straightforward directly correlated interpretation of “God’s will”. It is the interpretation we are all taught from the “Follow the prophet. He knows the way.” songs in Primary to every conference talk and Sunday School lesson on modern prophets. It is unfair to lump all of the seriously damaging church history problems into one question, ““Yes, there are. In fact, all the answers—all the right answers—depend on the answer to just one question: do I trust God above everyone else?” That is the disingenuous question. John Dehlin made the perfectly logical step. The ONLY way us Mormons are told we get “revelation” and God’s will for the church….including these church historical problems ie. polygamy and blacks in the priesthood have ALWAYS been through the prophet and the quorum of the twelve apostles. SO to pose the question about trusting God…..the author has to understand what that language means to the VAST MAJORITY of LDS people. There is absolutely no STRAW MAN. I even argue the Dallske is wrong that this is a non-sequitur. John’s interpretation of “God’s will” is exactly correlated to LDS authority.
Randall,
You argue that John is right; that there is only ONE interpretation of what the Ensign author had to say. That, however, is demonstrably untrue.
Read my blog post again. Then read the Ensign article. Then read my blog post again. The relationship that is promoted by the article is a relationship between the reader and God, not the reader and priesthood leaders. As I highlighted, the article says this:
The author isn’t saying “trust your priesthood leaders,” as John says. He is saying to trust God. I commend that approach to you and to anyone.
I know what we are taught in Church. I have spent the past 47 years in the Church. I have listened, studied, and prayed. I know that in Primary children are taught to “follow the prophet; he knows the way.” That is written for a child’s understanding. We also tell children to “always listen to policemen” and “follow what your teacher says.” We do this so they can (hopefully) learn to learn.
But as we get older, we understand why such teachings are made and we grow beyond them. We hopefully learn that our salvific relationship must be with God. Prophets don’t save us; they counsel us. It is God who saves us. We are wise to listen to others (including prophets) who are seeking the same salvation that we seek. That doesn’t mean that we blindly follow others, but we should know where to look for salvation.
All of this is beside the point, however. It is tangential to the point I was making: John was either willingly ignorant of what the Ensign article’s author was saying or (worse) he did understand it but, instead, wanted to go on his own tangent that had very little, if anything, to do with what the Ensign author was saying. Either way, he is wrong.
I am noticing the conspicuous absence of one simple example to prove your point. You failed to show us where Priesthood Authority and God did in fact disagree. Without that your point is moot and John Dehlin’s point is exonerated.
Steve,
It seems you misunderstand my point. My point was that John created a straw man from what was said in the Ensign article. I made no assertion about whether priesthood authority and God ever disagreed.
John did create a straw man, as I’ve adequate pointed out.
Allen, I think the implication is very strong in this article that “trusting in God” means staying in the Church and trusting that the counsel being given is God’s will. I don’t think this is an unsafe assumption, and I think this is basically what John Dehlin is saying. I think what he is really calling for is greater humility and candor about the fallibility of church leaders and the necessity of vetting their counsel with the voice of the Spirit, with our own convictions and experiences about the truth etc. I don’t think that he doesn’t respect the leadership at all (that is a stretch of your own). I think he’s just saying they aren’t as perfect (even in their revelations and direct explicit counsel) as they have come to be characterized in our culture, manuals, performances and practices. At times when their fallibility (even and especially in extremely important matters) is more prominently on display than ever before, more humility and frankness is called for. Fortunately, I think we’re getting better, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.
Carl,
I believe that the implication in the Ensign article is that God will answer the sincere seeker, in God’s own time. Leaders may provide counsel, but God provides answers.
As for what John really meant or what John really believes, I’ll let others reach their own conclusions based on his words above. (If those who write in the Ensign should be judged by their words, shouldn’t John?)
You seem to be oblivious to the hole you dug yourself.
If “trust in God with trust in LDS priesthood authority” is not equivalent, then that is a prima facie accusation of Church leaders of violating that trust. You can spare us all your rhetoric by providing a single example of that trust violation. If there is no time that occurred, then they are by definition equivalent.
In other words to prove your assertion, show us where LDS priesthood authority violated that trust and you will be welcomed as a fellow apostate. If not, then your point is moot.
