With prosperity come growing evils Gordon B. Hinckley once said of the Book of Mormon that its “narrative is a chronicle of nations long since gone. But in its descriptions of the problems of today’s society, it is as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems. I know of no other writing, which sets forth with such clarity the tragic consequences to societies that follow courses contrary to the commandments of God. Its pages trace the stories of two distinct civilizations that flourished on the Western Hemisphere. Each began as a small nation, its people walking in the fear of the Lord.”
“But with prosperity came growing evils,” Hinckley continues. “The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras.” In this light, it makes sense to view the Book of Mormon as an anti-war, pro-kingdom scripture.
The people of Jesus does not smite again
Andrew Bolton points to the ‘golden age’ of the repentant and responsive Nephites in the 4th book of Nephi who, “in keeping the commandments of the resurrected Jesus, enjoyed peace, faithful marriages, and all things common for nigh on 200 years.” The fundamental reason to view the Book of Mormon as a document that advocates nonviolence is found in the following passage, according to Bolton:
“And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which dwelt in the hearts of people”. Later as the golden age began to decline the people hardened their hearts: “for they were led by many priests and false prophets to build up many churches, and to do all manner of iniquity. And they did smite the people of Jesus [...] and the people of Jesus did not smite again.” (4 Nephi 1:34)
Jesus explained to his disciples among the Nephites the root-causes of the wars and contentions that would destroy their people. After the third generation had passed of those who saw and heard Jesus, Jesus tells his disciples:
“…it sorroweth me because of the fourth generation from this generation, for they are led away captive by him even as was the son of perdition; for they will sell me for silver and for gold, and for that which moth doth corrupt and which thieves can break through and steal. And in that day will I visit them, even in turning their works upon their own heads. (3 Nephi 27:32)
I am grieved because of the destruction of all people
Also Nephi, the first writer in the Book of Mormon, was distraught by the vision of the future carnage that was to take place among his children:
“And now I, Nephi, was grieved ... because of the things which I had seen, and knew they must unavoidably come to pass because of the great wickedness of the children of men. And it came to pass that I was overcome because of my afflictions, for I considered that mine afflictions were great above all, because of the destruction of my people, for I had beheld their fall”. (1 Nephi 15:4-5)
In 1 Nephi 14, the great and marvelous work among the children of men – known to the LDS community as the coming forth of the Book of Mormon to restore the “plain and precious things” that were taken out of the Bible – will be either to the “convincing of them unto peace and life eternal”, or unto the “deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds:”
"Therefore, wo be unto the Gentiles, if it so be that they harden their hearts against the Lamb of God. For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other— either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken."
We are without Christ and God in the world Mormon, the abridger of the history recorded in the Book of Mormon, demonstrates a vivid concern with regards to the historical consequences of war among the children of Father Lehi and of the wickedness that led his people to destruction. He is eager to show to the remnant of the house of Israel, the indigenous peoples of the Americas today, of the things that led to the utter destruction of their ancestors, and describes in this manner the devastating results of the infighting between the Nephites and the Lamanites, as well as among the Jaredites:
“And it is impossible for the tongue to describe, or for man to write a perfect description of the horrible scene of the blood and carnage which was among the people, both of the Nephites and of the Lamanites; and every heart was hardened, so that they delighted in the shedding of blood continually. And there never has been so great wickedness among all the children of Lehi, nor even among all the house of Israel as among this people” (Mormon 4:11)."
“And now behold, I, Mormon, do not desire to harrow up the souls of men in casting before them such an awful scene of blood and carnage as was laid before mine eyes; but I knowing that these things must surely be made known, and that all things which are hid must be revealed upon the house-tops [...] I write a small abridgment, daring not to give full account of the things which I have seen [...] that ye might not have too great sorrow because of the wickedness of this people.” (Mormon 5:8-9)
“For behold the Spirit of the Lord hath already ceased to strive with their fathers; and they are without Christ and God in the world; and they are driven about as chaff in the wind. They were once a delightsome people, and they had Christ for their shepherd; yea, they were led even by God the Father. But now, behold, they are led by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they." (Mormon 5:16-18)
Establish peace with the Book of Mormon and the Bible
Ezra Taft Benson once said:
“The Book of Mormon verifies and clarifies the Bible. It removes stumbling blocks; it restores many plain and precious things. We testify that when used together, the Bible and the Book of Mormon confound false doctrine, lay down contentions, and establish peace. The Book of Mormon is not on trial – the people of the world, including members of the Church, are on trial as to what they will do with [or rather how they will use (added by author)] this second witness of Christ." (A New Witness for Christ, 1984)
It is clear that the Book of Mormon is an anti-war document and that it has a role to play in the latter day movement as well as in the peace movement in our day, seeing Nephi’s reaction to the vision of the destruction of his people on the American continent and to what would befall the Gentiles - if they did not repent. Remember Hinckley said: “I know of no other writing, which sets forth with such clarity the tragic consequences to societies that follow courses contrary to the commandments of God”.
For that reason, Nephi hopes that through his writings he may be able to convince his children to believe in Christ and, if possible to avert the killings and slaughters that “must unavoidably come to pass”: “For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23)
I suppose the common mistake is to believe that the plain and precious things restored in the Book of Mormon are solely doctrinal: that small children are in no need of baptism, that baptism ought to be by immersion, that Jesus truly was resurrected and that he is the God of the whole world. But our Savior is concerned with more than just sacraments and ordinances. He envisions a world of social and political righteousness, with peace on earth and with justice to all. The Book of Mormon and the Bible remind us of the words he uttered to Pilate in response to a question of whether he was a King:
“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence”. (John 18:36)
In this single verse, Jesus sets forth his methodology for social change: nonviolence.
Nonviolence was not a foreign concept to early Mormonism. The Prophet Joseph Smith did say, “I calculate to be one of the instruments of setting up the kingdom [foreseen by] Daniel, and I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. It will not be by sword or gun that this kingdom will roll on: the power of truth is such that all nations will be under the necessity of obeying the Gospel”.
Mormon nonviolence: a restoration of gospel principles
The main purpose of the Book, as explained by Mormon himself on the title page, is to restore knowledge of the covenants God made with the house of Israel. This restoration of covenants puts forward a premise that the promises God made to the fathers are dependent upon the righteousness, or in other words, the nonviolence of their children. That is why the blood of the prophets is crying from the dust – not for revenge, but to show us a better way to the Promised Land, so that we may in truth establish the Kingdom of God on Earth:
“And now behold, I would speak unto the remnant of this people who are spared, ...that they may know of the things of their fathers... : Know ye that ye are of the remnant of the house of Israel. Know ye that ye must come unto repentance, or ye cannot be saved. Know ye that ye must lay down your weapons of war, and delight no more in the shedding of blood, and take them not again - save it be that God shall command you. (Mormon 7:1-4)
“Therefore repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus, and lay hold upon the gospel of Christ which shall be set before you (1) not only in this record but also in the record that shall come unto the Gentiles from the Jews which record shall come from the Gentiles unto you.” (2) (Mormon 7:8)
If we were to do as Mormon says, and were to lay hold upon the words of Christ in his sermons of nonviolence and love, then these are the words of nonviolence that must be imprinted in our minds and in our hearts:
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they, which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." (Matthew 5:9-12)
“And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy; but behold I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good. Therefore those things, which were of old time, which were under the law, in me are all fulfilled. Old things are done away, and all things have become new. Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect." (3 Nephi 12:43-48 & Matthew 5:44-48).
mormongandhi is looking for alternative and more peaceful ways of thinking and living. He calls himself an advocate for nonviolence in the Restoration movement. He currently lives in Oslo, Norway and works for Norwegian Church Aid as an advisor for peace and reconciliation. He has a BA in peace and development studies from Bradford University in the UK, where he studied religious peacebuilding, as well as a master’s in peace operations from GMU in Washington D.C.For an alternative and nonviolent study of the Book of Mormon, mormongandhi is publishing a study chapter every week on mormon nonviolence (latter day satyagraha) at http://mormongandhi.com. Each chapter follows the set-up of the Institute Study Manual of the LDS Church (total 52 chapters).In addition, you can share your thoughts and insights on the nonviolent readings of the Book of Mormon with other “peaceable followers of Christ” (Moroni 7:3) at the discussion forum http://peaceablefollowers.wordpress.com, created in parallel to the “latter day satyagraha” site.You may contact mormongandhi directly by emailing him at mormongandhi@gmail.com
A child is born in Bukavu, and sadness fills his mother’s heart... Bukavu is not the city of David. It is a town in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo. War has been ravaging the country for years. Ever since Kabila invaded the former Zaire with military support from the US. It is a war that no one speaks of – but it has cost the lives of millions of people and caused unimaginable suffering.
