I was asked to give a talk (actually, I asked) on missionary work and its importance in my ward this Sunday, sort of in lieu of a farewell. I'm going to miss this ward, I think. It's been my ward for a year and a half and it's really been my ward. It's felt more like home than my home ward. As much as I love the Greenhill Ward, the 6th Ward is where I've belonged. But now it's time to move on.
I've written here more-or-less what my talk will be. I guess this is a SPOILER ALERT! Just kidding.
But seriously, I don't actually know much about missionary work. I'm a ward missionary and through that and just being vocal and open about my beliefs I've had lots of experiences, but I can't really say that I have a testimony of missionary work or even that I really know how to be a missionary. But I know a little about how to be a friend and a little more about how to be a good person. Maybe that's just what being a missionary is: being a friend and a good person and ready and willing to talk about what I believe.
My reference scripture is Luke 22:32 and I'm going to add verse 31 to that. For context, this is Jesus talking to Peter at the Last Supper, after the Sacrament. "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."
This is my thesis for this talk: When we find our own solid foundation in Christ, we find our purpose, our ability and our means to reach out to others.
I don't remember who said this, but it's a good mantra, I think, for how missionary work can be done: "Preach the Gospel first, the Church second." For the purposes of this talk (blog post), "Gospel" refers to principles such as Service, Tolerance, Faith and especially Love while the term "the Church" refers to the organization, the ordinances and the doctrines of our religion.
So this is what I mean by "Preach the Gospel first, the Church second." For member-missionaries, we should love our neighbors and do what we can to help them and, when necessary and appropriate, give them words of spiritual and emotional encouragement without thought of consequence, reciprocation or possible conversion. This is one thing that I've learned about friendship: a friend with an agenda is not a friend. Be honest, be bold, but don't look for friends with the express purpose of converting them. That's bad friendship and good missionary work cannot be based off of bad friendship.
However, if you feel the time is right, please do mention the Church or give a friend a Book of Mormon. Just don't make that the reason to be someone's friend.
The best and only way to effectively preach the gospel is to live it, and not just by aiming to set a good example. An integral part of living the gospel is lifting others. D&C 81:5 states: "Wherefore, be faithful; stand in the office which I have appointed unto you; succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees." James 2:14-17 says: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."
I'm not saying that you need to bring a meal with you when you want to talk to a friend about the Gospel and the Church, although that might be appreciated. I am saying that we must actively love and serve other people before we try to introduce them to the Church. Preach the Gospel first, the Church second.
I've shared this before, but it's a good story, so here it goes again.
The deacons in my ward were always kind of goofy. My ward was full of engineers at Micron and Hewlett-Packard, and their sons often took after them. There were at least two cases of autism in the deacons' quorum. Sometimes deacons' hair was disheveled or sticking up at odd angles. Their clothes were usually mismatched and not really fitting. Some were really tall, some were really short. They were what I think a lot of deacons' quorums across the Church are.
I went to another ward once for a mission farewell, and their deacons' quorum was the diametric opposite of what ours was. They wore tailored two-piece suits, their hair was combed nicely. They were all pretty athletic and skinny and all of a uniform height, except one. He was taller and wider than the others and had Down's Syndrome. While the others passed the sacrament calmly and completely stoic, the boy with Down's Syndrome passed it with a big smile on his face, saying "hi" and waving to the people he passed and playing with their children.
I sat watching him and the thought occurred to me, that this was exactly how Jesus would pass the sacrament. Yes, we should be reverent while passing the sacrament. But we should also keep in mind who we're representing. I don't think for one second that Jesus would do anything stoney-faced, except maybe when facing his accusers.
I'm not saying that we should play with and tickle the people we pass the sacrament to. That would probably not be appreciated. However, we should smile, and we should at least try to feel some love for the people we serve. This same smiling attitude of service belongs in missionary work.
Love and service are sacraments. They are holy ordinances intended to bring us closer together and bring us closer to God. What's more, they are the essence of missionary work as well as its prerequisite. Once we learn how to love and serve, we can then begin the process of lifting others. However, we learn to love and serve by lifting others. It's like a vicious cycle, except it's not vicious, it's happy. It's a happy cycle. That is friendship and what I suppose missionary work is. We don't have to once mention Jesus or God or the Restoration without showing everybody what they're all about. If it wasn't clear before, that's what "Preach the Gospel first" means.
However, we must also preach the Church.
If you are not, you are not living in full fidelity of your covenants. When you were baptized, you promised among other things to "bear others' burdens that they may be light, mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort" but also to "stand as a witness of God at all times and in all things and in all places." Loving and serving one another is necessary and vital to missionary work. But we also need to be vocal and open about our beliefs. That is not to say that we have to be obnoxious. We don't have to picket funerals and marriages to believe that marriage is best done between a woman and a man in the temple. We also don't have to display our beliefs from a sign on our forehead or tattoo them on our bodies. We don't have to have a cross on our steeples or around our necks to believe in Christ.
My best missionary experiences have not been the ones where I sat down with someone to teach them the lessons. Actually, I've never done that. What I have done is been open and honest that I am a Mormon and that I do believe in the Church's teachings. Questions will come, and it's our duty to be open and honest. We might not ever convince someone that what we say is true. I don't think I've ever convinced someone. But I have had discussions that helped someone realize that we're not crazy.