Steve,
You seem to be stuck on the idea that I’ve asserted that “trust in God” is equivalent with “trust in priesthood authority.” You would be wrong; I’ve done no such thing.
I pointed out that John said “obeying God = obeying LDS priesthood authority,” which is his prerogative to believe. My assertion is that John created a straw man because the Ensign article doesn’t make the same equivalence.
Allen – How else does one obey God if not by obeying the commandments of prophets/LDS priesthood authority?
I’d also point out that the article also says this:
“We are also blessed to have living prophets and apostles to teach us under the inspiration of heaven. We need not be ‘tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.’We can trust that their collective guidance will help us ‘all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God.’”
Jake,
Yesterday in sacrament meeting I gave a talk on the topic of commandments. As part of my talk I told people that they need to obey God’s commandments. I even reiterated what a few of those commandments were. I told them why they need to do obey the commandments, as well. I told them that they needed to change and that if they weren’t obedient to the commandments that they needed to repent.
If someone walks away from hearing that talk and decides to obey one (or more) of the commandments I mentioned, who is that person obeying? God or me?
That you for your response. I’m not sure that’s the same thing because you aren’t the source of those commandments. If you revealed the commandment and gave the talk I’d say people are obeying you.
Look, the point is that obedience to God = obedience to LDS priesthood authority is implied in the article. LDS teachings do boil down to that. Let me ask you a question. If I grow up and learn about the Constitution in college and about the history of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation in this country, and then pray about whether God has ever approved of discrimination on those basis, and get n definite and affirmative burning in the bosom that discrimination on that basis is wrong and has always been wrong and will always be wrong – what, as a faithful Mormon, am I supposed to do with that? Because I can bear testimony that those things are wrong. I know they are wrong, both on a rational and basis AND at a soul deep Holy Ghost level. It is sinful and I believe God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. What do you think I should do?
Should I “trust God above everyone else?” in this situation? Including LDS priesthood authority? Is that what the article is saying? That if the General Authorities are guilty of popular prejudices against distinct minorities I should rebel and call them out on it? The article takes it as a given that the will of God has been revealed through LDS General Authorities. That is implicit in every statement the article makes. That IS the article’s unstated premise. Brother Dehlin says it boils down to obedience to God equals obedience to LDS Priesthood authority and it does. The article assumes that trust in God means trusting in the teachings of the leaders of the church. You can’t really argue that. You’re playing this little legalistic game of what the article says in black and white and know as well as I do and everyone else that this equivalency is a given.
Not a “legalistic game” at all, Jake.
Since the earliest days of the Church the prophets have never claimed inerrancy (which is what you seem to be saying the Church teaches). Do some Church members believe that leaders are inerrant? No doubt. Are they wrong? No doubt.
To answer your question, yes, I should trust God above all others. To do otherwise is to “trust in the arm of flesh.” I see nothing in the Ensign article that tells me different. I see everything in John’s commentary that tries to assert a claim of inerrancy by priesthood leaders.
As to what I do with answers I may receive from God, that is a different issue all together, isn’t it? Should I “rebel and call them out” on whatever the issue is? Doubtful; that’s not my style, nor do I think that God would want that–He is not the inciter of contention.
However, it should be pointed out that if John (or you or anyone else) feels it is appropriate, in following answers from God, to “rebel” (as John seems to do in his commentary), then so be it. That, again, is his (and anyone else’s) prerogative.
Jake,
You said “I’m not sure that’s the same thing because you aren’t the source of those commandments.” You do understand that faithful LDS don’t view the prophets as the source of the commandments, don’t you? (In other words, it is the same thing.)
However, that being said, the Ensign article was not about commandments nor was it about obedience to authority. It was about answers — answers from God that could only come from God. Read again the excerpt I’ve provided before:
John said that the article was about trusting priesthood authority. (In fact, he said “do I trust God” is equivalent to “do I trust LDS priesthood authority.”) Yet, if you substitute “LDS priesthood authority” for “God” in this quote, it makes no sense:
Making the equivalence substitution that John insists is there “doesn’t fit” doctrinally or logically. But the original Ensign quote does fit; God does have the answers and we should trust Him. That is what the author was saying, not what John was trying to force into the author’s mouth.
