OPINIONS IV
HIERARCHY
“I must study Politics and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematics and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, Natural History, Naval Architecture, Navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Music, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.” –John Adams, letter to Abigail, Paris, 1780.
I like this quote because it illustrates levels of “civilization” humanity may attain, and how the latter may build upon the former. Like “types of freedom,” the level of civilization we experience, is a product of the choices we make, which correlates with our intelligence.
How do we want to live? “Culture” can mean anything from what grows in a Petri Dish to the Celestial Kingdom. It’s remarkable that even one-celled animals know how to fight and have sex! Is that the level of culture we want, or would we prefer something of a higher nature?
The Civilization Menu
Should we live a hand-to-mouth existence, hunting and gathering, without language, without technology, without clothing, shelter, sanitation, or medicine? Do we want to live a purely survival-of-the fittest existence, where we either prey or are preyed upon, where every comfort, every advantage has to be fought for? Or do we want to live like John and Abigail Adams, with our sights set on improvement, with the wish and intent that succeeding generations will improve on preceding ones, each better, each more safe and peaceful, yet powerful, each more pleasant and beautiful, clean, healthful, enlightened, prosperous and abundant?
Yes, on occasion we may have to fight for (defend) the “good life,” but if we are clear in our understanding of what the good life is and united in our resolve to preserve it, we would seldom be challenged, and if we were we’d be in a position to deal effectively with any threat.
History has plenty of examples of low or high civilization. War would be an obvious example of the low, though the antagonistic parties are not necessarily equally depraved. Life in various crime-ridden slums, or life among certain primitive tribes could be cited (of course urban and rural life aren’t by definition uncivilized). Life in France during the revolution (1789-1799), is most instructive from several angles. There were elements of high life in Israel under Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon; then there were Israel’s apostate days. There was Athens at its cultural height, and otherwise; and, of course, Rome in the early days of its republic, contrasted with the later days of empire. We can look at low conditions in Europe during the Middle Ages, then high points of the renaissance and reformation; yes the United States too has had its worse and better days.
None of these examples provide us with a perfect picture of degradation or exaltation, but they suggest what may be with us. It seems most nations have had their glory days, and their other days…. And, the more we know and understand about them, the more empowered we are to choose a better way for ourselves. Actually there are levels of civilization within any given society at any given time, so we really can’t say “this is America” or “this is China.” It’s more a question of what cultural climate prevails at any given time.
Maslow
Abraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” can be a useful tool for assessing past and current human conditions. There may be a few extraordinary individuals who’s “self-actualization” is of such a spiritual nature that no adversity can tear them from their pinnacle (see Romans 8:35-39). But for the vast majority of us, Maslow simply distills what we already know from experience by saying we have to have our physiological needs met before we can attend to safety and security needs. We must feel safe before we can worry about socializing and belonging. We have to feel we belong and are socially accepted before we can experience self-esteem and worth; and all of these more fundamental needs have to be met before we can be self-actualized.
Lets look at terrorism in light of Maslow’s hierarchy. Terror strikes at the very foundation of his pyramid (and therefore civilization). Nutrition, health and safety trump everything when it comes to our ability to function. If we’re sick, we can’t get enough food and water, and/or we feel physically threatened, we’ll never contemplate, let alone experience the finer things of life. In the United States we’ve come to see these “needs” as God-given rights, but whatever our philosophical perspective, when we see the meeting of these needs being jeopardized we must appreciate the danger of social deterioration and take prompt corrective action.
Our action in these days of perplexity, has been anything but prompt.
The movie Mars Attacks humorously but very effectively dramatizes the reality of the situation America and Western Civilization is in today. The “Martians” are fully capable (if we allow it) of and dedicated to our destruction, and still we are preoccupied with how we can make the next buck, get ahead and enjoy the “finer things of life.” This pillow of oblivion we’re sleeping on will turn into a boulder that rolls over us if we don’t wake up!
Terror
After 9-11, Pres. Bush advised us to conduct business as usual. We’ve tried, and done pretty well, but terror has taken its toll. Look at the money we’ve poured into Homeland Security that could have been spent in “higher” ways. Look at the cost of oil. Look at curtailments and bankruptcies in travel and tourism, and other previously thriving industries. Look at increases in stress, depression, and anxiety. Look how terror inhibits creativity and free expression. Of course, what we are experiencing is nothing compared to elsewhere. But that’s just the point. We need to nip terror in the bud before it reaches levels other countries
are experiencing. I’ve already discussed the dynamic of bullying. Let’s consider other aspects of this problem.
Terror leverages the power of fear. It isn’t new. It’s as old as the family of man, but it still works. It is cyanide to the body politic. It’s the ultimate cheap shot at the good life made by those who lack the wisdom or the will to get their needs met any better way. People who resort to terror are oblivious to the truth that one can never find happiness in making others unhappy. Cruelty and violence provides them with a cheap thrill, a degraded sense of strength, and a false sense of superiority.
Though it’s impossible for humans to be happy in isolation, terrorists are convinced the only path to a good time is through abusing others or eliminating them altogether. Thus they are alienated, feared and hated, yet they demand the trappings of popular adulation, deluding themselves as to their true worth. They float on a sea of suffering, overstimulated and undersatisfied. In exercising fearful power over others, the power to be loved and appreciated ever eludes them.
The Power Menu
What is it about the narcotic we call power? In our past we have tended to deny we want it. Many of our Founders, for example, professedly preferred home and hearth to the imbroglios of politics. They didn’t even believe in political parties, hoping for tranquility and prosperity based simply on the goodness and decency of the people. They were more sincere than modern cynicism will allow. Their idealism demands our appreciation, yet even they understood the dynamics of power and the necessity of keeping it in check.
We, we tend not to admit we want it, but just consider some examples of our power cravings: The brisk market for epoch and superhero stories, for example. We love fictional heroes such as brave and daring detectives, secret service agents, explorers, police officers, cowboys and soldiers. Fantasy, including science fiction and cartoons explore various imaginings of extraordinary power (there are real-life heroes we justly admire as well).
What about social and corporate ladder climbing, the clamoring for titles, prestige and authority? What about politics? There’s our incessant quest for knowledge and its most powerful applications. Also consider the power of personal attractiveness: body-building, fashion, cosmetics, perfumes, diets, plastic surgery; our obsession with outward appearance creating professions in auto and interior design, landscaping, architecture, public relations, advertising, packaging, etc. What about power through karate and the fighting arts; weapons, guns, hot cars and motorcycles, Pit Bull or Rottweiller posturing, tough looks, gang clothes, extensive tattoos and piercing, radical or violent clubs, secret combinations and organized crime?
Rebellion against so-called oppressors has often been used as a justification for the illegitimate assumption of power. Traditional authority, on the other hand, may be misused as a means of maintaining power.