There are a lot of misconceptions out there. It's our duty, particularly those on campus every day, to put an end to them. We are not a crazed polygamous cult with magic underwear, but there are people that think we are. It's our opportunity and responsibility to firmly, clearly and non-violently explain to them that we're not. We might help one or two people to baptism, but for the rest, we've done our duty to make the world a more honest place.
However, we can only do this if our beliefs our strong. You can't have a halfway testimony and testify with power. "When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." This does not mean that you have to have a perfect understanding of everything of the gospel. Sometimes (or more often than sometimes) we have to be willing to say like Nephi said to the Spirit of the Lord in 1 Nephi 11:17: "I know that [God] loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things." I know that God lives and loves me and you, but I don't know everything. I know the Church is true, but I don't know much about Mountain Meadows Massacre, or I don't know how to answer your question about blacks and the priesthood, or any other hard question that will crop up. You just have to be prepared to stand on your own two feet and say what you know to be true. If you know it, then say you know it. If you only just believe it, then say you believe it. But don't say you know it until you feel in your heart that you do truly know it, which might actually happen when you're speaking.
The prophet Joseph Smith said: "After all that has been said, our greatest and most important duty is to preach the gospel." And: "A man who is full of the love of God is not content with blessing his family only, but ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the whole human race." We don't all have to travel to another country to seek to bless everyone. There's plenty to do in Boise, Idaho. We also don't all have to place X amounts of Book of Mormons every month or invite X amount of people Family Home Evening. What we do have to do is honestly try love the people we know, serve them and be a friend without an agenda, both inside and outside the Church. If the time is right or someone has a question, don't be afraid to give an answer or share what you know. That's what I mean by "Preach the Gospel first, the Church second." Everyone here believes or knows something about God and the Restoration. That's why you're here. Go and share that something with someone that doesn't know but maybe wants to know or believe. That's what Jesus meant by "when thou art converted, strengthen they brethren."
Going back to Luke 22:31-32, allow me to give the maybe semi-heretical Peter Taylor Translation of those verses:
Simon, Simon, Satan knows that it's bad news for him for you to be out doing good. He also knows that you have weaknesses and he knows exactly what they are, so he's targeted you there and has been trying to get you to fall for a long time, since forever. He knows that you're going to be in his way if you're strong and firm in the gospel. He's done everything in his power to get you to remember what you've done that was stupid and wrong and make you feel bad and also to get you to forget that you are a Child of God and that you have immense power to do good. The closer you've gotten to this point, the harder he's tried to trick you and sap your will to carry on. I've prayed for you and worked with you, Simon, that you would remember who you are and what you can do. I've prayed that you will have your Heavenly Parents' help in standing strong and being what you know you can be. You are awesome, Simon, and you've done pretty well so far. But now it's your turn to go around and lift others. You're not perfect yet, but you don't have to wait for that to start being a perfect friend. So go, Simon, and help other people figure out that they are Children of God and given the same power to be a force for good in the world. This is your calling: do good.
Can I get an "Amen!?"
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Thursday, March 20, 2014
First Day of Spring
Now is a day that has been celebrated by pagans and neopagans since probably at least Stonehenge first floated over the Irish Sea to settle in Salisbury, put there by Merlin.
But seriously, it's spring! (Calendrically. Weather-wise, it's been spring for about a month here in Boise and Terrestrial spring is already half-over. Actually, I made up those descriptors because I don't know how else to say what I just said, but they're true statements. According to Boisean weather, spring is well under way and according to the angle of the earth in relation to the sun, spring is half-over.)
But seriously, it's spring! (Calendrically. Weather-wise, it's been spring for about a month here in Boise and Terrestrial spring is already half-over. Actually, I made up those descriptors because I don't know how else to say what I just said, but they're true statements. According to Boisean weather, spring is well under way and according to the angle of the earth in relation to the sun, spring is half-over.)
Chihuahuan desert sunrise or sunset, I don't know which. But I'm going to be seeing a lot of these over the next two years in Saltillo.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
OBAMACARE FAILS!
Actually, no, it hasn't yet.
But I keep hearing pundits harp on how awful the Obamacare website is, so I finally went to it to check it out. It's working just fine, as far as I can tell. I didn't actually click "apply" because I didn't need to.
I'm not prepared or even willing to defend the Affordable Care Act on every point, because I do think it could have been better thought-out and planned. However, I'm also not prepared to blame it all on Obama. I know a little about how politics work, and I know that you cannot, cannot, put all the responsibility of failure or success on one, single person, no matter the office. What's more, even ignoring left-biased sources, I hear the Tea Party Representatives crying how they'll do everything they can to make Obamacare fail, then when there's a bump in the road, they throw up their hands and say "we told you" (as if any plan ever didn't have bumps and bruises along the way) and turn around and blame Obama for everything. That's stupid.
Let me be clear: I am not blaming specifically the Tea Party because, like I said, the whole plan could have been better thought-out. But it's silly to say something's going to fail, work tirelessly to make it fail, then crow that the "other side" should have seen it coming. That's like saying Seabiscuit isn't going to win, reinforcing his gate, then saying the race is lost when he's the last one out and saying it's the jockey's fault.
