On Prop. 8 and Prophets. Yes...Again

I have already commented several times about the issue of Proposition 8 and faith in the precepts of the LDS faith (see here and here), but I read an article from BYU that spurred a few more thoughts in my head.

What really bothered me in the article was the comment by Caitlin (no offense, if you are reading this Ms. Carroll).  She says that she prayed to know if following the counsel of the leadership of the church (i.e. prophets and apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ) was what she needed to do, but when she did not receive an answer, she went with what she wanted to do.  What?!?!  That is completely backwards.  

In law, they talk about presumptions a lot.  For example, everyone is confused when we say that in American law everyone is "innocent until proven guilty" because we hold them in jail and the public usually believes them guilty.  So, why do we say they are innocent until proven guilty?  Because the prosecution, or state, has the burden of proof.  Unless they meet their burden (beyond a reasonable doubt) of proof, the defendant walks free.  It is possible and has happened (no specific case, sorry) that the prosecution makes its case and, after failing to prove that the defendant committed the crime, the defendant does nothing and walks free.  He (yes, or she) does not have to prove that he did not commit the crime; the state must prove that he did.  This is because of a presumption of innocence.  Hence, "innocent until [or unless] proven guilty."

What about our faith and following the prophets?  The presumption should be "follow, unless told not to."  Ms. Callow said that she received no divine answer.  That's fine, but why does that mean to not follow the prophet's counsel?  The presumption should always be that we will follow the prophet.  Only (and I do mean only) if we receive personal revelation that we should not, do we not follow the counsel of our divinely inspired leaders.

If we presume that they are wrong and will only follow them if such is confirmed, can we really sustain them?  If our political leanings and personal views outweigh those expressed by the general authorities, can we really believe that they are inspired?  If they are inspired and we choose not to follow them, doesn't that imply that we think we know more than God?  Doesn't it?

Now, less anyone accuse me of not following every letter and spirit of God's law, this does not mean that we must be perfect.  The entire plan of redemption is based on the fact that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God.  I sin, without a doubt, but there is a difference between sinning and knowing that we have sinned and going against the church leaders and believing oneself to be right.  We sin if we go against the church leaders' counsel and know that we are wrong, but it is different if we go against their counsel and think they are wrong.  If we violated the law of chastity, could we say, "Well, I know what the scriptures and prophets have said, but after praying and receiving no answer, I thought about the issue and realized that premarital sex is not that bad, so I am not waiting until marriage" and believe ourselves to be living righteously?

Again, if anyone is offended, feel free to not read my blog (really, go ahead and leave), but I will claim the defense of 1 Nephi 16:2 ("the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.").