When Virtues Clash Satan's Unnecessary OR Transgressing the Lesser Law to Eagerly Obey the Higher

When Virtues Clash

Satan’s Unnecessary

(Or: “Transgressing the Lesser Law to Eagerly Obey the Higher)

Legal and Copyright Attribution

           
All biblical quotes are from the King James Translation, unless otherwise designated.
            "Scripture quotations taken from the Amplified® Bible, Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation.  Used by permission." (www.Lockman.org)

            The Amplified Bible is a translation that, by using synonyms and definitions, both explains and expands the meaning of words in the text by placing amplification in parentheses and brackets and after key words or phrases.This unique system of translation allows the reader to more completely grasp the meaning of the words as they were understood in the original languages. Through multiple expressions, fuller and more revealing appreciation is given to the divine message as the original text legitimately permits.

            THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Dedication (to be determined)  

This book is dedicated to … because…

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section I: The Clash

Chapter 1: Good, Better, or Best Can Oppose One Another Sufficiently

Chapter 2: The Maker of Fruit Juice

Chapter 3: The Verse that Seems to Contradict

Chapter 4: Brief Introduction to Sections Two and Three

Chapter 5: There is a Scriptural Priority of Some Virtues

Section II: Pairs of Clashing Virtues

Chapter 6: Loving vs. Protecting

Chapter 7: Loving as Altruistic Edification and Not Self-Interest

Chapter 8: Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Chapter 9: Caring vs. Freedom

Chapter 10: Honesty vs. Marital Harmony

Chapter 11: Forgiving vs. Trusting—the Value of Forgiveness & the Earnability of Trust

Chapter 12: Compassion for the Criminal vs. Compassion for his Victim

Chapter 13:Friendliness vs. Avoiding Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

Chapter 14: Interdependence vs. Independence

Chapter 15: Democracy vs. Republicanism

Section III: The Premortal Clash

Chapter 16: The Plan from Lucifer’s Perspective

Chapter 17: Satan’s Sermon

Chapter 18: Why Satan and His Priority of Virtues is Wrong

I.

The Clash

Chapter 1: Good, Better, or Best Can Oppose One Another Sufficiently

            For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so…righteousness could not be brought to pass…neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs [have been] a compound in one [if there were no divided oppositions]; wherefore, if it should [have been] one body[, then] it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor…happiness nor misery.

2 Nephi 2:11.

            Throughout my life, I’ve heard many people speak onlyin binary terms about the supposed “opposition in all things” (2 Nephi 2:11): good vs. bad; righteousness vs. evil; correct vs. wrong; Heaven vs. Hell.

            The ancients, like the prophet Lehi, spoke in these rudimentary terms and even warned of what it would be like without such divided oppositions: “all things must needs [have been] a compound in one…[and] must needs remain as dead.”  (2 Nephi 2:11).

            But, one result of thinking only in binary terms is to vilify people—if, when you are choosing between two people, you know one is good, then the process of elimination means the other person is bad.  Then you think and speak about them as such.

            This simplistic view on opposition leads us to misunderstand the reality that opposition (and people) can come in the form of “good, better, best.”  See Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Good, Better, Best,” October 2007, General Conference (“We have to forego some good things in order to choose others that are better or best.”).

            Something that is merely good opposes something that is better.  Something that is better opposes that which is best. 

            This opposition is especially so if choosing one leads to rejecting the other.  In other words, if the options are mutually exclusive, then we clearly have an opposition between the three choices of good, better, and best.

            There is no need for evil to have an opposition in all things. 

            Satan is unnecessary.  This is the major theme of this book that I intend to prove by showing that priorities of good can clash against themselves to provide necessary opposition.

            God’s Plan could have worked even if every single spirit child accepted His Plan as He outlined in premortality.  There was no role of “devil” in His Plan in order to supply supposedly needed opposition.  He provided for that needed opposition in a variety of ways.  Actual evil was not part of the opposition necessary for us to exercise our God-given agency to choose the Father’s ways or not.  It wasn’t needed in premortality and it’s not needed now.  Satan’s purpose was to “destroy the agency of man.”  (Moses 4:3).  He couldn’t destroy what supposedly wouldn’t have existed without him. 

In other words, the agency of man already existed and could be exercised without Satan’s opposition—without Lucifer rebelling.  In fact, the only way Lucifer could become Satan was by deliberately using his actual agency to the maximum extent possible.  Otherwise, he wouldn’t have been Satan.  If he didn’t choose, fully choose, to be Satan, that development into an evil being would then have been compelled somehow.  If he becoming Satan was, to any degree, compelled, then justice would have remedied the wrong compulsion, eventually fixing Lucifer to remain as Lucifer.  But, if Lucifer needed a Satan to give him options in order to complete an otherwise incomplete agency, then he could never have chosen to be Satan—there was no earlier Satan to prompt him to do that (at least in our generation of spirit children).  So, clearly, agency exists fully without Satan providing opposition.

