Sunday, July 3, 2011

Requiem for dating...Facebook commentary continued

I type too much, either here or on Facebook. Now I'm trying to reconcile the two. I apologize for, yet again, not concentrating on the more uplifting topics in life.

True to my word, openly promised starting some time ago (such as http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=167272561646&id=1356666137, followed by sufficient diligent effort), I’ve long been entirely withdrawn from the game of dating. I have my many reasons, but it’s summarized well in my father’s understanding response when I said, “Conventional dating is a waste of time for me”: “For you, it is.”

What I reject is not people, is not the goal, is not some form of effort, but the “artificial ritual” to which Jen referred. It’s when we force ourselves, in an empty world of dating, to do and act as everyone else does (without any thought given as to why it’s so, no matter how long that may have been the case) that we not only make ourselves miserable, but are less likely to stand out on any basis other than the shallow perceptions by which so much dating is conducted. I once tried to explain this to a slightly vainglorious individual, “What if you knew that every time you entered a room, there WOULDN’T be at least one person instantly attracted to you? What if you had to fall back on other things, and then learned that the others didn’t care about them, or at least weren’t focused on them in this setting? Would you linger?” Given a scenario where a woman could choose between my profile and a more “traditionally” or “instantaneously distinguishable” handsome man’s, I’d lose essentially 100 times out of 100. What many don’t realize is that even when they’re winning at that game, they’re losing. Success is thus built on the wrong foundation, devoid of communication of the lasting values.

A friend once asked if I’d date someone in my, erm, height class, because it could make both her and me feel better. In the first place, I’ve never seen a momentary ego boost as good cause for a date. That’s using someone else. True, girls sometimes have to be more sensitive, due to their better nurturing side, to the effects of compliments—not wanting to send the wrong message—but false praise given now only makes someone feel much worse down the road. How would she feel if later I had to say, “Oh, sorry, I just dated you for your height. I have no real emotional bond”? My response is always that I don’t rule out anything, but of far more importance to me is the mind and spirit, common ground of a rather more significant stature. I can’t see myself asking a gal, “So, did anyone crack a short joke today?” or “Had any surgeries lately?” or anything of that sort. More than a decade ago, I at least temporarily transcended the world of pain, and I don’t see that as a conversation piece. As much as more attractive people, I wouldn’t want to be interesting solely on appearance; I want to know first whether she can enter into my world of historical/philosophical/theological thought.

I no longer see it as my personal responsibility to play a form of dating Russian roulette—made so by the nature of the games to which people consent--with an astronomical number of loaded chambers. That “one” result will EVENTUALLY be safe is a poor argument, statistically or otherwise, for why we’re sticking a gun to our head in the first place. Method, folks! Some downplay the severity/urgency/drama of this method, even while sustaining it in other particulars. I perceive the mortal danger as arising from unduly created risks (often in the realm of communication), not because I’ve imposed an inflated sense of importance on the outcome: it might inflict greater damage where expectation was exaggerated, but the harm comes from an amoral/immoral system which is the last from which we should be taking cues about our self-worth. One of the contradictions with which I’ve contended in my own life is the sheer extent to which someone can respect me…up to the point at which I ask her out. (That’s where I pull the trigger.) I’ve long conceded that there’s an understandable hurdle to deal with in my mortal shell (in addition to the typical differentiation between all friendships and one with genuine potential for romance), but for those who already knew me well and only moments before acted like I was one of the best guys they knew to react so violently to the hypothetical thought of any other dimension to the relationship...it’s insulting. And that is good food for thought for all of us in our approach. Right or wrong, we should carefully scrutinize what it is within us that either creates or refuses interest.

I didn’t exactly have trouble getting dates, if I made that a focal point. I wasn’t cherishing greater feelings of respect on the whole as a result of not one woman ever having the backbone to tell me no to a first date. (One very soundly declined a second and won my respect in just getting straight to the point—without sounding like she’d as soon kill me as look at me--when asked.) Instead, far too many spent the majority of that first date sending out a host of preemptive signals rejecting a second, indeed, showing a breed of contempt for the first. Would that they’d started this assault in their living room and aborted the ill-conceived operation! Not long ago, I described certain behaviors toward me which I’ve come to accept as a matter of course, and a friend said, “Wow. That is COLD!” One doesn’t need to drop hints, never-ending OR case-specific, if they’ll just say it to my face. I may not understand why they seem to despise me for little good reason, but we needn’t prolong the treatment. This hurt all the more from those who ought to have known better, and known ME better.

The last woman for whom I ever made a concerted effort at dating was fairly consistent in not showing the same amount of openness; that much, I can admit. I still bought into the slow cultivation line which is sometimes fed to singles, and patiently bore with a steady procession of men courting her. She thought it personally motivated when I later pointed out that not all such takers were half so altruistically motivated when they stopped by. The inconsistencies, once outlined at great length in a 10+ page document whereby I purged my analysis, were primarily in her own behaviors, though they did trend toward the callous. This much abridged and newly angled version obviously omits the developmental stages.

On the final hopeful day, I drove over half an hour at her invitation, only to discover that there’d be another man involved. He sat between me and her in the theater, with her conversing amiably and somewhat privately with him during a movie. As I was leaving with an internal note of finality and acceptance, suddenly she expressed a great deal of interest in having me come back. I returned, only to have her abruptly depart. I THEN subordinated my self-respect and responsibilities for the rest of the day, yet she continued to consign me to back burner, if that. I’ve wasted enough of my life being sent to a corner while another man (or everything else, as the case may be) claimed the affections of my pursuit. So, what was new? She liked me a LOT as long as I remained on a short leash. There were stern, if unspoken, expectations about what I couldn’t possibly press for, no matter what I saw other men doing. To that, I’ve thought, “I don’t leash or muzzle you. How about you not do so to me?” I left the complex that night and sent her a message that it was probably best that I not go to so much trouble to see her any more. (Please note that she’d repeatedly stressed before that she wanted me to keep visiting.)

To this she replied quite diplomatically, with her usual airy indefiniteness. She expressed the willingness to explain herself if I wanted to come see her. Had she simply explained herself, no need for that subsequent visit, eh? After another long drive to her place, she shot the breeze for about 20 minutes and finally said, “You must have come here for something else.” Me, mentally: “Um, yes, dear. I’m not forcing you to say anything, but I did come on the understanding that you’d say it.” She then launched into a DTR sort of chat. To this day, I chuckle sardonically at the memory of her crying as she said that she “really, really love[d]" me, only to pause, alarmed, look up, and blurt out, “as a friend!” She wound up with, “I think you should move on.” (She thanked me for letting her speak her mind, as it were; I suppose there was no way to accelerate the theatrics and conclusion.) I was perfectly aware that it wasn’t even a dating relationship—she’d expressly forbidden such—and so I was doubly offended by her needlessly heavy-handed approach, using a cannon to kill a mosquito. She could have saved me a trip and a lot of time if she’d just e-mailed, texted, or actually called me just to say that line! I’d guessed as much, but was slightly curious as to how she was going to tie up loose ends if she thought it warranted another conversation. Did I not already give her the termination line she needed, respectfully enough? For someone adamant that it never be perceived that any advances had been entertained, she was sure jostling to be “first” to do some dumping.

Part of the offense was that she dealt this pointless blow with the comment that she’d been “trying” with guys, and that it wasn’t going to work with that other man, either. I’ve placed my finger on the firm disapproval with which I look upon her categorizing the access she permitted me as the same she permitted him. Without greater successive waves of charitable introspection, it’s possible part of me will resent that to the end of my days. (I know that various offenses, however much I’ve sought to technically forgive, from as far back as 1995 spring more readily to mind than ever did optimism when approaching the dating scenario.) She proved so automatically condescending with the couple of future contacts that I vowed to sever all possibility of our crossing paths.

I always make the point that there were sweet, admirable women along the way, who merely didn’t turn out to be the right ones for me. However, there was too large a bulk of contradictory messages, and uphill battles…which lots of men and women have, admittedly, experienced of a degree. I don’t think it’s my job, or anyone else’s, to spend weeks (or more) vying for the level of attention which a person will happily lavish upon another in under 15 seconds. That doesn’t even resemble competition, to which I have my own moral objections. It doesn’t remotely resemble fidelity, respect, or honesty. It’s the very antithesis of all that I seek in a companion. I answer to the latest experience, not summative in the least, but certainly representative, of all which has gone before, that no one will ever strictly circumscribe my sphere of action again. There’s an unfortunate risk if I develop romantic interest in someone with whom I actually am only a friend, but no girl toward whom I’ve expressed such an interest will ever again keep me around purely for her enjoyment, solely on her own terms, if it’s going to pain or demean me. I’m free to ask, and she’s free to turn down. Adult behaviors and full disclosure, right? I’m either worth a *genuine* first date or not, however unexpected, and 9 out of 10 girls I’ve ever asked out have had sufficient data to know their answer to that before I asked.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Lincoln and the Latter-day Saints

It seems odd to be saying so much about Lincoln on a day when I’m primarily reflecting upon Washington. Yet I’ve known for some time I’d likely repost some Lincoln remarks from a Facebook thread earlier this month. (I’ve learned that people don’t have access to the URL I would have provided.) Seeing as the man who initiated my remarks in the first place—hereafter referred to as “Conrad”—has a new status for the day of “Today I celebrate only George Washington,” but within the comments showed a largely unrepentant attitude about his earlier Lincoln bashing (having become, as Paine, would say, more subtle but no more just), here goes.

My issue isn’t with celebrating only Washington—in technical point of fact, Lincoln’s never had a federal holiday, anyway—or even with the implication that there’s no day in the year he would celebrate Lincoln, but that he’d publicly piggyback such disdain onto the day’s festivities. He’s used federal holidays and landmarks to such an end in the past. His December 7 remarks were positively offensive. (And, yes, it’s crossed my mind several times that at least some form of blocking what I read on Facebook might give me more peace of mind generally. This ought to show the extent to which I’m willing to bear with others’ polar views, which they do not always give to mine.) What he doesn’t understand, in his agreement with others that even Washington’s greatness was diminished by his role against the whiskey tax rebellion, is that a nation like ours rejecting all meaningful history will come to have no meaningful future. I turn for perspective to President Hinckley’s “The Lord is at the Helm.”

I never have defined a hero as someone free of all mortal shortcoming; realizing that, we need heroic models. Historians—of which I am one—have failed their cause if their role is viewed purely as criticism from the sidelines, let alone interference which cannot improve. In the course of the more recent thread, an appropriate reference was made to an article put out today, which points out how “meaningful” Lincoln’s life is to Mormons. That is, those who have paid attention to the teachings of their own leaders and/or gleaned their history from sources other than conspiracy hack jobs. President Hinckley at one point, consciously or not, elevated Lincoln even above Washington, as “America’s greatest hero.”

So, moving on to the offending status of February 3...”Why do ‘rule of law’ Republicans heap praise upon a President who: suspended the Constitution and habeas corpus; launched his own military invasion; imprisoned thousands of citizens w/o trial; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers, imprisoning dozens of their owners/publishers; censored communication; nationalized railroads; confiscated firearms; interfered w/ elections; and deported his most outspoken critic?”

Shortly before I jumped in, Conrad’s own grandfather posted, “Pres McKay felt that Abraham Lincoln was led by God. (President David O. Mckay, Conference Report, October 1968, Afternoon Meeting, p.144 ) “And we all know how God did guide Abraham Lincoln.’” Now for my usual overly done responses:

Shame on you, assailing a great man’s memory with self-serving and revisionist history! My admiration of Lincoln runs “counter” to an entirely Confederate pedigree and is free of any Republican “allegiance.” In this era of skepticism and historical implosion, I’m doing the truly bold and independent thing in defending him. Depending upon how one spun the words, quite a case could be made to appear against Captain Moroni as well (with some very similar allegations). Sadly, President McKay’s faith in the future outlook of the American people may have been too high, when he depicted the “life of the immortal Lincoln, in whom was ‘vindicated greatness,’ to whose character the passing centuries can add only more brilliant lustre” (TTF19; McKay lists him (ToL377), with the Smiths, among courageous and martyred defenders of truth, and President Joseph F. Smith included him (GD31) in the march of leaders of men inspired by Christ for the progress of society, specifically in this case in the areas of “emancipation and union”). I suppose, sarcastically, that President George Albert Smith likewise fell prey to a defective education in his laudatory, “[Lincoln] gave his life because of his desire for the perpetuation of the liberty that was guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. He was unafraid. When the duty was placed upon him to battle for the liberties of mankind, he dedicated his life to that purpose, and in due time, our Father in heaven accepted his offering, and his name is emblazoned upon the pages of history as a great and noble man who dared to do right, and his praises will be sung and his virtues extolled throughout all time.”