There are subtle projections of power, like imposing one’s loud music on neighbors, invading other people’s personal space in subtle ways such as pestering, and just rudeness in general. Satire, mockery and other put-down arts actually have to do with power. Graffiti and gang tagging really is like animals marking their territories. It’s an indirect way of challenging property ownership, and hence a presumption of power.
Magic, mysticism, priestcraft, occultism and spiritualism all represent human ambitions for power. So do “mind-expanding” drugs, pleasure enhancers, wonder cures, steroids and health supplements. Religious zeal that resorts to various forms of force in the name of God, has to do with the arrogance of power. Governments claim legitimate use of power in such capacities as law enforcement, military, and espionage agencies (we’ll look at the whole idea of legitimacy in government at some point). Of course I believe God has ultimate power, and if He has, we would be wise in exercising faith as a means of tapping into the “true vine” (John 15:1-5).
We hear the pronouncement, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” suggesting that all power is evil, or that no man or woman can handle it properly. This is a cynical, and in fact, false assumption, of course. Truly great leaders throughout history provide inspiring examples of power being put to proper use. Those of us who believe in the God of Abraham, see Him as all-powerful and absolutely incorruptible. So, it may be true that power corrupts many, if not most, but it doesn’t have to, and power can be most useful.
Power with Wisdom
There’s nothing wrong with a reasonable desire for and acquisition of power—power to function in everyday life, the powers of our senses, the power of reason, power to justly resist and subdue our enemies, power over disease, power over our last enemies—death and hell. Let’s admit it. As mortals, we’re pretty weak, and if this is all there is, it’s pretty bleak. Here’s an interesting New Testament prophecy about the last days that relates to power:
“Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” –Matthew 24:42
I’m sure there are more than one interpretation of this passage, here’s mine: In speaking of servants made rulers over His household, Jesus refers to His disciples, His church, particularly the leaders who are responsible for giving the members spiritual and temporal sustenance (meat in due season). But the salient point is that these leaders will be given a little power, and if they use it properly, they will be given much more when He returns. On the other hand, if they abuse their power, they will be rendered powerless (cut asunder) in hell (weeping and gnashing of teeth).
The passage suggests an essential lesson God wants us to learn in life has to do with the proper handling of power. If we learn our lesson well, we will enjoy greater power in the next life, if not, power will be taken away. But what if we don’t believe in a “next life?” Here again, such a concept illustrates the importance of faith. There isn’t a person in the world who doesn’t want to be happy (which includes sufficient empowerment) but it’s what we believe will make us happy that motivates us. Same holds true for lifestyles. It’s our belief about what constitutes “civilization” that leads us to a given way of life. What, then, do we believe about empowerment, personally and culturally?
Temporally there’s personal power, and then social or collective power. Spiritually, there is the power of God, the power of the devil and our response to those influences.
Let’s start with personal power. We enjoy physical strength and endurance, dexterity, agility, our senses. There is reproductive power. There is mental power or intelligence. When we are in a position of power, we can be shepherds or hirelings or wolves:
“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep” –John 10:11-13
How do we behave when we find we have power over others? Either we’re bigger and stronger than the other, or we are in a position of authority. Perhaps we have more knowledge so we can either share what we know, or keep others in the dark. Maybe we have a gift or talent they don’t have. Do we use it to provide entertainment and enjoyment, or do we make them feel inferior because they are lacking in that particular area? How do men treat women? How do women treat men? Each is stronger than the other in certain ways. How do we treat the elderly, children, animals, plants, uncles, aunts and ants? How do we treat the earth?
We cannot be happy without power, but it might be worse to have power and exercise it badly:
“And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” –Mark 9:42
Power with Restaint
When it comes to “civilization,” we begin to see the significance of the Biblical perspective. It’s obvious to most of us what selfishness and unselfishness does to society. We know the effects of authority exercised unfairly. Does it make a difference to know we’ll have to answer to God for such behavior?
“And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou has provided?” –Luke 12:19-20
“I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.” –Acts 20:35
“But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.” –Mark 10:42-44
We enjoy certain powers in isolation from other people, such as the power of personal thought and action, power over our immediate physical surroundings, to include plants and animals. However, much of our power is developed only in the social setting. Popularity, or political power, would be obvious examples. This gets closer to the true meaning of “civilization,” since we can’t be civil if there’s no one around to be civil with.
I see two major pathways to social power: One is gaining authority over others using flattery and/or intimidation. The other is building a network of support from others through benevolent leadership and genuine service. A person may become very powerful either way, but the results of these strategies, when it comes to happy, healthy society, are clearly dissimilar.
Examples of the first pathway are all around us. The world is dotted not only with political and religious dictatorships, but also many more subtle forms of overbearance. What happens when we stop believing in the God of the Bible? With what do we fill the void? If there is no meaning to life, especially no eternal consequences for our actions, we naturally go for all the excitement, pleasure and comfort we can in the present, not worrying about anyone or anything else. The typical pathway to excitement, pleasure and comfort is money. But when we talk of money, we’re really talking about power, which is more fundamental. If we are powerful, we can exercise it to acquire wealth, then with our wealth we buy what we want. Or we can simply use our power to extort what we want from our physical and social environments.
The paradox, however, if Jesus is to be believed, is that the most “selfish” life is, after all, the most selfless:
“He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” –Matt. 10:39.
Competition
It’s not that there wasn’t “survival of the fittest” before Darwin, it’s that with Darwinian thinking, and other philosophical approaches that leave God out of the equation, the competition becomes more abandoned, less susceptible to moderation and reconciliation, therefore leading to greater conflict and more rapid personal and social decline.
We hear that “competition is what made America great.” Was it competition, or was it the freedom that allowed for competition, coupled with the personal and societal restraints that kept it within productive bounds? Conflict, which grows out of competition, really follows a continuum running from schoolyard tussles to hydrogen holocausts. It’s all a matter of intensity or degree, and there is a qualitative aspect as well. How do we define it?
In the business sense, competition really has reference to the free market. I say “free,” not “free-for-all.” If we examine Western free enterprise, we see that a significant reason for its success is that certain restraints are built-in. When a ballgame has no referee and things get out of hand, players and fans lose enthusiasm and stop participating. Similarly a “free-for-all” economy gets to be “no-fun” and begins to loose more and more patrons. I know economists like Milton Friedman advocate laissez-faire capitalism, and I’m in favor of minimizing government regulation, but even in “Hong Kong,” there have to be a few rules. There has to be basic honesty and integrity when it comes to contracts and negotiations, for example. There must be trust, which implies being trustworthy.
Of course the best form of trust is that which comes from within each person. I glanced through an old book in a used book store one day (yes it was gone when I went back later to buy it) which compared Adolph Hitler to Winston Churchill. It characterized Hitler as a loner who trusted no one, but Churchill as basking under a sun of friends. This was tied to another interesting point: that WW II Germany labored under a mountain of paperwork. Since there was almost no trust everything had to be documented and cleared through higher headquarters. America and Brittain, on the other hand, were able to function more efficiently because there was less bureaucratic overhead and more allowance for decision making at lower levels.