Some people muse that because the Father is all-knowing and could foresee what Satan was going to do that he made Satan’s existence a necessary part of His plan.  This idea does not logically fit if Satan truly is “an enemy to God” (Moroni 7:12) from Satan’s perspective.  Satan would have figured out by now that God’s plan would utterly fail without his support.  Why would Satan want to do anything that was necessary to make God’s plan work?  He wouldn’t.  As soon as he learned that God was incapable of making His plan work without him, then he would have ceased to do anything in order to make God fail.  That’s what enemies do.

            Yet, evil exists.  The Lord allows it to exist because Lucifer exercised his God-given agency and introduced utter “rebellion” (see D&C 29:36; Moses 4:3) against Supreme Deity.  That’s the risk of agency. With the Lord’s help, though, we can benefit from the extreme opposition that evil imposes.  The Lord can turn “darkness” to “light.”  A loving Heavenly Father allows our bad choices, and, for the benefit of all, He makes good come from the wrong decisions.

            He states in Isaiah 42:16, “And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight.”  The Lord protects us from Satan’s efforts by making it possible for benefits to come from his evil as we rely on Him.

            You may ask, “But why does God even permit Satan to interfere with us?  Couldn’t He have ostracized Satan completely by sending him to some other realm entirely away from us and let the rest of us go through His plan without Satan being involved?”  This is a thought-provoking question.  Christ taught to love “ye your enemies…and ye shall be the children of the Highest who is kind unto…the evil.”  (Luke 6:35).  Heavenly Father loves Satan.  He’s kind to him.  He’s given Satan front row seats the see for himself that the Father’s plan can accomplish salvation for all His children whether or not Satan gives us evil opposition.  Satan even tried to prove his accusations true in the Job example:

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

And the Lord said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

And Satan answered the Lord, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.

But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.

And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.

  Job 2:1-6.

            Apparently, from verse three, it appears that Satan had already challenged God, or “movedst” Him, to oppose Job to such a degree that Job would use his agency to no longer be, according to verse two, “perfect” and “upright” and fear God and eschew evil and to hold his integrity intact.  God had blessed Job with such material wealth that of course Job would be faithful to God—it wasn’t Job’s agency to be good.  The good blessings to Job forced him to be good.  God compelled him to do good by giving him blessings.  But, taking away those blessings, Satan must have been arguing initially, would free Job from such compelled goodness and Job would then rebel against God.  God apparently did so and yet Job was still faithful.

So, in verse three, it seems that God was responding to Satan’s first challenge that God had complied with.  God appears to be responding to Satan with the proof of Job’s continued faithfulness in order to prove that Satan’s accusations were wrong by saying, “See, Satan, even after all the opposition that I gave him, as you challenged me to do, Job is still faithful.  See, my faithful children can still remain faithful in spite of unpleasant opposition from me.” 

Then, Satan, unconvinced, offers another argument.  Satan apparently tries to prove that God’s plan of agency ultimately results in no agency because even though people are inherently selfish through the natural man and have that opposition in order to have options or choices to choose from, like God has claimed since premortality, their natural desire for survival—for life—would compel them to “curse” God when their life, not just their possessions, are threatened: “Satan answered the Lord, and said…all that a man hath will he give for his life.”  (Job 2:4).  As we see from the completed experience, though, even after Job’s own life was threatened—even after such severe opposition—he, along with all of us, can still choose goodness in spite of life-threatening opposition.  Because of Job’s righteous endurance in the face of such great adversity, the Lord, in justice, blessed him for it: “So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning.”  (Job 42:12).  God, through Job and complying with Satan’s challenges, proved to Satan that mankind still has the power to choose when their most precious possession—their own life and their own good quality of life—is threatened.

This example from the Book of Job demonstrates (1) the opposition that can come from God and (2) the kindness Heavenly Father has even for “the…evil (Luke 6:35),” even for the epitome of evil, Satan, in giving Satan the opportunity to prove God wrong.  This kindness is probably why Satan is allowed to be on this earth.  God is kindly allowing him to see for himself that he’s wrong instead of simply declaring to him that he’s wrong and hoping Satan will trust God that he, Satan, has been wrong all along.  Satan doesn’t have any faith in God.  He only has faith in himself.  He will only believe what he can see.  So, it is necessary in our Plan of Salvation (as opposed to other of God’s children’s plan, which children have no Satan since Satan was only sent here, but who are covered by Christ’s atonement that was only suffered here on this earth) to have him only for his sake, not ours.  Satan thinks we can’t be agents to ourselves without him providing us with evil opposition (see D&C 29:39-40, which we will consider in detail later)—without giving us the “bitter” evil in order to know the sweet “good.”  (D&C 29:40).

Knowing all of this is important because it means the Lord can provide us opposition without relying on Satan.  He does not need the devil to make His plan work.  He can give us difficult, often painful challenges, in order to provide opposing options to choose from.

As a step further, God can even provide virtues, that, in some circumstances clash with each other and we have to choose one over the other.  I’ll show this in order to prove the theme of this book: God doesn’t need Satan to make his plan of agency work.  He can provide lesser laws that you will not be able to keep if you eagerly follow the higher laws.  He wants us to live the higher laws.  This type of opposition is not frequent, but it is opposition that exists and it is opposition from the Lord, not Satan.