President Hinckley had to bemoan the loss of heroes, clearly referenced in context as genuinely moral and essential to a solid education, after “the debunkers of Washington and Lincoln have done their job, and we all are the poorer for it” (DPGBH1:561, 563; see Ezra Taft Benson, TNSE22). He rightly taught, “I urge you to see the big picture and cease worrying about the little blemishes. Abraham Lincoln was a gangling figure of a man, with a long and craggy face. . . . Many . . . never saw the true greatness of the man. That enlarged view came only to those who saw the whole character—body, mind, and spirit—as he stood at the head of a divided nation in its darkest hour, lacing it together ‘with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God’ gave him to see the right. . . . Of course, there are aberrations in our history. There are blemishes to be found, if searched for, in the lives of all men, including our leaders past and present. But these are only incidental to the magnitude of their service and to the greatness of their contributions. Keep before you the big picture . . .” (TGBH430-431).

I’ve easily read at least 5,000 pages more than incidentally about Lincoln, his life and his policies, and I find the selectivity of the linked articles reprehensible. It’s scarcely even worth debating the merits of lone post-partisan, yet anti-national, works with an ax to grind. The skulduggery brings a bare minimum of actual source material to support its assertions against the mortal whom President McKay really did believe was “the greatest Emancipator” (MMKFH394). One of the crying sins of our day is expecting men who were already exceedingly visionary to so far transcend their time that no one would have even understood them, to expect Joseph in Egypt to establish a republic or Luther to dethrone the pope, or some other such thing, when the Almighty Himself was moving by small and steady means against the devil’s tyrannical stranglehold. They accomplished the purposes for which they were sent (as President Faust once referred, TREUY71, to Lincoln’s “special gifts”), no matter if we feel to look back and condemn.

Lincoln spoke most cautiously to an electorate filled with racist notions, intending, and announcing his intention, to choke off slavery and condemn the institution to death while not doing violence to its holders. The Church’s abolitionist leanings led to a lot of grief in terms of polity, regardless of the rightness or wrongness in how others may have discovered it. Lincoln’s horror over slavery arose from a deep, abiding humanity. (Many have deliberately misunderstood his political application to the ethical dilemma, which actually greatly resembled how the Church might suggest going about it.) It was important that he lead the people by the hand to see as he did, without losing a debate because Douglas played on alarm that he was actually encouraging a slave revolt. (Gleefully calling forth Frederick Douglass’ angry belief that Lincoln moved too slowly to emancipate is hardly a historical argument that Lincoln was racist and oppressive. We all have political adversaries, as well as discord even among our own camp. Lincoln suffered Christian-like through far more than his mortal share.) To quote Washington, “A people unused to restraint must be led; they will not be drove.” The war came after all else failed, after decades of brash argument and counterargument. A Union private scrawled in a South Carolina court record, “South Carolina was the root of secession. The South are to blame for this war and none others. Why did not the Southern States wait and see whether [or at least HOW] A. Lincoln would interfere with slavery before they seceded?”

Those who quote the July 17, 1858 speech leave out his earlier-within-debate, “I adhere to the Declaration of Independence. If Judge Douglas and his friends are not willing to stand by it, let them come up and amend it. Let them make it read that all men are created equal except negroes.” Where Lincoln seems to disappoint our modern ears again, in reassuring his listeners that he wasn’t trying to elevate the black man too rapidly, he spoke in terms they could understand, “All I ask for the negro is that if you not like him, let him alone. If God gave him but little let him enjoy.” As for another of the sparse quotations wrested from Lincoln, we’re supposed to be shocked by his use of the “n” word, which was a commonality in the nineteenth century, even—are you sitting down?—among the Brethren! The “proportion” which Lincoln defined, giving a hierarchy of crocodile, black man, white man, is seen in the original sources as his own restatement of the OPPOSITION view. HIS proposition, prefacing the paragraph, was, “The proposition that there is a struggle between the white man and the negro contains a falsehood. There is no struggle between them. It assumes that unless the white man enslaves the negro, the negro will enslave the white man.” He then had the courage to denounce slavery as the snake which must not be allowed into the children’s bed.

If a Latter-day Saint is to accept direction in their constitutional studies from the Brethren at all, they’d do well to consider that this Facebook status reflects the real distortion of history and complete ignorance of the clear implications of what the Brethren, quite averse to war on the whole, have felt constituted a legitimate defense of this nation. (Lincoln truthfully and with the approbation of heaven meant what he wrote: “We shall nobly save or meanly lose this last best hope of earth.”) In fact, perhaps we should approach their writings with a more questing heart and bring fewer of our own fanciful preconceptions or willful desires to the table, hoping in our blindness to scour support from some wild sector. President Benson’s writings are interwoven with quotations from Lincoln, as he, like so many others, quoted him approvingly. Someone asked how I intended to go about defending him, and I replied that, from an LDS standpoint, one didn’t have to dig deep at all to find the support. This prosaic piece is a mere sampling.

Indeed, I might challenge where among the teachings of the Church there is ever other than a largely uncritical and unanimously positive appraisal of the man (the exception of Brigham’s remarks was directed with his special flair against the office more than the man, as well as anti-polygamy legislation, as shown in passing at this link); this, as you see, also clearly places Lincoln among the company of worthy dead who appeared to President Wilford Woodruff, saying, “We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.” By Woodruff’s day, and his own statement, three presidents were excluded from such a status, but Lincoln was not!). They consider him one of the “great” men of history (Ezra Taft Benson, SSYR94, 148; Spencer W. Kimball, MF278). If Lincoln was a despot, one might wonder about the sanity of so many of our leaders in not pointing out whether there’s an actual inconsistency in—as if we’d quote Stalin about how to secure democracy—citing Lincoln’s “foresight” about preventing the birth of “Caesars and Napoleons . . . to dictatorships within a democracy,” with said solution [this from Lincoln] being that “the people . . . be united with each other, attached to the government and the laws, and generally intelligent, successfully to frustrate his design” (Harold B. Lee, DFSL218). President McKay, more frequently than others (such as President Howard W. Hunter, who also used it, appreciated Lincoln’s observation about love of the liberty bestowed by God being “the bulwark of our liberty and independence” more than all military might, and a guard against “the seeds of despotism” (see GI288). That Lincoln had to resort to such military means is so patently obvious that their endorsement of his views MUST be a statement to give one pause, else we’d succumb to cognitive dissonance. Just as President Grant taught—before C.S. Lewis—that Jesus was either a liar or what he claimed to be, for a false claim to divinity would debar one from the right to be a moral teacher, the prophets have inferentially accepted Lincoln’s right to instruct us morally, from his “lofty soul” (David O. McKay, CR, Apr. 1951, 93) on the very issues with which certain jaded “historians” and political enthusiasts now take issue.

You, sir, take your critique of all institutions too far, inciting national disunity during perilous times. It’s not, strictly speaking, Confederate propaganda, but it draws on the same spirit of pointless antagonism and strife, leaning on mistaken principle, in actuality hastening the unraveling of any collective fabric, the dissolution of so much as a desire to have united states. I don’t think you know what you’d supply in its place once depriving the United States of so many of its footings, for an appealing but utopian view of the Constitution, so permissive of so-called individual rights as to nullify cohesion. For me, it’s not enough simply to challenge the constitutionality of everything. That’s like asking whether a meal can be digested; that a certain sustainability ought to be in place goes almost without saying. The secondary and immediate consideration is then healthfulness. We ought to focus on what’s best for this nation to arrest our decline in all areas, mainly encompassed by a moral view. To quote Lincoln, in terms of advocacy rather than grousing, “No one who has sworn to support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, he deems it inexpedient.”

You lead us to a different brink. This is assuredly beam against mote type ideology, tragically again contradicting President Hinckley’s questioning “who can discount the beauty and the wonder of Abraham Lincoln’s words?” (DPGBH1:551) before once again quoting his charitable views, which I have always contended would have healed the wounded nation far better than the subsequent course. William Bennett records, “One Southern woman told General Sherman she was glad Lincoln had been shot. Sherman replied: ‘Madam, the South has lost the best friend it had.’” He was not one, as Brigham Young stated (broadly), to chasten beyond his ability to administer healing balm...or to chasten without love or purpose, very necessity. He emancipated the South itself, both black and white, for many contemporaries observed of the blasted region that the structure of their society, which set the aristocratic few above all others, was truly to blame. Men fought and died at the insistence, and through the rhetoric, of those propped up in economic power. Such backwards and unAmerican thinking could never have led to improvement via secession.

Lincoln’s respect for upholding the law always remained in defense of the overall democratic process: “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law. In any case that arises, as for instance, the promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true; that is, the thing is right within itself, and therefore deserves the protection of all law and all good citizens; or, it is wrong, and therefore proper to be prohibited by legal enactments; and in neither case, is the interposition of mob law, either necessary, justifiable, or excusable.” One of Lincoln’s statements about “reverence for the law,” often quoted by the Brethren, and which I’ve asserted against rising concepts here that Latter-day Saints ought to engage in so-called civil disobedience in our present society, was prefaced in one usage by President Heber J. Grant—who practically opened his administration with an appeal to Lincoln’s good sense (CR, June 1919, 138-139)—with the declaration that “every Latter-day Saint believes that Abraham Lincoln was raised up and inspired of God, and that he reached the Presidency of the United States under the favor of our Heavenly Father” (this whole link is useful, but find #17 by search term “Lincoln”; see a near-identical reference in Messages of the First Presidency, 5:263). Grant’s statement was one of linkage, not mutual exclusivity, when he stated, “One of the Articles of our Faith declares that we believe in sustaining the law and supporting the rulers. So that not only should Latter-day Saints follow the advice of the immortal Lincoln [contained in the directly heretofore mentioned quotation], but they should follow the doctrines of the Church to which they belong” (CR, Apr. 1926, 5).
-------

He answered, “Kristopher, while Lincoln may have had his positive attributes, and perhaps even a divinely-justified mission (though I contest that the various specifics of everything he did meets with God's approval), my point still stands: he did not follow the law. He repeatedly broke it. Those who laud his actions argue either that God inspired him to do what he did or that the ends justify the means, but I've yet to see any response explaining that he did in fact follow the law in carrying out his actions. Do you contest this?”

Conrad, I’m not saying I have easy answers. What I am saying is that there are things you must not understand about the Constitution, the law, even wartime requirements/powers, and the hand of divine inspiration in history (much like those who got off the boat with the Manifesto, in spiritual comparison, unable to apply themselves to what is and is not actually justified). I’m offering a gentle warning call to go back to square one in formulating some of your arguments.

There’s a tendency on this page at times, when actually deferring to the LDS angle, to use Joseph Smith’s statement, “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill’; at another time He said, ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” As far as this applies to the debate at hand, such a sentiment was never meant as a justification in advance for social theory, but a justification in hindsight for what was undertaken with God’s command.

To continue, such a mentality—as I’ve seen it in yourself and others—is to support your own view, at all costs. Nothing is to be held sacred or to go unchallenged in arriving at your conclusions. Truth cannot be reached when one has undercut the very legs to stand on. You really are, if you’ll pardon the truism, throwing the baby out with the bath water. With reference to how I’ve seen the above quote used, if we differ, we’re forced to prove how God required it. However, if you differ, you evade the issue and hammer home your own interpretation of the Constitution.

I don’t know what your processing filter of acceptance of general authorities’ teachings is in application to the issue, but it would seem they’re at least as qualified to comment on the intentions of the Founding Fathers as we are, and there’s often a gap between your conclusions and theirs, however much you like to find what Charles W. Penrose described: “notions derived from obscure passages of scripture or isolated expressions made by prominent speakers and writers,” instead of taking “the recognized standards . . . as the proper written guide.” Since in the past you’ve utilized John Taylor to impart a disdain for every law with which you disagree (not the only, but evidently a primary, personal requirement for ascertaining unconstitutionality), and to strongly imply an incorrect course of action therewith, I’ll use what he’d likely say on the matter: “It is by taking up little odd texts that mistakes are often made and incorrect ideas conveyed. We must take the whole thing to ascertain what is intended, and rightly divine the word of truth.” Not only does your argument here hinge on your interpretation of constitutional powers, it apparently hinges on your own interpretation of Lincoln’s acts. The common saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter can cut both ways. I think it’s quite clear how the Brethren perceive the particular man currently under consideration. I’m surprised at you. If you really want to arrive at the truth, you can’t just dismiss their unanimous teachings while nabbing isolated sentences to support your opinions.

I don’t have the time to debate it with you, or the expertise in nuances. This is not a free pass to smugly conclude that the absence of response is defeat. I acknowledge my weakness in commenting on such sweepingly momentous issues as constitutional law and political reform. I will, however, say this much: reserved powers will apparently mean whatever you want it to mean. You’re coming across increasingly as a law unto yourself, with an acerbic tone about almost everything and everyone else. For instance, you never answered Michael Sparr’s valid question about whether you believed—the logical inference from your many remarks to that end—that all military personnel are thugs.

