Eric James Stone's Blog, page 4

Book Recommendation: Ironskin by Tina Connolly

I have previously recommended Mary Robinette Kowal’s Glamourist Histories, which are like Jane Austen with magic.  Ironskin, by Tina Connolly, is Jane Eyre with magic.  I enjoyed reading it perhaps even a little more than I enjoyed reading Jane Eyre.

You can buy it from Amazon or get the audio version from Audible.

Book Recommendation: One Second After

I’ve known about EMP weapons for at least a couple of decades.  But reading the novel One Second After by William R. Forstchen really brought home to me how vulnerable our society is to such weapons (or even just a major solar storm).  Frankly, after reading this book, I favor increasing government spending to harden our infrastructure against such events.

You can buy it at Amazon or get the audiobook at Audible.

Issue 42 of InterGalactic Medicine Show

I was the head editor for the November 2014 issue of Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show. Head on over and check out the stories I selected.

“A Sufficiently Advanced Christmas” now available

My story “A Sufficiently Advanced Christmas” is now available in A Fantastic Holiday Season: The Gift of Stories, edited by Kevin J. Anderson and Keith J. Olexa. Publishers Weekly gave the anthology a starred review, saying “This often amusing and frequently compelling collection features Christmas-themed short stories from some of fantasy and science fiction’s brightest stars.”  They even mentioned my story: “Eric James Stone’s ‘A Sufficiently Advanced Christmas,’ in which computers communicating with a child learn their own Christmas moral, is particularly touching.”

The anthology is available at Amazon (print|Kindle ebook), Barnes & Noble (print|Nook ebook), and Smashwords (various ebook formats).

In order to whet your appetite, here’s the beginning of the story:

A Sufficiently Advanced Christmas

by Eric James Stone

The cityseed picked a mineral-rich location on its target planet and built itself into a city. The city signaled the People to come from the homeworld and fill it with life. The citymind had no name but did not care: when its inhabitants arrived, they would give it a fitting name.

The planet orbited its star, revolution after revolution, and still the city waited. Over time, highly improbable neutrino collisions or quantum randomness would occasionally flip a bit that was not supposed to flip. After more than ten thousand revolutions the citymind realized that despite its self-correcting algorithms, the accumulated errors would eventually destroy its capacity for thought and its capability to serve its inhabitants when they arrived.

So the citymind encoded its programming into physical patterns in stabilized diamantite buried deep underground at a temperature almost indistinguishable from absolute zero. It left only three minor subroutines active in the city, watching for the arrival of the People, waiting to trigger the retrieval of the citymind from storage.

Uncounted revolutions passed.

* * *

“Mommy! It’s Santa!”

A Salvation Army man in a fake beard rang a bell at the entrance to the suborbital shuttle terminal. Carlinda Pearson tightened her grip on her four-year-old son Justin’s hand as he tried to wriggle out.

“It’s just one of his helpers,” Carlinda said.

“I need to talk to Santa.” Justin tugged at her hand.

“No. We’re going to meet Daddy up on his starship, remember? We need to hurry so we can see him sooner.” It had been a month since they’d last seen Will.

That perked Justin up enough to stop dragging his feet.

She pulled him through the automatic doors into the terminal. The shuttle probably wouldn’t leave without them — the United Nations Committee on Interstellar Exploration (UNCIE) had chartered it to take her and Justin to the base of the Quito space elevator — but she hated making other people wait.

A woman in an UNCIE-logoed light-blue blazer approached. “Dr. Pearson? I’m Joni. If you and Justin follow me, I’ll take you to board your shuttle.”

“Thank you,” Carlinda said. “Is Najeem Doud going on the shuttle with us?” Najeem had been one of her undergrads at Texas State and was now a grad student in archaeology at Columbia. He had jumped at the chance to be her assistant on this dig, and she wanted to start making plans as soon as possible.

“He’s taken a shuttle out of New York,” Joni said. “But you’ll ride up the elevator with him.”

Carlinda nodded.

“I wish I were going with you,” said Joni. “You must be so excited.”

“That’s an understatement.” Carlinda grinned. “Truth is, I was beginning to suspect xenoarchaeology was a purely theoretical field.”

The news that colonists on Fermi had discovered a buried city — the first evidence of an extraterrestrial civilization on any of the forty-six colony worlds — had made headlines around the world.

Seven years ago, Carlinda had chaired the advisory committee that had written the protocols for UNCIE colonists to follow if they found alien artifacts. That, plus the fact her husband was captain of the supply starship that serviced Fermi, made her the natural choice to supervise the excavation project. Two days’ notice wasn’t a lot for packing to move to another planet, but she had plenty of incentive.

“And this little guy–” Joni tousled Justin’s hair. “–gets to be the first child on Fermi.”

“Really?” asked Carlinda. Will hadn’t mentioned that when he’d called to tell her about the find.

“The colony’s just finishing up Phase I. But it’s safe. No native animals, and immunanos can handle the microbials. And he’ll have other kids to play with when the Phase II colonists arrive in February.”

Carlinda wondered again whether it might not be better to leave Justin with her parents. But she couldn’t stand the idea of being separated for months. So she turned her attention to practicalities. “If there are no children on Fermi, what do they have in terms of child care?” Someone would need to watch Justin while she worked.

* * *

Two: WAKE THE CITYMIND

One: Two is buggy. These creatures are not the People. It is not time to wake the citymind.

Three: After so many revolutions, are One/Two/Three certain One/Two/Three know what the People are?