First, let’s consider how God can provide opposition without needing Satan to give us an option that would oppose Celestial conduct.

Chapter 2: The Maker of Fruit Juice

For the natural man is an enemy to God….[A]nd also is the devil an enemy to God.

Mosiah 3:19; 16:5.

          If you’ll indulge me, I have a parable that shows how Heavenly Father does not need the opposition of evil for His plan for our progression and happiness.  The opposition can simply be from the options of best choices, better choices, and good choices.  This figurative story of mine also shows how Heavenly Father can make the best of Satan’s undesired and unnecessary opposition in our lives:

            There once was a landowner who grew fruit and many fruit trees in his garden.  There were grapes, apples, and oranges.  Each year, when the fruits of his garden were ripe, his servants collected the delicious crops.  The landowner’s son taught them how to make fruit juices from the collected fruit. 

            Some of the servants chose to make grape juice, and some of them apple juice, and others orange juice.  They each felt joy in their work and in the product of their labors. Of the differing wages for their work, the best wage package promised was continued employment, working under great conditions, good health, a never-exhausting supply of wonderful food, and continuous free housing suited perfectly for their families.  This wage package was only available for making grape juice, not the other juices.

            One night, an enemy decided to come to the garden and he planted his own barley.  He also nurtured seeds of lemon trees that were already in the dirt of the garden, which would have eventually grown without his work. 

When the fields were ready for picking, the new plants were also ready for eating by the servants.  But, the barley was bitter.  The lemons were sour.  These were not delicious crops.  The servants had never known of the bitter or sour before.  They were unhappy about these crops and felt hopeless about making worthwhile drinks from them.

            When the landowner discovered the undesirable barley and saw that the lemons had already grown, he sent his son to instruct his servants in how to make tasty barley tea and sweet lemonade from the undesirable crops.  After following his directions, the servants rejoiced.  All of the drinks of the garden were good.

            The landowner is our Heavenly Father, his son is the Savior, and the servants are all of us.  The garden is this earth.  The fruit itself, that is, the grapes, apples, and oranges, are opposing opportunities the Lord has given us to take advantage of with our agency, and they are all desirable opportunities with some being more desirable than others.  The best, from His perspective, are the grapes.

            The juice itself, the product of the fruit, that is, the grape juice, the apple juice, and the orange juice, are what we make of the opportunities given us—they are the completed choices we make from the differing options of best, better, and good in front of us.  The best wages are eternal life and all it entails in the Celestial Kingdom.  The less than best wages include the differing degrees of glory in Heaven: the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms.  God wants us to follow Celestial law and get the best blessings, which are best from His perspective, but he allows us to have a different perspective and choose what we think is best for ourselves without condemning us to Outer Darkness with the devil.

            The enemy is Satan.  The barley and lemons represent other opposition in its differing forms.  Barley is the various temptations from the devil.  These are undesirable.  They are inherently different from God’s opposition: a grain, not even fruit.  The lemon seeds are different from Satan’s barely.  They are still fruit.  They are the inclinations of rebellion from the natural man that the Lord has already placed in our lives.  These are desirable forms of opposition, but they should not be stimulated too soon and they should be actively rejected as much as we can.

            The son’s instruction is the word of God.  It involves the steps of repentance made effective through the atonement.  Using His instruction, the atonement, and by us taking the right steps, the Lord helps us make good from the varied temptations and from our bad choices.  The Lord can help us benefit from Satan’s temptations and from the unnecessary evil that the adversary provokes from the natural man within us (the lemon seeds).  He doesn’t want us to make bad choices, but, if we do, and if we want His help, then He’ll make good come from the bad.

            The point of the parable is to demonstrate that God the Father’s Plan of Happiness can achieve its goals for His servants without the need of Satan helping—there’s no need for his barley and no need for him to prematurely cultivate the lemon seeds.  The lemon seeds are necessary for opposition in God’s Plan, but they only grow into fully developed trees if we choose to not reject them.  Satan tries his best to make them be cultivated, but, the servants could still have noticed those seeds in the field growing and proactively tried to stop them from growing—to reject them—all without Satan’s interference.

            This proposition that we don’t need Satan’s interference is convincing to me, but I found a scripture that contradicts my thoughts.

Chapter 3: The Verse that Seems to Contradict

Part I: It’s a Creative Description and Doesn’t Contradict

D&C 29:39, which says, “And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves” is best interpreted broadly and figuratively.

            This verse above totally contradicts everything that I’ve been saying if taken literally and out of context.  Let me try to see if I can disprove that we need to apply a literal interpretation to this scripture with the following ideas.

            First, a literal reading works if we extend the context of verse thirty-nine to include verse forty.  From what I read, if we apply a literal interpretation, then the Lord must be speaking from the devil’s perspective—from the accusations and arguments Satan makes.  According to Satan, “it must needs be that” he “tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves. Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam.”  The Lord is kindly allowing Satan to prove his argument that they can’t be agents without him.  The Lord is, in loving kindness, permitting Satan, whom He must compensate for in order to honor Satan’s agency, to try to prove that “they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet,” according to verse thirty-nine.”