But I keep hearing pundits harp on how awful the Obamacare website is, so I finally went to it to check it out. It's working just fine, as far as I can tell. I didn't actually click "apply" because I didn't need to.
I'm not prepared or even willing to defend the Affordable Care Act on every point, because I do think it could have been better thought-out and planned. However, I'm also not prepared to blame it all on Obama. I know a little about how politics work, and I know that you cannot, cannot, put all the responsibility of failure or success on one, single person, no matter the office. What's more, even ignoring left-biased sources, I hear the Tea Party Representatives crying how they'll do everything they can to make Obamacare fail, then when there's a bump in the road, they throw up their hands and say "we told you" (as if any plan ever didn't have bumps and bruises along the way) and turn around and blame Obama for everything. That's stupid.
Let me be clear: I am not blaming specifically the Tea Party because, like I said, the whole plan could have been better thought-out. But it's silly to say something's going to fail, work tirelessly to make it fail, then crow that the "other side" should have seen it coming. That's like saying Seabiscuit isn't going to win, reinforcing his gate, then saying the race is lost when he's the last one out and saying it's the jockey's fault.
Monday, March 17, 2014
They're More Like Guidlines
And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it. (Mosiah 2: 41)
I don't normally start out a post (or anything) with a quote, but I felt that this one was particularly appropriate for this topic: commandments.
I've said this before: I don't believe in a Supernatural God. I believe in a Natural God. I believe in Celetial Parents who use the laws and rules of the universe to work about their purposes. What humans call "supernatural" or "miracles" or even "magic" is just something scientific and natural that they don't understand yet. Likewise, I don't believe in a God that devises arbitrary commandments so that mortals will live in fear of punishment. That idea of divinity is absolutely out of line with the idea that God is all-knowing and especially all-loving.
These "unorthodox" views of God do not diminish God (as if God could be diminished by human philosophies) like I know some people will accuse me of doing. People claiming that God is an "angry god" with "vengeance" on the world who metes out judgment and love to those who live below like some sort of Pavlovian rewards-giving automaton, they're the ones diminishing God. They always manage to make God sound like Tinkerbell; only capable of one emotion at a time.
So to everyone I haven't enraged yet, let's see if I can't get you too. Commandments aren't "commands" so much as "guidelines."
There are certain behaviors or actions that are actually bad ideas, and so God gives us guidelines to live by so that we'll be protected from doing dumb things and they're what we call "commandments." John Bytheway has a great talk entitled No Brainers where he lines out five or six commandments that people ridicule the Church for because they think they're "stupid little rules," stupid little rules like "don't smoke; it's bad for you."
I hope that it doesn't sound like I'm again diminishing the importance of following commandments. I hope instead that it sounds like I'm expounding on why following them is a good idea. I also hope that it sounds like I'm giving an excuse to not judge people for making what I consider wrong decisions because that's one reason I wanted to write this. Besides, it's no real business of mine what someone else chooses, not to say I shouldn't help a friend who needs it.
It's always amazing to me when I hear people say things like "don't judge me" (and by the way I generally hate the way that phrase is used) and then in the next breath say "I'm so miserable." You would think people would figure it out. Some things are just bad ideas.
Take, for example, the Word of Wisdom. God didn't give us the Word of Wisdom to restrict us; He gave us the Word of Wisdom because not following it is a bad idea. The label on a pack of cigarettes says "These will kill you." And yet people for whatever reason decide to start smoking. Yes, using alcohol has health benefits. But the Word of Wisdom was designed for "the weakest of the saints," meaning anybody can have one glass of wine a day, but not anybody can stop. So while some or even most of us would drink responsibly, God isn't going to say "drink responsibly;" he's going to say "don't drink in case you can't drink responsibly." Furthermore (and I know this is cliche but it's true), what can a person do drunk that they can't do sober? People say "you guys can't drink, you're religion is controlling you with stupid little rules" and then get drunk, do dumb things and may or may not end up hurt because of them.
By the way, the Word of Wisdom is not just about smoking and drinking alcohol, coffee and tea. It's just that: "A Word of Wisdom," a pretty darn smart way of living healthy: eat more veggies than meat, don't eat too much, exercise regularly. If you look around at an LDS sacrament meeting (and here I'm going to be judgmental), you see a lot of people that say they're living the Word of Wisdom because they're not doing drugs, but they're also not exercising, not eating healthy. It's a good thing I'm not a bishop. I'd be tempted to not give a temple recommend to people who aren't doing everything to be healthy.
Another commandment a lot of people sniff up at is the Law of Chastity. It's truly amazing; living in the Boise State dorms, I saw people brag about sleeping around (one guy talked about the best ways to put on a condom) and then share stories about pregnancy scares, STD testings and not knowing their partner's name. What does a celibate have to worry about? Sexual repression? That's fine, I can handle that. Sounds a whole lot easier and safer than the other thing.