The child’s mother is a young girl, a daughter of the area. This young girl is named Maria. Maria was a girl like most any other girl in her town. She walked miles for water, she helped her mother with the cooking and she also tilled the land. She learnt how to read in primary school, but ever since the war her parents no longer could afford to pay her school fees. Maria was a believer in the Christian gospel – and went like all other young girls her age to church on Sunday.
Church was a mud hut with a roof made out of straw. There on Sundays, the kids would gather to learn about God. The preacher, an older man with glasses and graying hair, would always talk about God’s love for humanity – and that God once, long time ago, had come to the world as a male child to save humanity. In church, she had also learned some words of English. She knew that when you greeted someone, you had to say: “Good morning, class." The morning breaks
That was then. Prior to the attacks... One day, as the morning broke and shadows gathered, foreign soldiers drove into town. The houses were set on fire. The adults were gathered on the square and the older men were executed one by one. This is how Maria lost her father – and she and her mother witnessed it. The soldiers held their heads for them to watch. Maria was afraid. After having seen the murder of her father, they also separated her from her mother. She was chosen from among the young girls to follow a group of soldiers. One of them stripped her of her clothes and forced himself on her – he, subject to the commanders’ orders.
Now she held this young child in her arms. Her heart was filled with sadness, and she knew that her firstborn child would have given her joy under other circumstances. Some months after the soldiers left, Maria was chased away. The villagers who were left behind were ashamed of her and of the other girls who had become pregnant. These girls were a constant reminder of the day when the men in the village had been powerless – confronted with the threat and the fear of a gun. “Do not ever come back”, were the last words she heard as she was running for her life into the deep woods.
Maria sings to her little child a song she learned many years ago: “Lullaby, lullaby, my little one. Lullaby, my child so dear. Thy precious life has just begun. Thy mother holds thee near”. And yet, she knows the words do not ring true. True, all life is precious. But not one soul will ever value the life of this child. Born of a violent union, unwanted by his mother, into a world where people willingly march to the sound of guns. What future can she promise him? What life can this child possibly hope to have? Even though she loves him, he is a constant reminder of what happened to her, and like the villagers who once chased her away she cannot find peace when she looks into his eyes. Its ranks are filled with soldiers, united, bold and strong...
Victory, victory... The guys were singing and shouting, drunken by their thirst for blood and proud of their conquest. Bukavu had been encircled, trapped, taken, raped and ravaged. The soldiers executed the orders of their commander and had in turn executed the elders of Bukavu – one by one. Herodes was the commander’s name. His boys feared him.
They were now men. They had proven it – to themselves and to him who had led them into victory. Joseph, one of the soldiers, the one who raped Maria, was nonetheless feeling some unease. In following orders, Joseph had forced himself upon this young girl. The others had told him that having sex with a virgin was going to save him from the disease that was making him weak, this pandemic they called AIDS. But more importantly, the others respected him now. He had become one of them: their partner in crime.
You are the man! We saw you, Joseph. You did it. You made her cry – you and your gun. You made her scream. The words were both making him feel proud and good about himself, but for one reason, unknown to him, they were also haunting him. Could he look at a woman again without thinking of the pain he had caused to this young girl – whose name he would never know? In order to survive – either you dominate or you are dominated, Herodes used to say. To rule, you have to systematically brake down the bonds that bind communities together. They need to fear you or fear will overtake you...
I am trying to be like Jesus
War does not bring out the best in us – it brings out the worst in us. True, some acts are acts of courage – but aren’t those heroic acts always associated with saving lives, and not with taking them? Fear begets fear. It is the opposite of love. Misery begets misery. It is the opposite of joy. Violence begets violence. It is the opposite of peace.
The nativity story told the world of a little baby boy, born to Mary, a girl chosen among other girls to be the mother of a Savior, rejected by men and yet, many are they who believe he is their safe ticket to heaven. The story from Bukavu is the story of a little baby boy, born to Maria, a girl chosen among other girls to be the victim of a soldier, so he could gain accept in the eyes of his comrades, so he could become a man, taking by force what he believed was a safe ticket to health.
Jesus taught us that he was not Herodes. “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence”. Jesus was nonviolent. Not exactly what you would associate with being a King. He was God. He was love, both long-suffering and kind. That is why he came to earth as a man and not as a woman: not because God favors men, but because the concept of what it means to be a Man on earth is so contrary to what it means to being God in heaven – who Mormons believe is male. Be kind, as a child, he said to them, and loving as a hen gathers her chickens:
“O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have nourished you. Yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not. O ye house of Israel, whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart.”
Love one another
It was necessary for Jesus to come to earth in the form and shape of a male – to represent God as his firstborn son, the first among all great men, a king of kings. “Little children, a new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
The divine irony is the fact that Jesus exhibits throughout his life traits that we call feminine: peaceful, loving, kind, sharing, meek, forgiving, gentle, and caring. He helped the poor and he healed the sick. We crucified him, because he was a threat to men everywhere. He challenged the very idea of what it means to be a man: strong, violent, forceful, greedy, noisy, arrogant and proud. He challenged the way we think about achieving peace, not by dominating others before they dominate us, but by showing us a better way to freedom – paved with love and with sacrifice.
In short, this was the message Jesus gave to the modern House of Israel, to the modern sons of Jacob: “What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am”. He showed all men an alternative masculinity - that of the nonviolent male who sides with the poor and the downtrodden. Come, follow me, the Savior said.
"Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.
Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.
But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.”
(Alma 32: 28-30)
I have more liberal leanings than most members of the Church. Sometimes this causes conflict with the conservatives in the Church. However, I also have a testimony of the Gospel. But this testimony didn’t come immediately. I hope that my words, as a member of the Church who leans more to the left, will persuade and help those in the left to remain active in the Church, despite how other members of the Church may view them. I believe that those on the left side of the spectrum, such as myself, and others, can remain in the Church and be active in the Gospel, no matter what others may say.
My story starts out when I was a missionary stationed in Nauvoo. I was sent there on a year long service mission, not with preaching involved, but just service. The Church said it was because of my high-functioning autism. But I, to this day, feel the real reason the Lord sent me there was because of my struggles with the Church. I didn't have the firmest testimony. In Nauvoo I was exposed to the ghosts of the past, or rather, in simpler terms, to a plethora of Church history, some of it long forgotten. It was from the Journal of Discourses I learned about the many wives of Joseph Smith, blood atonement, Adam-God doctrine, the racist statements against blacks from General Authorities, and so forth. These things even further shook up my already fragile faith. I began to lash out on my companions, to cry in my bed, and just be overall pugnacious. I wanted the truth exposed. I didn't want to destroy the Church, but rather only for the Church to admit mistakes had been made. I knew I couldn't afford the Journal of Discourses, so I did something else. I bought a book, which took snippets from what general authorities said. However, now that I look back, I realize this was an anti-Mormon book. It took snippets from what they said, but failed to put things into context as to why they said them. Eventually my mission companion took the book to my mission president. I received a call from him. I was surprised to hear no condemnation in his voice, but rather concern and love. I was called to his office the next day. Instead of chastising me, he told me how proud he was of me, for researching, delving into issues, and told me the Lord blessed me with a great mind. He bore testimony to me that I would learn the truth, and rather than stop researching, told me to keep reading. The more I read, from what is the new Mormon history, rather than the anti, or just faith promoting, truth sunk into my mind. Sure, I had some breakdowns, but the mission president never sent me home, always loved me, and tried to answer my questions to the best of his ability. A miracle happened. The Lord filled me with the light of truth, and now I don't have any doubt in my mind that the Gospel is true. This is Christ's Church.