            “[I]t must needs be” (D&C 29:39) for Satan to tempt for Satan’s sake.  Satan needs to see for himself that he’s wrong.  Because of his bad choice, though, Satan and his angels “were thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels; And, behold, there is a place prepared for them from the beginning, which place is hell.”  (D&C 29:37-38).

            My stance is that not only does the Lord not need Satan, but I also submit that we don’t need the devil, either.  We don’t need him to help us in God’s plan of moral agency.  We don’t need him in the sense that without him, we cannot make choices to progress toward eternal life. 

            We need Christ for that progress—without the Savior, no matter how many right decisions we make and no matter how good those decisions are, we will never reach eternal life on our own.

            This truth is taught from the popular Latter-day Saint scripture that “we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23) with this less frequently understood interpretation.  In other words, all we can do is still not enough.  We need grace to save us.

            Thus, we need Christ.  But, there is no scripture that says anything to the effect of “we know that it is by temptation that we are saved, after all we can do to avoid it.” The reason there is no such scripture is simple: we don’t need the devil and his temptations to have agency in order to choose Christ and be saved.  I’ll try to demonstrate this throughout the book.  Arguably, though, we do need the natural man and its opposing inclinations toward selfishness, pride, and immorality to ensure that we are actually using our agency to its fullest in order to choose Christ and be saved by Him.

            To continue with the parable idea, we, as servants of the Lord, do not need Satan to help us make any fruit juice or obtain any wages—no need for him to help provide us opposing crops and no need for him to provide us the wages of eternal life.  The Lord has fully provided for all of those things if we will simply be His faithful servants. 

            The verse above, however, seems to contradict my beliefs.  It reads in D&C 29:39, “And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves.” 

            This says the devil is needed and we cannot be agents without his temptations.  Uh oh.  (This was my first word/phrase as a baby).  That would mean we can’t make grape juice, or apple juice, or orange juice without Satan and his barley, which clearly contradicts my analogy.

            Even though the language of this Doctrine & Covenants verse sounds very literal, I don’t believe this scripture to be literal and absolute, but to be a loose, general statement.  There are three reasons why I believe this.  Let me give you the weakest ones in this part and then the strongest ones in the following other two parts of this chapter.

            First, as the weakest argument that I believe is mildly good enough even by itself, as I read the context of the verse in the whole section, I believe the scripture is for a more right-brained approach (or creative approach) to how Satan’s influence can end up aiding us in being agents.  It is not a left-brained approach (or an analytical approach) that takes each word here in a very detailed and precisely explicit manner.

            In verse one, the revelation from Christ immediately begins with a figurative expression: His “arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins.”  (D&C 29:1).  His arm did not atone for our sins.  He did.

            In the very next verse, the Lord uses another figurative kind of expression in that He will gather us “even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings.”  (D&C 29:2).  This is a simile that is comparing ideas figuratively.

            In verse four, our Redeemer continues to speak figuratively by encouraging us to declare His gospel “as with the voice of a trump.”  (D&C 29:4).  Literally, we physically cannot speak as a trumpet—our voices are more like string instruments, not brass ones.  The statement is figurative for a more right brained approach, meaning to announce the gospel loudly and cheerfully for all to hear.

            In the next verse, our God says, “Lift up your hearts.”  (D&C 29:5).  We cannot literally do that in the normal sense of lifting things or we’ll die.  The encouragement is from a right-brained, more creative style of communicating. 

            More examples can be found in the following verses. Verse seven speaks of those ready for the gospel who “harden not their hearts” (D&C 29:7).  Literally, we would have one of many kinds of heart-attacks with a hardened heart and couldn’t then un-harden it.  Verse eight speaks of doing things “to prepare their heart” (D&C 29:8).  The heart is symbolic for our loving willingness to adhere.  Verse nine talks first metaphorically about how “the earth is ripe” and then comparatively when the wicked will be “as stubble” (D&C 29:9).  The earth isn’t a fruit to be ripe. Death by actual burning is not going to be the universal punishment for the wicked—it will be at a small moment just before the Second Coming and possibly at the very end of the earth before it is transfigured, but those times only cover a small portion of the wicked (D&C 64-23-24—“Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man,…for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming. For after today cometh the burning…tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up” and 3 Nephi 26:3—“And he did expound all things…yea, even all things which should come upon the face of the earth, even until the elements should melt with fervent heat, and the earth should be wrapt together as a scroll, and the heavens and the earth should pass away”).

            In verse thirteen, the Lord says about the righteous “to be with me, that we may be one” (D&C 29:13).  Being “one” means being unified like a team or loving family, not literally one like the mistaken Trinity doctrine or other similar Hindu doctrines.

            Briefly, let me show the literal interpretations of “one” instead of the figurative interpretation of “one.” The traditional Christian understanding of God’s nature is found in the Athanasian Creed: “[W]e worship one God in Trinity….Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost....[T]he Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God.”  The Creed goes on to describe how God mutates into different forms: “The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding.”  In slightly more detail, the Creed continues about God becoming man when He appeared as Christ, “[B]elieve faithfully [in] the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…by assumption of the Manhood by God.”