Now, I know that a lot of people who have sex before getting married don't "sleep around." The way I see it, there's kind of a continuum of living the Law of Chastity. On one end you have "I don't even know his or her name" and on the other you have "saved before marriage, completely faithful after." Between you have "I know his or her name," "not really committed," "open relationship," "singular sexual partner," "committed relationship but not married," and "lifelong union." I've met people with all of these and always, always the people sleeping around were having issues related to sex and those issues seemed to be less and less prevalent the further up the continuum they were living.
But without marriage, this issue doesn't go away: "I'm in a committed relationship, I'm just not so committed as to get married." Let me be clear here: I do not condemn the cohabitational lifestyle. I have friends and family who live or have lived like this who have been apparently happy. However, it doesn't make sense to me. I have seen a lot of these relationships go sour, and how many people have we seen get heart-broken because they thought their partner wasn't as committed as they thought? Marriage is a way for both partners to promise complete commitment. Yes, it's not foolproof and people do change, people do lie or rush into things, but while getting marriage is not a guarantee of happiness, I've seen how it is an important part of a relationship. When would you begin enacting a business deal, before or after the hands have been shaken? This is the point I'm making: I'm not going to have sex with someone until they're willing to promise me that they're never going to leave and I'm willing to make that same promise, and not just willing but done. But again: I will not judge you or condemn you if you choose differently. That's just not ice I'm willing to tread.
Actually, dating at all is ice I'm not willing to tread. But that's a different issue entirely.
With this perspective, it's easy to see how some of God's earlier commandments don't apply to us or how some of ours don't apply to other times. Jesus drank wine, but he also didn't eat pig. Now we don't drink wine, but pig is okay (in moderation). The ancient Israelites didn't understand about bacteria and viruses, but they understood uncleanliness. If God had commanded them to stay away from trichinosis, salmonella, cholera and dysentery, they would have been thoroughly confused. God said stay away from pigs and simplified the guideline to their understanding, not to mention that alcohol in many times and places has been safer and less likely to kill you than the water that was available.
God did not intend rules to be followed Pharisaically. He intended rules as guidelines to keep us from emotional, physical and spiritual harm. I'm not asking everyone to believe as I do, only to understand. I'm assuming that if you're reading this blog, it's because you're trying to better understand my perspective on doctrine. So understand this: I (again) will not judge you or condemn you or treat you as anything other than as a Child of God if you choose to live differently than I do. I ask you to reciprocate. Please, please, please don't assume my Church is controlling me. If I turn down an offer to party or drink or do drugs, it's not because I don't like you or think you're going to hell (by the way, I don't believe in "Hell") or think you're destroying your life or anything else. It's because I know what I want for me and what you're offering is not in line with that.
I don't normally start out a post (or anything) with a quote, but I felt that this one was particularly appropriate for this topic: commandments.
I've said this before: I don't believe in a Supernatural God. I believe in a Natural God. I believe in Celetial Parents who use the laws and rules of the universe to work about their purposes. What humans call "supernatural" or "miracles" or even "magic" is just something scientific and natural that they don't understand yet. Likewise, I don't believe in a God that devises arbitrary commandments so that mortals will live in fear of punishment. That idea of divinity is absolutely out of line with the idea that God is all-knowing and especially all-loving.
These "unorthodox" views of God do not diminish God (as if God could be diminished by human philosophies) like I know some people will accuse me of doing. People claiming that God is an "angry god" with "vengeance" on the world who metes out judgment and love to those who live below like some sort of Pavlovian rewards-giving automaton, they're the ones diminishing God. They always manage to make God sound like Tinkerbell; only capable of one emotion at a time.
So to everyone I haven't enraged yet, let's see if I can't get you too. Commandments aren't "commands" so much as "guidelines."
There are certain behaviors or actions that are actually bad ideas, and so God gives us guidelines to live by so that we'll be protected from doing dumb things and they're what we call "commandments." John Bytheway has a great talk entitled No Brainers where he lines out five or six commandments that people ridicule the Church for because they think they're "stupid little rules," stupid little rules like "don't smoke; it's bad for you."
I hope that it doesn't sound like I'm again diminishing the importance of following commandments. I hope instead that it sounds like I'm expounding on why following them is a good idea. I also hope that it sounds like I'm giving an excuse to not judge people for making what I consider wrong decisions because that's one reason I wanted to write this. Besides, it's no real business of mine what someone else chooses, not to say I shouldn't help a friend who needs it.
It's always amazing to me when I hear people say things like "don't judge me" (and by the way I generally hate the way that phrase is used) and then in the next breath say "I'm so miserable." You would think people would figure it out. Some things are just bad ideas.
Take, for example, the Word of Wisdom. God didn't give us the Word of Wisdom to restrict us; He gave us the Word of Wisdom because not following it is a bad idea. The label on a pack of cigarettes says "These will kill you." And yet people for whatever reason decide to start smoking. Yes, using alcohol has health benefits. But the Word of Wisdom was designed for "the weakest of the saints," meaning anybody can have one glass of wine a day, but not anybody can stop. So while some or even most of us would drink responsibly, God isn't going to say "drink responsibly;" he's going to say "don't drink in case you can't drink responsibly." Furthermore (and I know this is cliche but it's true), what can a person do drunk that they can't do sober? People say "you guys can't drink, you're religion is controlling you with stupid little rules" and then get drunk, do dumb things and may or may not end up hurt because of them.