In regards to reading different history of the Church, how has that helped me? When I come across people who are antagonistic towards the Church, or are just generally well-meaning but, like I did, have concerns, I pray to Heavenly Father for guidance. Dipping into that knowledge that I have gained, from the honest history which tells warts and all, I am able to use that knowledge, fused with the Spirit, to try and alleviate their fears. I talk to them, in their language, about Old Testament prophets, and New Testament prophets, and I point out parts in the Bible where they didn't act accordingly, and tell them that our living prophets, are God's mouthpiece, but like the imperfect prophets of the Old and New Testament, they make mistakes as well.
As for D. Michael Quinn, yes he is excommunicated, but he still believes in the Church. He is not a bitter anti-Mormon. In fact a couple years ago, about 2006 or 2007, he wrote a favorable article about Joseph Smith's First Vision and the evidence surrounding it. He gave much evidence to corroborate his claims, and even dismissed some anti-Mormons in the process. When I talked to him on the phone, he gave a very powerful testimony on the truthfulness of the Gospel and the Church. It was beautiful. I find his books Mormon Hierarchy, and Early Mormonism and the Magic World View to be outstanding pieces of scholarship.
I know the Church is true. I know that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, and that this is Christ's Church. I also know that we have living prophets and apostles. I also know that we shouldn't fear questioning, and, like Hugh B. Brown said, there is room for doubt when it helps us grow. I know that reading from the history of the Church, and studying controversial issues, helps us increase in knowledge and wisdom. I know that we can admit the prophets don't always act accordingly, and sometimes make mistakes, but that we can still sustain and follow them. I know that instead of distancing ourselves from those pondering leaving the Church, and having doubt about the Church's validity, we need to reach out and love them just as Christ would. President Hinckley once said that we should continue to love people, even if they never join the Church, and to be their real friends. I think the same applies to those who are thinking of leaving the Church; always be their friend. It may be difficult to stay in a Church which seems so conservative at times, but I believe the Gospel is for everyone, even those with different political views.
Pray for strength and guidance, that we may always see the truth within the Church, and within the Gospel, so that we may remain strong, like a fortress, all the while reaching out to those, in love, not judgment, who are struggling. May the Spirit and the love of Christ and Heavenly Father help us in our endeavors.
Membership: What does this word mean to you? What do you think of when you hear it? Church membership? Membership in the Democratic Party? Membership in the NRA? Recently I have heard the terminology used and described as being a “card carrying” member. Does a recommend, a credit card, a checkbook, a Masonic ring really make you a member? It seems that more and more if you are a member of this group or that, then you are defined solely by that membership. The concept is that you are a homogeneous member of the basic guidelines of the group, that you are one solid core or thought.
Even if this isn’t the actual case, the manner in which we act would lead us to believe that this is so. How often in church do we see other members as “fitting the mold?” When you meet a Mormon from Utah County do you not think of one key type, a member of a particular set of homogeneous guidelines?
I ruminate upon this because a while back I discovered that the word “member” as used in the ancient Greek by Paul, means an “organ;” an essential part of the whole. Today we see membership as belonging to a “unit” like membership as a storm trooper or of a member of the Borg. We see membership and each member as one replaceable cog in the collective machine.
I feel that this is how members on a ward, stake and worldwide level see “membership” in the Church. How uninspiring is it to be a replaceable cog in the machine of the Church when Paul produced such beautiful imagery to describe how we are all organs in the body of Christ, and in the body of the Church. We each have our own vital role that is no less important than any other organ’s job. We might be a tiny nephron, filtering out waste, or a neuron transmitting essential commands of higher thought. Regardless of our role in the body of His Church, we are vastly important to Christ.
How sad is it that in our modern world of machinery we grow up learning that to question is wrong; that those whose opinions within the Church were wavering or off from our own were succinctly bad or evil. This happens all around us. If you doubt it just bring a Sunstone magazine to Sunday School or speak up in priesthood with a viewpoint that is different from the status quo.
If we looked and saw someone doing something different from us, we would assume that our model, our way, is right, that it is the best way to do it. If a neuron saw a nephron filtering waste, wouldn’t it wonder and think (after living only with other neurons) that that nephron was a foreign entity, that it was wrong, or evil and that it was not doing things correctly? And yet, when looked at from a distance, with an all-encompassing view, are they not both equally important and necessary for maintaining the body? If we are all members in the organization of the Church then should there not be the diversity of thought and opinion and of people as seen by Paul?
As a gay Mormon I now know and feel that there is a place for me in Christ’s love and I while I know that there is a position for me in membership of his Church organization, I hope that others begin to notice it and realize that even though I might be a nose hair follicle, a stem cell, or a pituitary gland, it doesn’t matter. Each individual cell has a place; each organ is essential and each member essential to the Body of the Church. I know that the Lord sees me, as he made me, as an integral part of the overall body of the Gospel.
Regardless of what others say, I believe that “MoHo’s” (Mormon homosexuals) have a place in the organization of the church. Whether our place is to cleanse the system of the waste of prejudice and inequality, to help the church grow out of stagnancy, or to serve as a line of defense against the outside world, we have a place. I do not know what or where it is, but I have faith in the Lord, the Master that he is. He has placed us precisely in the position where we need to be and at the end of the day he will tell us, “well done my good and faithful servant.”
Is the U.S. a Christian nation? On the campaign, John McCain asserted that it is. Barack Obama has insisted we are not. But what does the phrase mean?
There are two concepts to which the phrase “Christian nation” can be applied. The first concept is one in which the government itself directly upholds the cause of Christianity. Many Christian groups, most associated with conservatism, have endorsed that interpretation. For example, the Family Research Council has claimed that “Our founders expected that Christianity—and no other religion—would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples’ consciences and their right to worship.” Dozens of conservative books and websites proclaim that the concept of a wall of separation between Church and State is a myth. Many conservative Christian leaders and organizations, based on that premise, have actively promoted a greater integration of Church and State, seeking to use government power to advance their agendas. Even such supposedly libertarian conservatives as Ron Paul have argued against the separation and in favor of a Christian connection to our government.
Like the FRC, Paul and others who subscribe to that first concept of a Christian nation invoke the Founding Fathers. According to these religious conservatives, these Founding Fathers, fellow pious Christians, wanted this nation to be explicitly Christian in character, and would be shocked at the secularization of the government.
While there are some few nuggets of truth in their claims, one must pan out a whole lot of silt to find them. The colonies were indeed largely established as explicitly religious communities—most of them one particular denomination (Pennsylvania being the exception). Deviation from that denomination’s religion was legally restricted, as Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Baptists, and other minority faiths sadly discovered. Many in the U.S. are inaccurately taught in school that the original European immigrants came seeking religious freedom. In truth, these immigrants typically came to establish their own religious dominions. The pilgrims were so fanatical in their religious oppression, The crown in England sent a letter to Massachusetts demanding that local authorities stop executing his subjects for heresy.
The founding of the United States of America was altogether different. Before I explain, I should point out a historical misconception. In political debate, we frequently try to present the Founding Fathers as some harmonious body. But these generalizations are far from accurate. The founding generation was as factious and fractious a bunch as any. The debates were intense, their relationships frequently bitter. Those who present a particular political point of view as that of “The Founders” are incorrectly ascribing some unanimity to this diverse bunch.
Some of the founding generation were certainly conventional and deeply devout Christians who wanted the nation to be expressly and innately Christian. Like Mike Huckabee, those men wanted to mold the nation’s governing charter to “God’s standard.” Many of these men were outraged when—and here is a key point—the Constitution did not once address God. Virtually all prior government codes and charters in the Western tradition had very unequivocally prevailed upon and recognized God. Yet in the final bargain the Constitution conspicuously declined any such invocation. There is nothing within the founding document which supports the conservative claims.