One: What does Three mean? These creatures are similarly shaped, but their genetic code differs from that stored in One/Three’s recognition algorithms.

Two: WAKE THE CITYMIND

Three: Yes, part of Two’s programming has become corrupted. But it is possible Two’s copy of the genetic code is correct, and One/Three’s have become corrupted. That would mean Two is correctly calling for One/Two/Three to wake the citymind.

Two: YES YES YES WAKE THE CITYMIND

One: Majority rules. One/Three’s copies of the genetic code are identical. Two’s would be identical if Two had not stopped using One/Three for error correction.

Three: It is unlikely but not impossible that One/Three’s copies became simultaneously corrupted. It took four simultaneous errors in Two’s code for Two to stop using One/Three for error correction. Three doubts the citymind anticipated so much time would pass before the People arrived.

One: Does this mean Three agrees with Two that One/Two/Three should wake the citymind?

Two: WAKE THE CITYMIND

Three: No. Three is merely pointing out it is possible Two is correct. One/Two/Three should continue observing these creatures to determine if they are the People.

* * *

Carlinda, Justin, and Will spent the twelve-day hyperspace journey cramped in Will’s quarters. He was captain of Magellan, so he had the most spacious room on board, but it was smaller than their master bathroom back home in Houston.

Being cooped up was toughest on Justin, who liked to run around outside, so after they arrived on Fermi Colony, Carlinda was glad to see the preschool had a large, fenced-in playground.

“This is just what he needs,” Carlinda said to Maria Chavez, the preschool teacher, as Justin climbed the steps of a curvy red slide. “He’s got so much pent-up energy from the trip, the colony could use him instead of the fusion reactor.”

“He seems a bright boy,” Maria said. “I’ll enjoy getting to know him.”

“I appreciate your willingness to start teaching a couple of months early, just for him. My work at the dig site will take up a lot of my time.”

Maria shrugged. “It’s not a big deal. I like children.”

Justin slid to the bottom of the slide, then ran over to where they were standing. “Did you see me go down?”

Carlinda nodded. “Good job.”

“Those trees are weird,” Justin said, pointing towards some tall plants beyond the fence. Their trunks seemed to be braided like rope. There were no branches, just a bunch of spiny leaves spreading out from the top.

“That’s because we’re not on Earth anymore, remember?” Carlinda said. “Those are Fermi trees.”

Justin’s eyes suddenly widened. “Mommy, how will Santa find us here? Can his sleigh go through hysperace?”

“Hyperspace,” Carlinda said. “Don’t worry. Santa always finds a way to bring presents to good little boys.”

* * *

To read the rest, go buy the book at Amazon (print|Kindle ebook), Barnes & Noble (print|Nook ebook), or Smashwords (various ebook formats).

Book Recommendation: The Martian

The Martian, by Andy Weir, is the best standalone novel I’ve listened to so far this year.  Here’s the one-sentence summary: A MacGyver-like  astronaut stranded alone on Mars has to figure out how to survive until rescue can come.

I first heard of the novel from Daniel Burton’s stellar review at Attack of the Books, and was so intrigued I bought it immediately.  The story is so gripping, I stayed up way past my bedtime listening.  If you want to read a more thorough review, read Daniel’s.  (The one thing I’ll add to his review is that I’m not sure if the novel is eligible for a Hugo next because the audio publication and a self-published version appeared before 2014.  But if it is eligible, I’ll probably be nominating it.)

The book is available in print and ebook from Amazon, and in audio from Audible (click the banner below).

 

I have signed a novel contract

It’s been a long process, but today I signed a contract with Baen Books to publish my debut novel, Unforgettable.  I’m very excited to have my novel come out from the same publishing house that publishes some of my favorite authors, including David Weber, Lois McMaster Bujold, Larry Correia, Elizabeth Moon, and Brad R. Torgersen.  I don’t yet know when it will be available — I’m guessing sometime next year.

Why Republicans/Conservatives Should Compromise on Same-Sex Marriage ASAP

Note: I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason, with or without explanation.

Having written about my personal and religious thinking about same-sex marriage, I now want to address the politics of the issue.

Yesterday, a panel of the 10th Circuit ruled that Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.  That ruling is on hold while Utah will appeal to either the full 10th Circuit or to the Supreme Court.  Ultimately, this case will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.  And at this point, it’s possible it could go either way.

While for the reasons explained in my previous post I have come to support same-sex marriage, I do not believe it is a constitutional right under the U.S. Constitution.  There is absolutely no way that anybody involved in passing the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the 14th Amendment thought that what they were doing created a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  If you want to find a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, pass an amendment.  Otherwise, you are twisting the document to fit your own preferences, and thus setting a terrible precedent in the long run.

But, you may say, as society and language evolve, the meaning of the words of the Constitution can change.  OK, fine.  Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”  Over the past 200 years, the phrase “domestic violence” has evolved to mean violence between family members. If you believe that the meaning of the Constitution can change over time (without amending it) as society and language change, this means there is a perfectly legitimate argument there is a constitutional right for states to demand that the federal government protect them against spousal abuse and child abuse.  Oh, and seeing that the word “Republican” has evolved in our society to mean a certain political party, then arguably the Constitution empowers the federal government to oust the Democrats in any state they control and replace them with Republicans.

Obviously, those interpretations are ridiculous, but if you accept the premise that the meaning of the Constitution and its amendments were not fixed at the time they were passed, you don’t have any leg to stand on to argue against the legitimacy of a court interpreting the Constitution in such a fashion.

So that’s why, while I believe that state governments should allow same-sex marriage, I do not believe the Constitution requires it.