Contrary to popular evolutionist beliefs man excelled above the animals, not by competing on their terms, but rather through his ability to cooperate with his own race. Consider Alfie Kohn’s article in the Sept ’86 issue of Psychology Today, p.22…. (“How to Succeed Without Even Vying”). He sites case after case where businesses excel much more through cooperation than competition. He published a book the same year: The Case Against Competition (Houghton Mifflin), which, tellingly, is out of print…. I know it sounds contradictory: how can we excel if we don’t compete?
It’s more a question of what level we compete at, than the competition itself. Just like the ball team: the better the team members learn to work together, the more effectively they can compete with other teams. Nations are just teams on a larger scale. As stated earlier, the nation that is most united, regardless of how unity is achieved, is the nation that wins!
Black Hats vs. White Hats
What about organized crime, or evil empires? They seem to be more united than democracies that are forever arguing and squabbling. This may be the case on the surface, but not so at more fundamental levels. Let’s look, again, at human nature.
When we think about it, wickedness, or crime, is fundamentally selfish and short sighted. When people are motivated to act only in the moment and in their selfish interest they pull the fabric of society apart, rather than knit it together. When we look at it this way, we see that criminal or governmental cabals may be united in some evil plot or program, but inevitably their organizations fall apart because the individuals involved are primarily thinking of themselves. For proof we need only traverse the sands of time with their ruins of fallen kingdoms and empires.
This is small comfort, however, since evil regimes, though unstable, often hold sway for hundreds of years, and are typically not replaced peacefully.
It’s righteousness that provides a solid basis for cooperation, and therefore, collective (national) power. Characteristics like honesty, integrity, sincerity, humility, thoughtfulness, kindness, selfless service and maintaining a God-fearing outlook, all contribute to societal unity. We can still be competitive and effective as a people, but only if we work, and play within certain agreed-upon limits. Otherwise, it’s like driving a car without brakes!
So if righteous societies work better, why have there been so few? Again, we have to look at human nature. While personal righteousness makes a society powerful and successful, being unselfish seems hard personally. It seems easier for some reason to be selfish. I guess this grows out of a very fundamental drive we all feel for personal survival, comfort and ease. The paradox, of course, is that when people surrender to this admittedly powerful urge, good society doesn’t survive, and that means you and I don’t survive.
So, good government may be measured by the degree to which governors and the governed are upright. Problem is, righteousness isn’t easy to maintain, especially from one generation to the next. But should we give up on the ideal of how good life could be when most of the people are at least decent? We’ve had a taste of this in America…. Frank Capra films like It’s a Wonderful Life capture the feeling.
Frankly, the arguing and squabbling we see in democracies represent an effective way of dealing with the people’s ubiquitous will to survive. It allows individuals to request or demand satisfaction without resorting to violence. The democratic process, in-tern, is responsive to those petitions, maintaining a reasonable level of satisfaction in the body politic. Violence, on the other hand, erupts when the people either are not getting their reasonable needs and wants met, or they have become unreasonable in their expectations.
As already suggested, we can observe these principles in business as well. The popular TQM (Total Quality Management) movement, based on the philosophy and programs of Deming, Juran, Crosby and Ishikawa, et al, which gained great popularity during the 80’s and 90’s, is a perfect example. It was found that organizations were much more productive and effective when time and effort was devoted to polling all the employees, getting them involved in the decision-making process, and sharing in the rewards. Incidentally and significantly, “empowerment” became a catch-word of this movement.
Grass Roots Essentials
Are our “little people” as thinking, principled and responsible as our “big people?” Democratic processes are simply unworkable if the masses are ignorant, disinterested and unprincipled—an assumption the elites have always wanted to make, and one that too often has been too true! This is why the republican form of government tends to work better than the purely democratic.
In a republic, we elect our “best and brightest” to represent us, but also lead us, devoting fulltime to studying the issues and using their own good judgment in establishing public policy. Thus as long as our leaders act truly in our best interest, we the people are free to have a personal life without having to devote excessive amounts of time and energy to lawmaking.
Righteous personal power enhances societal power, and good society (including good government) in-turn empowers individuals. I would also assert that righteousness on the part of individuals and societies warrant God’s blessing, or in other words the aid of His power. For believers, of course, that makes a profound difference, and is central to how we define ourselves and our culture. What I’m suggesting is that here we have a model for enjoying maximum personal and collective power at the expense of neither.
“Right-ness”
I’m not equating “righteousness” with “perfection.” For the purposes of this essay, “righteousness” simply means believing there is such a thing as right and wrong, embracing the one and avoiding the other. We’re certainly moving in the right direction just being concerned about such issues; but in pursuing this course, we eventually find the necessity for some fixed point of reference, some ultimate and reliable truth we can use as our “North Star.” Without it, all things become relative to other things equally unsubstantial. Faith in God, then, becomes the energizing and galvanizing ingredient of our powerful societal model.
Change What?
This leads us to a sobering question for Westerners in-general, and Americans in-particular. Are we going to be a Judeo-Christian people or not? I know many cringe at such a proposition, supposing that liberal democracy never was built upon such principles, and if it ever was, modern man has out-grown the idea. I think we need to appreciate where we’re at in the context of history. I think we need to understand that much of current popular sentiment and public policy is leading us away from the “rights” and “wrongs” spelled out in the Bible and, if I may say, The Book of Mormon as well.
Are we ready to take that plunge? Do we really want to move into the future without God as our guide? Can we actually say that the strength, bounties and blessings enjoyed by previous generations of Westerners and Americans were merely a matter of chance, having had nothing to do with the God they reverenced and who’s laws theirs were patterned after? The Book of Mormon warns us plainly:
“For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fullness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off. And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent and not continue in your iniquities until the fullness come, that ye may not bring down the fullness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done. Behold, this is a choice land and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, which is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.” (Ether 2:10-12)
Now, do we all have to become “Mormons” to be blessed as a nation? No. Neither do we have to become Baptists or Catholics, Jews or any other denomination. But I think we do need to maintain some minimal policies and levels of conduct based on scriptural principles. This is the pattern that was established from the Mayflower-on, and I believe it has had much more to do with our success as a nation than our “moderns” will admit. Frankly, our earliest (Mayflower) traditions were blatantly Christian; but in light of today’s global community, I think the broader Judeo-Christian orientation is unique enough for this discussion.
There are far too many people in today’s society who seem absolutely determined to overthrow the traditions and institutions which have made this country great. However rational and compelling their rhetoric may appear, we should understand it’s often based more on their faith than on facts. It’s a faith, a religion with them, that any way but the old way is better. It’s gotten far beyond Republican vs Democrat, or even Conservative vs. Liberal. It’s really traditional vs progressive and the divergent positions have become so hardened that compromise and accommodation are becoming less and less imaginable.