Ends justifying means is an unacceptable mortal modus operandi. Nevertheless, if God has indicated that someone WAS justified in what is, for us, the end, it warrants careful thought as to just what was or was not justifiable as he went along. I contend that much more than you think was allowable in the eyes of heaven. Earlier, I brought up the comparison to Captain Moroni. The good captain, whom you use for a page header, much more nearly resembles Lincoln than yourself. I say that quite objectively; it’s not a personal attack. For consistency, are you going to have a status update criticizing the measures Moroni took? It wouldn’t be enough to beg out on the grounds that scriptural verse justifies his character, as we have similar expressions from the Brethren for Lincoln, nor would it be enough to say that God commanded HIM, as little more is described for carrying out his motives than good character and personal revelation, the same basis offered for Lincoln.

Lincoln once answered his critics, “If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how—the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.” If he were a war criminal or tyrant, from a theological standpoint, Abe wouldn’t have come out alright in the end, with a quoteworthy reputation among all the Brethren, who, again, know what they’re talking about in showing us great leaders. Calm down and realize we’re not saying to emulate every act and feature. I’m just politely asking that you stop tarnishing his total image and try thinking about his “positive attributes,” and how and to what extent it overshadowed other things. (You downplayed the only obvious conclusion from my prior composite of authoritative sayings, which left little room to doubt that the sum total of his positive attributes was much, much, much larger than any handhold by which to abuse him.)

In the light, rather than the darkness of criticism of a man whom God’s anointed also called anointed in important respects (meaning politically, and not just personally), you may then discover for yourself, and the good of others, how we can safely avoid any deviations to which he may have acceded during times of tough decisions. In conceding a divinely justified mission, are you saying he failed to meet it? Or that he pulled it off with a compromised character? The Brethren put Lincoln in a good light, which is where he ultimately belongs. I can’t even meet you halfway, in your assessment, “Lincoln's actions were clearly un-constitutional, and likewise tyrannical.” The Brethren haven’t said they were arguably, at times, such. Sarcastically (a poor note to end on), how good that it’s clear to you and not to them.
-------

Conrad posted nothing else on that thread, though an individual by the name of Ronald paused to say, “Just LOL'd upon reading the line ‘I don’t have the time to debate it with you’ somewhere in the middle of approximately 4,200 lines of debate from one commenter above.” I responded, perhaps a bit sensitively, “More like 111 lines, and I type more words than that number per minute. Perhaps you have a complaint about the substance, or an insinuation that it's vapid?

“Perhaps you overlooked my preceding portion of the debate (still well under 200 lines)? Even when one knows exactly where to go for material, it takes an astounding amount of time to compile, type, and spot check. Such was honestly intended as a service for all, so it kind of stings worse when such labors are met with scorn.

“I almost solely addressed the theological aspect because that carries valid weight with Conrad (and simultaneously required the least amount of preparation from me, given all options, to still remain sound in argument). It can't merely serve him when supporting a foregone conclusion and drop away when it doesn't. I applied myself to explicating my protest of a fundamentally flawed premise. To begin to lay out historical circumstances, executive/legislative positions, leading into habeas corpus...yeah, believe me, I DON'T have time to pull it together right now. It's best left for the expertise of others, BUT assuredly we realize one can find all kinds of source material, and not just a meager article or two operating from the same logic as that already presented in the first place.”

After three days of silence, Nathan weighed in:

So I've checked back at this thread a couple times to see if there was a response to Kristopher's comments. Seeing as no one has taken pains to respond, and seeing that I am familiar with material with which to do so, I'll provide the following. It seems that we have a thesis and an antithesis, so in my response I'll try to fashion a synthesis.

While we have the statements Kristopher has provided in favor of Lincoln, here are some against:

"The Lord has pointed out the fate of this Nation in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants. He has said that when they became ripened in iniquity they should be cut off. That day has come. Their cup of iniquity is full. The whole Nation, rulers, and people are filled with corruption before god, and the President & Senate of the United States are sending men to Utah to rule over this people as a Governor & Judges who are so corrupt that they are a Hiss & bye word and a stink in the Nostrils of all people in the Streets. . . ."

[end of entries for year 1861--Abraham Lincoln's first term; in Wilford Woodruff's journal].




15 March 1861: President [Brigham Young] . . . remarked that Abel Lincoln was no friend of Christ, particularly, he had never raised his voice in our favor when he was aware that we were being persecuted. He was acquainted with Joseph & Hyrum, and had been a Master Freemason. [The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863, Book D (Hanna, Ut.: Collier's Publishing Co., 2006), p. 220.]




9 July 1861: Pres Young remarked to H. C. Kimball who had come in, that old "Abe" the President of the U.S. has it in his mind to pitch in to us when he had got through with the South. President Kimball observed that men that he had met with, whether they had little or much of the Spirit of God, were in favor of the South. [The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863, Book D (Hanna, Ut.: Collier's Publishing Co., 2006), p. 266.]




5 August 1861: The President [Brigham Young] remarked that Stephen A. Douglass was a far better man than President Abel Lincoln, for he knew his feelings were hostile to this people. Pres Wells acquiesced in these remarks. [The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863, Book D (Hanna, Ut.: Collier's Publishing Co., 2006), pp. 277-78.]




21 August 1861: President Young speaking of Abraham Lincoln remarked [that] if the Kingdom of God was not in the way, Abraham was [a] pretty good man, but he acted as if he would rather the Kingdom of God was out of the way; he was not the man to raise his voice in favor of Joseph Smith when his enemies were persecuting him. He with many others had assented to the deaths of innocent men, and through that he is subject to the influence of a wicked spirit. [The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863, Book D (Hanna, Ut.: Collier's Publishing Co., 2006), p. 284.]




24 August 1861: The feelings of the Brethren are gratified by hearing of the continued success which attends the Southern Confederacy. [The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863, Book D (Hanna, Ut.: Collier's Publishing Co., 2006), p. 285.]




2 December 1861: In conversation with the brethren about the policy and movements of federal government and Southern Confederacy, the President [Brigham Young] remarked we need not expect any thing sensible from them, for the spirit of wisdom is taken away from them. He remarked that Pres Lincoln and Congress appear not to realize that there is a war on hand. It is not so with the South—they are keen and alive. [The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863, Book D (Hanna, Ut.: Collier's Publishing Co., 2006), p. 316.]




11 December 1861: I will see them in hell before I will raise an army for them. Abe Lincoln has sent these men here to prepare the way for an Army. An order has been sent to California to raise an army to come to Utah. This is the reason why Ball came back. I pray daily that the Lord will take away the reigns of Government of the wicked rulers and put it into the hands of the wise and good. I will see the day when those wicked rulers are wiped out. The Governor quoted my sayings about the Constitution I do and always have supported the Constitution but I am not in league with such cursed scoundrels as Abe Lincoln and his minions. They have sought our destruction from the beginning and Abe Lincoln has ordered an army to this Territory from California and that order passed over on these wires. [Wilford Woodruff's Journal, vol. 5 (Midvale, Utah: Signature Books, 1984), pp. 605-6.]




18 March 1862: Pres. Heber C. Kimball called in. The President [Brigham Young] discussed with him the wicked course the American Nation had taken with this people, observing the government was running into a despotism, and they were willing the government should be despotic while they were in power. The President observed that Abraham Lincoln was a sagacious man, but believed he was wicked. [The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863, Book D (Hanna, Ut.: Collier's Publishing Co., 2006), p. 362.]

So clearly Lincoln had his issues. This doesn't mean that he was evil to the core, however, and the wrongs he committed were quite possibly honest mistakes, perhaps with good intentions. Perhaps he was deceived in "assenting to the deaths of innocent men".

But there are two separate issues being debated here. One has to do with judging Lincoln's very character, and one has to do with judging his actions, especially in regard to the Constitution. I think Kristopher has made some important points about his character, and while it is perhaps not as clear-cut as he implied, he made some good points in defending it.

However, I think we can justifiably point out his mistakes and violations of the Constitution. It is not merely "[Conrad's] interpretation" that a number of his actions were unconstitutional, but it is demonstrated by a great number of legal scholars, and arguably easy to objectively recognize from even a basic reading of the text. The brethren have not commented one way or the other as to the constitutionality of his actions, and to imply that Conrad's awareness of this is somehow in conflict with the brethren--given their silence--is fallacious, not to mention snarky.

Of course, judging his character is much more complex. But even if we like Lincoln, we should condemn his errors, rather than justify them to fit our view of him. This way we will be able to avoid repeating them.

As for the comment referencing Joseph Smith's quote as "never [being] meant as a justification in advance for social theory", if this was in reference to my usage of it when discussing drug laws, you missed my point. It was used in order to reconcile what can be perceived as a contradiction between God's revealed eternal laws--which do, contrary to the beliefs of many, instruct us on political matters--and the then-current instruction from his servants.

I naively thought I could reply in haste:

Wow. You've been waiting for an opportunity to say something.

I only see two sources here...lots of spacing doesn't mean there's lots more to it. Collier's is a well-known apostate foundation. Even where somewhat acceptable, people find his ability to weigh sources questionable. Through the years, the Brethren have shown on principle that they don't appreciate having private, off-the-cuff records utilized as representative of their considered stances--especially where there almost seems to be a broad difference.

Even given some respectability, the Brigham Young office record as offered remains a snapshot, heated at times, from one administration. Some aren't even straight up Brigham at all, some (as anyone familiar with the history of the Journal of Discourses knows) may not capture his pronounced, settled view on the matter, and still others really don't address Lincoln in a more than group capacity. As for the rest, you've succeeded in showing that somewhere in LDS or possibly LDS writ there's a negative reference. Congratulations. (Although I already made the aside for what circumstances may have transpired during Brigham's time.) I sincerely hope no contrary evidence was omitted even from these scarce sources. Brigham also made this public telegram back East in October 1861: "Utah has not seceded, but is firm for the Constitution and laws of our once happy country."

Winders' recent book on prophets and presidents (and I use this as a link, not having the book itself on hand at the moment: http://thegreataccommodation.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html) shows that Lincoln was at least no more antagonistic than the general consensus toward the Mormons, probably less, and that Brigham also said--much as I generally prefer using all possible Conference addresses and official correspondence--to President Woodruff in 1860 that he hoped Lincoln would win. Contemporary wounded feelings over the persecution and expulsion led to a highly government-suspicious view for decades. At any rate, President Grant is responsible for publicly popularizing the "official" view that Stephen Douglas had turned against the Church.

Lincoln was a convenient scapegoat for conversation during Utah's Civil War days--isolated in the extreme--as representative of the federals.

Where do I think we stand in terms of synthesis of material? After the dust of the war settled, the unanimous assessment of Lincoln's presidency became and remained exactly as I already outlined. We have many, many--well, all--references from modern prophets going for the guy.

One might be surprised, as one digs, how very much legal scholars differ. It's daunting and contributes to the hapless feeling, as if the Constitution has gotten out of reach of the average citizen. I still don't have time to broach that portion of the debate, but article number one is evidently the habeas corpus. If the clause for its suspension, in cases of rebellion or invasion, wasn't at least up for fair consideration at the moment Lincoln stared it squarely in the face, I'm not sure when it would be. That too was inserted for a reason, not that the founders were wasting ink on an inadmissible issue constitutionally. Lincoln's methods as to its enforcement are more a subject for debate among the scholars (often influenced, surprisingly, by political leaning) than this thread has made it appear....
-------

To this, Ronald rushed in with the genuinely snarky, “Kristopher, your argument essentially comes down to ‘my GA trumps your GA’. Legally, we value the accounts of those who witnessed and experienced events first hand. In the church, we value diaries and journals for the great insights we get into the lives of the persons affected by the events of the day. Except when it concerns an idol, such as Lincoln, apparently. Even in BYU Law constitution classes, as in any other law school, it is admitted that there are multiple leaps in logic required to give Lincoln even the shakiest constitutional foundation. Oh well. The end justifies the means, right?”

I believe Ronald was still smarting from my unintentional slam in answer to Conrad’s unrelated status: “I wonder: what age do I need to reach before people who disagree with me will stop resorting to playing the age card as a defense of their argument?” Ronald had replied to Conrad, “Never. Playing the age card is as useful a tool as playing the ‘my GA trumps your GA’ card when arguing with a Mormon.” Much later on, I’d written:
There’s wisdom in seeking and receiving good counsel. [Taught in many forms ever since Joseph Smith’s scripturally based, “In the multitude of counsel there is safety” (TJS149).] Even the oldest and sagest of men do it. Still, folly rears its head at any age, but it’s as they say, there’s no fool like an old fool. Dave Barry, “You can only be young once. But you can always be immature.”