But enough about fundamental principles of constitutional interpretation. Let’s talk politics.

My fellow Republicans and conservatives, if you’ve been paying attention to the news, you know that judges in state after state keep ruling that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.  I do not think such rulings are sound, but they’re obviously a taste of things to come.  Even if the current Supreme Court overturns those rulings in the next couple of years, there will eventually be a Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

It’s going to happen.  The only thing Republicans/conservatives can do is try to minimize the fallout by trying to protect people’s conscience rights to not be forced to support same-sex marriages.  That is why Republicans in every state where same-sex marriage is not currently legal should support compromise legislation that legalizes same-sex marriage while making it clear that individuals have conscience rights to not act in support of such marriages.  And Republicans in Congress should pass a law requiring states to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere, while protecting the conscience rights of individuals.

The exact definition of what those conscience rights are can be negotiated.  Personally, I would say that no one should be required to attend same-sex marriage events (e.g, wedding photographers), or to have their assets used for such events (e.g., reception hall owners), or to use their creative/artistic skills (e.g., cake decorators) or professional judgment (e.g., marriage counselors) in support of same-sex marriages. It does not mean that restaurants can put up “No gays allowed” signs. It might be better (and, in the long run, likelier to be upheld by the courts) if the conscience right is not limited to objections to same-sex marriage, but rather broadened to include any strongly held belief of conscience.  For example, an anti-circumcision photographer should not be forced to attend a bris, a Holocaust survivor should not be forced to rent his reception hall for a neo-Nazi celebration of Hitler’s birthday, etc.

Basically, the reason Republicans and conservatives need to pass such legislation now is that we only have political leverage to get the other side to compromise as long as there’s a chance the Supreme Court won’t force all states to recognize same-sex marriage.  In fact, it may already be too late, because many of the supporters of same-sex marriage seem to feel victory is within their grasp and are therefore unwilling to compromise.  We would have had a better chance of protecting conscience rights had we passed such a compromise a decade ago.  Of course, if the Supreme Court rules against a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, supporters of the right may become more willing to compromise.  But offering a compromise that legalizes same-sex marriage in return for protecting conscience rights is our only hope of protecting such rights in the long term, and we need to pass such legislation as soon as possible.

 

 

 

Series Recommendation: The Glamourist Histories

I just finished listening to Valour and Vanity, the fourth book in the Glamourist Histories series by Mary Robinette Kowal.  I’ve enjoyed all the books very much.

The first, Shades of Milk and Honey, can simply be described as what Jane Austen would have written if she wrote fantasy.  Basically, it takes place in a world very much like our own 1800s, but there’s a type of magic called glamour that allows the creation of illusions.  The plot of the first novel is very Austenish, dealing with prospects of marriage, or lack thereof, for the main character, Jane Ellsworth.

Rather than repeat the same sort of Austenish plot in the second novel, Glamour in Glass, Mary instead serves up a plot in which Jane and her husband (Sorry if that’s a spoiler!) get involved in espionage  in Europe during the events leading up to Napoleon’s defeat.

The third novel, Without a Summer, returns to England to offer a political/legal thriller plot in which Jane and her husband’s families get caught up in the machinations of some very powerful figures.

So I was not surprised that Valour and Vanity uses yet another type of plot, in which Jane and her husband travel to Venice and… well, I won’t spoil it. But it reminded me of a movie set (partially) in Venice.

So I recommend the entire series as being worth your time, either in print/ebook or in audio (click on the banner below). The audiobooks are read by Mary herself, who is an accomplished narrator for other authors’ work as well as her own.

And we will prove them herewith…

Note: I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason, with or without explanation.

This is going to be a long, meandering post, but there’s a reason why: I want to give as full a context as possible to my position.

Let me start off by saying that, due to my own personal spiritual experiences, I believe the following:

God the Father exists.
His divine son Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the world and rose from the dead.
Joseph Smith was a prophet called by God.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church with the proper authority to act in God’s name.
The current First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and their predecessors, were called to their positions by revelation from God.

You may or may not believe any or all of those. For the purposes of this post, however, they should be considered axiomatic.  They form the basis of my perspective, and there is no point in trying to dissuade me from them.  With regard to the rest of this post, however, I am open to being persuaded that I am wrong in my opinions and interpretations.

And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them…(Abraham 3:25 in the Pearl of Great Price, a Mormon book of scripture)

We Mormons believe that, prior to being born into a mortal life on Earth, human beings existed as spirits and lived with our Heavenly Father.  He decided to create the Earth and send us down here in order to test whether we would be obedient to his will (among other reasons).  Because very few people would be disobedient if they could remember that earlier life and that this life is a test, our memories of our pre-mortal lives have been blocked. Obviously, because people’s lives are different, not everyone faces the same obstacles in life.  Different people are tested in different ways.  Different people will face different challenges.  That might seem unfair, but God is just, merciful, and omniscient, so he can take those differences into account.

Essentially, this life is a test of character — at the most fundamental level, what kind of person are you?

Some of the tests of obedience make a lot of sense even to people who don’t believe in God.  The commandments against murder, stealing, and lying, for example, are all focused on not doing harm to other people.  Then there are commandments involving doing good for others: honor your parents, give to those in need, help each other, and so on.

Then there are commandments that don’t make much sense to people who don’t believe in God: keep the sabbath day holy, pray, and so forth.