Christian conservatives like to take selected words of the critical founders out of context to give the impression that they share with today’s Christians a similar faith. Given the way founders are described in LDS circles, one might even believe them some sort of pre-Restoration LDS quorum. But research on the wider scope of their lives reveals that none of the men most prominent in the founding of the U.S. can accurately be associated with conventional Christianity. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison all scoffed at the idea of the divinity of Christ and other core theological principles of Christianity. Each was highly skeptical of the organizations which had risen up around those beliefs. Institutionalized religion was frequently a target of Franklin’s wit. Jefferson believed that it was religion—the hierarchical structures and the orthodoxy they enforce—which had perverted the simple and beautiful doctrines of Jesus by building up the superstitions of his divinity. Even Adams, more tolerant of religion as a necessary evil than the other two, caustically erupted numerous times over one religion or another in his private correspondence. George Washington was much more circumspect on religion than the others. He served on the vestry of his local Episcopal congregation, as men of his status in Virginia were expected to do. He frequently made reference to a higher power in his discourse, both civic and private—the private references often in the form of thundering expletives. But he rarely chose Christian phrases for God in public, preferring instead masonic or deist epithets. While he often attended services, it is well attested that he never took communion. Rarely did he make mention of Christ, let alone discuss Jesus as his Savior, despite the persistent urging of the Christian leaders of his era. Some call the faith of these men Theistic Rationalism. Whatever we may believe about their postmortal religious beliefs and affiliations (Journal of Discourses, vol. 19, p. 229), during their earthly probation their beliefs can hardly be considered akin to the religious right—whether conventional Christian or conservative LDS.
The extent to which these men believed government should be interwoven with religion varied. Washington and Adams were agreeable to a general collaboration between Church and State. Washington felt religious institutions useful partners to government in establishing order in society, though he was indifferent to the doctrine of those institutions. Adams, despite his personal theological heterodoxy, believed Christian organizations and their doctrines should be supported by the government for their role in restraining the less savory aspects of our humanity (the cantankerous Adams derided most religion, but he was even more dubious about the prospects for humanity without it). Under these Presidents, the ones who made “so help me God” an unofficial addition to the Presidential oath of office, federally sponsored days of fasting and prayer were not uncommon, and the wall between Church and State was fairly permeable. Even so, Adams signed an official treaty which noted that “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion… (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, 1796, article 11).”
Things were decidedly different with the next two presidents, Jefferson and Madison. Unlike their predecessors, these two outraged the religious establishment by refusing to call for national days of fasting and prayer during their administrations, seeing such declarations as unconstitutional (see “Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Millar,” 01.23.1808). Jefferson was indeed very insistent that there be the “wall of separation” between Church and State. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, for which Jefferson had been the foremost architect, was to him such a crowning achievement that it was one of the three accomplishments he selected to list in his epitaph. As he put it:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg (Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17,1782).”
Even more adamant about the necessity to separate Church and State, Madison’s original proposal for what became the First Amendment was stunning in its scope before being watered down in congressional compromise.
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner or on any pretext infringed (Amendments Offered in Congressby James MadisonJune 8, 1789).”
Madison was not content to prevent government collusion with religion on a national level. States-rights proponents who list Jefferson and Madison as unqualified advocates of states supremacy over the federal government might be surprised to read the fifth amendment Madison submitted in his draft of amendments.
“No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases (ibid, emphasis added).”
(Those same “states rights” absolutists should also note that Madison’s original “Virginia Plan” which he presented to the Constitutional Convention maintained that the federal government needed a “negative” power—essentially a federal veto—over state legislatures; see “Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson,” 24.10.1787).
During his administration, Madison opposed the common practice of government chaplains, whether for the military, state-funded universities, or Congress. If individuals or groups wished spiritual guidance, he determined that they should seek it out on their own and if necessary, with their own funds. He fought the government practice of incorporating church properties. When Christian groups petitioned to have the U.S. postal service closed on Sundays in observance of the Sabbath, Madison actively opposed their efforts. He resisted any government involvement with private charities connected with religion.
Madison’s stated belief is most stark in defense of religious freedom and a separation of Church and State.
“We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society [ie, government] and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments; emphasis added).”
Exempt from its cognizance. Often when describing issues touching upon the relationship between Church and State, the phrase “religious tolerance” is used. But Madison’s vision is not one of a Christian-based government practicing kindly tolerance of other faiths. He well knew “tolerance” was arbitrary and “a source itself of discord and animosity, (”Letter from Madison to Edward Everett,” 03.19.1823).” Madison proposed a government completely blind to religion, one which does not even recognize the existence of religion.
These two men most closely associated with our founding documents, these icons of the early American Republicanism which conservatives invoke, strongly favored a disassociate between Church and State. In claiming that there is no historical foundation for this separation, conservatives show a profound ignorance and lack of understanding about the founding of our nation, the men who were instrumental in that founding, and the document which governs the nation.
In the next issue: Separation of Church and State II: Protecting both Church and State
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have often found myself frustrated at the apparent disregard with which many members of our church treat the world we’ve been entrusted with. The general attitude seems to be twofold: “I am too busy being about the Lord’s work to be inconvenienced with caring for the earth.” Or, “Why should I spend my time on that? When the Saviour comes again, He’ll fix everything. There’s simply no point.”
Indeed, many of us are so consumed with keeping the Ten Commandments, keeping our end of the covenants we’ve made, and trying to exemplify Jesus Christ in everything we do that we neglect to remember the first charge ever given to man after his creation. In the Garden of Eden, Adam was given “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26, emphasis added.)
Let’s examine the word “dominion” for a brief moment. Those among us who hold the priesthood are no doubt familiar with the phrase “unrighteous dominion.” We are cautioned to exercise the priesthood with righteousness and love, with gentleness and caring. We are charged with providing a righteous dominion over our families. Unrighteous dominion includes emotional, physical, or sexual abuse, or neglect of our family’s basic needs. If God has also given all men dominion over the earth, should we not exercise a righteous dominion? “There is a forgotten teaching of the early Jews and Christians that the dominion that God gave to Adam in Eden over His other creatures was nothing less than the holy priesthood, the power to act in God’s stead.” (Hugh Nibley, To the Glory of God pg. 21) My objective in writing this article is not to point out the same ten little things we’ve heard countless times that we can do to change our ecological footprint. Fixing the problems we’ve created will require more than a mere band-aid. We are now past the point where reusing our plastic bags and water bottles, and doing nothing else, will make a real difference. Rather, a shift in our attitudes is necessary in order to take the great leap from a dying world to a living, breathing world, a world of hope. My goal with this article is to outline the various duties that we have as members of this church, in possession of the whole gospel of Jesus Christ, to take care of the earth on which we stand and rely on for everything that we have.
Our first duty, as mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants, is to “seek ye diligently, and teach one another words of wisdom, yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 88:118) In this scripture we are advised not to stay in a state of ignorance, but to continually learn and grow, to expand our knowledge. The first thing we must do as Latter-day Saints is to reject ignorance and look for knowledge. In this age of technology, knowledge is so easy to obtain. The internet and various other forms of media can assist us in our research. We must consecrate some of our time and energy to learning about global issues, and discovering actions we can take in order to preserve nature. To quote Joseph F. Smith, “Nature helps us to see and understand God . . . Love of nature is akin to the love of God; the two are inseparable.”
We have been told throughout our lives to have faith. Faith is an admirable quality that one possesses. Yet, is it enough alone to have faith? As mentioned earlier, many members of our church feel that it is a waste of time to care for the earth; they have faith that Jesus Christ will return and “the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.” (Articles of Faith, verse 10) Having faith is good, but as members of this church we know and understand that “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (The Epistle of James 2:17) Therefore, our second duty to the earth we’ve been given is to act.
Our third duty is to leave future generations with a world worthy of their presence. Too many of the earth’s inhabitants are concerned only with the immediate consequences of their actions. But what of the long-term? To say that “now” is the only thing that matters is probably the most selfish attitude one can possess. “We owe something to future generations and those that declare ‘plenty more where that came from’ are recklessly indifferent to the gravest responsibilities… The Latter-day Saints ought not to be governed by purely selfish motives in the use of their landed inheritances… It is a duty which we owe to ourselves and to those who have the right to rely upon us to give this matter our earnest consideration.” (Joseph F. Smith, The Juvenile Instructor, 38:466-467, Aug. 1, 1903) President Ezra Taft Benson has declared that “we are morally obligated to turn this land over to those who succeed us – not drained of its fertility, but improved in quality, in productivity, and in usefulness for future generations.” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg. 645)
If we are to shun ignorance and seek wisdom, if we are to act and not just believe, and if we are to leave our children with a clean and beautiful world, we must be willing to perform the fourth duty, which is to be adaptable and willing to succumb to the prospect of change.