            Hindu doctrine follows a very similar line of thought, showing the mutating aspect of God from eternal vastness to human form:

The Godhead is My absolute highest nature, vaster than whatever you call vast, omnipresent, immanent everywhere, the Eternal Divine.  I, in my invisible form, pervade everything and every creature in the universe.  I am never confined, attached, changed, or in any way limited.  I am birthless and deathless.  And yet, from time to time I manifest myself in worldly form and live what seems an earthly life.  I may appear human but that is only my power of illusion, because in truth I am beyond humankind.  It is difficult for most people to comprehend that the Supreme Divinity is actually moving about in human form.

Bhagavad-Gita 9:4-6, 8:3.

            These two quotes from the Athanasian Creed and ancient Hindu scripture are examples of interpreting God as literally One Being who changes form, which is a false doctrine in traditional Christianity that is mirrored in Hinduism.  Our beliefs are that God is figuratively one and literally a Godhead of multiple divine Beings who are perfectly united in their knowledge, power, ways, goals, and objectives to form a plural oneness in unity.

            In verse fourteen of the Doctrine & Covenants scripture chapter with the verse that seems to contradict the idea that we don’t need Satan, the Lord prophecies that “the moon shall be turned into blood” (D&C 29:14); in verse seventeen, He says “the cup of mine indignation is full” and His “blood shall not cleanse them if they hear me not” (D&C 29:17).  Literally, blood will not replace the moon and blood isn’t normally used today to clean us up like soap.

            In verse twenty-one, we read of “the great and abominable church” being “the whore of all the earth,” and it “shall be cast down by devouring fire” (D&C 29:21).  Literally, an entire church is not actually a prostitute and fire itself does not directly push people to the ground.  In verse twenty-eight, the Lord says to the wicked after judgment day, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” (D&C 29:28).  Literally, wicked people will not actually be burning in a fire forever.  It’s merely symbolic imagery for the intense suffering they will feel, which suffering they prefer over the lifestyle God requires of us.

            These examples show the context of figurative language in which the supposedly literal statement comes that we need the devil to be agents in order to have opportunities to exercise our free will. 

            Interestingly, this controversial verse continues and uses figurative comparisons between good and bad with our sense of taste immediately after the supposedly literal statement: “it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet.”  (D&C 29:39).

            In the context of my parable (see previous chapter), the scripture’s figurative portion would read, “If the servants should never have had the bitter barley from the enemy or the sour lemons he nurtured, they could not know the sweetness of lemonade or the tastiness of barley tea.”  That statement could be true.  But, the servants did not need the bitter barley to have opposition.  They had opposition in the form of grapes over apples or apples over oranges or oranges over grapes.  Even though they may not have had the sourness of lemons, they had the tartness of oranges that opposed the sweetness of apples and the extra sweetness of grapes. 

            Sometimes, taking scriptural words or a prophet’s words too literally is what underhanded lawyers and Pharisees do to “catch” people “in their words” (see Mark 12:13; Luke 11:52-54; 2 Nephi 27:32)).  In the instance of D&C 29:39, I believe a slightly more figurative interpretation and less explicit understanding of it is in order because of the rich bed of figurative language from which the verse sprouts up and blooms.  

Chapter 3: The Verse that Seems to Contradict

Part II: Satan is Not Rewarded

D&C 29:39, which says, “And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves,” must be interpreted figuratively for a second reason.

            Second, the next argument that I believe is moderately strong enough even by itself, is the fact that scriptures repeatedly speak about punishments to Satan and never any rewards to him.  This clearly indicates that Satan was not, is not, and never will be a necessary part of our just Father’s plan.  He neither has been, is, nor ever will be necessary help to us.

            2 Nephi 2:17-18 describes his consequence for “having sought that which was evil before God” as becoming “miserable forever.”  Misery is not a blessing.  D&C 29:36-38 says that because he “rebelled,” he was “thrust down” and “a place is prepared” for him “which place is hell.”  Hell is not a reward.  It is not a place of glory. 

            D&C 76:25 reiterates that he was “thrust down.”  This coercion is not pleasant.  Moses 4:3 says that God “caused that he should be cast down.”  This degree of righteous compulsion is not enjoyable.  And Isaiah 14:19 even says that not only was he “cast out,” but he was also “thrust through” and “trodden.”  Being stabbed and trampled upon does not seem like the treasured gift you would expect for obediently being any supposedly necessary evil for us in God’s plan.

            2 Peter 2:4 says that what Satan did was sin that deserved figurative chains: “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.”  Jude 1:6 reiterates Peter’s description and states that “the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”  No matter how you interpret the figurative “chains,” a reasonable interpretation never concludes the chains are a prized or cherished consequence. 

            None of those descriptions illustrate rewards for obedient-to-righteous-principles behavior.

            God would be guilty of gross injustice if He, in anyway, allowed Lucifer to help fulfill part of His plan in a portion that only Lucifer was fulfilling (for example, the supposed part of evil opposition) and then punished him for meeting that necessary part; justice requires a reward for aiding God in His purposes, not a punishment.