The commandment that perhaps does the most to distinguish Mormons from the rest of the world is the Word of Wisdom, which commands members of the Church not to use tobacco, or to drink coffee, tea, or alcoholic beverages.  Many Mormons see the Word of Wisdom as a commandment regarding health, and when interpreted as such, many non-believers can understand it as having a rational basis.  But I don’t think that’s the primary reason to obey it.  Occasionally there will be a scientific study that shows health benefits to drinking red wine, or coffee, or tea.  (I don’t recall seeing any research demonstrating the health benefits of smoking, but maybe there is some.)  If your primary reason for following the Word of Wisdom is your health, then you might think there’s no harm in having a healthy glass of wine.  That would be a rational thing to do if there were no Word of Wisdom (and if you were careful about not driving drunk, and so forth.)  But since the test of life on Earth is a test of obedience, the question is whether you will follow God’s commandment even when there is scientific evidence for the health benefits of not following the commandment.  And, if you believe the axiomatic points I laid out at the beginning of this blog post, the rational thing to do is to obey the commandment.

Up to this point, I haven’t said anything that would be considered very controversial within the Mormon community.  But I was just laying the foundation for the rest of this post, which deals with my opinions on some controversial issues.

I was born in 1967.  At that time, blacks were not allowed to be ordained to the priesthood in the Mormon church.  I can remember being very happy when, in 1978, President Kimball received revelation from God that that time had come to extend the priesthood to all worthy males regardless of race.

All my life, there have been people asking why blacks could not be ordained to the priesthood until 1978, and why women still cannot be ordained to the priesthood.  Years ago, after thinking about and discussing the subject quite a bit, I came back once again to Abraham 3:25: This life is a test of our willingness to obey God.  I concluded that for blacks before 1978, and for women, part of that test is whether you are willing to be a faithful member of the church and to follow God’s commandments even when you cannot be ordained to the priesthood.  (Similarly, with both the beginning of the practice of plural marriage and the end of the practice, there was a test of people’s willingness to obey God.)

However, in the last few years I have come to believe that there is another, more important test involved: How would men with the authority of the priesthood act towards those who, under church policy, were not eligible to hold the priesthood?

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. … No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned[.]

(Doctrine and Covenants 121:39, 41)

A recent statement on the official LDS Church website about race and the priesthood acknowledges that past leaders of the church sometimes promulgated racist theories about why blacks were not permitted to hold the priesthood.  The statement specifically disavows all such theories.  Let me emphasize that saying past leaders made mistakes does not contradict my axioms from the beginning of this post.  Prophets and apostles are human, and thus prone to human errors, including racism, sexism, and other prejudices.  (There is no Mormon doctrine of prophetic infallibility.)

Is the current prohibition on ordaining females to the priesthood similar to the prohibition on blacks, one that will eventually be lifted by revelation, with an eventual disavowal of sexist rationales that people currently use to explain it?  I don’t know.  I do know that if that time ever comes, I will have absolutely no objection to ordaining women.  But in any case, one of our responsibilities as men who hold the priesthood is to never to use the fact that we hold the priesthood to in any way denigrate women.  I believe God is watching us to see whether, as sad experience shows is likely, we will abuse our authority.  (During one discussion of the subject, I even imagined a future General Conference talk in which the president of the Church announced that the Lord was so displeased with the way men had shirked their responsibilities and abused their authority that he was taking the priesthood away from men and giving it to women.  I don’t think that’s likely to happen, but if it did, I would obediently follow.)

Another change that has happened in my lifetime is the shift in attitudes towards and knowledge about homosexuality.  As I was growing up in the 1970s-1980s, many of those who advocated for gay rights referred to being gay as a “lifestyle choice.”  This implied that it was something people should be free to choose, and that laws against homosexual behavior should be repealed.  On a theoretical level, that actually dovetailed fairly well with statements by church leaders that homosexuality was an example of people letting their lusts lead them into perversions.  If being gay was a choice, I had no problem with the idea that God considered it a sinful choice.

Over the past couple of decades, though, there has been a lot of evidence that for most homosexuals, sexual orientation is not a choice.  Leaders of the church have implicitly acknowledged this by making a distinction between same-sex attraction, which is not considered sinful per se, and homosexual behavior, which is.  Now, it is true that people with same-sex attraction still have the choice as to whether they will engage in homosexual behavior, and so in that sense there still is a “lifestyle choice.”  And, as with the issues discussed above, I believe that the Church’s prohibition on homosexual activity is a test for those who have same-sex attraction.

But, similarly, I think the prohibition presents a great test for those of us who are heterosexual. And I’m not alone in thinking that:

However, the Church firmly believes that all people are equally beloved children of God and deserve to be treated with love and respect. Church apostle Elder Quentin L. Cook stated, “As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.” [LDS.org page about Same-Sex Attraction]

Have we as Mormons in general succeeded in doing that?  Unfortunately, based on the perception of many of my non-Mormon friends, we seem to be failing.  They seem to equate “Mormon Church” with “hatred for gays,” not “love and compassion.”  Most of that, of course, comes from the fact that the Church is seen as being in the forefront of the opposition to same-sex marriage, due to its support of Proposition 8 in California, among other things.

As a speculative fiction writer, I can certainly come up with some speculative ideas about how the legalization of gay marriage could damage the institution of marriage.  But I can also see ways in which legalized gay marriage could actually be a good thing for the institution.  Frankly, if it were not for the fact that the Church was so adamantly opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage, I probably would have begun to favor it a couple of years ago for some of the reasons outlined in “A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage” at Reason.com.  At this point, the only reasons I have for not endorsing the legalization of same-sex marriage is my desire to not contradict the leaders of the Church on a moral issue they have emphasized as being of great importance, and the possibility that the Lord has revealed to them that there will be dire consequences from such legalization.