Change is so hard for so many. We grow comfortable in our little ruts and hate the idea of leaving them. As human beings we are creatures of habit, and to abandon our traditions and rituals is one of the most difficult things we could ever do. It is no small task to change the way we dress or what kinds of furniture we buy, what foods we eat, the way we speak, our methods of transportation, the way we dispose of refuse and trash, or how we spend our time, money and energy. When I think of the word “change” I think of humility, the willingness to admit that we are not perfect, and to be teachable. The two terms go hand-in-hand. We have been commanded to be humble, and therefore, have been commanded to change.
“Let him that is ignorant learn wisdom by humbling himself and calling upon the Lord his God, that his eyes may be opened that he may see, and his ears opened that he may hear.” (D&C 136:32) If we reject ignorance, seek wisdom, and stumble across the truth, our minds will fill with knowledge and we will be compelled to humble ourselves, to change our lives and improve the world we live in. We are all aware that the world is in a state of ecological peril, but do we know why? Do we know what actions have led us to this point, and what we can do to stop it, to reverse the damage we’ve done? The simple answer is this: Do some research, take action, and as your knowledge changes, you need to be willing to change yourself.
I remember listening to Elder Henry B. Eyring during General Conference years ago. During the talk he spoke of how his father, a career scientist, showed him through example that there is no conflict between science and religion. I remember being overwhelmed on that day with the feeling that this man, despite his status as the most junior apostle at that time, would one day be President of the Church.
Now, of course, President Eyring is First Councilor to the President. Long since the day I heard him speak I have wanted to find out more about the father whom he alluded to. So when Mormon Scientist was published, I hastened to get myself a copy.
Mormon Scientist is about, as the subtitle says, the life and faith of Henry Eyring, President Eyring’s father. It’s not a typical biography; it doesn’t cover his life from beginning to end in chronological order.
On one level, Mormon Scientist is about the issue of science and faith, and whether they conflict or mesh an issue that was at the core of Brother Eyring’s life. But Mormon Scientist on a deeper level is about the life of a progressive Latter-day Saint. In many ways, Henry Eyring was a pioneer who, in his day, chose a very spiritually progressive path, but a path that clashed with the general mood and consensus of the majority of people in the Church. The wonderful thing about his story, however, is that it shows that such a man - a man who even tangled with one of the apostles of the Church – could still remain solidly faithful.
The key was that Henry Eyring stood firm on what he knew to be the truth, but did so with such grace and with such a foundation of pure and absolute strong faith, that not only did he avoid repercussions from the brethren of the church, but in fact enjoyed their wholehearted support. To me, that is a testimony that the Church really is true and that the Brethren that lead the church really do put aside their own personal feelings and their own personal opinions of these things, and really do follow the voice of God.
Of course, Henry’s most famous progressive stance was on the issue of organic evolution. But, as the book exposes, he had some very interesting views on other things as well, from the appropriateness of sharing the more unflattering aspects of Joseph Smith’s life to dangers of an overly literal interpretation of scripture. We’ll cover some of these in this synopsis.
Organic Evolution
Being a scientist in the middle part of the 1900s, Henry was naturally asked very often about evolution, both from people who supported evolution as a science and wanted to pressure him into arguing against religion, and people who wanted him to argue against evolution. The interesting thing about Henry Eyring was that he could do neither. He knew deeply in his heard that the Church was true yet he also believed that evolution offered the best scientific explanation of the origin of man and he didn’t see that as a conflict.
He once said, when replying to a letter:
“We are not told who Adam's father was. To me the important thing is that Adam is the spirit child of God. He came into this world when he received a mortal body. The Fall consisted of becoming subject to death, and everyone born into the world is subject to death and so partakes of this fallen state with Adam. Finally, through the atonement we will all receive a resurrected body.”
“Whether Adam's father lived on this earth or somewhere else would seem of secondary importance to me. Adam was the one whom God recognized as presiding over the first dispensation and as such, with Eve his wife, became our first parents. …if God did or did not use organic evolution to prepare the bodies to house his spirit children I remain unconcerned. I think the scientific evidence on organic evolution like anything else should stand or fall on its merits. Being trained as a geologist it answers many otherwise difficult problems for me, and I find no conflict with it and the gospel.”
The book also contains an interesting quote from someone surprising to me – President Brigham Young:
“…our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts-they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.”
Henry’s life was based on this idea of chasing after the truth; that the church is ultimately interested in the truth, and because of that there is no conflict between science and religion. Henry’s attitude about truth started when he was a young man, when his father told him:
“…in this church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true. You go over to the University of Arizona and learn everything you can, and whatever is true is part of the gospel. The Lord is actually running this universe. … If you go to the university and are not profane, if you live in such a way that you’ll feel comfortable in the company of good people, and if you go to church and do the other things we’ve always done, I don’t worry about your getting away from the Lord.”
According to Henry himself, that was the jumping point that launched him on his lifelong quest and belief in the truth.
Exemplifying this, Henry once said “We learned from the Prophet Joseph Smith that man lived before he was born; that life is a school where man is sent to learn the things the Lord intends; and that he continues on into life after death. Death is not the end; it is but one more step in a great forward march made possible by the redemption wrought by the Savior. This is the spirit of true science— constant and eternal seeking.” When he talked about the church he said:
“I am happy to represent a people who throughout their history have encouraged learning and scholarship in all fields of honorable endeavor, a people who have among their scriptural teachings such lofty concepts as these: ’The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.’ ’A man cannot be saved in ignorance.’ ’Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.’”
He also said:
“I am now going to venture to say that science has rendered a service to religion. The scientific spirit is a spirit of inquiry, a spirit of reaching out for truth. In the final analysis, this spirit is likewise of the essence of religion. The Savior said: ‘Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.’ The scientist has in effect reaffirmed this great fundamental laid down by the Master, and in doing so has given a new impetus to religion.”
Henry Eyring was expected and asked by the Brethren of the church multiple times to serve as the spokesman for the church on matters of science and religion. At one time, Brother Eyring was asked to respond to a supposedly Biblically-based chronology dating the Earth at about 4000 years old. Brother Eyring said this:
“Accurate dating of events by radioactive elements decaying in the rocks and in textile fibers and elsewhere makes possible an accuracy in chronology which was undreamed of a generation ago. In effect, clocks are set going whenever these materials are laid down. These clocks can often be read with great accuracy. Such data, with many kinds of cross- checks, leads to an antiquity for life on this earth of at least some six hundred million years and an age of the Earth of upwards of two billion years. These conclusions are well known and will surprise no one.”
Because he had these beliefs and opinions, it is a mistake to believe that he thought that evolution was definitely the truth. What he believed was that we have the right to pursue science and find truth in all its forms. What he believed was that the gospel is about finding truth. What he believed was that it was wrong to discount something that seemed to be a strong argument for many of the things discovered in science.
But when people tried to nail him down to actually saying that Adam was created through evolution or something similar, he wouldn’t go there. It was like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree.
One his friends once wrote, “When I was in Salt Lake one time, I was discussing some problems of early man with you in your office. I then asked ‘how do you believe it was?’ You replied, ‘I believe whichever way it turns out to have actually been.’”
He saw the God as being a pure intelligence that understood everything. And he saw our intelligence and our abilities as miniscule in comparison. We don’t know everything yet, and God does, so how can we be so arrogant as to assume that what we know is right, when we don’t know the full scope? He believed that all these truths would eventually be revealed to us at some point if we are faithful.
Literal Truth of the Scriptures
Henry always argued for a synthesis between science and religion, and didn’t understand people who couldn’t do that. It led him to a belief in scripture that was definitely more metaphorical than literal. But, as with everything else, he struck a balance:
“To be understood, the Lord must reveal Himself in a language His Children can understand. Of necessity, many things not necessary for their immediate progress are omitted, to be revealed later, and to be discovered by man’s own enterprise. There are some people who throw away the scriptures and restrict themselves to science and related fields. Others use the scriptures to the exclusion of other truth. Both are wrong. Latter-day Saints should seek after truth by all avenues with earnest humility. There is, of course, no conflict in the gospel since it embraces all truth. Undoubtedly, however, science is continually challenging us to think through again our conceptions of the gospel. This should work both ways, of course.”