By the way, the Word of Wisdom is not just about smoking and drinking alcohol, coffee and tea. It's just that: "A Word of Wisdom," a pretty darn smart way of living healthy: eat more veggies than meat, don't eat too much, exercise regularly. If you look around at an LDS sacrament meeting (and here I'm going to be judgmental), you see a lot of people that say they're living the Word of Wisdom because they're not doing drugs, but they're also not exercising, not eating healthy. It's a good thing I'm not a bishop. I'd be tempted to not give a temple recommend to people who aren't doing everything to be healthy.
Another commandment a lot of people sniff up at is the Law of Chastity. It's truly amazing; living in the Boise State dorms, I saw people brag about sleeping around (one guy talked about the best ways to put on a condom) and then share stories about pregnancy scares, STD testings and not knowing their partner's name. What does a celibate have to worry about? Sexual repression? That's fine, I can handle that. Sounds a whole lot easier and safer than the other thing.
Now, I know that a lot of people who have sex before getting married don't "sleep around." The way I see it, there's kind of a continuum of living the Law of Chastity. On one end you have "I don't even know his or her name" and on the other you have "saved before marriage, completely faithful after." Between you have "I know his or her name," "not really committed," "open relationship," "singular sexual partner," "committed relationship but not married," and "lifelong union." I've met people with all of these and always, always the people sleeping around were having issues related to sex and those issues seemed to be less and less prevalent the further up the continuum they were living.
But without marriage, this issue doesn't go away: "I'm in a committed relationship, I'm just not so committed as to get married." Let me be clear here: I do not condemn the cohabitational lifestyle. I have friends and family who live or have lived like this who have been apparently happy. However, it doesn't make sense to me. I have seen a lot of these relationships go sour, and how many people have we seen get heart-broken because they thought their partner wasn't as committed as they thought? Marriage is a way for both partners to promise complete commitment. Yes, it's not foolproof and people do change, people do lie or rush into things, but while getting marriage is not a guarantee of happiness, I've seen how it is an important part of a relationship. When would you begin enacting a business deal, before or after the hands have been shaken? This is the point I'm making: I'm not going to have sex with someone until they're willing to promise me that they're never going to leave and I'm willing to make that same promise, and not just willing but done. But again: I will not judge you or condemn you if you choose differently. That's just not ice I'm willing to tread.
Actually, dating at all is ice I'm not willing to tread. But that's a different issue entirely.
With this perspective, it's easy to see how some of God's earlier commandments don't apply to us or how some of ours don't apply to other times. Jesus drank wine, but he also didn't eat pig. Now we don't drink wine, but pig is okay (in moderation). The ancient Israelites didn't understand about bacteria and viruses, but they understood uncleanliness. If God had commanded them to stay away from trichinosis, salmonella, cholera and dysentery, they would have been thoroughly confused. God said stay away from pigs and simplified the guideline to their understanding, not to mention that alcohol in many times and places has been safer and less likely to kill you than the water that was available.
God did not intend rules to be followed Pharisaically. He intended rules as guidelines to keep us from emotional, physical and spiritual harm. I'm not asking everyone to believe as I do, only to understand. I'm assuming that if you're reading this blog, it's because you're trying to better understand my perspective on doctrine. So understand this: I (again) will not judge you or condemn you or treat you as anything other than as a Child of God if you choose to live differently than I do. I ask you to reciprocate. Please, please, please don't assume my Church is controlling me. If I turn down an offer to party or drink or do drugs, it's not because I don't like you or think you're going to hell (by the way, I don't believe in "Hell") or think you're destroying your life or anything else. It's because I know what I want for me and what you're offering is not in line with that.
March 14
Happy Pi Day and Happy Birthday to Albert Einstein!
...apparently I missed posting this on the 14th, so here it is on the 17th.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Government, Politicking and Governance in the Book of Mormon
I haven't written a research post in a long time, so here it goes. Please realize that this post is by no means extensive. It consists of stuff that I have noticed and analyzed. More complete lists are probably available. In the words of Elder Anderson: "Google it."
There are many ways to analyze the Book of Mormon, just as with any historical or literary account. Obviously, the best way to look at the contents is looking for ways to better your own life, but it's also fun to--and we can learn from--look at the other themes in the narrative: racial prejudices, culture and religions, war tactics and--the subject of this post--Government and Governance.
Government for the Nephites begins with Nephi, whom they appoint to be their "king" or at least their clan ruler. However, there is no indication of this "kingship" being a hereditary monarchy, at least not at the beginning. In Jacob 1, Nephi anoints "a man" to reign in his stead when he's getting ready to die. "A man" might mean his son, but it also might not. Later on, though, dynasties among the Nephites are established.
Also in Jacob 1 is a description of what kind of ruler Nephi was: he was "a great protector for them" and "labored in all his days for their welfare." The fledgling states of Nephites and Lamanites had already begun their tumultuous coexistence, and Nephi led his people in "battles"--although they probably can't have been much more than skirmishes by our standards today--and apparently became a symbol of strength to the Nephites. He also seemingly took an active role in providing for his people's prosperity, a role of government that many people now claim is "evil."