I’m mildly curious about that “my GA trumps your GA” notion. After a (short!?) lifetime of study, I think a large number of Mormons have fallacious ideas about synthesizing theology. What should never be arguments in the first place rapidly deteriorate; as President Lee would note, at least one and possibly both must be wrong. Some general authorities DO trump other general authorities. I’ve seen single members of the Seventy pressed into service against presidents of the Church, while unsubstantiated remarks by solitary presidents don’t carry the weight of the entire First Presidency in unison. On one particular issue, there are seriously members who think their interpretation of Roberts (70), Widtsoe (12), and a somewhat-inaccurately-quoted Talmage (12) is proof unassailable versus six presidents of the Church and at least 10 additional apostles.

At no time, per the teaching of many presidents, can something vague and unclear be brought to bear which is not already borne out by what has gone before, although the living president technically has the right to assert something over and against our understanding of predecessors. I find the way to safety is a thorough understanding of as massive a body of historical teaching as possible, coupled with a humble appreciation of the minute by minute present instruction.

The age card by itself, though...quite inappropriate. "Let no man despise thy youth." Let them despise our uninformed positions!

My final argument, after Ronald’s scathing post, which has since gone unanswered:

I had to dash off my initial response before heading to work.

@Ronald and Nathan: No, if my argument must be described in such a manner, then I insist that it’s all general authorities surpassing certain persons’ limited understanding of a single, long-dead one, something more like an entire deck against the hand of a card or two of low value. If any true discrepancy happened to exist, I’d say that “the living prophets always take precedence” (TETB136), though I deplore even so much as a gentleman’s disagreement being cast between Brigham just above and President Monson, who declared, “When I think of love, I think of Abraham Lincoln, one of the outstanding presidents of the United States. He was also one of the nation’s greatest writers and orators.” There goes any possible disclaimer that they’re using his words and shunning his deeds. He then quoted from a letter in which he said we could surely feel “within [our] heart the love that filled his,” one which, most alarmingly to the pessimistic worldview here, contained such propaganda as thanking a mother who’d lost “five sons who died gloriously on the field of battle,” earning “the thanks of the republic they died to save,” leaving their mother “only the cherished memory of the loved and lost and the solemn pride that must be [hers] to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom” (Ensign, Mar. 1996, 6). The entire substance of that reference was naught but the old school historical portrayal trampled upon by Conrad’s misrepresentation.

Truthfully, President Monson and the multitudinous cloud of witnesses leading up to this day have the advantage of hindsight, while President Young was subject to the unfolding events of his own. There’s not a sufficient argument made to overturn the weightier testimony of so many of recent date. Their appraisal AFTER the events of the war carries more credibility from a historical standpoint than that given while in the agitated state of fog of war. He himself confessed that to the end of his life he had a weakness for temper. He said a lot of things about a lot of people. If we were to be strictly guided by such utterances, particularly those made behind closed doors, chaos would ensue. Brigham loved Joseph so much that he felt anyone unwilling to intervene was an accessory to the martyrdom. What’s more, anyone is in a heap of trouble who can’t differentiate between Brigham’s expressions of what he wished and felt, versus what he eventually soberly counseled people to do. He toned down considerably as Johnston’s army approached the valley (and they were likewise, and more murderously, nurturing threats)—it would have been a massacre if his first sermon were enforced instead of his last, in effect to “prefer [oneself] above the truth.” (Or, as I observed many years ago of the edited version of Crimson Tide, to enjoy the possibility of acting on initial contingency orders so much that one refuses to receive any subsequent ones.) President Young had no real dealings with Lincoln, for the Church was rightly riding out the war. We can derive a great deal of personal insight from journals of the day, but not doctrine, when it’s the odd man out. As a trained historian, I wouldn’t build a case solely on one witness when many additional ones of equal or greater value are available.

I’ve kept this civil, though I don’t appreciate its being made to appear that I’ve asserted something which the Brethren haven’t, in a forum which sometimes points to supposed “prophetic political silence” to justify its own ends. It seems that many would prefer silence, for the teachings of our prophets are perceived as meddlesome when vocal. This holds true for those who allow politics to affect their religious belief and practice, in a mistaken elevation of the wrong principles. If only they studied their religion as assiduously! I quote from President Lee (THBL525-526; see TETB139), in a format which will prove even more ominous by the time I reach my conclusion:

"We have some tight places to go before the Lord is through with this church and the world in this dispensation . . . which shall usher in the coming of the Lord. . . . The power of Satan will increase; we see it in evidence on every hand. There will be inroads within the Church. There will be . . . 'Hypocrites, those professing, but secretly are full of dead men's bones' (see Matthew 23:27). . . . Now the only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church in that day when the Church was organized. We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through His prophet, 'as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; . . . as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith' (D&C 21:4-5). There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory' (D&C 21:6).”

The prophetic commentary on the (end sum) constitutionality of Lincoln’s actions is bundled up in their hearty approval. Essentially all are agreed that the vexing catastrophe which befell the United States during the Civil War was punishment for its prior violation of civil rights (including those of the Saints). Lincoln was at the helm because God’s hand was still stretched out to preserve the nation for its divine ends, once the immediate chastening at hand was complete.

I wasn’t cavorting in the region of gaps in teachings, but filling them in for everyone. President Young was a passionate man, and I genuinely sympathize with you if the extent of your understanding of an issue is scouting out some blunt remarks from him. I can see why those who immerse themselves too deeply in the unrehearsed literature of the territorial period often develop some very strange ideas out of keeping with the direction the Church has actually taken. (I respectfully submit that I have intensely studied no inconsiderable volume of the teachings, older and modern.) Do you honestly believe that this paltry offering offsets that abundant material presented heretofore, or really even makes so much as a dimpled mark?

President Kimball described a man who fell away after having committed many older teachings from those times to heart, confessedly knowing them “infinitely better” than Kimball. “However, he was depending wholly upon himself and his own interpretation of the program and was moving farther and farther away from the truth. He said, ‘I know more about the sermons of the brethren in the days of Joseph and Brigham and Heber C. than does the President of the Church, or any of the apostles, or any of the stake presidents or the bishops. Why should I go to them?’” (TSWK446). Elsewhere (Ibid., 461-463), he went on: “Any new program or doctrine, which comes to the Church, will come through the authorities of the Church and be approved by them. . . . They who garnish the sepulchres of the dead prophets begin now by stoning the living ones. They return to the pronouncements of the dead leaders and interpret them to be incompatible with present programs. They convince themselves that there are discrepancies between the practices of the deceased and the leaders of the present. . . . As the critics of the Redeemer still worshipped Abraham and the critics of Joseph Smith could see only the Savior and his apostles, and as the apostates of Brigham’s day could see only the martyred Joseph, now there are those who quote only the dead leaders of the pioneer era.”

This is as good a place as any to indicate that this is why I can no longer in good conscience retrieve source material (admittedly a highly limited role to date) for Conrad. Let him painstakingly build his own case; why should I give with ease that which could readily support efforts with which I disagree (on a more than cantankerously personal basis)? It’s a shaky path to utilize something a prominent leader said in 1861 or thereabouts because we like the flavor, when such doesn’t neatly fit the totality of teachings, such as repeated supplemental statements on a similar issue a century or more later.

Ronald, I get the sense that you ridicule my argument for lack of an appropriate rejoinder, possibly hoping to draw me into a different field where you might unseat me more easily. I’ve already spoken my view on ends not justifying means, yet you persist in behaving as though you haven’t even glanced at my earlier arguments. Leaps in logic to give Lincoln any credit at all for constitutional behavior? Are we referring to the man confronted with a crisis the magnitude of a civil war? With states toppling like dominoes in dissent, and armies of hostile men amassing within striking distance of the capitol, yearning for a blow to be struck? (As another concession to the theological stance, so certain am I of Lincoln’s portrayal and purpose that I’m also confident my forefathers aren’t rolling in their graves, though four direct ancestors, and many, many more collateral individuals, were killed on the Confederate side in the war.) Many legal analyses which I’ve discovered—not tinctured with country-loathing or the libertarian cynicism—state that, while unprecedented in scope, his course was generally quite logical, even when raising eyebrows. Why is it so incredible to believe there might be positive assessments of his motives AND acts AND end results? (Pray stop harping on the misconception that I’m relying solely on the last.)

But that you may know I’ve given such considerations a great deal of nonpartisan thought, I spill the select offering of the tip of the iceberg, gleaned in a matter of minutes from the Internet and hardly a genuine glimpse of what I have studied and could study, in contravention of the above obscene viewpoint. These are best returned to after my closing arguments. As an eye opener, there’s this sensible overview of possibilities, presenting one of the Founding Fathers in a similar vein and introducing us to Justice Taney, who, for all his own forward looking, condemned Frederick Douglass [this should say Dred Scott] to renewed servitude. One interesting insight into Lincoln: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=29. A fair overview of one issue: http://blogs.dickinson.edu/hist-404pinsker/2010/10/26/ex-parte-vallandigham/. A far more extensive treatment (and note where it says “most historians” fall): http://www.d11.org/palmer/social_studies/teachers/schulzki/IB/Lincoln%20and%20the%20Constitution.pdf. The conclusion of this more “balanced” review—demonstrating the sheer broadness of the spectrum of intelligent application to this problem—is interesting: http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20030718_citron.html#bio. Another balanced and more entertaining piece casts some historical context the same as the largest article, and, importantly, describes sympathetically how little undue advantage Lincoln personally sought from having gained elbow room with which to conduct the distasteful war.

With increasing frequency, I observe the trend that only those with the most strident political agendas care to assert that someone else could have actually done the job better than Lincoln. As people here grow so upset when I touch their golden calf, undermining a beloved deduction, I wonder why they don’t take it up with so many of those living general authorities who’ve joined in passive refutation of their ideology, rather than miscasting every alternate argument I make in opposition to their fantastical premise? Why can’t they see it any other way, remaining perversely fixed despite so much evidence from the Brethren themselves that they may want to loosen their hold?

That brings me to my final points, and why so many libertarian policies are as fatal to the prosperity of this church and nation as any number of other philosophies. For example, I weary of so much pointing to protests against polygamy as though the historical comparison is a readymade one to our day’s political climate and needs. So much packaged hysteria and pathos as a method of debate! I cannot stress strongly enough how cautionary the Brethren are about the cafeteria selection plan which looks back to those days and disregards much more recently available counsel.

Consider whether remarks about the need for more maturity, or other such resistance, might not be the result of unfruitful discussions which alienate a significant and faithful portion of the Latter-day Saint population. Not that he wants it to be so, or necessarily believes it to be so, but Conrad’s anti-authoritarian attitude at times extends to leaders of the Church. I mean no condescension, but many times I’ve shaken my head in disbelief, wondering how it is that we could have grown up in the same church, and studied some of the same sources, and yet have such incredibly divergent conclusions. I know Conrad has many friends who take similar issue with him, but their public controversies with him have become few and far between. I’m leaving personal opinion on many matters out of this and openly tackling those which deserve comment. I never meant to come across as snarky, though those who crossed his path in disagreement have felt a brand of something similar.

Far gentler than the military he openly despises, the Church nonetheless has a command structure which we’ve covenanted to uphold. It sounds good to declare that "ultimately" his concern is to “never give a power to your friend that you wouldn't want your enemy to have.” (This concept would eliminate most loving relationships.) However, not long ago a President McKay quotation arose here, placing defense of the Constitution next to that of the Church. There’s no conflict; the latter hasn’t departed from the former. Too many profess that the Church has taught them their love of the Constitution, but offer evidences that they love very different things. Of the utmost concern to me, on the other hand, was that sentiment phrased well by President Benson (and upheld in similar statements by many others): “One who rationalizes that he or she has a testimony of Jesus Christ but cannot accept direction and counsel from the leadership of His church is in a fundamentally unsound position and is in jeopardy of losing exaltation.” President Woodruff reported that a member once presented a proposal for some unusual doctrinal system to the Prophet Joseph. Joseph exclaimed that it was beautiful, carefully adding that he had but one fault to find with it: “It is not true.”

I see a similar situation in so quickly setting aside the united wisdom and counsel of our leaders, as if to say one knows better because it seems an ironclad constitutional case can be made for one's own viewpoint. The Brethren both have and consult political and legal experts on their part, too, and never advocate anything but that which is right to the fullest extent of what they can consider in this life, and what is in their belief best for everyone. I’d also say they’re entitled to an enormous amount of inspiration in their sphere. Lo and behold, Conrad is helping lead a large contingent away from the clear, unequivocal stance which they have taken asserting support for Proposition 8. Have they done so unconstitutionally? Do we dare say they have done so unwisely? Can we seriously claim that they do it hatefully or divisively? This kind of specious antagonistic reasoning disunites the Church in its efforts at salvation in the last days. It’s often been reiterated in these forums that the Church won’t openly hand us a plan on how to rescue the Constitution. One such strategy lies right here, and so many turn from it!