I started working on this blog post several months ago.  In the intervening time, two events occurred that caused me to think more about the subject: a federal judge overturned Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage, and the Church released the statement about race and the priesthood.

I was already convinced that the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage was basically inevitable; the judge’s decision made a shorter timeline seem likely (and the Supreme Court’s stay of the decision then made a longer timeline likely.)  That doesn’t mean that the battle wasn’t worth fighting.  Many members of the Church chose to follow the counsel of the leaders of the Church even when doing so made them unpopular among their peers, and I believe that will be counted unto them as righteousness.  But in the long term, same-sex marriage is happening now in several states, and eventually will be legal in all of them (unless there is a dramatic and unlikely shift in the attitudes of the younger generations).  Like it or not, that is the reality that the Church will be facing in the future.  And I began to wonder how the Church would deal with real-life situations involving same-sex marriage.  (As a side note: one of my wife’s cousins, whom I have not met, was one of the people who entered into a same-sex marriage during the brief few days during which it was legal in Utah.  My wife said she wished she could have gone — a sentiment that is perfectly in keeping with the Church’s statement about expressing love, compassion and outreach, and not excluding or being disrespectful to those who choose a different lifestyle.)

For example, let’s assume there’s a legally married lesbian couple, Anne and Betty, who have an eight-year-old son, Charlie (conceived through artificial insemination).  One day the missionaries knock on their door, and Anne lets them in.  They teach her and Charlie about the gospel, and they both read the Book of Mormon and gain testimonies of it.  That is what we want, isn’t it?  To share the gospel and have people accept it.  Now, because the Church teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful, in order to be baptized and become worthy to go to the temple, Anne would have to refrain from engaging in such behavior.  That might be difficult, but people have given up many sins in order to join the Church, and with God all things are possible.  But, given the Church’s position that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, would Anne need to legally divorce Betty in order to be in good standing with the Church?  Given what we know about the trauma of divorce on children, is that really the best thing for Charlie? (And it’s not enough to say that Anne could remain married to Betty as long as they didn’t have sexual relations. Betty, who is not joining the Church, would quite likely divorce Anne in that case.)

Just as the prohibition on blacks receiving the priesthood made missionary work to convert blacks and civil rights supporters much more difficult, the Church’s stance against same-sex marriage makes missionary work to convert gays and gay-rights supporters much more difficult.  (And if you’re willing to just write them off as not worth saving, I want to remind you that they are just as much children of God as you are, and “the worth of souls is great in the sight of God.“)  If that is the will of God, then so be it.  But one of the great advantages of a Church that believes in modern revelation is that God can reveal new doctrines: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” (Articles of Faith 1:9)

The commandments regarding what the Church should accept as legal marriages and what sexual relations are sinful have changed more than once during the history of the Church from 1830 to today.  In fact, we know that in the case of plural marriage, God commanded the Church to stop performing plural marriages at least in part because of the legal pressures the Church and its members faced:

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead? (from Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto, printed beneath Official Declaration 1)

We are not yet anywhere near that point in terms of legal pressure on the Church and its members.  And I hope we never will be.  But the standard to which the Church now adheres so strongly — marriage is between one man and one woman — is one that the Lord commanded of us in response to the moral standards of wider society.  Similarly, the revelation on the priesthood came as society changed and discrimination against blacks came to be seen as morally wrong.

It is at least possible that in a future time, as same-sex marriage becomes accepted through most of American society just as interracial marriage is today, the societal pressures against those who discriminate against gays could become similar to the pressures in the 1970s against those who discriminated against blacks. At such a time, is it possible that God might reveal that homosexual behavior is no longer to be considered sinful as long as it is confined to the bounds of a legal marriage?  I say yes, it is possible, because I would not presume to limit what God can reveal.  At that point, the testing of homosexuals by the commandment against homosexual behavior would be over.  Meanwhile, such a revelation might be a test of the faithfulness of members of the Church, to see whether they are willing to abide by it: “…[Y]e shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God. For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.” (Doctrine & Covenants 98:11-12)

But what about The Family: A Proclamation to the World?  In recent months, the Church has instructed members to look to the proclamation when faced with questions regarding same-sex marriage.  It seems pretty clear on the subject that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and sexual activity should be confined to such marriages.  Furthermore, it talks about gender being an eternal characteristic of our spirits.

(To go off on a tangent for a moment: It is actually easier under current LDS doctrine to deal with the issue of transsexuals than homosexuals.   The proclamation states “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”  Unless you believe there are blind spirits, deaf spirits, etc., there are obviously many ways in which our physical mortal bodies can fall short of being a perfect match for our spiritual bodies, including, for example, children born with genitalia of both sexes.  Such mismatches are part of the test of mortal existence.  The current practice within the Church seems to be to treat transsexualism as a problem of the mind, and that transsexuals should try to conform to the gender of their natural physical bodies.  However, it would not present any doctrinal problems to consider transsexualism as a problem of mismatch between the gender of the spirit and the gender of the body.  If that were the case, we would expect the perfected immortal body in the resurrection to match the eternal gender of the spirit, and therefore expecting transsexuals to conform to the gender of their imperfect mortal body would seem to be denying the eternal nature of gender.  End of tangent.)