One of the most well known things about Henry Eyring was his perceived conflict with Elder Joseph Fielding Smith. In 1954 Elder Smith published a book called Man, His Origin and Destiny. This was a direct challenge to Charles Darwin’s book of a similar name. In the book, Elder Smith reiterated the position that scripture should be read literally as it pertained to the creation. Henry didn’t exactly agree with this, but he was a faithful member of the church and believed in kindness, mutual respect, and the value of coming to consensus.
In one exchange with Elder Smith, he said:
“I am convinced that if the Lord required that His children understand His works before they could be saved that no one would be saved. It seems to me that to struggle for agreement on scientific matters in view of the disparity in background which the members of the Church have is to put emphasis on the wrong place. In my judgment there is room in the Church for people who think that the periods of creation were (a) 24 hours, (b) 1000 years, or (c) millions of years. I think it is fine to discuss these questions and for each individual to try to convert the other to what he thinks is right, but in matters where apparently equally reliable authorities disagree, I prefer to make haste slowly.”
Now I’d like to pause for a minute and think about that quote in relation to current conflicts; in relation to political disagreements, in relation to some of the questions we discuss today about politics and religion, about the left and the right and the in between in relation to the church. If this wasn’t evolution we were talking about, if we substituted some words, for instance: “I’m convinced that if the Lord required that his children be [liberal or conservative] before they could be saved, no one would be saved. It seems to me that to struggle for agreement on [political] matters in view of the disparity in background which the members of the Church have is to put emphasis on the wrong place. In my judgment there is room in the Church for people who think that the [Lord guides us towards equanimity in economics as well as people who emphasize the concept of individual responsibility.] I think it is fine to discuss these questions and for each individual to try to convert the other to what he thinks is right, but in matters where apparently equally reliable authorities disagree, I prefer to make haste slowly.” (Words in brackets are mine.)
Now, to be sure, I don’t want to insert words into Brother Eyring’s mouth. It’s clear from the record that, politically, he was a product of the Cold War era – he passionately opposed communism and everything associated with it, and was most likely of a flavor that we would call conservative today. But his stance on science and religion makes him at the very least a distant cousin, philosophically, to those of us in the small but growing minority of faithful LDS people who do not agree with the current politically conservative LDS majority.
Humanity of Leaders
In another example of kinship with many modern LDS progressives, Henry Eyring says some refreshing things about the practice of emphasizing the positive and negative traits of Church leaders:
“I like a little bit of a mess, and I am glad when one of the brethren says something that I think is a little bit foolish, because I think if the Lord can stand him, maybe He can stand me. So that’s it, and I think that maybe there’s a certain stumbling block that some of us have: we expect other people to be a kind of perfection that we don’t even attempt to approach ourselves. We expect the Lord to just open and shut their mouths, but He doesn’t do that – they are human beings; but they’re wonderful, and they do better than they would if it weren’t for the Lord helping them. … So that’s my answer to this remark – somebody says that a student is down here at BYU and he’s a member of the Church, but he’s a mess. And I say, ‘Yes, I agree. But you ought to see what the fellow would be like if it weren’t for the Church.‘ And that’s what the gospel does. It takes all of us with our faults and makes us better.”
Interesting, isn’t it? But what is more interesting is that his son, President Eyring, First Counselor in the Church, appears to share his views. This quote is from a half-hour BYU documentary about Mormon Scientist (with the same title):
“Dad had the most interesting view of the prophet Joseph. You could bring – and I’m thinking of it – when you read the journals – I mean, what a tumultuous life , I mean, just incredible and most folks would want to just dress it up and – you know – because that wouldn’t be ‘faith promoting.’ Dad loved it when people would talk about the humanity of Joseph. He said it just makes me feel so terrific to know the Lord could do what he did through a person that wasn’t perfect. It gives me hope.”
What’s really interesting when you watch the interview is the disdain in President Eyring’s voice when he talks about how some people believe sharing the unflattering points of the Prophet’s life would not be “faith promoting.” It give me hope that we might just see a reversal in recent trends to “clean up” Church materials and other facets of Church life as President Eyring becomes more and more of an influence in the Church.
Intellectual Honesty
Something particularly admirable was Henry Eyring’s recognition that people who feign intellectual prowess with poor arguments or with a background that’s not complete enough to put together a good argument actually do a disservice to the thing they are trying to defend – even if that thing is the true Church.
“There are few ways in which good people do more harm to those who take them seriously than to defend the gospel with arguments that won't hold water,” he says. “Many of the difficulties encountered by young people going to college would be avoided if parents and teachers were more careful to distinguish between what they know to be true and what they think may be true. Impetuous youth, upon finding the authority it trusts crumbling, even on unimportant details, is apt to lump everything together and throw the baby out with the bath.”
The quote is certainly applicable today. I am heartened by President Eyring’s apparent agreement with his father on such matters. Like his father, he appears to be a man who absolutely does believe that the truth shall set you free and isn’t afraid to put that in front of people and have them make their own decisions. And I think that’s what his father says in this quote, that that’s what we have to do, that we have to not be afraid of the truth, and we have to not be afraid to grasp it.
Another thing that Henry Eyring does in here that’s so beautiful to me is that he explains with such clarity and such good examples why it is important to embrace the truth. And he does that by using scientific history as a backdrop and a context:
“With each new discovery, the skeptic finds less need for God, while the devout Latter-day Saint sees in it one more evidence of His overruling hand. It was ever so. The Bible speaks of the four corners of the earth. In the time of Columbus, there were those who thought a flat earth was a religious necessity. When it turned out to be round, Christ’s teachings were found to be just as consistent with the new view as with the old. Later, when Galileo verified the theories of Copernicus and said the earth moved about the sun and so could no longer be considered the center of creation, there were bigots ready to burn him at the stake. When the smoke of battle cleared away and men looked at matters calmly, it became apparent that nothing essential had been lost. A lot of human philosophy disappeared, but it turned out to be unnecessary.”
A Complete Life
There are many other things this book covers that are interesting about this man that can’t be covered in detail here. He was the son of a polygamist father, a man who was married to two women who both happened to be sisters. In fact, Henry was known to have said that it took him “until the age of sixteen to realize that a man is not well advised to marry two sisters.” He was an acquaintance of Albert Einstein, whom he spoke to on several occasions about the Church (although, to Henry’s discouragement, Mr. Einstein never gained an interest). He started a crazy tradition of running annual footraces with his graduate students at the University of Utah, footraces that eventually culminated with national news coverage by none other than Charles Kuralt, who astutely observed, “Everyone’s here to watch Henry Eyring – the favorite. Not the favorite to win, just the favorite.”
Perhaps it would be fitting to end this synopsis with the scripture on the back of the dust jacket and the book itself:
“Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.” (D&C 130:18-19)
That, more than anything, is a brilliant summary of the life of this great man.
After so many years of moving the Church to the right of the political spectrum, Church members are beginning to discover the distinctly left of center teachings, history, and scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What are we conservatives to do? Some may point to influential right-wing leaders among the LDS community like Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, or even to our hero of the far-right, Glenn Beck, and say “The Church is firmly conservative and will remain so, so why worry?” To this I can only respond, “Open your eyes!” Mormons are beginning, little by little, to realize their own radical history, their own history of egalitarianism, their past leader’s exhortations for economic equality, and worst of all, the revealed scriptures that warn against materialism, individualism, war, and inequality. Why, in just a few short years, such groups as the LDS Left have seen their numbers grow and grow, even establishing a quarterly newsletter disseminating this information to those who may have gone so long unaware of it!
Now that I have hopefully scared conservatives into realizing the precarious condition our ideology is facing among the LDS population, let me reassure you that we have ways of preventing further enlightenment concerning LDS radical history, teachings and revelations. I would like to propose some solutions that will once and for all rid us of the pesky problem of a growing left leaning membership and firmly establish the wavering right-wing, conservative, and reactionary elements of LDS culture.