The claim to inerrancy is right there in the Doctrine and Covenants. “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.” That’s LDS canon , Official Declaration 1 and repeated in Priesthood/Relief Society, Sunday School, Institute, and Seminary manuals. The functional equivalent of papal infallibility is the doctrine of the church.
Also, if you don’t think God would want you to rebel and call them out I don’t think you’ve taken the Gospels very seriously. That’s exactly what Jesus did with in regard to the religious establishment of his day and exactly for this sort of thing.
When Brother Johnson says to trust in God he means to trust in God as revealed by LDS church leaders in contrast to teachings he assigns to “the world” and critics of the church. But if he were to touch on the substance of the issues, we’re talking about whether God condones the sexual predation of minors (Helen Mar Kimball in particular) and discrimination against minorities. There is a conflation of God and LDS Priesthood Authority implicit in the entire article. That if we have problems with church history and what church leaders have done and taught we just need to trust God. Well let me tell you Brother Wyatt, since it becomes every man who has been warned to warn his neighbor, I think it is blasphemy to lay these sins at God’s feet as if he was the author of them.
I think we will just need to agree to disagree, Jake. Your understanding of issues such as inerrancy, what God expects of us, the place of priesthood leadership, and (apparently) a host of other issues does not comport with mine or that of the restored gospel.
My best to you.
And my best to you as well. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I had never seen your blog before. For what it is worth, I think you are an excellent writer.
Allen. What Jake said at the end was totally correct. This isn’t about BEING right. It is about GETTING it right. I was just like you 6months ago. Fighting against those who even asserted that the prophets both current and past were fallible in doctrine. The D&C section Jake pointed out is clear as a bell as to how we are to treat God’s answers to us regarding our doubts about the largest of unique Mormon fundamental beliefs. We are to believe the prophet. I wish you would have answered Jake’s last reply. You stated earlier, “Since the earliest days of the Church the prophets have never claimed inerrancy (which is what you seem to be saying the Church teaches). ” Jake showed you in black and white in D&C how you are incorrect. Just because you disagree doesn’t make you correct or your argument valid. The Church has always stated the prophet can’t lead us astray.
Here is an exerpt form the Improvement Era ,Ward Teachers’ Message for June, 1945
“SUSTAINING THE GENERAL AUTHORITIES OF THE CHURCH” “The following words of the Prophet Joseph Smith should be memorized by every Latter-day Saint and repeated often enough to insure their never being forgotten:
I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 156-157.)
When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.
So Allen, in humility you have to be intellectually honest here and admit that the church has totally taught us that “when our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. ….When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way.”
If you can’t admit this, it gives many of your readers that respond to this that you really aren’t about intellectual honesty, but about being right. We in our faith struggles want to just GET IT RIGHT. Your last comment to Jake, “Your understanding of issues such as inerrancy, what God expects of us, the place of priesthood leadership, and (apparently) a host of other issues does not comport with mine or that of the restored gospel.” was the definition of hubris. You take your position and opinion to be in complete compliance with the restored gospel. We have just shown you in church sources where you were wrong concerning inerrancy and how we are taught regarding God’s message delivery system and the place of priesthood leadership. But there is no humility in accepting you may be off base or even wrong a little bit.
I’d much rather listen to a defender of the faith if they were honest and willing to be vulnerable and humble and recognize their mistakes. You seem unable to. You would be much more interesting to read but your blind defenses grow tiresome.
Randall,
If six months ago you were “fighting against those who even asserted that the prophets both current and past were fallible in doctrine,” then I doubt that you were “just like me.” That is not a position I’ve ever taken.
Jake provided a quote from supplementary material to Official Declaration 1 (page 292 in the Doctrine and Covenants). While it is included with the scriptures, it is not scripture itself; it is explanatory in nature, not revelatory. It even comes immediately under a heading that says “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manfesto.”
You provided me with a message in a Church magazine that was repudiated by the president of the Church within a few months.
The fact of the matter is, the prophets are human so they are, by definition, flawed individuals. Joseph Smith is castigated over and over again by the Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants. Examples of prophets being called to repentance can be found throughout the scriptures. Those who view the prophets as inerrant don’t understand prophets and how the Lord uses them.