Surrender the open, urgent, firm, yet loving advocacy of morality and there will be too few moral and religious people left to govern by the Constitution, whatever pleasant arguments we might have about the extent of governmental influence. Prideful members set in their ways ignore the fact that it’s not merely isolated apostles who condemn the notion that we can AVOID “legislating morality” of some form. Instead of a slippery slope of governmental control being their only horror, they ought to focus on the slippery slope of deregulating all of human behavior and interaction, to the point where anywhere we go, whatsoever a man does will be no crime, in effect legislating all manner of amorality and immorality instead. In the earnest efforts to encourage atomic breakdown to misguidedly believed individual rights, we learn too late that there is such a horrific thing as unity in evildoing and we have only hastened the ascendancy of the voice of the people in desiring that which is wrong.

Nathan, yours wasn’t the only usage of that sometime misappropriated Joseph Smith statement, but looking back now I see that it was you on the "drug legalization" issue. (I didn’t make a personal case out of it.) When we sustain our leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators, there is the inherent recognition that God’s commands will become more apparent through them. Justifications galore came out when I first posted these two links to show that the Church’s stance in favor of Prohibition was nothing to sneeze at: http://kristacook.blogspot.com/2010/08/prohibition-heber-j-grant-and-same.html, and http://lds.org/ensign/2003/05/loyalty?lang=eng, for President Hinckley's bridging the gap of history. (In fact, that talk’s theme of “loyalty” has everything to do with this part of my message.) Those were but a few of President Grant’s remarks, given in nearly every Conference year after year, so that he could declare the Church was “fundamentally for” Prohibition. The tragic response to his pleas led him to on more than one occasion craft the clever retort that people should add a modification to the end of their version of “We Thank Thee, O God, For a Prophet.” I hate to see President Grant booed out, and I must also state that he was hardly alone, as speaker after speaker united on the theme, which was eventually to be ignored by the membership. (In this, I see a fair comparison to current conditions.)

Following the repeal, the First Presidency (MFP5:339) noted that “members have always stood for temperance; they still stand for temperance, and should unitedly use their influence for the enactment of rational laws which will hold the liquor traffic in proper restraint, that we may never return to the golden age of the bootlegger, or the intolerable conditions which preceded him.” Prior to its repeal, they had made the Church’s sympathy with the restrictions then in place quite apparent. The entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were in agreement on that.

In application to present-day coordinated efforts with like-minded organizations toward moral ends, these circulars demonstrate that the temperance movement and the Church’s reasoning WERE distinct. I know of no push for a measure banning tea, in response to one angry individual’s feeling that President Grant was just confused about whether the Word of Wisdom could be extended beyond the Church’s pale. Similarly, the desire to uphold Prohibition went well beyond sustaining the law already in place, to supporting it because it was the best thing. Therefore, the flaw in methodology was not the prohibition itself, but the unwillingness to shoulder any burden and seek out the most effective means of vanquishing the traffic once and for all.

In conclusion, a portion of keeping our eyes on our leaders, who will never lead us astray (in majority, or in singularity where the living president is concerned), is to observe their very behaviors. President Benson explained, “The expression ‘follow the Brethren’ has a broader meaning than some would apply to it. It means not only to agree with the counsel given to the Church by the Brethren, but also to follow their example in appearance and deportment.” This would entail making their priorities ours, and noticing the matters upon which they do not agitate. “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, until he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7, JST). In the ways that truly count, He has inspired our leadership to timely advocacy throughout our history. Theirs is the greatest cause to which we can lend our support. A dear friend taught me valuable lessons in my own youth about “putting a filter on [my] holy zeal,” showing from many examples and President Packer’s clarification that the lasting behavior and general tenor of our leaders becomes, by what is often unwritten, unspoken agreement, the binding tone and direction of church affairs. They are reverent, soft-spoken, constitutional scholars, civic servants—in short, some facet of Christlike personality is reflected all the time within the general body of the Brethren. They become all needful things to all people. They know and follow rules of authority and obedience, speech and refraining, and so forth.

This is no unquestioning, unthinking obedience. It calls forth every ounce of effort in study, observation, and prayer. It is extraordinarily far-reaching in scope and comprehensive in mental requirement. It does require an adaptability when change is urged, and there is expansive room for our own personal connection with heaven and within our individual, familial, and community spheres. Would that more members’ energies went into such a worthy pursuit!
-------

My rare public expression on political parties arose from Conrad’s gradual decline—observed by comparing his attitudes of several years ago—into the national Libertarian platform. It’s not that I’ve never seen any valid points made from their end. There was a time when they held my sympathies more than at present. But I remain, as I have for years upon years, unattached to any party line (hence, in accord with many general authority statements, and much freer to form opinions from a more “universal” and gospel-inspired frame of mind). However much many libertarian adherents protest their not accepting all practices of the nationals (defined by one fellow as “0 govt, free love and legal drugs, and pretty much whatever you want to believe”), J. Reuben Clark already noted in his review of certain Middle Age practices in Catholicism that in many instances, whatever line of contrary text someone can point to in a library somewhere doesn’t address the fact that a body’s canonized belief is that which it consistently trains its followers to believe. Conrad fails to realize that surrounding himself with young radicals who share his beliefs, and employing his own force of language (or the law degrees of some of his followers) against those who still disagree, differs little in my view from President Benson’s warning, “We sometimes look among our numbers to find one to whom we can point who agrees with us, so we can have company to justify our apostasy. We rationalize by saying that someday the Church doctrine will catch up with our way of thinking.”

The sort of counsel which is rarely found outside of the experience of wisdom in age is lacking precisely because of overlooking Joseph Smith’s admonition that “every man, before he makes an objection to any item that is brought before a council for consideration, should be sure that he can throw light upon the subject rather than spread darkness, and that his objection be founded in righteousness, which may be done by men applying themselves closely to study the mind and will of the Lord, whose spirit always makes manifest and demonstrates the truth to the understanding of all who are in possession of the Spirit” (TPJS, 94).

The kind of confusion they promulgate was expressed this very afternoon by one libertarian to Conrad (trusting him altogether too much, I might add): “I'm honestly still forming my opinion about Lincoln, as well as many of our national ‘heroes’. I think they all had their faults as well as admirable qualities. Part of my current struggle is seeing the Constitution as a ‘divinely inspired document’ as well as perhaps not the best thing that could have happened. I know there are those in the libertarian movement who would prefer that we had stayed with the Articles of Confederation, and I'm trying to sort out how one can be 100% for ‘liberty’ and yet believe what the brethren have said about the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, Lincoln, etc.”

[The above severity of confusion is unexpectedly sustained by a comment from Conrad's crowd, from one of those existing in the murky nowhere land of reputedly acting politically as a Republican while maintaining Libertarian concepts. On February 22, in response to a discussion about a possible Congress shutdown, a new individual said: "I see no reason why they should meet once a year or even have legislators at the Federal level. They were originally created for times of war, am I right? If so then we should simply have the Governors of each state join together at times of war. They are in charge of the national guard anyways. then we would not have this run away Federal government with the ridiculous laws. The worst thing that happened to this Country was the Federal gov regulating interstate commerce. What was the point of that? Some argue that states were at war with each other with out the ability but the Federal government has not prevented economy wars. Just look at AZ and California now."]

Conrad has said, “What's the next target of the ‘war on drugs’? Elmer's glue? Radiator fluid? Nail polish remover? This insanity knows no limit.” Then, “If the government bans texting while driving, shouldn't it also ban other distractions such as looking at billboards, changing the air conditioning, applying makeup, speaking to another person in the car, adjusting the radio dial, or being consumed by one's own thoughts?” As if he really doesn’t know which actions constitute an actual physical threat to others as opposed to entirely his own person, or well-being. (While the thought gives rise to the act, not even in an ecclesiastical capacity do we believe in externally punishing that nascent state.)

It’s my observation that prolonged exposure to the primary tenets of libertarianism dulls one’s ability to discern the weight between issues ("weightier matters of the law," as it were) pertaining to liberty. (There’s a great deal of commentary about just how far Ayn Rand’s philosophizing can really go. [I know I'm oversimplifying things, as Rand wouldn't characterize herself as a libertarian. I find protean protests from individuals who point out the many (hydra) heads of the organization. Yet their antagonistic remarks are almost of a stripe, whether arising from self-styled "classical liberals" or any other name, and often no more contributory than, "So you think to save our liberties by restricting them?" I'd much rather be relying dogmatically on Paul than on (Ron) Paul.]) To the latter status, one wise, mutual friend, remarked, “Conrad: then should they also ban speed limits, traffic lights, what side of the street one can drive on, and all other traffic rules? You might be skirting with the difference between federalism and statism. I believe federalism is good, and constitutional.”

I then commented, “Following up certain libertarian leanings to their extremes can make one prey to every ‘slippery slope’ hypothesis there is, in attempting to weigh human liberty on the scale offered by such a philosophy. Similar dangers lie in adopting any philosophy too tightly which is, in the end, only a perspective. Just an insight into why so many were myopic during Christ’s ministry, failing to see how he wasn’t destroying the law, but fulfilling it. (The Church’s moves occasionally baffle those trapped inside of certain political constructs, no matter how frequently it attempts to show that we shouldn’t be bound by party.) Jacques Ellul commented that he in no way denied the beauty of Neoplatonism, only that it was in any way actually Christian, yet millions today swear by certain forms of Christianity constrained by definitions imposed by that philosophy. All I’m really saying is that one can inappropriately create a 'hedge' of redefining law around the Constitution, or just as inappropriately deny the parameters within which it intended to preserve order. The Founders hoped that the intelligence of our people would remain such as to hammer out reasonable details inside that tension.”

Sunday, February 13, 2011

It’s a Tall World (After All)

I was 30 years old before I truly realized I was short. Not in the eyes of God, nor in my own eyes—but, all the same, irredeemably “short.” There’s just no compensating for it. In the distant past, there was even some brief mutual flirting between myself and a girl who was something like 5'10", for we rapidly overcame our qualms in that initial realization that we had the same problem of being marginalized, even if coming at it from different directions. I’m certain this only prolonged the illusion and delayed the inevitable.

A blind mountain climber (with a seeing wife, incidentally), Erik Weihenmayer, explains the corner into which those of unusual circumstances are often painted:

People's perceptions of our limitations are more damaging than those limitations themselves, and it was the hardest lesson I ever had to swallow. . . .

The AFB asked me to do some TV interviews. One was a cheesy daytime talk show, on which I was showcased among a group of blind people deemed "amazing and inspirational." . . . I was featured first, and the host opened with, "A blind mountain climber. Isn't that incredible? Even I, who can see just fine, wouldn't think of climbing a mountain." This wasn't the first time I had heard the "Even I" statement. It was always meant as a compliment, but it never failed to annoy me. There might be a dozen other factors that prevented the host from excelling in the sport of mountain climbing. She might be fifty pounds overweight, wheezing with every breath, and might never have even set foot on a mountain, but in her mind, success or failure was automatically attributed to one factor: sight or no sight. . . .

People sensationalize the lives of blind people when, often, all they did was exhibit a semblance of normalcy. . . . Each of us on the panel was being honored for our heroic tales, but the recognition spoke more loudly of low expectations than of accomplishment. . . .

I told them about my failure to get a dishwasher job in college. "Some guy told me I needed to realize my limitations. I think too many people sit around realizing their limitations when, maybe, they should spend more time realizing their potential." (Touch the Top of the World: a Blind Man's Journey to Climb Farther than the Eye Can See [New York, New York: Dutton, 2001], 128, 166-167, 181)

Society won’t budge. It won’t even temporarily step aside. This was driven home as I happened across a book in the library this month, Normal at Any Cost: Tall Girls, Short Boys, and the Medical Industry’s Quest to Manipulate Height. The inescapable reality? “In 1936, the writer Hugh Morris wrote, in The Art of Kissing, that the ‘man must be . . . taller than the woman . . . for he must give the impression of being his woman’s superior (mentally and physically)’” (5). Crowned by the premise of standing “superior” to a woman, how has this managed to dupe and fossilize our culture? Conceiving of any direct connection between height and mental capacity is staggering. As for (wo)man’s bowing before Satan’s evolutionary construct in following a quest for physical superiority, never mind that I might be braver than 75% of men and at least as difficult to kill as the top quarter. Never mind any number of factors; a pointless subconscious insistence on height for protective assurance has become an open insistence.

I’m not alone in this. Many good men—some of whom I would have thought topped the most eligible lists in almost any category—have described rejection to me on grounds little more explicable than an inch or two of height difference. How devastating, and peevish, can such an opt-out be to one’s possibilities? I return to Normal at Any Cost, page 8, for a female perspective:

By the time Shirley had finished growing, at 6'1", she was taller than 91 percent of the male population: a potential social tragedy in a culture that insisted . . . that a husband must be taller than his wife. Theoretically, that left Shirley with, at most, a pool of 9 percent of young men her age as possible mates. If she’d stopped growing at 5'9", about half the male population would have been taller.