            Some may feel that the good the devil does is overridden by the bad he commits and so a reward is negated by multiple punishments.  This would be their thought to accommodate why he is only punished.  But, no scripture I can find even proposes such an idea.  Even if it were true, then an even more evil spirit could exist than Satan by the new spirit simply doing no good.  That idea is completely foreign to revealed religion and is pure speculation.  (Cain might be more powerful than Satan in the end with his resurrected body, but He’s certainly not more evil than Satan because Cain kept his first estate.  Lucifer didn’t.  He failed from the very beginning).

            If by only punishing Satan, the Lord was at all unjust, then He would cease to be God: “Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.”  (Alma 42:13).  He would cease to be God by choice.  He would be consistent with His own standards that He has set up or He will voluntarily choose to step down as God.

            But, because God exists, we can know by extension that He has not been unjust in only punishing Satan, which means Satan must have only been disobedient towards God’s plan.  This also means that Lucifer was not volunteering to fill some role of “devil” in order to provide necessary opposition in God’s plan; the landowner did not hire the enemy to sow barley in his garden of fruits to help his servants (see chapter two: The Maker of Fruit Juice) or to nurture the lemon seeds that God had placed in the garden.

_______________________________________________________________

Let me go on a tangent for a moment.  These conclusions about God being just in punishing Satan harshly, and yet supposedly being a loving God, are related to the question about why a loving God would be so harsh in punishing some of us. 

The seemingly loving way of punishing sinners would be to just let spirit hell, where Satan is harming souls, be the device that metes out brutal punishment instead of our loving Father in Heaven meting out that punishment.  This reminds me of the scripture that by the wicked the wicked are punished.

Even though it is “by the wicked that the wicked are punished” (Mormon 4:5), they usually don’t punish themselves fairly.  We see that in how gangs treat a gang member, for example, who does the right thing and snitches on a criminal gang member.  The gang kills him.  Maybe that gang member did, in fact, deserve hitherto-unmeted-out severe punishment for wrongs he had done with the gang, but he didn’t deserve the death penalty.  To me, this shows how the wicked end up punishing each other for wrongs they should be punished for, but do so for the wrong reasons and with too severe of a punishment.  I've personally seen this kind of circumstance in my profession. 

The Father, though, will be fair in meting out punishments--either precisely just in the punishment He gives to the sinner or in passing the due punishment only onto His Son to suffer instead of the sinner.  Either way, He will be just or He will cease to be God: "Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God" (Alma 42:13).  (As a side note, two people suffering for the same sin seems unjust to Christ--if the sinner doesn’t take advantage of the atonement, then Christ will still have suffered the punishment for his sin, but the sinner also will suffer for his own sin’s due punishment.  From justice’s perspective, though, two punishments for one sin is unjust.  But, I say the higher laws of love and mercy will voluntarily endure injustice for the opportunity to extend a more positive influence in the world than raw justice can extend.  See 1 Peter 2:20-21: “[I]f, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye [need to] take it patiently[;] this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.”).

The punishments God chooses to inflict on people for their wickedness have to be just.  But, the punishments we inflict on each other can be unjust by our agency, or, as you note, “perhaps even more so.”  Us giving more punishment than is deserved amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.  God will permit us to misuse our agency in this way just like He permitted Lucifer to rebel with his agency in the first place.  But, if the Father left all punishment up to the wicked to mete out, then the wicked would inevitably cause an injustice that the Father would be responsible for by the sin of omission.  He will have omitted His responsibility to mete out fair justice if this hypothetical occurred. 

I believe, too, that God will justly undo the unfair punishments that the wicked inflict on the wicked (perhaps by giving an added measure of blessings and joy to the person), but He will not undo all of their punishments on each another.  He will maintain the amount of punishment for the wicked that is a just amount. 

To visualize this easier, consider that if sinner A deserved 50 lbs. of punishment, but sinner B gave him 75 lbs., then God will restore sinner A with 25 lbs. of compensating blessings to make him to have only suffered 50 lbs. of punishment. 

In real terms, the effect is to balance out the actual damage sin causes by repairing the damage with the exactly appropriate amount of punishment (say sinner A deserves 50 lbs. of punishment, and sinner B gives him only 45 lbs., then God will inflict another 5 lbs. on sinner A) and/or compensating blessings (like in the 25 lbs. of compensating blessings and joy example).

But, if God didn't do this, and He omitted His responsibility to, at a minimum, mete out perfectly fair justice, then He would have to cease to be God.  So, the way I see it is that God is fundamentally just.  It's a minimum requirement.  Justice, however, is not so loving.  It's simply the great equalizer—not loving, not unloving, just the great neutralizer, the great restorer.  Love and mercy are higher laws that can meet the demands of justice and have a more positive impact on people than justice alone, at least in most circumstances.  I say “most” circumstances because there come times (and they are relatively rare times compared to everything, but relatively frequent in the scriptures, unfortunately) when justice demands consequences that do not fit within the definitions of love and mercy.

So, we see a God who applies mercy and love as much as His justice will allow.  When justice cannot allow mercy and love to replace its neutralizing influences, then we see the “wrath” that justice seems to have in response to the horrible evil that extreme sin deserves justly.  We’re so accustomed to seeing the glorious benefits of the atonement that when we see the contrast of raw justice without mercy, justice appears to be evil.  And we know what evil looks like.  It's unnecessarily extreme brutality. 