Many, if not most “progressives” are implacably resolved on an agenda of imposing their irreligious religion on the rest of us, especially using the judicial process. Of course, to be fair, the traditionalists have insisted on their agenda in the past, so it’s more a question of how, when and by whom such an imposition is appropriate. We know a society built on Judeo-Christian principles has worked well, and I assert that when man’s law is consistent with God’s law true progress is facilitated, not held back. We know nothing of the sort for programs that actually rebel against and overthrow what’s worked so well for us in the past. Can we afford to turn our backs on God and have Him turn His back on us?
What about the acts of oppression and repression that have been and perhaps still are being carried out in the name of God? In my opinion, they weren’t or aren’t carried out in the true spirit of Judeo-Christianity. I agree that Jewish and Christian interpretations of God’s word have at times lead to social and governmental excesses, but with many wise and reasonable adjustments, the Judeo-Christian perspective has inspired the best Constitutionally governed society the world has ever known. And there’s a difference between oppression/repression and righteous judgment. It’s imperative, I think, that we understand and appreciate these differences if we are to enjoy the true benefits of “civilization.”
Inasmuch as religious institutions are human, they have been and are imperfect, but God is perfect and He’s the same yesterday, today and forever. Certain principles never change. It’s up to us to remember where the real and ultimate power lies if we are to avoid calamities such as those the Children of Israel experienced.
The same warning found in the Book of Mormon is implicit in the Old Testament. The whole epoch of God’s dealings with the Children of Israel (who also had a promised land) has to do with them being blessed and prospered when they were faithful to Him, and cursed and destroyed when they weren’t. American history suggests that we don’t have to be a theocracy to be blessed, but at least we can keep the ten commandments personally and pattern our laws after them generally; at least we can abstain from flying in the face of God, coming out and openly flaunting His precepts. If we can at least do that, I believe we may ameliorate His wrath. If we can do more, we will be blessed more.
Elites in our governing bodies, in our colleges and universities, in our corporations, in our bastions of journalism and citadels of film, video and music predominantly create an illusion of freedom and prosperity without the ‘inhibiting shackles of outmoded and superstitious beliefs and practices.’ They say in so many pictures and notes, if not so many words, that science, technology and “original thinking” have finally put us in a position where we no longer need to cling to old institutions. Interestingly, and predictably, they also paint a picture of life that’s dark, foreboding, meaningless, hopeless, harsh, ugly and violent, albeit often candy-coated with pleasure and excitement.
Bible Viability?
Let’s assess our own faith. When popular sentiment and public policy advocate a course that’s clearly contrary to and condemned by the Bible, do we have sufficient faith to affirm rightness or wrongness because God says it’s right or wrong? Will we hold-off until we get scientific proof, or will we immediately cave to popular expedience? If we wait it may be too late by the time the “proof” comes in. If we cave, are we prepared to accept the consequences?
If the Bible says the homosexual should be cut-off from the camp of Israel (Lev. 18:22; 19:29), can America say, the homosexual will not be put on a pedestal as a paragon of virtue? If the Bible says the adulterer shall be punished (Deut. 22:22-30), can America at least say that adultery will not be glamorized in the media? If the Bible says God cursed ancient Israel for violence and exploitation of the weak and vulnerable, can America not cease portraying such in movies and on TV as an acceptable, desirable means of coping and getting ahead, as an inevitable part of everyday survival-of-the-fittest life with no serious consequences? Or have the Progressives found a better way?
“The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold I will destroy them with the earth.” (Gen. 6:11-13)
“By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee…” (Ezek. 28:16)
“For they know not to do right, saith the Lord, who store up violence and robbery in their palaces.” (Amos 3:10)
“Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! When the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the power of their hand. And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage.”
(Micah 2:1-2)
“Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights? For the rich men thereof are full of violence, and the inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth.” (Micah 6:11-12)
Woe to the bloody city! It is all full of lies and robbery; the prey departeth not; The noise of a whip, and the noise of the rattling of the wheels, and of the pransing horses, and of the jumping chariots. The horseman lifteth up both the bright sword and the glittering spear: and there is a multitude of slain, and a great number of carcases; and there is none end of their corpses; they stumble upon their corpses:” (Nahum 3:1-3)
“Because thou hast spoiled many nations, all the remnant of the people shall spoil thee; because of men’s blood, and for the violence of the land, of the city and of all that dwell therein…. Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity!” (Habakkuk 2:8,12)
“In the same day also will I punish all those that leap on the threshold, which fill their masters’ houses with violence and deceit.” (Zephaniah 1:9)
Violence vs. Motivation
When we study the phenomenon of violence, we need to think of it in the broader sense of the word “violate.” In this sense, violence involves a whole array of inappropriate invasions. Violating the rights of others involves more than just physical aggression, and in some cases, physical aggression that serves a righteous purpose, should not be considered violent:
“Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just” (Star Spangled Banner, fourth stanza).
This leads us to the broader question of human motivation. How do we get people to do or not do things? When is it appropriate and inappropriate to motivate, or manipulate, or force? What constitutes force and how should it be applied? What does all this have to do with culture?
When you think about it, motivation really boils down to pleasure and pain. If we want to get people (or any living thing) to do or not do something we reinforce desirable behavior with pleasure or reward and we discourage undesirable behavior with pain or punishment. The pain, more often than not, is more psychological than physical. We withhold reward, we express disapproval, we criticize, we alienate, restrict or confine. These methods cause mental discomfort and are often “pain” enough to curtail or eliminate the undesired behavior. Pestering or harassment is actually a form of ungentle persuasion or force. For example, I read an article about an organization that would call defectors on their phone incessantly day and night urging their return. Debt collection often fits into this category as well.
There are illegal forms of “non-pain” motivation, such as blackmail and public scandal. Just the threat of embarrassment, destroyed reputation or financial disclosure becomes a powerful motivator, and in reality, a form of force. And let’s remember, we’re still discussing power. A person that’s mocked, severely criticized, alienated, had their reputation sullied or their employability threatened has had significant power taken away from him/her, or from another angle, had significant power exercised against him/her.
—Then there’s the actual infliction of pain.
The infliction of physical pain gets immediate and lasting results of course. Nobody likes it, and they’ll do almost anything to avoid it. Just look at a mighty man’s response to the presence of a tiny creature known as a bee! Reaction to pain or the treat of it is usually dramatic, causing either ardent submission or fervent resistance. A few great ones, starting with Jesus Christ, willingly endure pain in achieving some greater good.
Corporal punishment has become a hotbed of contention in recent decades. Some big guns like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United Nations have come out against it. I’m against cruelty and maliciousness in any form, however I believe correction and chastening, if carried out in the right way and in society’s and the recipient’s best interest can be beneficial, perhaps even essential.