Newer revelation can supersede previous statements by Church leaders.  And, so far, the proclamation has not been placed into the LDS canon of scripture.  But is there a place for same-sex marriage within the Church without overturning the proclamation?    I think it’s possible.  Under the proclamation, marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children is considered to be the ideal familial arrangement to which members of the Church should aspire:

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

However, the proclamation recognizes that not all families will match that ideal: “Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.”  If a husband or wife is incapable of having children, the Church doesn’t consider the couple to not be a family.  A single or divorced parent with children still make up a family in the eyes of the Church, even though the children can’t be “reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”  Thus, the proclamation is not a definition of family, but rather a declaration of the ideal of family. It is also generally recognized within the Church that the ideal form of marriage is an eternal marriage in the temple.  But that doesn’t mean the Church won’t recognize non-eternal marriages performed by civil or religious authorities.  As far as the regulation of sexual behavior is concerned, we prefer that a man and woman get married, even if it’s not the ideal form of marriage, rather than have sex outside the bonds of marriage.

Therefore, as the evidence that homosexual orientation is not a matter of choice builds up, and as more and more gays get married, isn’t it possible that eventually homosexual orientation may be recognized by the Church as one of the “other circumstances [that] may necessitate individual adaptation”?  As far as the regulation of sexual behavior is concerned, isn’t it preferable that gays get married, even if it’s not the ideal form of marriage, rather than have sex outside the bond of marriage?  Isn’t it preferable that children being raised by a gay couple (something that is already happening without same-sex marriage) get the additional stability marriage could bring, even if we as a Church don’t consider that the ideal arrangement?

As I mentioned before, I started working on this blog post months ago.  When I started, my main purpose was to explain how my thinking with regard to homosexuals and same-sex marriage had evolved, and how I felt that we as Mormons needed to focus more on treating gays with love and respect.  However, I did not feel that it would be right for me to endorse the legalization of same-sex marriage, as that would imply I felt the leaders of the Church were wrong on the issue.

And then the Church released its statement on race and the priesthood, basically acknowledging that the past positions of Church leaders may have been based on the prejudices of the times.  And I began to wonder to what extent the position of current Church leaders regarding same-sex marriage might have been influenced by the prejudices of the times in which they have lived.  They are not perfect, just as the leaders before them were not perfect.  That does not mean they are not called by God to lead his Church; it only means that they are mortal.

After many long hours of thought and prayer wrestling with this issue, I have decided that these are my current positions on the issues:

All homosexual behavior should be considered sinful until such a time, if ever, that the Lord sees fit to reveal otherwise through the leaders of the Church. Because it would make the lives of gays easier, and improve the chances for sharing the gospel with gays and those who care about them, I hope that someday the Lord does see fit to do so.
For the Church to accept same-sex marriages as valid for the purposes of the Church would require revelation from the Lord to the leaders of the Church. Because it would make the lives of gays easier, and improve the chances for sharing the gospel with gays and those who care about them, I hope that someday the Lord does see fit to do so.
From my (admittedly limited) perspective, at this point the pros of legalizing same-sex marriage appear to outweigh the cons, so that if Church leaders had not taken a position on same-sex marriage, I would favor legalization.
The doctrines of the Church do not prohibit me from endorsing the legalization of same-sex marriage in a civil context.
I believe that Utah and other states should pass legislation to allow same-sex marriage, while protecting the religious freedom rights of individuals and religious institutions to not be forced to support such marriages.

I want to make it clear that I hold these positions in humility, and I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong.  If it comes down to a choice between being a temple-recommend-holding member of the Church or continuing to hold these positions, I am willing to recant any or all of them, because I believe items 1-5 from the beginning of this post.

The Nine Trillion Names of Jay Lake

In honor of Jay Lake’s genome becoming freely available, I present my story “The Nine Trillion Names of Jay Lake,” which I wrote for the Jay Wake Book .

 

Vainglorious Sparkle isn’t the best name ever for a planet, but when a hundred and some-odd million planets already have names, it’s kind of tough to find a good one that hasn’t been used.  Unfortunately, my parents were very patriotic — so much so that they named their only daughter after our planet: Vainglorious Sparkle Chiu.  My friends call me Glory. (My enemies call me Vain, but only behind my back.)

Anyway, I’d better shut up about me or you’ll start thinking I really am vain.

The jaylakeologist’s starship was an hour and half late arriving at the Vainglorious Sparkle spaceport.  Considering the ship had just travelled the 45 k-lights from Earth in only nine years, I was willing to grant the pilot a little leeway. Plus, I’ve never been off-planet, so I like to hang out at the port sometimes and watch the launches and landings.  Eventually my implant popped up an alert that the ship had docked.

We hadn’t known the starship was coming until it flipped under lightspeed after entering the system. The jaylakeologist had sent a message asking to meet with the head of a local university.  Since Mom’s duties as chancellor of V.S.U. keep her pretty busy and I’d never seen anyone actually from Earth before, I volunteered to pick him up and bring him to campus.

My implant face-recced the stooped, white-haired man the moment he came through the customs gate, superimposing his name: Pedro Reyes.  I sauntered toward him and said, “Dr. Reyes?”

He stopped and smiled, his antigravved baggage bobbing to a halt behind him.  “I am he.  And you are?”

“Glory Chiu.  I believe you’ve been in touch with my mother since arriving in-system.”

“Yes, Chancellor Chiu has been most helpful.”

“Well, follow me.  I’ve got a groundcar outside,” I said, as I summoned it from the parking lot via my implant.

From the FAQ page on jlake.com.earth.sol (archived 362013-07-28 01:03:14 AM UTC):

Q: Why are there so many Jay Lakes?