Love and mercy, though, contrast so heavily with brutality that when we see any degree of brutality, we think it must be evil when it is merely justice.  Because, I believe, evil does, in fact, mimic justice, but does so wrongly by enhancing it worse than it should be, we mistakenly perceive evil in God’s raw justice.  I’m sure that’s exactly what Satan wants us to perceive in a loving God: evil, anger, and unfairness.  We perceive “wrath” in those instances, a wrath that is the equivalent to prohibited “contention” (3 Nephi 11:29) and “anger” (Matt. 5:22; 3 Nephi 12:22).  The more Satan can deceive our understanding of God, the better.  The more he can make the Father look like him, the more pride He feels in being the more supreme being.

Another thought is that God must apply justice before spirit prison will apply it because He has to balance the interests of the living, innocent victims.  These victims need to see justice at work or else they will take matters into their own hands and become sinners/criminals themselves, not administering justice appropriately, and apply unfair retribution, or revenge.

Chapter 3: The Verse that Seems to Contradict

Part III: The Power is In Us

D&C 29:39, which says, “And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves,” must be interpreted figuratively for a third reason.

            Third, as the final argument that I believe is very strong and good enough even by itself, is that another scripture seems to contradict the literal reading of D&C 29:39 if this other scripture is taken literally, too.  It states:

            Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

            For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

D&C 58:27-28.

            This scripture states “the power” is actually within each one of us that enables us to be “agents unto” ourselves.  There is no indication of a need for evil in order to complete this “power” that “is” within each of us.There is no hint here that evil must provide us otherwise unavailable opposition that is necessary for the power to be agents unto ourselves to function. 

            The necessary opposition for agency to work is between doing good and righteous causes and simply not doing any harm, or, in other words, doing nothing.  You can do good or not do good.  There is opposition there without evil. 

            The opposition can also be from not doing the good causes “anxiously.”  You can do good, or you can do good eagerly.  There is opposition there without the devil.

            There can also be opposition in not doing “much” righteousness by only doing a small or moderate amount of righteousness.  You can do a lot of good, or less than a lot.  There is opposition there without Satan.

            Opposition does not need to be polar opposites of something to be opposing.  Looking at that image at the beginning of this chapter, imagine the 0 line to be a path.  Opposition to line 0 does not have to be the 180^th-degree-angle away, like in the picture.  There’re still the 170^th, the 90^th, and 40^th degrees.  There’re even the 153^rd, the 98^th, 45^th, and 2^nd degrees.  The 270^th and 330^th also oppose angle 0 that you’re on.  As you can see, there are many paths, degrees, or angles—up to 358 others, besides 0 and 180.  That’s a lot of opposition.

            And, if you add a third dimension and make a sphere, then there are a total of almost 41,253 degrees or other angles or various opposing paths to take. 

            In these D&C 58 verses, if the scripture is complete as stated and if it is literally true, then the other statement that we “could not be agents unto” ourselves without “the devil” (D&C 29:39) is untrue as a literal, complete statement.  That would be a direct contradiction in revealed scripture.

            But, I do not believe one is true and one is false.  There is no contradiction.  Neither do I believe that either one is incomplete.  I believe both scriptural statements are true and complete on their faces without needing any more words. 

            In order for both to be true as complete statements, then clearly at least one has to be interpreted figuratively.  The only one that makes sense as a figurative statement is the first because it can be reasonably read both ways—you can read it that we could need Satan to be agents to ourselves (literal interpretation) or that we don’t really need Satan, but that he merely ends up aiding us in being agents to ourselves with the Lord’s compensating protection (figurative interpretation).  

            But the second scripture can only be read literally, and not figuratively, to make sense—if you read it that the Lord only meant it figuratively that the power is within us to be agents to ourselves, then what would that mean?  It would mean we really don’t have agency. 

            But, that’s just plain false.

            He has given us agency.  It’s a gift.  He endowed us with it since before we were born on earth—before Lucifer even became Satan.  We didn’t need Satan to choose to accept the Father’s plan.  We still had the power to accept or reject it whether Satan or anyone else rejected it.  We had our agency without Satan.  Lucifer didn’t make it possible for us to accept or reject God’s plan.  God did.  Our Father enabled us with the gift.  To revealed knowledge, Lucifer was just the first to exercise his agency to reject the Father’s plan.

            So, the scripture saying we need Satan to be agents for ourselves—or, in other words, agents for our own will—is a figurative expression, conveying the truth that God compensates for the devil’s unwanted influence by making it enhance the number of opportunities available for us to exercise our agency.  He uses it to help us make more drinks, from chapter two, so to speak.

            If anything, all Satan ended up demonstrating is that we really could reject God’s plan.  God really was allowing us to reject it.  We really can choose rebellion if we so choose.  Rebellion against God is evil.  Satan doesn’t define evil, rebellion against God does.  We don’t need the devil to know that.  We can choose evil.  He may have helped show it, but we didn’t need him or anyone to show it because we certainly knew that God was a “God of truth” and could not lie, like the brother of Jared knew: “And [the brother of Jared] answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.”  (Ether 3:12).