“For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.” (Hebrews 12:6-11)
“Chaste” comes from the Latin, “Castus” meaning “pure.” Hence to chastise means to make pure, or remove impurity. The spirit behind the word, then, is that of improvement. It’s positive.
In this broader sense of the word, we see that chastening is not simply punishing, bur rather motivating for the good. If so, it certainly involves not only the provision of disincentives for bad attitudes and behaviors, but also incentives for good attitudes and behaviors. It’s important to understand that for some children, just a disapproving look is sufficient chastisement, for others it might take an occasional and controlled swat on their behind to help them appreciate the unpleasant consequences which follow unacceptable behavior.
Corporal punishment in past generations was often too harsh, and yet when we look back we see that there was less divorce, less mental illness, less civil unrest, crime and violence. There was more personal ruggedness and willingness to sacrifice. Corporal punishment was a way to get insolated and insolent people to realize their personal appetites, interests and preferences weren’t the only important ones in the world!
Apparently people were happier about making it to adulthood and sharing in the world of responsibility than we seem to be today. Not too long after America’s all-night party started (described in Iraq Again) one author wrote about a modern syndrome, especially among American males, characterized by their determination not to ever grow up (David Hellerstein: The Peter Pan Principle, Esquire, Oct. 1983, pp. 64-74). Benjamin R. Barber is even more emphatic on this subject in his book: Consumed (New York; London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007).
I think the maturity and self-discipline we’ve seen in previous generations was modeled somewhat on the impositions of parents and other authority figures. In other words, parents and greater society imposed strict discipline, but then backed away from it as children matured and demonstrated self-discipline. In this context, self-discipline meant liberation. It felt good and was seen as one of the more rewarding aspects of becoming an adult. Thus the chastening of children, to include corporal punishment was not seen as abuse, but rather a rite of passage.
The “elders” had something very precious that was not to be squandered on the immature, irresponsible, unproductive, irreverent or unappreciative. Corporal punishment was one of several ways the older generation let the rising generation know in unmistakable terms what was expected of it, that the privileges and enjoyments of free society came at the price of unselfish, orderly, upright and contributory personal conduct. This was reinforced with much teaching and preaching from the Judeo-Christian perspective, which included the concepts of eternal reward and punishment. These were considered essentials of becoming an adult.
Today, being an adult means adult books, adult beverages, adult entertainment and adultery (or am I wrong).
Standards Confusion
Part of the reason corporal punishment is seen today as outmoded ineffective and abusive, is that the older generation has been so divided on what’s appropriate and inappropriate. Thus one will try to discipline then another will exclaim how cruel and barbaric it is. This we find is even institutionalized in the form of lawyers and civil servants who make their livings second guessing, harassing and prosecuting parents and other authority figures (I’m not condoning domestic abuse).
So, while we recognize the value of discipline in a society, we seem to outlaw any methods that engender it! The inevitable result is permissiveness, which, paradoxically, produces a rising generation with a spoiled brat attitude exhibiting (you guessed it) greater violence!
Of course truly grown-up behavior must be rewarded, or the punishment side loses its effect.
This bates the broader question of what behaviors and lifestyles are encouraged and discouraged in our society? It’s vital that we carefully balance societal rewards and punishments. This is the wellspring of culture, the master gland of the body politic. It would seem more and more we find self-indulgent, immoral, corrupt, obnoxious, wild and even criminal behaviors and lifestyles are being glamorized in the media, protected by the law and even rewarded with lucrative careers and prestigious positions. You won’t have to look far for examples. Our kids take all this in and it becomes their reality!
I feel there is a point at which wickedness reaches “critical mass,” almost a “point of no return.” As more and more people are attracted to lifestyles of the lawless, corruption creeps into our institutions and economy. The perception becomes: you have to be selfish, dishonest and even ruthless to get ahead, maybe even survive. Instead of the land being filled with people who are “givers” it fills with “takers.” The natural result is unbridled competition, then wide-spread violence, then dysfunction and destruction. From a spiritual perspective, society gets to the point where the rising generation can no longer choose good. Essentially wickedness becomes the only option. At this point a nation is “ripe for destruction” (Revelations 14:15-16,18), and God either allows it to be destroyed by other nations, or He will destroy it Himself, as with Sodom and Gomorrah.
The true spirit of discipline, chastening, and punishment should be to correct human and social ills before they become a runaway train headed for the cliff of annihilation! People with normal, healthy personalities don’t enjoy chastening, either receiving or administering it; but they understand it serves a wise, useful, and even vital purpose.
“Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head….” (Psalms 141:5)
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” (Proverbs 27:6)
“Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.” (Prov. 9:8)
Death Penalty
Continuing along our controversial ‘track’ we mustn’t overlook the death penalty which has meant putting a permanent end to undesirable behavior, historically with some pain. In our culture “pain of death,” of course has had more to do with being denied all the pleasures and privileges of being alive than any pain associated with the execution itself. There is a raging, on-going debate as to the deterrent value of this penalty. Of course the punishment aspect has no corrective value for the recipient that we can measure, since he/she is no longer with us. From an eternal or spiritual perspective, the punishment may be seen as providing the recipient a way to pay, at least to some extent, for his/her crimes. But the compelling question really must weigh the individual against society. Is the elimination of the individual reasonable in light of the harm/cost to society that’s being avoided?
The Old Testament perspective is that evil needs to be “put away” (Deut. 19:13; 22:22-24). In other words, good society must not tolerate, let alone foster, a criminal class. There is merit in this, beyond just the idea of punishment. At some point, even rich societies can’t afford to pay maintenance on incorrigible, and especially violent criminals (popular definition). The cost becomes prohibitive not only in dollars, but also in its degrading effect on public morals. The “revolving door” law enforcement that has become the policy of the United States really means that criminals just go to prison and learn how to be more effective at their trade. Meanwhile billions of dollars pour into our penal system and the pockets of its administrators and officers. Lawyer’s fees have become particularly vexing.
What happens when there is an emergency on a national scale like the one we had in New Orleans with hurricane Katrina, where prisoners had to be let loose? In reality, far too many violent criminals are being let loose anyway. Their on-going presence in society casts a pall over our communities, causing law-abiding citizens to grow ever-more cautious and fearful, while the criminals grow ever-more bold and fearsome. Undoubtedly Old Testament practices are too severe for our day, but their essential wisdom should not be dismissed. The criminal element needs to be functionally eliminated for the sake of preserving good society.
Incidentally, the Book of Mormon makes it clear that while “Thou Shalt Not Kill” stands as a general principle (Mosiah 13:21; 3 Nephi 12:21-22), murder is a separate category that warrants the death penalty (2 Nephi 9:35, Mosiah 29:14, Alma 1:18; 30:10; 34:11-12; 42:19-20).