It’s not, strictly speaking, height difference leading to society’s angst, but whether the man will be taller. It’s so bad that Hollywood has unapologetically reinforced this ideal for years. All manner of sin can be forgiven in first impressions (and on down the line), but not male dwarfism. The girl can even be “ludicrously” shorter, so long as she’s the one who’s shorter. Many a time, I’ve heard a girl say to the guy she’s with, when looking at a picture of them together, “Wow. I had no idea you were so much taller.” (I’ve contemplated testing that as deadpan humor some time.) Somehow that doesn’t happen in reverse. Such a realization also has no negative impact on their ongoing relationship, because it fits the model.

One cannot hope to tamper with the triune characteristics—having no bearing whatsoever on character—which I’ve heard many women recite as desirable: “tall, dark, and handsome.” Normal at Any Cost also points out, “Nothing dented the preference among females for a taller mate. They’d give up on the dark and handsome long before they’d compromise on the tall. . . . One social psychologist called it ‘the cardinal principle of date selection’” (111). That kind of puts me at the bottom of the totem pole. ;-)

One of the impressive few who saw through this veneer once told me, “Please don't judge me on my 5' 4" status alone. I am barely that....and I am anything but typical.” There’s a definite, special charm to any girl rare enough to be interested, yet at the same time I find something subtly confining about such rarity in the first place. I long for selection, not hopeless compulsion by elimination. I’m open enough to possibilities and the value of every soul that my feeling forced is almost evidence enough in itself for me to withdraw. Have I passed up opportunities? Perhaps.... However, given that I settled once before (with divorce being the inevitable and tragic consequence), I no longer see the point in attempts where I haven’t felt more than faintly interested. Am I truly a beggar? Regarding my failure at times to reciprocate, I’m just as worried about a girl’s happiness as my own, to say nothing of a sincere sense of mission which must be served by a merger. I’ve explained myself so often before that it feels cliche to me—and why should I have to explain myself?

Valentine's Day has significance for me, but not for any of the right reasons. In 2001, I was restraining myself from going, as profusely invited, to a girl’s party, though we’d spent a great deal of time together. I’d caught on to what a good friend depicted as her treating me like a “eunuch” in her royal court. (Hence my nearly unreasonable insistence, after years of having enough, that I can only go so long around a single woman whom I genuinely find attractive, allowing her to have all the benefits of my friendship without any of the risks of going out.) Ere long, when she interrogated me over my reticence and obtained honest expressions of how negatively she made me feel, it led to some real nastiness. In 2007, I spent this evening in company with my ex-wife, renewed only long enough for me to be reluctantly goaded—not that I’d been happy in the marriage—to sign divorce papers, though they described a conflict which had never occurred and irreconcilability which was entirely by her choice. Her eyes lit up as I unexpectedly handed her half of my funds from a retirement account she didn’t even know existed and no court order would ever have made me turn over. In the end, it seemed she’d wanted me for money, soothing words, and shelter. She, too, had called out behind her, “Nobody wants you. Nobody will ever want you.”

There’s been a composite effect in my dating life that’s left me numb and detached. I’ve heard it said that when someone beats their head against a wall long enough, the killing blow is actually the weakest. Similarly, a girl in September last year is quite possibly the last one I’ll ever “try” with. She looked upon me without seeing my soul, and dismissed me out of hand when she tired of me. I now see women, despite all magnificence of being and necessity to being, somewhat like they see me: as a dating nonentity. It seems so much better this way, where things remain (however superficially) pleasant, diplomatic, friendly (to the extent, at times, that someone is your friend who can appreciate all the same supposed potential qualities, outside the untouchable triune, as those they apply to others of the opposite sex, and yet not see you as date-worthy). I commit no crime of showing an interest, and no more women are upset with me. Frankly, neither am I upset with any of them. This way, nobody gets too close and nobody gets hurt. The room I’ve reserved for legitimate affection has no place for such wasted emotions (or time and energy).

I conclude by speaking broadly of every girl who’s ever disappointed me in the dating realm. (Appreciating the sweetness of many, but not feeling it’s a match, is an entirely different matter.) If it seems unfair to make one’s assessment dependent upon acceptance or rejection as a date, just know that sooner or later multitudes of other men and women violate such a boundary . . . with varying success at impunity. Every woman from whom I’ve relented has retained a playing field open to anyone taller, I . . . to anyone shorter. Which encompasses more opportunity? I’m not sure whom they think I should be dating, but that’s never any concern of theirs. How many shorter women have I even known in my lifetime?

I’m no respecter of persons over height. I have nothing to say either for or against it. I simply haven’t experienced the needful convergence of personally suitable spirituality, personality, and intellect among the very few eligible short women, just as I haven’t with 99.95% of the average-statured female population. The samples are too small in both cases, but I assure you the pool of religiosity in which I’m quirky enough is exponentially larger in the tall camp. Height is truly irrelevant to those factors under consideration, in any event. Only the other day, I found myself sharing a small secret with someone of one thing I carefully observe in the opposite sex, which just so happens to have no coincidence with height or appearance.

Last week, I sat in the foyer of my family ward, reflecting upon how little I belonged there or in the singles ward from which I had graduated. Feeling in limbo, I looked up at the “lost and found” table, with a sudden urge to climb atop it and see if anyone would claim me. I’m often severely misunderstood, even among friends. What hope is there that I could let loose, full throttle, in voicing my thoughts, feelings, and concerns on religion, politics, and society—and not be rejected? With regard to dating, I say as I often have: I fear no rejection, but I reject the notion that I need any longer experience it. I have the faith to move mountains, but God Himself stops moving mountains in cases where agency must come to fruition.

I can no longer imagine any morning where I’d wake up thinking, “This might be the day I meet someone to share my life with.” The promises are sure, though. There’s always eternity, the great rectifier. If that seems dark, I apologize, rather than scoffing at the shortsightedness which condemns stoicism acknowledging a better future. So many have had it so much worse over so much longer time, and proven themselves so much better. I’ll press on to the end and ask no odds of any man or woman.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Thoughts on civil disobedience

After a considerable hiatus, I break the silence to make a post that is both lengthy and easy for me...because I already produced it about a month ago. Someone asked that I do so. This is unscripted and only edited in two minor points. Were I to do it over again, no doubt I would tighten some propositions and clarify some loose ends.

From a thread at http://www.facebook.com/cboyack/posts/149834545064984, posing the question, “Are Latter-day Saints justified by God in participating in forms of civil disobedience? If so, under what circumstances?”

Copied directly from D&C 134:11: "We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded."

As President Monson has stated, "When the time for decision arrives, the time for preparation is past." While even CIVIL disobedience is not a course to lightly enter into, and we always want to proceed with as much precedent and direction as possible from the church, history and futurity both clearly establish "times of exigency" (which is more to say collapse of ethical protection than application of private situational ethics). (I often contend that while we should be so mentally prepared, such times are not upon us at present.)

The last half of the quoted verse is not the only portion providing for such, for we also perceive that laws must exist which WILL "protect the same." There is longstanding scriptural allowance for self- and family-defense to the point of shedding of blood, as--obviously--standing pat and pacific when so threatened will not leave one future opportunity of application for redress.


-------------------------------------------------------------------


Spencer, you’re right: most of human history has been a seemingly endless struggle against tyrants. (I’ve written at length about such scriptural features as the depiction of the evils of a bad government, with 1 Samuel 8; see Ether 6:22-23; compare Mosiah 11, leading to Mosiah’s repudiation of the monarchical system in chapter 29.) Section 134 is rife with reiteration of what sorts of laws God holds governments accountable to establish, in order to retain our own exact obedience. (“Divine mandate” governmental theory went out the window, rightly, centuries ago; social contract is far closer to the divine practice.) By the way, verse 5 actually reads for your statement as to insurrection: “sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly.”

My commentary has largely been in the context of present American politics and what may still be salvaged as a divinely inspired system of government. The problem outlined by most early Church leaders was the corrupt administrators of our constitutional government. In this respect, there is much midlevel legislation and perceived legislation still in flux, with plenty of wriggle room for vocal dissent. (Rabble-rousers might jump more immediately to stronger forms, when, as a lazy and apathetic, yet angry, people, we have hardly begun to express our disapproval by conventional routes.) For instance, I often attempt to point out to people that there are more public forum rights for religious expression on the books than we are often led to believe by those around us. The optimal form of dissent would be to find (D&C 98:10) ways to uphold good, honest, wise men in office, and send the rest packing.

What I can’t ever abide in interpretations COUNTER to the possibility of disapproval leading through stages of dissent to open disobedience, is the stance assumed by some—which is well opposed in Connor’s 12th A of F link above--that subjection to “the powers that be” means we would automatically incur God’s disapproval if we ever stepped out of line with any mandate from earthly government. (People unable to draw such lines offer delightful fodder for totalitarian regimes, and often end up assisting them in their deeds.) I've laughingly pointed out that many Latter-day Saints have, in their theological confusion, sought to undermine the basis for our own Revolution (or any revolution throughout all time against oppressive and/or bloodthirsty rulers), which was nonetheless approved by God.

It is naive for some to assume that obedience to God cannot require sacrifice from some other sector, that there will never be a day of irreconcilable parting between God and mammon. Still, I always put forward my own hesitance to declare the day of reckoning over matters, frighteningly eroded though our principled country may have become. Later on today, I’ll have access to President Benson’s actual teachings and counsel, but it’s sufficient at the moment to report Elder Oaks’ disbelief (http://lds.org/ensign/1994/10/our-strengths-can-become-our-downfall?lang=eng) that people could use him to justify tax evasion.

“When the wicked rule the people mourn” (D&C 98:9, an echo of Proverbs 29:2). This causes nearly daily tension between obedience to God and that to man. While we must honestly evaluate the extent to which we can turn the other cheek and bear patiently under suffering, particularly while attempting every legal recourse, and at which point it becomes unacceptable to do so any longer, there should be no question as to who claims the greater allegiance. I borrow from Acts 5:27-29, 40-42 (actually spoken by a corrupt, yet subservient and cringing, puppet government of another): “And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. . . . And when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.”


-------------------------------------------------------------------


My prior honesty could get me in trouble, because I do believe in the theoretical/eventual possibility of disobedience (which must, to be proper, if effected, begin as civilly as permissible). When someone adversarily asked the wrong question about polygamy, “Can a Latter-day Saint be a true member of the Church and in good standing, who flatly denies the divinity and authenticity of the revelation on plural marriage?,” Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency replied coolly, “No one can be counted a true Latter-day Saint who flatly denies the divinity of a revelation accepted as divine by the Church.” (It’s not like we were just off our rocker for a few years, or conducted a failed social experiment. Any thinking Christian should realize it will have to exist in heaven if loved ones in unusual circumstances are to have just opportunity to be together, though plenty of questions remain as to the scope.) The important feature here would be type and timing of “obedience.” (I cite your minds forward to the 7th and 8th paragraphs.)

One will search in vain among President Benson’s words for counsel encouraging rebellion. In this instance, perusal for common justifications of tax evasion yields nothing more than some remarks about certain uses of our taxes being for unconstitutional purposes. He didn’t seem to think this incursion on the sacred constituted a right to revolt. Even prophets deserve the right to subtly vent their spleen, without unstable individuals inferring an improper course of action therefrom (such as with Mountain Meadows). To use a lame example, I seem to recall that in the movie Christmas Vacation, Cousin Eddie went all out and kidnaped Clark’s boss based off some complaints. Speak of inappropriate application of resources! I concur with John’s earlier statement about the use of extremes to justify (means of approach to) minor issues.

Truth be told, we are surrounded by unconstitutionalities. While this is a sobering call to action, President Benson only seemed to advocate greater participation in due processes, not intervention or secession. (One of his common phrases was to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.) My above link to Elder Oaks’ commentary on this very thing talks about those who use a few words to “support their political agenda or other personal purposes,” “ignor[ing] the contrary implications of other prophetic words, or even the clear example of the prophet’s own actions.” In President Benson’s own words, “The expression ‘follow the Brethren’ has a broader meaning than some would apply to it. It means not only to agree with the counsel given to the Church by the Brethren, but also to follow their example in appearance and deportment.” It appears to me, from their words and works, that the injunction to befriend constitutional law does not contain an automatic adjunct to defy unconstitutional law. Were it so, President Benson would have spent his final years in prison, leading out by example.

Joseph Smith was no stranger to the courts, but he was always hauled there on charges not of his own doing. Regarding such vexatious suits, Brigham reported, “I know for myself that Joseph Smith was the subject of forty-eight law-suits, and the most of them I witnessed with my own eyes; but not one action could ever be made to bear against him. No law or constitutional right did he ever violate. He was innocent and virtuous; he kept the law of his country, and lived above it; out of forty-eight law suits, (and I was with him in the most of them), not one charge could be substantiated against him. He was pure, just, and holy, as to the keeping of the law.” (Hedges and Holzapfel recently upped the number to “more than two hundred legal cases.”) In the final conclusion, his foes, who often acknowledged to one Saint or another that they knew he was guilty of nothing under the laws of the country, determined to reach him by ball and powder where the law couldn’t touch him.