This is, of course, beside the point–it is a red herring. My post was not about the mistaken concept of prophetic inerrancy. It was about the correct concept of human folly–in this case the folly of John Dehlin in developing a straw man argument (arguing that an Ensign article says what it doesn’t really say.
If you think I was exemplifying the “definition of hubris” by stating the obvious (that my understanding of issues doesn’t match Jake’s and that his doesn’t match my understanding of the gospel) then I apologize. I was not being prideful; I was stating what was to me an obvious and rather unremarkable conclusion based upon my discussion with him. I doubt that he would see it differently.
The logical Fallacy you are using in this article is called an Ad hominem (congrats on finding the worst picture you could). John Dehlin is an incredible support for those of us trying to stay in the church despite a serious crisis of faith. If you had taken the time to understand Johns position, you would realize he has plenty of respect for LDS leadership. He does not, however, view them as gods or worthy of worship. With the plethora of examples where prophets have led us astray, it is important that we reserve the right to disagree with them, especially when their policy and doctrine is discriminatory or hurting others.
No ad hominen here, Clark. Disagreeing with someone and pointing out why you disagree is not ad hominem, it is discourse.
As to the picture, I didn’t consider it the worst. It is actually a picture taken by the Herald Journal newspaper in John’s home. The full picture shows him sitting in front of his computer working “in his basement studio” on his podcasts. The picture I used is a cropped version that appeared in the Portland Press Herald. Trust me; no slight was intended in choosing the picture I did.
I’m sure readers can draw their own conclusions as to what John feels about Church leaders by simply reading his words.
Fair enough Allen, I take back the accusation, discourse it is.
In the name of discourse, I think it’s fair to say that you are misrepresenting Johns position as much (or more) as he has with the Ensign article. From my understanding of Johns comments, he simply does not believe that LDS authority speak for god. Not that he “doesn’t like or trust LDS leaders.” If you are going to accuse him of putting words in the authors mouth, you should probably avoid doing the same.
Also, it is abundantly clear that some policy and doctrine perpetuated by church leaders has “damaged” people. The most clear examples are their past treatment of blacks, and currently women and LGBT. Why is it not okay for us and John to have discourse on these issues without the label of critic or as being against the church?
I have left the Church. I don’t expect an apology for any of the evil things the church has done, because that would require a fundamental change in doctrine and a change in attitude. I consider myself a cultural Mormon because I am one. I like being a cultural Mormon. I don’t drink, smoke, do drugs, swear, and I believe a lot of the beautiful principles of the Book of Mormon even if it’s a fictional work from the 19th century 😉
With that said, although the Ensign article does not explicitly state John’s point, his point isn’t a straw man. He knows LDS Doctrine and history better than most LDS people. Let me illustrate:
I have prayed to God and he has answered me that the LDS Priesthood is a farce and the Book of Mormon is not true. I followed the advice in the article and I have received my answer from God. Is my answer from God? If not, why not? If God gives me an answer that is exactly the opposite what the LDS Priesthood hierarchy teaches, can it be from God?
I honestly don’t know your answers to those questions. But from experience, a lot of LDS people say that my answer could not have been from God, precisely because it disagrees with their own answers and it disagrees with current LDS doctrine which is established by current priesthood authority. In short, my answers from God are false because they disagree with LDS Priesthood Authority.
James,
If you believe you have your answer from God, then you should follow it. I, on the other hand, have my answer from God and it is diametrically opposed to your answer. (I know the answer is from God, not from “LDS Priesthood Authority,” as you assert.)
What are we to do, then? We cannot both be right unless, as some assert, God is a God of confusion and chaos. I don’t believe they are correct, and in the end one of us will find that we were wrong. With both of us convinced of the correctness of our path before God, the only thing we can do is to follow that path and strive to emulate the virtues of God in relation to each other. We can (and should) be civil, respectful, and empathetic. We should be honest and assume, as much as possible, that the other is honest, as well.
As we each follow the course we believe God has laid out for us, we can invite others to join us on that course. This is exactly what Lehi did in his vision of the Tree of Life, and it can be a pattern for both of us. (That is, of course, assuming you see the story as consistent with the “beautiful principles” you believe from the Book of Mormon.)
I wish you well, James, as you follow your path.
-Allen