Orderly Society Asides
Part of the problem of criminality has to do with the job market itself. If we had enough legitimate, meaningful, well-paying jobs there wouldn’t be so much pressure to create and sustain “artificial” professions, including lives of crime!
A related problem is the mentally ill who have been turned out on our streets, along with homelessness in general. For now, may I briefly address the former? E. Fuller Torrey, in his recently published book, The Insanity Offense, (New York; WW Norton & Co., Inc.; 2008) calls attention to case after case of tragedy and crime resulting from insufficient controls and protections for those mentally ill and criminally insane who pose serious threats to themselves and others.
I have been acquainted with a few young men who suffered from schizophrenia and lived on their own in the community. Each had the same perspective: they felt they were fine, and didn’t need their medications. The reality was, in their unmedicated state, they were a menace to society and were wearing out and sometimes imperiling their relatives and acquaintances. They were in a constant state of confusion and agitation. To me it became clear that the humane thing for them and all concerned would be committing them to a therapeutic, more controlled environment. The idea that these people are only harmless is a fiction. Some may be, but others are clearly a threat to public order and safety. I think the Psychology/Psychiatric profession, like others, has let the popularity of being compassionate and non-judgmental color its policy. Let us not forget that, as permissiveness leads to chaos and then anarchy, dictators with their promises of order and security become more and more attractive.
Torture, a Topic?
What about torture? Won’t that keep society in order? I can’t believe this has actually become a topic of serious discussion in this country. When I was growing up, torture was considered an apparition of the Middle Ages, or at most something that occurred in German and Japanese concentration camps during World War II. The Constitution clearly states ‘no cruel or unusual punishment.’ This principle put into practice in the United States and other modern countries has shown that law and order can be achieved without the use of excessive and extreme disciplinary or coercive measures.
There’s no question that torture strikes fear into people’s hearts, except of course the hearts of the sadists who inflict the pain. Torture is probably the main element that makes terror terrible. It indeed has immediate effects on behavior. But what are the more profound effects on a society that institutionalizes such a practice? A government that resorts to excessive humiliation, brutality and cruelty de-legitimizes itself. It’s a government that is supposed to represent the people, or at least their interests, and yet demonstrating such a gross disregard for humanity leads only to fear without respect. It also invites the same treatment from adversaries and enemies, thus perpetuating a downward spiral into the abyss of horror and un-civilization.
I’m not for torture, but I am for punishment all the way up to taking life when it’s just, necessary, and the result of due process. There are criminals, and there are combatants who are so violent, so brutal and so bent on destruction, that they just have to be eliminated. If left to their devices, they will pull the whole world down with them. They will turn the land of the living into a living hell. It’s truly them or us, and we have to have the righteous judgment and the guts to deal with them effectively.
The problem is we’ve grown so liberal, so morally weak and impotent in the enforcement of existing law, that criminals and terrorists have been emboldened to an extent that some of our commentators and leaders have either been silenced or begun to recommend extreme counter-measures. If we had ruled and conducted ourselves with a consistent, reasonably firm and just hand, these criminal and terrorist elements wouldn’t have grown to present proportions. With appropriate policy adjustments and public support, the situation can be brought back under control.
War; Can there Be a Good Side?
Where does war fit into all of this? As indicated earlier, the Western World has been divided on this issue, I think largely because of interpretations of Old Testament vs New Testament. In Academia there are comparable divisions between conservative and liberal philosophies (assuming there are any conservatives left in Academia). As a result we have hawks and we have pacifists, and everything in-between. Again, may I be so outrageous and inappropriate as to appeal to the Book of Mormon for clarification?
Very briefly, the Book of Mormon is most importantly another testament of Christ, but written in a historical context that is instructive. The history begins with two families, the children of which become divided, eventually growing into two disparate nations which battle many times. Several chapters deal with wars and related moral issues. The nation that kept the record we now know as the Book of Mormon was a Christian nation. Over its thousand-year history it was not provocative of war or bloodshed until its last generation, which change in policy led to its ultimate destruction. Significantly, up until that generation, though they worshipped and followed Christ, to include the almost identical “sermon on the mount” we have in Matthew, they were instructed by revelation to fight for their rights and way of life.
When they found themselves compelled to go to war, they fought courageously and with the aid of God’s power; yet they came up with many strategies for minimizing injury and loss of life not only for themselves but also for their enemies. Many times, when they had it in their power to exterminate their enemies, they instead extracted promises from them not to come to battle anymore and let them return in peace to their homes. Here’s a sample of the principles they observed:
“Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy or power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church. And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies. And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country and their rights, and their religion.” (BofM, Alma 43:45-47)
Then we have this about one of their greatest military leaders:
And thus he was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians. And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery; Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people. Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood. Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives….. and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in the preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity. Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.” (Alma 48:10-17)
Another important lesson from these records is that in many instances, if these “Christians” had been more faithful to God, He would have softened the hearts of their enemies so that war might have been avoided in the first place. Related admonitions included the avoidance of pride, materialism, corruption and so forth.
The same principles are at least implied in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, but many today feel that the Old Testament was effectively replaced by the New, with its emphasis on grace, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, not resisting evil and so on. This new emphasis certainly had its place, the precepts of which were too much overlooked by pre- and non-Christians of that era. However, I think much of New Testament teaching along these lines had relevance to the need for first century Christians to survive and have hope in an overwhelmingly Roman society; whereas, for Book of Mormon peoples as well as ancient Israel, establishing a god-fearing civil society was clearly achievable, so they had a divine mandate to defend it. Today, we in the “Free World” are essentially in that same position.
Yes I know God had the power to overthrow the Roman Empire at any time, but I believe he works with his children according to their circumstances to bring about his ultimate purposes.
A lengthy chapter could be written in these regards, but I only touch on it to suggest there is other scripture which not only substantiates the basic moral position of the Bible, but also helps clarify Biblical issues that have caused so much controversy over the centuries. I refer to it because we in the West seem to be paralyzed by controversy. The hawks want to utterly wipe-out our enemies while the peaceniks want to let our enemies overrun us. We must find the better way; then we must have faith in that better way.
Force and Counterforce
Pres. Bush, after 9-11, said those (countries or societies) who support the terrorists are as much the enemy as the terrorists themselves. But rather than going after the greater engines of ignorance, hate and fanaticism, we’ve paid a high price in picking-off individual terrorists one-by-one. Consequently, we are simply hacking at the branches and doing little about the roots. I think we’ve been unable to muster sufficient ‘righteous indignation’ to act decisively, because there probably isn’t enough righteousness among us in the first place! If we were living more according to standards the Bible is clear on, we would be in a position to demand or receive more respect abroad, and maybe not even be faced with these tough military decisions.