In the same Conference address as he used the quotation given by Steven, President McKay was speaking mainly in the context of American liberties for “an ideal society” in a world such as East German communism. He spoke of standing for inalienable rights, not grumbling over inconveniences. After alluding to property rights as being subject to “consent of the people,” he made the curious statement that “the right of property consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all acquisitions, without control or diminution save by the laws of the land.” It was definitely no fiery call to arms. In the October 1967 Conference, President McKay quoted directly and at length from a diatribe specifically against ongoing “civil disobedience” in the land, wrapping up with a request that we remember to be “united as a country,” rather than inducing “contention and confusion.”

It’s well for us to take note of which liberties are being abridged, that we may press for repeal via acceptable methods, but it’s important to remember that we are more effective when assertively responsible than when simply standing on rights. The church’s default position is clearly that of obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law (with no obvious qualification inserted). Elder Quentin L. Cook said of our society, “Individual rights are demanded, but duties, responsibilities, and obligations are neglected.” The right to bear arms, for example, doesn’t confer a necessity to stockpile them. It is certainly hoped that there will be intelligent consideration of ethical usage thereof. The right exists to meet potential needs, not to create them. Indeed, America is still wonderful precisely because I couldn’t possibly have the time to select more than a few of the paths afforded me by my rights.

As for polygamy, while it’s true that plural marriages continued to be contracted after laws were passed, such laws were shockingly biased attempts to be retroactively punitive against men who sorrowed to be disenfranchised and refused to break up their families. This was no garden variety offense—if you will forgive the pun, still working in our overall discussion. Many in later years (i.e., post-Manifesto) ought to have been tried for their membership, for the disparity between law of God and law of man was once again removed. President Joseph F. Smith had to boldly remind members in Conference that, as the one who held the keys on this earth, he forbade any new plural marriages from being entered into, whatever skulking individuals might be performing.

On such matters as these, speaking of revelation adapted to circumstances, let’s consider Joseph Smith’s teaching: “Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” By that token, it seems that of preeminent value for this matter, or any other, under consideration would be having God’s word at the moment. President Packer has remarked several times that there are fundamental beliefs built into who we are as Latter-day Saints, such that on many issues of the day we shouldn’t even have to ask what the Church’s position is. (He gives us credit for being attuned to the Spirit, the mind of Christ which brings unity in doctrine and principle. Once upon a time, I gaped at a young woman’s demands that I demonstrate from Church teachings that it is of first preference, and I wasn’t claiming by command or irremediable decree, that mothers be able to stay at home with their children—and, on another occasion, that she should tithe on a gift given her from a relative by check—simply thinking to myself, “Where is it NOT taught?”) Might it be that we are groping to find a doctrine for civil disobedience because there ISN’T one? An absence of any defined impetus is suggestive of the fact that something has not been commanded, and bringing fragments to bear is little more than wresting scripture. “Civil” disobedience, attractive at first sight, is in actuality striving to put a palatable adjective on an unsavory concept.

Latter-day Saints, as represented to us by our leaders over the years, have a well-deserved and needful reputation for being among the most law-abiding citizens that our country could possibly call upon. I’m not sure how far I could trust individuals who think to improve the law by flouting it, to protest, as it were, the direction a valiant steed is traveling by shooting it. It is also something like hammering away at a dam’s foundation in efforts to irrigate a field. That will introduce enough trouble to cause us to forget our original concern! If we want to tap into the vast, dormant American polity, we should stir the surface or open up designated channels. Extreme examples? It is also extreme to leap to disobedient action where so many other options are still available. President McKay taught that we, individually, each one of us, the people, make up “the vote” in America.

Civil disobedience, if nothing else, isn’t viable because it is too volatile. Here I shall rest my case on some of President Faust’s remarks in 1995 (in both THE SPIRIT OF AMERICA, 130-131 and IN THE STRENGTH OF THE LORD, 276): “Civil disobedience has become fashionable for a few with strongly held political agendas. Even when causes are meritorious, if civil disobedience were to be practiced by everyone with a cause our democracy would unravel and be destroyed. Civil disobedience is an abuse of political process in a democracy. . . . When we disagree with a law, rather than resort to civil disobedience or violence we are obliged to exercise our right to seek to repeal or change by peaceful and lawful means. There is a growing mistrust and distrust for all forms of government and authority. We claim the right to do what we want, but we are often slow to face up to our duty as citizens in a free land. Many of the rising generation have paid little price beyond that of paying taxes for the blessings we enjoy in this country.”

That would be my caveat: there must first be ample breakdown in all authority that our government ceases to exist as such, closer to D&C 134:6's “anarchy and terror.” One’s back must be to the wall, with no escape or possible way to maintain one’s character, with evil pervading all levels and commissioned with essentially every act. In my humble opinion, to override the peaceable default position, it must first become a crime to remain obedient to appointed authority. Disobedience shouldn’t just be a good way to make a point, but become a moral imperative “in the course of human events.” We are still so much closer to the democratic (republican, by whatever name to describe the unique) end of the model than the tyrannical that speaking of revolt as a mode of organizing a grassroots awakening to constitutional principle is like Elder Maxwell’s quip, “pulling up the daisies to see how the roots are doing!” We might be seeing “a long train of abuses and usurpations,” but it is as yet nothing comparable to former circumstances. King George had been unresponsive—aside from increasing pressure—to all attempts at rectifying the situation as it became increasingly “intolerable.” It is important to note that Rosa Parks actually had predecessors who successfully proved to the Supreme Court’s satisfaction that there were problems with the constitutionality of various state laws.

Using D&C 58:20-22, President Lee warned in October 1972 about some even affecting “weak and unwary among Church members,” “who are taking the law into their own hands by refusing to pay their income tax because they have some political disagreement with constituted authorities. Others have tried to marshal civilians, without police authority, and to arm themselves to battle against possible dangers, little realizing that in so doing they themselves become the ones who, by obstructing the constituted authority, would become subject to arrest and imprisonment.”

So I would caution against “strain[ing] at a gnat, and swallow[ing] a camel” (Matthew 23:24, JST; see also James 2:10, as these verses have a delightful use of the concept of “law). This is the very passage which President Kimball used to denounce false applications of “budding apostates” between what they can supposedly glean from dead prophets and set against “present programs,” advancing to the point where they challenge the direction of Church leaders. Also from President Benson: “We sometimes look among our numbers to find one to whom we can point who agrees with us, so we can have company to justify our apostasy. We rationalize by saying that someday the Church doctrine will catch up with our way of thinking.” It’s a bizarre theological premise to think it laudable simply to do things of our own will which don’t actually “bring to pass much righteousness,” and which, though operating in a realm where nothing has been commanded, make havoc of that which already has been.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m very frustrated by current trends in the American political process. I think many of our elected officials forget both that they were elected and even in which nation they stand as representatives. If anyone has a tempestuous temperament, it’s me, yet I remain mindful of George Q. Cannon’s counsel that “it is not an evidence of true courage to be willing to rush into a fight. Sometimes the bravest of people shrink from any such action as this; when the time comes to fight, however, they are the bravest, and the slowest to yield.” (As Joseph warned, troublesome times will be sad enough when they come that we need not wish their hastening.) Still, I delight in pondering another of Penrose’s statements: “Back in London we had an old veteran of the army who was a member of the Church; he was ordained a priest, and used to go out and preach on the street. One Sunday he was preaching and a man came up and slapped him in the face. ‘Now,’ he cried, ‘if you are a Christian, turn the other cheek.’ So he turned it, but exclaimed, extending his clenched fist, ‘Hit again and down you go.’”

The light of Christ (human conscience) bears witness when fundamental laws universal to humanity are broken. Police beatings would be one such example. By contrast, mounds of pointless paperwork or spiraling costs seem trivial. By the way, Connor, Huebener is one of my heroes. My mother as much as told me after we watched a documentary on him that she would expect no less from how she raised me, after I expressed my admiration for his clear conscience in writing a final letter to his own mother. I have taken issue with the mentality which led many church members to become Nazi collaborators. Just as I did with Valkyrie’s characters’ recollection of the righteous few possibly saving entire cities, I took comfort from the Winter 2010 BYU Magazine’s refreshing article about German Saints who resisted as they were able, with one woman declaring, “I did enough things in contradiction to Hitler’s instructions that they should have shot me fifty times.” Speaking once of the Holocaust with a coworker of no inconsiderable moral ambivalence, I could get nothing more committal than his allegation that “no one knows how we might have acted.” I wanted to cry out, “Come on, man! At least say you HOPE you would have done something.” I’m certain that I would have had a short life expectancy in the Third Reich, as I could never stand by silently.

I’ve been known to use two groups of ancestors as examples of appropriate responses to political pressures, in different climates. Both found sanctuary in America and would marvel at what we consider oppressive by today’s standards. The first (http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?action=read&artid=561), driven from Catholic Salzburg in 1731 for their beliefs, were given one and only one option: convert, or remain as they were but dispossessed of all property and forced into exile. Their Lutheran tenets—slightly simpering, I confess—about near-total submission to ruling powers had their origin in Luther’s disgustedly trying to rein in excesses (like the French Revolution in nature) from a reactionary peasant revolt. Yet even Luther wrote, “We recognize the authority, but we must rebuke our Pilates in their crime and self-confidence.” Many of the early Protestant leaders struck upon a great deal of truth in trying the virtue of the word before that of the sword, allowing speech to precede act, and charitable, positive act to precede outright rebellion.

My threefold forebear, Charles Lapierre (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Charles-Lapierre/123161644402212?v=info), and his father-in-law’s family (link within the preceding), were thorns in the side of the king of France, in a deservedly active state of rebellion. One must recall that their right of assembly was entirely revoked. Indeed, troops often fired on them when located, leaving dozens or hundreds at a time wounded and dying. Their right to bear arms was nonexistent, for the king knew innately that those times permitted the use of arms against him. One cannot say too much about the peril in which they and their families lived. But among the worst of all grievances, in that time or any other, was the proscription/prescription of religious belief. Brousson, a compatriot, wrote many times in many ways to the king, right up to the time of his execution, begging him to alter his laws in restoration of human liberties, also remonstrating that the Savior had asked His followers to assemble but the king of France disallowed it.

While I derive much that is positive from my forebears, I also learn from their mistakes. Being of entirely Confederate composition, let me just say there was an extraordinary lack of wisdom in their “nation” asserting its technical rights so assiduously in the face of other concerns. I bear some sympathy for their waiting until after losing yet another election, with little promise of having the ear of national leaders. They should serve as a haunting reminder that no sizeable political bloc can be entirely alienated. (No matter what paltry arguments to the contrary have been adduced, I feel that Joseph Smith gave the correct solution to the slavery problem, via completely calm, legal means.) States’ rights are fading as a relevant issue in our collective memory because of substantial federal encroachment.

There may presently be isolated and passing instances requiring a bold stance which is incidentally “disobedient,” primarily in a cultural setting, but I know of no prolonged requirement for it in the America of today. Inalienable rights must be at stake, not merely annoyed or even threatened. Thankfully, Jesus’ example was fairly direct in not overthrowing authority until His second coming, so that Pilate could find no fault in Him while false religious zeal despised His refusal to seize political power. (It’s wholly beyond my ability to describe here how the kingdom of God is filling the whole earth with constitutional principles, supported but not dominated by our church’s direction. Elder Oaks and others have shown how prevalent is adoption, at least in part, of our form of government.) Jesus was very clear on the payment of taxes. Regarding that incident, Muggeridge has stated, “The cleverness of that reply was of course that it didn't specify exactly how much was due to Caesar and how much to God. He left us to work that out, and it's possible, as I have discovered in the course of my long life, to whittle down what's due to Caesar in favour of what’s due to God.” At any rate, there’s no warrant for deliberately fomenting conflict where none exists and all purposes may still be served. I’ve already explained some of my belief with regard to true times of exigency, when time and circumstances would likely permit neither recourse to the law nor consultation with church authority.


-------------------------------------------------------------------



I tried to anticipate some of the continuing objections posted after my comments. A careful reading will show a surprising amount of ground was covered. I don’t lack courage or moral conviction, or probable agreement with much of the disheartenment; I differ in conviction as to proposed methods. I’m just pleading that we channel all this energy for social change into constructive measures.