One thing of note: the Nephites obviously valued education. There are clues throughout the Book of Mormon highlighting the use of language and literacy. The writers of the Book of Mormon are mostly Nephites and they often (quite snobbishly sometimes) reference the other groups as uncouth or illiterate.
The Lamanites at some point also develop a sort of monarchial confederacy (similar to several Native American nations) as evidenced by King Lamoni ruling in the land of Ishmael under his father, the king of all Lamanites. There aren't many clues as to the nature of the Lamanite government except that the monarchs seem to have had absolute power, spent a lot of time and energy on militarism, and were revered by their subjects as "powerful" (Alma 18:13). Whether that "powerful" means possessing supernatural powers or just the political clout they wielded, it's unclear.
The Mulekites set up a system similar to that that they had in Jerusalem, presumably continuing on Zedekiah's dynasty with his son, Mulek. However, by the time the Nephites ran across them, their language had completely morphed into something unintelligible from whatever form of Hebrew the Nephites were speaking at the time and they had lost the concept of God. The Nephite culture and government essentially annexed the Mulekite cities and people into their own as complete and equal citizens. Actually, not so much. They did provide the necessary amenities (an education, religion) to assimilate into Nephite society, but being a "descendant of Nephi" is something worthy of notice in the eyes of the writer of 3 Nephi. However, there is no real mention of Mulekites ever again, especially after the melding of the societies after Christ visits the Americas, which I'll get to in just a little bit.
Then there are King Mosiah and King Benjamin...and King Mosiah. These kings were the first Nephite dynasty over the land of Zarahemla that more or less became the capital of the Nephite nation. There's a lot of debate in the LDS political community, especially about King Benjamin: was he a Social Democrat or was he a Libertarian?
I'm not going to claim either one. Both sides of the argument have credence, although I'm not sure either has legitimacy. Political factions hadn't really started showing up yet, and I'm pretty darn sure that King Benjamin would not have been happy about either party. He was a benevolent monarch, that is all. He "labored with his hands for his own support" so he wouldn't have to tax the people too much and taught his people to serve one another, so that would tend to classify him as Liberal, but not necessarily. There's no mention of him requiring that service, and so that would lend him to Conservative or Libertarian, but again, not necessarily. We don't know much else about his reign or policies other than that he was something of a war hero, but that's only mentioned in passing and the book doesn't mention his military expenditures.
However, his son, King Mosiah, is a lot more cut-and-dry. He was a Republican. Not the sort of Republican that we have in the US right now necessarily, but the kind of Republican in history that was antithetical to Monarchists, the kind often associated with Socialists. That may seem like an oxymoron--an anti-crown king--but it makes sense in context. He wanted to abdicate and give the throne to one of his four sons, but they each in turn refused; they wanted to serve missions to the Lamanite nations instead. So to avoid a future civil war between confused factions, he issued a proposed constitution instating a form of representational republic, and the people accepted it. He served as king for the "remainder of his days" and the new government was set up after he was gone.
This new republican form of government became the basis for the Nephite government throughout pretty much the rest of the pleasant part of the Book of Mormon, evidenced by the phrase "year X of the reign of the judges." It had a lot of similarities to our own republic: express freedom of religion, strict equality (at least in theory) (Alma 30:7), elected representation, checks and balances and confusion over who-does-what. However, there were also differences. There was only one branch of government for one. Unfortunately, we don't have much of a record of their political dealings because they weren't contained on the plates that were translated.
But now we need to back up a bit and talk about King Noah and King Limhi. They were rulers of a separated group of Nephites, split because of a difference of political philosophy: their father and grandfather--Zeniff, a military officer--left the Nephites because he wanted to open up diplomatic and economic relations with the Lamanites and his general wanted to kill them all, or at least that's how Zeniff paints him out.
King Noah ruled poorly. I've heard some people compare him to Obama, and to that I say "pooh-pooh."
King Noah stacked his council with yes-men and taxed his people heavily to support a state church and his own pleasures. He built palaces and fancy buildings with their money. Yet they seemed to have supported him, or at least the people with a voice supported him. Up until he told the men to leave their wives and children to the invading Lamanites, then they tied him to a stake and burned him, fulfilling a prophecy by the prophet Abinadi. Govern poorly and eventually the people will revolt. The men returned to their families, preferring to be taxed by the Lamanites than be led by King Noah, but King Noah's council escaped into the wilderness, turning up later to fill the spot of an oppressive, Lamanite-sponsored puppet government over the people of Alma. It's complicated. I'd take time to further explain, but I pretty much just summed up the governance part. The rest of the story is faith-related.
King Noah was a bad nut, but his son, King Limhi who ruled under the Lamanite king, was a great leader. What's more, he was inarguably a Socialist. I suppose you could try to argue it, but you couldn't get very far. After several bad and devastating battles to win independence, the Nephite labor force was severely depleted, especially the male portion. King Limhi required the working and the wealthy to monetarily support those that were having a hard time (Mosiah 21:17). That is, by definition, a welfare state. And he's the good guy.
Eventually, a guy named Ammon finds the splinter group and sneaks them out of the Lamanites' clutches and back to Zarahemla where King Mosiah II accepts them back with open arms, which happens to be good immigration policy.