But doesn’t violence beget violence? No, I’m saying violence must be opposed. There’s force, and then there’s counterforce. Force is violent because it violates rights, properties and persons. Counterforce is defensive. It does not seek to violate, it seeks to stop or eliminate those who violate. Counterforce may resort to physical aggression, but that isn’t its object or motivation.
Violence begets violence among the wicked because for them it’s a way of life. For societies governed by the righteous, violence begets justice. In the broader perspective, then, we return to the question of power, assuming good can overpower evil.
I know this idea of aggression and defense is somewhat semantic. For example most of us agree the Soviet Union and other Communist countries during the cold war were the aggressors and demonstrated an obvious disregard for human rights, yet their propaganda and public position was always “defensive.” They insisted they were resisting the “Imperialist” West. We were the ones who were trying to take over the world. Interestingly, the “progressives” in this country have taken the same position with regard to the Bush Administration and the traditionalists! I’ll spend some space on “victimology” later; but suffice to say, we commoners need to be able to move beyond the propaganda and keep our eye on the ball of truth.
Just as individuals have the right of self-defense, legitimate government uses force from a defensive posture, which I call “counterforce.” With counterforce, we employ similar methods as with force, though not as extreme. Sufficient pain and/or discomfort is applied to our enemies in order to thwart their evil designs and protect our economy, rights and freedoms. Government officers and enlistees represent the will of the people by defending against crime domestically and evil aggressors internationally. We the people want to live a life, in fact build a world, that’s free of violence, and so we finance police, military and diplomatic “counterforces” to protect and promote these interests.
What happens when police, military and political forces become corrupt and start exercising their power illegitimately? There is no easy fix. The people have to be strong (united and motivated) enough to rise up and replace corruption with incorruption. If they won’t they lose their freedom.
Thankfully, when it comes to rising up, all we have to do at this point is get out and vote for the right people, and propositions, and be willing to do our part when duty calls. May we do so, and avoid all situations more dire!
But who’s to say the incorrigibles won’t be as strong, or stronger, than the “civilized?” Aren’t we just inviting them to redouble their efforts when we subscribe to the idea of strength? That takes us back to the question of righteousness. As explained earlier, righteousness is the key to unity and divine assistance, which become keys to power. The unrighteous, though fierce, are by definition more divided, less entitled to God’s support and therefore relatively weak. This is a reliable principle, and a solemn reminder that if we want to have power over our enemies, we must attend to the issues of right and wrong. The prettiest thing is that, even though good people may be powerful, they are not to be feared. Righteousness yields the fruits of charity (I Cor. 13) which is essentially constructive and helpful rather than destructive and hurtful!
So then, to generalize, force may be for good or evil. To put it differently, force is evil but counterforce is good. Say’s who? Here it would be handy to appeal to the Bible for authority, but as already suggested, various interpreters of the Bible disagree on this point, thus dividing not only Christians from Jews, but also Christians from Christians.
I think a reasonable understanding of the whole Bible would lead us to appropriate action, as was the case with the majority of Americans in World War II. However, today, even though we have more Bibles than ever, we care about them and read them less. Many of those who do read them seem to make a hobby or profession out of advocating one narrow self-serving point of view. Thus you will hopefully pardon my insolence, impertinence and audacity in referencing Mormon scripture again to clarify the question of force.
Agency, the First and Last Social Issue
In the Bible we read there was “war in heaven” and that old dragon, the devil along with a third of the hosts of heaven, were cast out onto the earth (Rev 12:3-4, 7-9). What was the war about? The Bible isn’t clear on this point.
The LDS standard works include The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants which provide us with a couple of vital insights bearing on “agency” or our right to chose (being the opposite of force). Accordingly, before and perhaps during the creation of the world, the Father of spirits in Heaven (God) counseled with his spirit children (us), proposing a plan whereby we might have a mortal experience which would help us become more like Him. As a part of this experience, it was understood that mortals would be subject to temptation and inevitably sin. Since we could never return to Father’s presence as sinners, a means had to be employed to bridge the gap between sinful man and sinless God. The Father asked who should be sent on the singular mission of bridging that gap.
At this point, the Only Begotten of the Father offered to atone for the sins of the world. However another offer was made by Lucifer, then known as a “son of the morning.” He proposed a plan whereby mortals would not be allowed to have their agency, or right to choose between good and evil. In so doing, he promised to save every one of us, provided he was given the glory.
This plan was rejected by the Father, and by two-thirds of the hosts of heaven; but Lucifer’s plan had great appeal and caused enough serious contention as to be characterized a war. Ultimately he won a third of the hosts of heaven and brought them with him to earth, thus to assist him in his work of rebellion, temptation, deception and destruction (Moses 4:1-4; Abraham 3:25-28; D&C 76:25-27) (see also Bible, Isaiah 14:12-15).
Thus, if we give credence to these scriptures (as I do), we see that the issues of force and counterforce are fundamental to good and evil not only in this world, but also in the cosmos! Throughout history, we see that force and counterforce have been the crux of conflict, truly a further playing-out of the pre-mortal war in heaven. We see also the pull of irresponsibility being played out. We see that before we came to earth a third of us were sold on the idea of letting someone else take care of us and make our decisions for us.
Communism
This is the same attraction we find in Socialism, Communism, Unionism and the Welfare State. For awhile after the collapse of the Soviet Union, people were declaring Communism dead. The philosophy may assume a name other than “Communism” but it will never die as long as there are short-sighted people on the earth. There will always be the draw of the ‘free lunch’ out there bamboozling people into trusting and empowering charismatic leaders, either secular or religious, who offer impossible dreams.
Short-sightedness finds its way into conservative circles as well: businesses and industries that only consider this quarter’s profits without regard for long-term consequences for society or the environment, would be easy examples.
I hasten to modify: there is a free lunch. I believe the atonement wrought by the Savior represents a free gift to man promising resurrection for all mortals, and salvation based on our faithfulness. There are many other heavenly gifts. This earth was freely lent to us, and we are told, eventually will be given to the meek (Matthew 5:5). In my opinion, it is this wonderful idea of giving, beginning with God and Christ, that has inspired and sustained liberal philosophies and governments especially in the West. My only fear is that the liberal pendulum has swung too far and needs to come back to a more reasonable position.
Why was Lucifer’s plan an impossible dream? First, because God acted in our behalf by not allowing it. In theory it probably was possible to implement a program of “forced goodness,” just as we have seen various dictators enforcing “programs” throughout history. However, while behavior may be forced, real goodness of necessity includes the element of moral choice. A person is considered good or bad because of the choices he or she freely makes; otherwise their behavior has no moral value. If we hope to be more than a pimpled pile of protoplasm we have to exercise our intelligence in deciding between right and wrong. This of course implies being personally responsible for our decisions. Individual identity and personal responsibility, therefore, are fraternal twins.