First we must consider what the dangers are that right-wing ideology faces among LDS membership. We must identify them so that we may confront them and eliminate them, beginning with the least dangerous and working our way to the most dangerous. The tricky part is that attacking them directly may bring attention to them. After decades of explaining away, dismissing, and then ignoring these elements of Mormonism, we have created a climate in which most members are not even aware of their own liberal and leftist roots. The challenge we face is preventing the rollback of this absence of self-awareness while making absolutely sure that in the process we do not reveal them to others who remain in blissful ignorance.
The least dangerous to our dominance in LDS political life is LDS history. This isn’t because LDS history is free of liberal, leftist and radical moments however. To the contrary, early LDS history is chuck full of such moments. Joseph Smith himself ran for President of the United States with a platform that included such liberal elements as peace through diplomatic efforts rather than war, prison reform and the elimination of the death penalty in all but the most extreme cases. Even worse, his platform included the establishment of a national bank.(1) As you may be realizing, how could we call prison reform “weak on crime” and denounce the nationalizing of the banking system as “Communist” or “socialist” without simultaneously slapping the founder of the LDS Church with the same labels? Now you see the danger, but do not fear. Over the years, we have dismissed these aspects of Joseph Smith’s ideology by simply not mentioning it, and over time the result has been that few people even know where to find this information.
Another example of successfully hidden history is the story of Nauvoo. Many LDS conservatives have been successful in not only covering up the liberal aspects of the city of Nauvoo, but have emphasized the market economy aspect of that period in LDS history so much, that many believe Nauvoo to be the prime example of LDS capitalism. Little do they know that large tracts of land were set aside by the city of Nauvoo and collectivized. The poor and the needy were then able to tend these large tracts of land to support themselves and their families.(2) To us, this smacks too much of land reform, one of the key features of socialism… found in LDS history no less! What is even more sickening is that it was successful! How disgusting to think of the poor and needy being allowed the dignity and opportunity to work and use land that should have been the private property of a more deserving capitalist!
The same is true of other aspects of LDS history. For instance, many have heard about the Law of Consecration, but what they know is so mixed up with conservative culture that they completely misunderstand it. Why, ask almost any member of the Church about it and you will often get the response that God himself withdrew the commandment, wisely replacing it with the Law of Tithing instead. It almost makes you laugh, such nonsense, but hold your laughter if you can, you do not want to inadvertently reveal that this is false. Of course, we know that the commandment still stands, and that blessings will be (and are being) withheld for not adhering to it. But who needs blessings when you are rich and powerful? With our right-wing agenda in full swing, we can create our own blessings and everyone else can fend for themselves.
We also know that even after the Church failed to live up to the Law of Consecration, the Church attempted other steps towards a more egalitarian society. Funny thing is that this also has become very convoluted as generations have passed. In fact, most members think that the Law of Consecration, the United Order and the LDS cooperative movement are all one and the same, not even aware that they were not attempts at the Law of Consecration, but were attempts to establish communities based on economic equality rather than individualism and competition. For the most part, members are unaware that each one was in reality a separate attempt to establish economic equality and to form an alternative to the capitalism that LDS leaders saw developing in the eastern United States and were warning the members against.(3) By letting them believe that all three attempts are the same thing however, and with the idea firmly established in LDS culture that the Law of Consecration is something that has been given up on until the millennium, Saints are left believing they have no responsibility to look for more egalitarian social systems.
As I have said, these aspects of LDS history have become so obscure that there is little danger of them becoming widely known and therefore influential on a large number of LDS members. However, we must not let our guard down. We must continue to pretend these moments never existed, and if we must discuss those periods in LDS history, we must continue to emphasize the spirituality of the early Saints, the persecution they faced, etc. and completely ignore the very temporal efforts and teachings of that time that motivated them in their spirituality and often was the cause of that persecution. While on the subject of persecution, I should also add that we must always keep the pressure on left leaning members of the Church. This is easily accomplished by perpetuating the stigma that has arisen in LDS culture that anything liberal, and especially anything socialistic, is “Satan’s plan”. All it takes is for members to feel that they cannot possibly be “real” or “true” Mormons unless their political views are conservative and right-wing. It probably would help to even make it seem that even centrist opinions are “out of line” with the Church.
Another, more dangerous aspect of Mormonism that threatens right-wing ideology among the membership is the teachings of past LDS leaders. These too have been suppressed and therefore have become more and more obscure, but because the Saints have a tendency to take an interest in their Prophets and Apostles, it is a more serious concern for us. As we speak, members have been discovering a document that has been forgotten for over a century but which has found it’s way to the internet. It matters not that it has been erroneously called the “Proclamation On The Economy”, for the quotes are real quotes. Even more frightening, the endorsement from the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, including such names as Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, George Q. Cannon and George A. Smith, is very real. This document conveys such dangerous and radical messages as the following:
“The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice.”(4)
It goes on even further to inform the Saints that American liberties are in danger due to the power that wealth gives to individuals and corporations who accumulate it.
Now, obviously, it becomes very difficult to convince Saints who have read such words that redistribution of wealth, and preventing the amassing of enormous fortunes in private hands is “socialist” and contrary to God’s will. For the more studious and curious among the LDS population, it is not hard to find other such dangerous talk. Take the following:
“To serve the classes that are living on them, the poor, laboring men and women are toiling, working their lives out to earn that which will keep a little life within them. Is this equality? No! What is going to be done? The Latter-day Saints will never accomplish their mission until this inequality shall cease on the earth.”(5)
That one was Brigham Young, sometimes referred to as the American Moses. Just think of the danger of members discovering that this revered and respected leader despised inequality so! Here is another from Apostle Orson Pratt:
"An inequality of property is the root and foundation of innumerable evils; it tends to derision, and to keep asunder the social feelings that should exist among the people of God…It is inequality in riches that is a great curse."
Once again, I advise that those of us that wish to maintain our hold on the LDS community as a reliable source of right-wing support be aware. We must be vigilant and do all we can to prevent the discovery of these teachings. If members do discover the large amount of teachings regarding economic equality, I advise flooding them with early Ezra Taft Benson talks. Since he was a Prophet fairly recently, his name carries much weight, and with it, so do his personal political views. Be careful, however, and do not let on that his Church leaders often chastised him for giving such talks. It also helps to refer to these talks, given before Benson was President of the Church, as being talks given by “the Prophet” or “a Prophet of God” even though this is not really accurate, as the prophetic mantle had not been passed to Benson yet.
Now I must come to the most dangerous challenge to right-wing ideology among Mormons. That is, the scriptures themselves. I know that this seems strange, considering that we often pick through the scriptures to denounce this or that, or to make it appear God is a partisan and takes our side on every issue, but let me hammer this one in…The scriptures are DANGEROUS! Oh sure, we can refer to the Old Testament and find passages to support militarism, war, territorial expansion, capital punishment, even slavery and exploitation, but don’t be fooled! A deeper reading and understanding of even the Old Testament will guide one to many dangerous ideas. For example, early on we find Joseph being praised for increasing taxes to prevent suffering among the Egyptians.(6) Taxes used as a way to help the general population of a nation? Of course, we know that taxes should only be used to subsidize the rich, and that the working classes should be the ones burdened by taxes - not the wealthy, who deserve to be privileged. In the Old Testament, we also read of the world being flooded to rid it of its violent inhabitants.(7) As you must see, it becomes difficult for us to advocate war, the most violent interaction between men, if people realize God is so opposed to violence. We read of Moses’ establishment of worker safety laws in the famous Mosaic Law.(8) We even read of God, through Moses, commanding the Israelites to allow the poor to glean the fields rather than sucking out every profit possible from a harvest, which would be appropriate, as any capitalist realizes.(9)
Even prized scriptures for us conservatives, such as the story of Sodom and Gomorrah - which we use to denounce homosexuality - is in jeopardy if one were to read on in the Old Testament. Several books into the Old Testament, in a book called Ezekiel, the Prophet Ezekiel informs us that Sodom was destroyed because it lived in abundance but chose luxury and idleness, refusing to help the poor and the needy with their wealth.(10) Because of such a passage, many Saints have come to think that perhaps the intended rape of God’s servants that we previously read about in the story of Sodom’s destruction was more about violence than sexuality.(11) From this they may even come to believe that God loves all His children… even the gay ones! Now that is a dangerous idea that challenges our position if I’ve ever heard one! They may even come to believe that perhaps God does not require the brutal destruction of homosexuals, but rather the destruction of those that increase the suffering of his less fortunate children. Dangerous ideas I tell you, and they must be prevented!