Without so much as commenting on the rightness or wrongness of the civil rights movement, it emerges that the Church has clearly enough demonstrated that strategy is not presently for us. (Many acts committed during the course of that movement would never stand approved.) I concede the possibility that’s because we have not dwelt in equivalent circumstances. We demean the valid past grievances of African-Americans in equating petty causes to theirs. It’s fatuous to make every matter of our daily lives a religious article to die for, when there are enough of a genuine stamp that might present the opportunity. May we have an awareness of general authority iteration that, though true martyrdom always involves a voluntary phase, it isn’t appropriately arrived at by choosing to go out of our way to take up a cross. I would challenge others to consider Will’s conditions, in conjunction, and be quite certain of their commitment. He also started to put his finger on the underlying motives for us. We may encourage the wrong sort of inspiration if embarking on revolt simply because we want it badly. Even that which might otherwise be noble or commendable sours when done at the wrong time (or over the wrong issue).

Examples continue to abound where freedom of religion or of speech were tangibly and permanently abrogated, reasonable answers to the posed question as to whether Latter-day Saints are EVER justified (in disobedience, “civil” or otherwise). I continue to stand on an insistence that criteria for living in “times of exigency” have not been met. Even so, one example given here, wherein Daniel was apprehended for praying when decree had been made against such worship, has a seeming counterexample (Mosiah 24:11-12), where those who prayed in their hearts instead were still found faith-filled and worthy of communication with the Lord and deliverance from bondage. Whether the difference was one of individual as opposed to disruptive group disobedience where the lines still hadn’t been broken with heaven, that Daniel was simply in a position to at least believe he could do so discreetly, a more immediate threat of guaranteed death where service to God could still be given without incurring it, or something else I haven’t considered, I don’t know, I’m just putting this on the table. Seeing as one of my Facebook likes is “Dare to be a Daniel” (closest thing to “Dare to be a Mormon”), I suppose my preferred reaction in that situation is apparent. President Kimball said, “Was there any question what he should do? He could save his life by abandoning his prayers to the Living God. What was he to do? A man of integrity could not fail. Daniel was the soul of integrity.” We do find that the entrapment of Daniel’s situation was set on account of his being so virtuous that only “concerning the law of his God” could they ever hope to find occasion against him. Similarly, the edict was made under a proposition so unalterable that the king himself regretted it. Right there, we see there was no avenue for repeal or redress, whereas perhaps those subjugated by Amulon felt no perjury in less preferred, but full, obedience to the law of God while giving basic adherence to something that might stand a chance of being altered. God provided the way of escape.

President Lee taught that what “comes from the authority of the Church” may “take patience and faith,” and “it may contradict your political views,” and so forth. Apostasy in premature pushes for resistance is but one step removed from criticizing our Church leaders, in that it pretends to praise their evident lack of lent support to one’s cause of choice, while persisting therein. Elder Cook has also taught, “Some who are not authorized want to speak for the Brethren and imply that their message contains the ‘meat’ the Brethren would teach if they were not constrained to teach only the ‘milk.’ Others want to counsel the Brethren and are critical of all teachings that do not comply with their version of what should be taught. . . . We are looking beyond the mark when we elevate any one principle, no matter how worthwhile it may be, to a prominence that lessens our commitment to other equally important principles or when we take a position that is contrary to the teachings of the Brethren.” To put an end to a specious belief in a sort of convenient “doublespeak” among the Brethren, as well as to lessen the severity of Steven’s suggested civil disobedience time frame for polygamy (40 years), I turn to the First Presidency’s “Address to the World,” adopted in the April 1907 Conference:

“Deceit and fraud in the perpetuation of any religion must end in failure. A system of religion, ethics, or philosophy, to attract and hold the attention of men, must be sincere in doctrine and honest in propaganda. That the Church employs deceptive methods; that she has one doctrine for the Priesthood and another for the people; that she teaches one set of principles to her members in Zion, and another to the world, is not true. Enlightened investigation is the very means through which the Church hopes to promote belief in her principles, and extend the beneficent influence of her institutions. . . .

“If patriotism and loyalty are qualities manifested in times of peace, by just, temperate, benevolent, industrious and virtuous living; in times of trial, by patience, resistance only by lawful means to real or fancied wrongs, and by final submission to the laws of the land, though involving distress and sorrow; and in time of war, by willingness to fight the battle of the nation,—then, unquestionably, are the ‘Mormon’ people patriotic and loyal.

“The only conduct seemingly inconsistent with our professions as loyal citizens, is that involved in our attitude during the controversies that have arisen respecting plural marriage. This practice was introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, at Nauvoo, Illinois. The practice was continued in Utah, and published to the world as a doctrine of the Church in 1852. In the face of these facts, Brigham Young, whose position in the matter was well known, was twice appointed with the consent of the Senate, first by President Fillmore, and afterwards by President Pierce, to be the governor of this territory. It was not until 1862 that Congress enacted a law forbidding plural marriage. This law the Latter-day Saints conscientiously disregarded, in their observance of a principle sanctioned by their religion. Moreover, they believed the enactment to be violative of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Notwithstanding this attitude and conduct on the part of our people, no decision of the Supreme Court upon this question was secured until 1878, more than thirty years after the settlement of Utah; nor were determined efforts made to enforce the law until a further period of five or six years had elapsed. Surely this toleration, under which the practice of plural marriage became established, binds the United States and its people, if indeed they are not bound by considerations of mercy and wisdom, to the exercise of patience and charity in dealing with this question.”

I stress that we cannot afford to resort to stripping prophetic utterance out of context, for personal gain. The Joseph F. Smith quote which Steven used unwittingly omits its proper source, leading one to believe it is joined to remarks from the April 1917 Conference (a decade after the above excerpt). In fact, the source text is contained in the Journal of Discourses, and arose during the April 1882 Conference, at the very height of the days of polygamic persecution. One of the dangers inherent to using the Journal thus has been too broad an interpretation/application of features applicable only while the practice of polygamy was permissible, and many references to constitutionality flew directly at this issue. If someone wishes to seriously establish a sure foundation of doctrine on such a matter as this, they will need to produce equally fervent sentiments from outside of that time period, with obvious pertinence to present-day societal quagmires. In assessing whether it’s acceptable for Latter-day Saints to engage in the practice, one would need to see a legitimate quotation emphasizing that civil disobedience is a great idea. It would have to offset a mounting body of evidence in opposition. (I have sought to show the reader foundational reasons why defense of polygamy was a far more drastic “right” than nearly all forms of protest issued today. President Smith spoke strongly in that vein, in the same April 1917 Conference: “I want to tell you just once more, and would tell it before all the world if I could, that I believe with all my heart, that if any man ought to be damned in this world, it is the man that will abandon the mother of his children. We do not do it, we will not do it, the Lord Almighty helping us not to do it.”)

I’m quite accepting of former-day statements where they can be shown to harmonize with latter-day preaching and practice. But one must be persuasive, and perceptive, and bring all the light, truth, and evidence to bear that is possible within human reason. I’ll continue to utilize Joseph F. Smith’s ministry, to expand a consistent view. Now, if we turn the page in Gospel Doctrine: Selections from the Sermons and Writings of Joseph F. Smith, to 408, we find this sentiment from April 1912, long post-Manifesto, speaking of the Constitution and American liberties: “We cannot go back upon such principles as these. We may go back upon those who fail to execute the law as they should. We may be dissatisfied with the decision of judges and may desire to have them removed out of their places. But the law provides ways and means for all these things to be done under the constitution of our country, and it is better for us to abide the evils that we have than to fly to greater evils that we know not what the results will be.”

Elder Talmage bound it more tightly than I have often considered, in ARTICLES OF FAITH, 422-424. As he wasn’t even a member of the First Presidency, I’m not suggesting all ramifications of his text are terribly binding, or more than informative, in nature, but what he says certainly joins a growing motif of uniform opposition to civil disobedience in our writ. I promise that I have not knowingly overlooked unfavorable quotations; I simply haven’t recalled or encountered them. I’m not on here to “please” myself or others, only to make a solid start at getting to the bottom of the truth.

From Elder Talmage, after referring to the passage about “befriending” constitutional law: “A question has many times been asked of the Church and of its individual members, to this effect: In the case of a conflict between the requirements made by the revealed word of God, and those imposed by the secular law, which of these authorities would the members of the Church be bound to obey? In answer, the words of Christ may be applied—it is the duty of the people to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. . . . In this day of comparative enlightenment and freedom there is small cause for expecting any direct interference with the rights of private worship and individual devotion; in all civilized nations the people are accorded the right to pray, and this right is assured by what may be properly called a common law of humankind. . . . Pending the overruling by Providence in favor of religious liberty, it is the duty of saints to submit themselves to the laws of their country. Nevertheless, they should use every proper method, as citizens or subjects of their several governments, to secure for themselves and for all men the boon of freedom in religious service. It is not required of them to suffer without protest imposition by lawless persecutors, or through the operation of unjust laws; but their protests should be offered in legal and proper order. The saints have practically demonstrated their acceptance of the doctrine that it is better to suffer evil than to do wrong by purely human opposition to unjust authority. And if by thus submitting themselves to the laws of the land, in the event of such laws being unjust and subversive of human freedom, the people be prevented from doing the work appointed them of God, they are not to be held accountable for the failure to act under the higher law. The word of the Lord has defined the position and duty of the people in such a contingency: [D&C 124:49, 50.]”

Next to nothing is truly “commanded” in life, per se, so in arriving at decisions we must evaluate all available counsel from God, study it out in our mind and heart, and try not to counsel Him. Plainly put, Church leadership would look with a very scrutinizing, steady eye, thinking long and hard, before putting anyone in a position of trust who had deliberately built a criminal record. If I have a “wait and see” attitude on civil disobedience, it is because we have years more of decline before I feel we’d see an alteration in affairs requiring such drastic measures. Are we making our lives of maximum benefit to humanity? Are we ever blinded to our true potential in a rage to dismantle a hated structure? To deluge society with acts which, as President Faust illustrated, would overwhelm our nation if everyone adopted such a form of dissent, is an attitude of entitlement. What’s to stop anyone and everyone from splintering the Constitution to tiny threads by pursuing their own desires in like manner? I think it detracts from the intended message, prattling, “I reject democratic discourse. I’m not budging until things are done my way.” We ought to be steadfast and immovable in good works and righteousness, and when others push upon us, not in a willful, bristling, obstructive way. I’m sorry, but in reviewing the lessons of history, I find that, even where rather immoral and at times downright wicked, our leadership so far have been no more than wannabe tyrants. Talk to me again in ten years and that might be a different story.

President Packer’s noted a growing tendency to elevate individual rights over the benefit of the community. Robert Bork wrote, “The unqualified language of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, reflected in the continual expansion of individual rights by the judiciary, feed our national obsession about ‘rights.’ That obsession, as Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon has pointed out, impoverishes cultural, political, and judicial discourse. There is no more sterile form of ‘argument’ than the bald assertion of rights.” I’ve similarly observed many times, in theological disagreement, that the buzzword “agency” tends to be among the last feeble cries of an otherwise lost dissertation. There’s a powerful appeal to appealing to the powerful doctrine. Yes, we know you can do as you please. We want to know why you passionately believe your rights should be so employed, and why this should sway us toward the same end.

The Spirit as an overruler of other considerations may be a highly valid card to play, but it’s as poor a persuasive argument—in standalone capacity—as it is a good rule for life (where the immature, inexperienced, and deluded don’t mistake its impressions, for we know what Joseph Smith said about the danger of those who only think they’re acting under its influence). It is especially deficient in hypothetical theorization. What I want to know is whether members are getting genuine promptings of such fierceness to set themselves against established, settled procedure in our church’s interaction with this, the best of all human governments. If so, they’re receiving more than I am, in a field beyond what has been taught. Of course Heavenly Father could command anything, yet there’s an eagerness for authorization of a predetermined course here which gives me serious pause.

1 Nephi 10:20 IS highly applicable! I once had occasion to summarize it thus: “A common misconception has it that we may push the line and the Holy Ghost will warn us before we’ve gone too far. An official definition of sin is to act contrary to one’s knowledge. Therefore, as Latter-day Saints, how can we expect ministrations of the Spirit if we consciously enter a questionable situation? Instead, truth be told, reception of the Holy Ghost and heeding its warnings will remove all desire to ever go near there. If we allow carnal considerations to override our indoctrination in correct principles, there will likely not be confirmation from the Spirit of any sort.” If an unexpected suggestion is required, the Spirit will offer it to the mind opened and prepared by obedience. Much more recently, I wrote, “We must not rush headlong down our own paths. Sometimes we are prone to such reliance on the advance warning system of the Holy Ghost that we act as though we are daring Heavenly Father to stop us. . . . Do we realize that . . . God’s respect for our agency is so great that we become our own judges and condemners? As ‘subjects to follow after [our] own will,’ we are enticed on one hand by the devil and on the other by the Spirit. To which side will we list, or yield? It is the Holy Ghost’s office to bear record of truth, not to enforce it. Ironically, while it is the Holy Ghost which gives us authority to utter the will of heaven, we ‘must exercise [our] agency to authorize the Spirit to teach [us].’” (Extensive documentary endnotes available upon request.)