This is really where the government and politics start taking off and getting complicated, but this post is already long enough, so I'll make it brief.
Aside from a long period of communal, egalitarian living after Christ comes to the temple at Bountiful (a valid argument could be made for them being Communist, another could be made for Benevolent Christian Anarchy), the Book of Mormon after the beginning of the reign of the judges in Zarahemla shows how the Nephite state dealt with the onslaughts of Monarchists (Alma 51), Anarchists (Gadianton Robbers) and corruption (Gadianton and several bad judges).
The reasons I wrote this are these: 1) to give a perspective on the Book of Mormon that isn't talked about as often as it should, particularly because we can learn from these lessons in governance and politics and 2) to show that the Book of Mormon shows that no form of government will inherently fail. The success of a nation does not depend solely on the form of government that the people choose, though it is best (if hardest) if the people choose it and it isn't forced upon them.
The first Nephites chose a monarchy that ruled well for the most part, but other monarchs were not so good. King Limhi introduced socialism to the Nephites and it apparently worked well, but we need not look too hard for contemporary examples that show how socialism can be bad; Fox News is all to handy with that information. Everyone enjoyed a period of 200 years living in a communal empire, but the USSR didn't last half that.
So again I assert: No form of government will inherently fail. Any form of government can work and be beneficial given the correct circumstances.
There are many ways to analyze the Book of Mormon, just as with any historical or literary account. Obviously, the best way to look at the contents is looking for ways to better your own life, but it's also fun to--and we can learn from--look at the other themes in the narrative: racial prejudices, culture and religions, war tactics and--the subject of this post--Government and Governance.
Government for the Nephites begins with Nephi, whom they appoint to be their "king" or at least their clan ruler. However, there is no indication of this "kingship" being a hereditary monarchy, at least not at the beginning. In Jacob 1, Nephi anoints "a man" to reign in his stead when he's getting ready to die. "A man" might mean his son, but it also might not. Later on, though, dynasties among the Nephites are established.
Also in Jacob 1 is a description of what kind of ruler Nephi was: he was "a great protector for them" and "labored in all his days for their welfare." The fledgling states of Nephites and Lamanites had already begun their tumultuous coexistence, and Nephi led his people in "battles"--although they probably can't have been much more than skirmishes by our standards today--and apparently became a symbol of strength to the Nephites. He also seemingly took an active role in providing for his people's prosperity, a role of government that many people now claim is "evil."
One thing of note: the Nephites obviously valued education. There are clues throughout the Book of Mormon highlighting the use of language and literacy. The writers of the Book of Mormon are mostly Nephites and they often (quite snobbishly sometimes) reference the other groups as uncouth or illiterate.
The Lamanites at some point also develop a sort of monarchial confederacy (similar to several Native American nations) as evidenced by King Lamoni ruling in the land of Ishmael under his father, the king of all Lamanites. There aren't many clues as to the nature of the Lamanite government except that the monarchs seem to have had absolute power, spent a lot of time and energy on militarism, and were revered by their subjects as "powerful" (Alma 18:13). Whether that "powerful" means possessing supernatural powers or just the political clout they wielded, it's unclear.
The Mulekites set up a system similar to that that they had in Jerusalem, presumably continuing on Zedekiah's dynasty with his son, Mulek. However, by the time the Nephites ran across them, their language had completely morphed into something unintelligible from whatever form of Hebrew the Nephites were speaking at the time and they had lost the concept of God. The Nephite culture and government essentially annexed the Mulekite cities and people into their own as complete and equal citizens. Actually, not so much. They did provide the necessary amenities (an education, religion) to assimilate into Nephite society, but being a "descendant of Nephi" is something worthy of notice in the eyes of the writer of 3 Nephi. However, there is no real mention of Mulekites ever again, especially after the melding of the societies after Christ visits the Americas, which I'll get to in just a little bit.
Then there are King Mosiah and King Benjamin...and King Mosiah. These kings were the first Nephite dynasty over the land of Zarahemla that more or less became the capital of the Nephite nation. There's a lot of debate in the LDS political community, especially about King Benjamin: was he a Social Democrat or was he a Libertarian?
I'm not going to claim either one. Both sides of the argument have credence, although I'm not sure either has legitimacy. Political factions hadn't really started showing up yet, and I'm pretty darn sure that King Benjamin would not have been happy about either party. He was a benevolent monarch, that is all. He "labored with his hands for his own support" so he wouldn't have to tax the people too much and taught his people to serve one another, so that would tend to classify him as Liberal, but not necessarily. There's no mention of him requiring that service, and so that would lend him to Conservative or Libertarian, but again, not necessarily. We don't know much else about his reign or policies other than that he was something of a war hero, but that's only mentioned in passing and the book doesn't mention his military expenditures.
However, his son, King Mosiah, is a lot more cut-and-dry. He was a Republican. Not the sort of Republican that we have in the US right now necessarily, but the kind of Republican in history that was antithetical to Monarchists, the kind often associated with Socialists. That may seem like an oxymoron--an anti-crown king--but it makes sense in context. He wanted to abdicate and give the throne to one of his four sons, but they each in turn refused; they wanted to serve missions to the Lamanite nations instead. So to avoid a future civil war between confused factions, he issued a proposed constitution instating a form of representational republic, and the people accepted it. He served as king for the "remainder of his days" and the new government was set up after he was gone.