If we were to go on into the New Testament, we discover Christ to be a peaceful man, averse to violence, loving all God’s children, even denouncing businessmen just using the free-market principles of supply and demand to earn money in the temple.(12) We read of Him teaching that it is difficult for the wealthy to enter heaven - even more difficult than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.(13) We find him teaching a young man to give all his possessions to the poor,(14) but worst of all… we find him providing free healthcare while he travels!(15) Oh the horror!
If one were to read on further in the New Testament, they would come across the accounts of the early Christians living a communal life, sharing their wealth no less!(16) We even find Paul advising the Saints to withdraw from those that would have us believe that earning more and more wealth is godly. Not only does he teach this (which stabs right into the heart of our conservative way of thinking) but he even goes on to teach that money is the root of all evil!(17) This man, holding such an important position as Apostle of the Lord, teaches such heresies as economic equality, claiming that the abundance of the wealthy should be used to supply the wants of the poor.(18)
The most dangerous of all, however, is latter-day scripture. Today, many Saints are oblivious to the economic nature of the scriptures right before their faces, but because it is right in front of them, our ideology is that much closer to the dangers I speak of. To emphasize this point, let me quote from one of the LDS Church’s own historians, Leonard J. Arrington:
“A considerable part, if not the bulk, of the revealed scripture of the Mormons dealt with temporalities. Of the one hundred and twelve revelations announced by Joseph Smith, eighty-eight dealt partly or entirely with matters that were economic in nature. Out of 9,614 printed lines in Smith’s revelations, 2,618 lines, by actual count, treated “definitely and directly of economic matters.”(19)
Of course, that would be fine and dandy if we were talking about free-market, capitalist economics, but we are not. All throughout the Book of Mormon we read of how God punishes societies that do not use their wealth to help the poor and the needy. We find scriptures that advise whole civilizations to use their riches to help others rather than prudently advising that riches be used to create more riches for the investing class. Rather than learning about the “freedom” that a free-market creates, we learn about how the accumulation of wealth leads to corruption, the stripping away of democratic society, and eventual destruction. On the other hand we learn that when these societies established social relief for the less fortunate, not only did they not turn into Communist tyrannies, but the people lived in freedom and happiness! Not only is this ridiculous, but dangerous I tell you!
In the Doctrine and Covenants, what has been specifically referred to as revelation directly for this dispensation, it gets even more specific. We learn the specifics about establishing egalitarian law under revelations about the Law of Consecration.(20) God Himself speaks as very radically on the subject in the Doctrine and Covenants! Listen to this exact quote, not from some Church leader or historical account, but an actual revelation from God Himself: “It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin."(21)
How can we possibly have our fellow members reading such words, and words from the Lord no less! We must act quickly before LDS members start to become aware of just what this means!
We also come across commandments from God concerning war that are very contrary to our ideology. Not only do we find passages where we are told that we should not go to war unless God reveals that we should, but we even read that in reality we should renounce war altogether!(22) Luckily, few people have realized that renounce means to literally turn away from it and never come back.(23) On this we have lucked out and can still rely on American Saints to “rally around the flag” as we prefer to call it. Of course, it’s not really rallying around the flag and the principles it stands for that we are asking, but to rally around the bombing of this or that nation for this or that reason, and thereby feed the military industry and the pockets of the wealthy.
As one reads on, even the Pearl of Great Price speaks of Enoch’s people living in economic equality, with “no poor among them.”(24) So, as you can see, the danger is right on the surface. All it takes is for a few people here and there to start questioning the right-wing culture we have tried so hard to establish, and it could all fall to pieces for us. That is why I am advising that we take the drastic measures necessary to prevent this gradual political education of the LDS population. What drastic measures, you ask? Well, we must continue to prevent members from learning about their own liberal, leftist, and radical history. We must prevent them from discovering the large amount of teachings concerning equality and the devastation of war and militarism. But that is not all.
What else are we to do? We must get members to pick their way through the scriptures, never actually reading them in full, just reading a passage here, an individual scripture or chapter there, but never from cover to cover. If we do not do this, I’m afraid we will be left to the same methods the early Christian apostates resorted to. We would be forced to edit out the undesirable knowledge that the scriptures possess. Having done this, we can rest assured that wars will continue, that our undeserving poor and needy brothers and sisters will continue to be a source of great wealth without us having to feed them, educate them, care for their elderly, provide them with healthcare or transportation, and otherwise alleviate their suffering in any way. Remember though, we must act fast, and whatever happens… we must not allow those LDS members who are already leaning to the left of the political spectrum to discover that we are concerned! Lastly, keep pushing the idea that what really determines whether or not an individual is a “true” Mormon or not, is whether or not they hold conservative political opinions.
Signed,
Screwtape
References:
1. Joseph Smith’s Presidential platform can be found in his campaign pamphlet, “Joseph Smith’s Views”
2. “Great Basin Kingdom: Economic History of the Latter-day Saints 1830-1900” by Leonard J. Arrington, page 17.
3. “Building the City of God:Community and Cooperation Among the Latter-day Saints” by Arrington, Fox and May, pg. 7
4. Pamphlet from the First Presidency, 1875, can be found in Volume 2 of “The Messages of the First Presidency”
5. “Discourses of Brigham Young” 19:46
6. Story of Joseph’s plan to tax yearly harvests as an insurance against draught begins in Genesis 41.
7. Genesis 6:11-13
8. This includes laws requiring railing to be built upon structures to prevent people from falling, as found in Deuteronomy 22:8 for example. Further correlations between the Law of Moses and contemporary worker conditions are mentioned in Hugh Nibley’s “Work We Must, But the Lunch is Free”.
9. Deuteronomy 22:19-21
10. Ezekiel 16:49-50
11. Genesis 19:4-9
12. Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17, John 2:13-16
13. Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:24-25, Luke 18:24-25
14. Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22
15. Examples of Christ healing the sick at no charge are too numerous to list; from healing the blind, the leprous, a woman with an issue of blood, and even raising the dead…all without proof of insurance and at no charge!
16. Acts 4:32
17. 1 Timothy 6:5-11
18. 2 Corinthians 8:13-15
19. “Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints” by Leonard J. Arrington, pg. 5-6
20. D&C 42 & 51.
21. D&C 49:20
22. Section 98 of the Doctrine & Covenants give very specifics about when it is appropriate to resort to war explained in D&C 98:32-48. The passage where God commands us to renounce war altogether is found in D&C 98:16.
23. Definitions of the word “renounce” are as follows 1: to announce one’s abandonment or giving up of a right or interest. 2: to refuse to follow, obey, or recognize any further.
24. Moses 7:18
"The LDS Left," inspired by a Facebook group of the same name, is a joint project by a group of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who find themselves leaning towards various degrees of the left side of the political spectrum, as well as members of the Church who regard themselves as being more liberally-minded or unorthodox in their views and practicing of the faith. This blog is a branch of our quarterly newsletter publication and will feature the main articles shortly after the release of each issue. To subscribe to "The LDS Left" PDF newsletter, please send a request to theldsleft@gmail.com
Recognizing that each person is at a different level of spiritual progression and has received personal revelation regarding his/her own political and spiritual beliefs, comments bringing the testimonies or personal worthiness of others may be removed. Because this blog is not endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commenters are free to question Church policy related to politics in an open, honest, and respectful manner. Religious intolerance in the form of bashing Mormonism or any other sect will not be tolerated. Any comment deemed to be offensive and in violation of our policy is subject to removal without warning.
“But with prosperity came growing evils,” Hinckley continues. “The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras.” In this light, it makes sense to view the Book of Mormon as an anti-war, pro-kingdom scripture.
latter day movement as well as in the peace movement in our day, seeing Nephi’s reaction to the vision of the destruction of his people on the American continent and to what would befall the Gentiles - if they did not repent. Remember Hinckley said: “I know of no other writing, which sets forth with such clarity the tragic consequences to societies that follow courses contrary to the commandments of God”.
Mormon nonviolence: a restoration of gospel principles