Lucifer’s plan would have negated the opportunity for growth for which mortality was intended. Will your child grow if you do everything for him or her? Why would it be any different for us as God’s children? Without agency, our walk on earth would have been nothing more than a manifestation of Lucifer’s power and glory. The mortal experience would have had no genuine personal significance for the rest of us.
But aren’t many if not most of the difficulties and problems we face in life a result of man’s flawed decisions? Yes indeed, but in the mix of all those decisions and resultant conditions, individual identities are established, individual characters are built. This meets the cosmic imperative of mortality: that it be a probationary state, a testing situation. Hand-in-hand with personal choice goes individual accountability, the bases for the exercise of mercy and justice, both in this world and in the world to come. Although exercised imperfectly by men, perfectly by God, it is better for men to at least approximate justice and mercy, than to have none at all. More on this later.
Real Good and Evil
To make this “mortal test” valid, there must be the real possibility of or potential for good and evil. This being true, if we find a society that seeks to sterilize its populace, so that there is absolutely no wrong-doing, we know that a fundamental purpose of life is being frustrated. Of course achieving a “sterile” society has never really happened, but the ideal of purity becomes a handy tool of oppression.
It isn’t a question of everybody being good or bad. It’s a question of which cultural climate prevails. If good people rule and good laws dominate, the resultant healthy society can tolerate a certain amount of evil. It should be decried, it should be shunned, it should be prosecuted when necessary and pushed back onto the sidelines of unpopularity, into the dark out-of-the-way people places; but trying to stamp it out utterly and completely is just a handy excuse for totalitarianism. The only way for wickedness to be truly eliminated is where everyone willingly chooses to be good. Conversely as long as evil isn’t enthroned, as long as it isn’t allowed to dominate, people should be able to be damned if they are determined to be, and can’t be persuaded otherwise.
Good government, then, must walk the middle road between liberal and conservative extremes. As God’s government involves both justice and mercy, so should the governments of men, but in the right proportions.
Fascism
If we say that Communism is the liberal extreme, then Fascism would be the conservative extreme. The Fascists seek to force a ‘higher life’ on the masses without the Communist lie of boundless compassion and absolute equality. The Fascists openly and blatantly see themselves (or the State they represent) as superior, if not supernatural, and therefore endowed with authority to make all people and things conform to their high standards. There’s no need to entice them with ‘free lunch’ promises or idyllic liberalities. The main attraction of Fascism is order and nationalistic or ethnic pride (of course we find a parallel in overly strict religious practice). Here again our concern should be, as democracies and republics degenerate into disorder and chaos, that Fascism and other forms of dictatorship become more and more enticing.
Whatever the rationale and rhetoric, these various philosophies and polities simply represent overly ambitious and arrogant men and women resenting and resisting legitimate authority and lusting for illegitimate personal power. They invariably exploit popular inclinations for ignorance, excitement, pleasure, leisure, and security (these may be desirable in healthy proportions). Inordinate power is just inordinate power, whatever banner it marches under. The rhetoric and specific strategies may differ, but once in power we see dictators employing much the same control mechanisms and devices.
Freedom for All
There is one other significant insight to be gleaned from our scriptural passages. It is the idea that “agency” was ordained of God from the beginning. If so, agency is a universal God-given human right or value, not just some bright idea our Founding Fathers stumbled upon. We have people today saying that there are certain ethnicities on this planet that simply are not “cut-out” for freedom. They don’t come right out and say it, but it is implied that the people of Iraq, or the Middle East are incapable of appreciating or sustaining a democratic way of life, thus making it presumptuous of the United States to intervene and try to “impose” our ways on them.
Those who make this implication are the same people who stridently insist that every single person in this country, right down to the most sociopathic and violent criminal, is entitled to every possible human right! This, perhaps as well as anything imaginable, shows the duplicity of their position. They, in fact, are not interested in human rights. They are interested in their own right to overthrow traditional America and empower themselves instead! By protecting and encouraging the most rebellious and least rational elements of our society, not to mention sympathizing with our international enemies, they not only empower themselves with intimidating demonstrations and the buying of unpatriotic votes, but also use false accusation, fear-mongering, real peril and violence to move the masses toward change that accepts anything over current conditions.
Just as there were in South Viet Nam, there are millions in the Middle East longing for civil liberties and human rights, but they dare not express themselves for fear of terror, and frankly in anticipation of the United States pulling out, just as we did in 1975!
Divided We Stand?
We may be approaching a time when the Traditionalists and the Progressives will separate. The Traditionalists will say, “Go ahead and put your progressive agenda into practice and see where it takes you. As for us, we will, to the best of our ability, continue to serve and trust in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, worship the Lord Jesus Christ, and trust in the results. We also will defend this way of life as necessary.” And this may end up being not just a national, but a world-wide movement.
The Challenge
In reality true freedom isn’t easy for any nation to maintain. The Greeks couldn’t maintain it, the Romans certainly couldn’t. The Children of Israel gave up their system of judges and went for monarchy. In our somewhat-justified pride, we’ve been busy trying to foster freedom in the world, and yet the seeds of authoritarianism are being sown, and have been for decades, right here at home. Democracy requires wisdom, integrity and decency at the grass-roots level. If we can’t maintain that, we’ll be like all the other countries that ‘just aren’t cut-out for freedom!’
Conclusion
The idea that force should not be met with counterforce is unrealistic and dangerous. Of course we should try persuasion and kindness first and always, but when we take the position that all force is evil, including “counterforce,” saying we can’t “lower ourselves” to the exercise of power in defending what’s right and opposing what’s wrong, we just contemplate national suicide. “Peace through strength” is a sound principle; for, unfortunately, strength is the only thing the incorrigibles of the world have ever understood.
This essay isn’t specifically about saving the United States, though that’s a highly desirable implication. It’s about understanding the principles which underlie good society and civilization anywhere. We see that enjoying the finer things of life is possible only when we really want them and are empowered to have them. Empowerment implies the ability to choose and do, which also means the inability of others to keep us from choosing and doing. We see that force and terror pull the rug out from under all higher human aspirations, and that those who want the good life must unite in faith around correct principles and exercise the power such unity and faith generates as a counterforce that will control and minimize evil. We also understand that this power begins with self control and reverence for God which leads to greater knowledge, understanding, respect, respectability, the establishment of legitimate laws and order, the promotion of public safety, personal security, creativity, peace and real prosperity. We also see how true principles can be twisted into lies by the devil and the cunning designs of men, and how we must inform and fortify ourselves against deception.
Again, I’m not righteous except in the sense of believing in and being concerned about the reality of right and wrong. I don’t write to condemn, but to warn. I write to awaken us to the fact that God will eventually condemn us and forsake us if we ignore and forsake Him, and at the rate we’re going it could be sooner than later.
The common man
Must ever aspire
Or the common man
Will, as ever, expire!
-Doug Taylor