This new republican form of government became the basis for the Nephite government throughout pretty much the rest of the pleasant part of the Book of Mormon, evidenced by the phrase "year X of the reign of the judges." It had a lot of similarities to our own republic: express freedom of religion, strict equality (at least in theory) (Alma 30:7), elected representation, checks and balances and confusion over who-does-what. However, there were also differences. There was only one branch of government for one. Unfortunately, we don't have much of a record of their political dealings because they weren't contained on the plates that were translated.
But now we need to back up a bit and talk about King Noah and King Limhi. They were rulers of a separated group of Nephites, split because of a difference of political philosophy: their father and grandfather--Zeniff, a military officer--left the Nephites because he wanted to open up diplomatic and economic relations with the Lamanites and his general wanted to kill them all, or at least that's how Zeniff paints him out.
King Noah ruled poorly. I've heard some people compare him to Obama, and to that I say "pooh-pooh."
King Noah stacked his council with yes-men and taxed his people heavily to support a state church and his own pleasures. He built palaces and fancy buildings with their money. Yet they seemed to have supported him, or at least the people with a voice supported him. Up until he told the men to leave their wives and children to the invading Lamanites, then they tied him to a stake and burned him, fulfilling a prophecy by the prophet Abinadi. Govern poorly and eventually the people will revolt. The men returned to their families, preferring to be taxed by the Lamanites than be led by King Noah, but King Noah's council escaped into the wilderness, turning up later to fill the spot of an oppressive, Lamanite-sponsored puppet government over the people of Alma. It's complicated. I'd take time to further explain, but I pretty much just summed up the governance part. The rest of the story is faith-related.
King Noah was a bad nut, but his son, King Limhi who ruled under the Lamanite king, was a great leader. What's more, he was inarguably a Socialist. I suppose you could try to argue it, but you couldn't get very far. After several bad and devastating battles to win independence, the Nephite labor force was severely depleted, especially the male portion. King Limhi required the working and the wealthy to monetarily support those that were having a hard time (Mosiah 21:17). That is, by definition, a welfare state. And he's the good guy.
Eventually, a guy named Ammon finds the splinter group and sneaks them out of the Lamanites' clutches and back to Zarahemla where King Mosiah II accepts them back with open arms, which happens to be good immigration policy.
This is really where the government and politics start taking off and getting complicated, but this post is already long enough, so I'll make it brief.
Aside from a long period of communal, egalitarian living after Christ comes to the temple at Bountiful (a valid argument could be made for them being Communist, another could be made for Benevolent Christian Anarchy), the Book of Mormon after the beginning of the reign of the judges in Zarahemla shows how the Nephite state dealt with the onslaughts of Monarchists (Alma 51), Anarchists (Gadianton Robbers) and corruption (Gadianton and several bad judges).
The reasons I wrote this are these: 1) to give a perspective on the Book of Mormon that isn't talked about as often as it should, particularly because we can learn from these lessons in governance and politics and 2) to show that the Book of Mormon shows that no form of government will inherently fail. The success of a nation does not depend solely on the form of government that the people choose, though it is best (if hardest) if the people choose it and it isn't forced upon them.
The first Nephites chose a monarchy that ruled well for the most part, but other monarchs were not so good. King Limhi introduced socialism to the Nephites and it apparently worked well, but we need not look too hard for contemporary examples that show how socialism can be bad; Fox News is all to handy with that information. Everyone enjoyed a period of 200 years living in a communal empire, but the USSR didn't last half that.
So again I assert: No form of government will inherently fail. Any form of government can work and be beneficial given the correct circumstances.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
It's Mardi Gras!
Well, I guess this means that I've been blogging for a full year now. It's been off and on, mostly off, but it's been fun while I've been going. I've also never missed a month blogging, unlike my home teaching. That's one goal I have, to be much better at getting out.
It's Mardi Gras again! (I would say Carnaval to celebrate going to Mexico on my mission, but apparently it's not a big deal in Coahuila.) That means splurging! I've already watched two episodes of Parks and Recreation. Amy Poehler is just awesome.
I've been thinking about what I'm going to do for Lent. I don't have much to give up; I don't do the things I'm not supposed to do and I don't really have any guilty food pleasures or anything. I eat pretty healthily already and exercise most days.
So this is what I've decided. These are my rules and goals for this time around:
1. Read Preach My Gospel, Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, or a Conference talk every morning. I kind of suck at morning gospel study, though the only day I've missed in the past year for evening reading has been Christmas Eve.
2. No TV shows before noon. This shouldn't even be much of a problem because our internet really doesn't jive with my computer.
3. Write something creative (here or elsewhere) every day, but no politics on Sunday.
4. Get to the Temple.
Coming: an unbiased and well-informed (not really on either account) little piece on government, politicking and governance in the Book of Mormon societies.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
From a Ukrainian Friend
Suddenly the situation reminds me of Poland in 1939.
It's already 2:30 a.m. and I can't sleep. This is a first time when I am really terrified I don't know what will happen later today and what I'll see in the news when I'll wake up. What if a war is already here?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)