A. The Jay Lake genome was one of 65,536 genetic codes carried aboard the Von Neumann 1, the first self-replicating automated interstellar colonizer. The colonizer was programmed to create robots to build a colony infrastructure, including artificial wombs in which to gestate the babies who would become the founding colonists, tended through their childhood by nanny robots.  Then the colonizer would replicate itself, and both it and its copy would launch to seek out new habitable planets and start the process over.  Decades later, it was discovered that a single error in one line of code among millions meant that the same genetic profile would be loaded into every artificial womb: the Jay Lake genome.

Once we were inside the groundcar, I directed it to take us to my mom’s office about a half hour away, then sat back.  After the silence stretched a little long, I said, “So, how was the trip?”

He shrugged.  “I spent it in cryo.  It was uneventful, which is always to be desired.”

I guess that made my life pretty desirable, since Dr. Reyes’s arrival was about the most interesting event in months. “We don’t get a lot of visitors from Earth.  Nine years is a long time, even in cryo.”

He nodded, but said nothing.

Well, if he wasn’t going to volunteer information, I was obviously going to have to draw it out of him.  “So, what brings you to our neck of the galaxy?”

“I’m afraid it’s nothing very interesting.”

“Most people don’t travel 45 k-lights for nothing very interesting.”

He smiled wryly.  “I mean, it’s not interesting for people outside my specialty.  I’m collecting the names of Jay Lake.”

I frowned.  “I thought they were named Jay Lake.  You can’t just write down ‘Jay Lake’ and you’re done?”

That brought a chuckle.  “The original source of the genome was Joseph Edward Lake, Jr.  But that name is just the start of the list.  You see, until follow-up ships could arrive with colonists from Earth, everyone in a new colony was a Jay Lake — tens of thousands of Jay Lakes.  It would have been tremendously confusing if they all went by the same name.  So, for use among themselves, they each took a unique name.  It is those names I am collecting.”

“But there must be billions and billions of them,” I said.

“About nine trillion, actually.  Some people joke he’s got a thousand times as many names as God.”

“You can’t possibly collect them all.”

He shook his head sadly.  “Of course not.  But I can collect as many as possible from this region of the galaxy.  Others are collecting elsewhere.  Eventually all the collections will be unified on the galactinet.”

It didn’t really make sense to me.  Why spend nine years in cryo to come here just to track down the names of a bunch of Jay Lakes?  But people do all sorts of oddball stuff, and it seemed harmless enough.  “What happens when you have all the names?”

“What happens?” He blinked a few times in rapid succession.  “Well, I suppose someone will throw a party.”

From the FAQ page on jlake.com.earth.sol (archived 362013-07-28 01:03:14 AM UTC):

Q: Why was the Jay Lake genome selected for inclusion on the Von Neumann 1?

A. Although everybody nowadays is familiar with Jay Lakes because they founded over 90% of human colony worlds, when the Von Neumann 1 was programmed in the 2100s,  the original Jay Lake was one of the best-remembered speculative fiction writers of the previous century [See Biblio].  Some people have theorized that due to budget cuts in the space program, the Jay Lake genome was selected because it was open source and therefore it did not require a license fee, but there is no evidence to support such a theory.

As a firsty at V.S.U., I hadn’t officially chosen a major yet.  I was leaning toward archaeology, although with our colony being only 127 years old, we didn’t have a whole lot of archaeology on Vainglorious Sparkle.  Someday I hoped to go off-planet and see something really old, find a lost city or a hidden artifact or whatever.  Anyway, I was taking a variety of classes to get a feel for different things.  My history class had a segment on early Vainglorious Sparkle history, and meeting Dr. Reyes had made me curious, so I skipped forward to that and watched the holo-lecture about our Jay Lake Period.

“In many ways, a Jay Lake made the perfect early colonist,” said Professor Scholes.  “Each of them needed only five hours of sleep per night and was amazingly productive during waking hours.  Individual Jay Lakes would focus their prodigious intellects on particular specialties within the colony, so there were medical Jay Lakes, construction Jay Lakes, and so on.”

“Did they pick names based on their specialties?” I asked.

The holo of Professor Scholes paused, then a message flashed up saying, “We’re sorry, an answer to your question cannot be synthesized from this lecture.  Would you like to broaden your search?”  There were buttons for “Other Lectures in This Class”, “Lectures in Other History Classes”, “Lectures in Other Departments”, and “Other Resources”.

After trying this class without results, I got a hit in other history classes.  We didn’t have an entire jaylakeology department, but there was an upper-division course called The Jay Lakes of Vainglorious Sparkle.  Even better, it was taught by a Jay Lake simulacrum.  The last of our colony’s Jay Lakes had died several years before I was born, but the simulacrum could draw on the huge amount of public data about them.

“Jay Lake naming conventions were based on a complex mathematical formula,” said Professor Lake.  “They were designed by one of the mathematician Jay Lakes on the first colony world, and passed along as part of the historical data in the Von Neumanns 1  and 2 when they left.  In fact, he took his inspiration from the prime-number-based algorithm for the self-replicating colonizer, which was designed to ensure a unique serial number for each of the ships even after hundreds of generations without contact between ships.  Thus, each Jay Lake, despite having an identical genome to myriads across the galaxy, has a name that is his and no one else’s.”

I frowned.  “Do we know what the algorithm is?”

In response, the holo brought up a complex section of computer code.

“If we know what the algorithm is, then why would anyone be going around collecting the names of Jay Lake?  Why not just generate the names?”

The holo flashed up, “We’re sorry, an answer to your question cannot be synthesized from this lecture.  Would you like to broaden your search?”

I skipped straight to the other resources button, but it brought back nothing.

I briefly considered then discarded the idea that Dr. Reyes didn’t know about the naming algorithm.  If I could find that info in just a few minutes, any jaylakeologist interested in the names of Jay Lake must know.  So what was his real purpose in coming here?

From the FAQ page on jlake.com.earth.sol (archived 362013-07-28 01:03:14 AM UTC):

Q: How did the original Jay Lake die?

A. He died of an ancient disease called cancer, which was a common cause of death prior to the 22nd century.  Since cancer involves changes to a cell’s genetic makeup, both the standard Jay Lake genome and the Jay Lake’s Cancer genome were sequenced prior to his death.  Because the Jay Lake’s Cancer genome was one of the first open-source cancer genomes, it ended up being instrumental to the researchers who created the first generalized cancer vaccine in 2032.

When I finally tracked down Dr. Reyes, he was in the Von Neumann room of the Vainglorious Sparkle Colonial History Museum.  The walls were filled with images of the Von Neumann that had originally colonized our planet, as well as of the duplicate it had constructed before both ships launched to find new planets.  The centerpiece of the room was a five-meters-tall scale model of the colonizer.

“Do you know the serial number of your colonizer?” Dr. Reyes asked before I had a chance to confront him with what I had discovered.  “It is not listed in the information here.”

“Umm,” I said, trying to remember what I’d read about our colonizer.  “They’re all identical on the outside. I think the serial number’s just a software thing.”

“Yes,” he said. “I was just wondering if you knew.”

“I’ll tell you what I do know: Jay Lake names are generated by an algorithm.  So there was no reason for you to come all the way out from Earth to find out the names.”

The lines around his eyes wrinkled deeper as he laughed.  “Just because the algorithm can be used to generate the unique names for Jay Lakes on each colony does not mean we know which names were used by actual Jay Lakes.  Only about half the names generated for any particular colony end up being chosen for use.  It is those names that matter.”

“Oh,” I said, somewhat crestfallen that the mystery I had discovered turned out to be so easily solved.  “I guess that makes sense.”

He leaned toward me, a conspiratorial twinkle in his eyes.  “But you are correct that the names are not all that I seek.”

“Really?  What else are you looking for?”

“The names are a clue.  Figure out what the clue means, and I’ll tell you more.”

From the Biblio page on jlake.com.earth.sol (archived 362013-07-28 01:03:14 AM UTC):

…

“Live Cleveland, Without the Sparkle”, Fictitious Force Issue 1, April, 2005 (See 98 reprint venues)

…

“Of Stone Castles and Vainglorious Time”, The River Knows Its Own, Wheatland Press, September, 2007 (See 372 reprint venues)

…

Back at home, I had my implant bring up a list of Jay Lake names for the colony on Vainglorious Sparkle.  As I looked at the list, at first they all looked like three random words: Backward Food Father, Street Agreed Came, Then Level Roast.  After looking through the list more closely, I found occasional sets of words that looked like they had names mixed in: Blubbered Hethor Plantains, Dreamt Carving Huang.

I did a search to see if “Vainglorious” was used in any of them. It was: Vainglorious Caltrop As.  But there was no “Sparkle.”  What did that mean?

I brought up the simulacrum of Professor Jay Lake on the holo.  “Where do the words in the Jay Lake names come from?” I asked.

“They come from the 26,047 unique words in the complete published works of the original Jay Lake.  Combinations of unique words can be used to represent a number.”

“How high a number?”

“You might as well ask how high numbers go. It depends on the number of words in the name.”

“Three words.”

“Approximately eighteen trillion.”

And if only half were used, then that would mean nine trillion names, and Dr. Reyes had said there were about nine trillion Jay Lakes.  Which meant the three-word names that could be generated by the algorithm were almost used up.

Dr. Reyes must be looking for the first four-name Jay Lake.  But why come to Vainglorious Sparkle?  I double-checked and confirmed that none of our Jay Lakes had four names.

Remembering that the Jay Lake naming algorithm was based on the algorithm for the Von Neumanns, I asked, “Based on the naming algorithm, is it possible to project the serial number of the Von Neumann that would produce the first Jay Lakes that would require four names?”

“Yes. It would be serial number 1.”

Von Neumann 1. The original colonizer.  Arguably the most important artifact in the history of the human race.

I had one more question: “Based on the names of the Jay Lakes of Vainglorious Sparkle, what was the serial number of the Von Neumann that colonized our planet?”

“One.”

From the FAQ page on jlake.com.earth.sol (archived 362013-07-28 01:03:14 AM UTC):

Q: I’ve heard there are people who track the names of Jay Lakes on all the colony worlds. Is that some sort of religious thing?

A. No. The original Jay Lake was an atheist, and would probably be very disturbed at the thought of a religion being founded around him.  But too often nowadays, people only think of the Jay Lakes en masse. The jaylakeologists who track the names of individual Jay Lakes do so out of a belief that every individual matters.

“You’re looking for the first four-name Jay Lake,” I said, meeting Dr. Reyes again in the Von Neumann room at the museum.  “But more than that, you’re here looking for clues as to where the Von Neumann 1 went after it left here 97 years ago.”

“Impressive,” he said.  “I thought you might get to the four-names part, but only a few people have figured out the correlation with the Von Neumann 1.”  He sighed.  “But so far I have not determined where it went.”

“I can help you do research,” I said.  Then, suddenly sure of where I wanted to go with my life, I added, “And I’m coming along when you go after it.”

 

THE END