            These three reasons of (1) a figurative context, of (2) punishments alone to Satan, and of (3) the power being in us to be agents, all lead me to firmly conclude that Satan is not, in any way, shape, form, or fashion, a necessary opposition in God’s plan.

Chapter 4: Brief Introduction to Sections Two and Three

            And thus we see that all mankind were fallen….

            Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment [not “…except there were evil”], which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

            Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law [not “How could he sin if there was no devil”]? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?...

            And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin [thus, we can choose to sin without Satan, in part because of our “fallen” nature and in other part because it is merely prohibited by law, not made impossible for us to do without any extra influence].

Alma 42:14,16-17,20.

            Having the above scripture as my support, I ask you, what is the more logical statement below?

·         Repentance could not come unto men except there were evil, or

·         Repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment       

            Logically, or using reason, most people would probably say you can’t repent if there is no evil to repent of.  But, that’s not what the Lord says.  He says, through his prophet, that you cannot repent of certain behavior if He has not attached a punishment for certain behavior.  This scripture and the opposition of punishment to repentance instead of evil to repentance is a nice testimony to God providing necessary opposition for us, not Satan.

            With this understanding about the Lord being able to provide us all the necessary opposition we need in His plan as the basis for my ideas, I have detailed in section three of this book what I imagine the original Plan of Salvation was in premortality before Lucifer offered himself to be the Savior.

            I have written how I imagine Satan could have opposed the plan with ideas that a third part of the host of heaven would have accepted—by presenting opposing virtues, not necessarily evils.  He would have persuasively prioritized certain virtues above the most important ones.

            Here’s a disclaimer, though.  These imaginations are my ideas based on my understanding of scripture, gospel teachings, and on my own gap fillers.  As such, they are subject to error and do not provide the higher degrees of certainty about the information.  Gap-filler-personal-interpretations are always vulnerable to mistakes.  But they are my best, sincere guesses from which to begin an exploration confirming or refuting what is here in order to understand and discover more truth.

            The main point is to show what I believe was probably the greatest single event of clashing virtues—the war in Heaven.  This event demonstrates how misprioritized virtues can challenge even the best group of virtues.  And, the opposition of this kind provides us with the ability to choose and use our agency sufficiently.

            The search for truth is one of the best and most important purposes of life and I hope that through these ideas, I can further that aim rather than hinder it.  This is why I provide these ideas while knowing they may be mistaken.  Essentially, the ideas are “food for thought,” so to speak. 

            The Spirit can help us know the “truth of all things.”  (Moroni 10:5).  I’ll point out in the end notes the parts I know for sure are not established Church-doctrine to help avoid spreading false doctrine.  You can treat these ideas in much the same way we treat the Apocrypha, as we read in Doctrine & Covenants 91:1-2,4-5:

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true….There are many things contained therein that are not true….Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom.

            So, as you read this book, especially the part on the original Plan of Salvation and Satan’s opposition to it with clashing virtues, I hope you will take it with a grain of salt and still be able to gain a lot of good from it.  I hope you will be able to see how even the best of virtues can be challenged by other virtues.

            The main part of this book, section two, will point out specific situations where the opposition is between good and better, or better and best, or good and best.  These are all situations where evil does not need to be present in order to exercise your agency.  The concepts may feel out of place, but we will even explore political ideas because they are based on sets of virtues that compete against one another.  They can be good examples of clashing virtues.

            I will offer scripture, doctrine, and explanations to show which virtue we should choose over the other when they come into conflict.  When there are exceptions to these general rules, the Spirit can guide us to choose the other virtue.

Chapter 5: There is a Scriptural Priority of Some Virtues

[T]hat which [is] most dear and precious above all things…is chastity and virtue.

Moroni 9:9.

          We have a good example in scripture where our Savior and God, Jesus Christ, prioritizes certain virtues, making some good, others better, and others best.  According to Him, while He scolded those who seemed religiously pious, He said, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”  (Matthew 23:23). 

            From a superficial analysis, the priority of virtues here shows a kind of clash of virtues between paying tithing and behaving with justice, mercy, and faith.  Perceiving a clash here, however, is a mistake—a kind of mistake too commonly made.  There is no true clash because paying tithing does not mutually exclude the virtues of being just, merciful, and faithful.  They can all be done at the same time, just as Christ indicated.

            The supposedly pious here, by concentrating solely on the Jewish law’s requirement to pay tithing on the material wealth they had amassed, which is definitely a good virtue, “have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.”  (Matthew 23:23 (NIV)). 

            In essence, the Jews here had chosen the lesser good—simply paying tithing—and not on the better good—being just, merciful, and faithful—and not on the best good—being just, merciful, faithful, and paying tithing. 

            Hypothetically, however, if the virtues were mutually exclusive, then the right choice would be to forego tithing and choose behaving with justice, mercy, and faith.  That would be the case only if paying tithing meant that you would not behave with justice, mercy, or faith.

            The reason is that those virtues are the “weightier matters of the law,” or the best virtues that take priority over the other virtue.  Fortunately, this is only hypothetical.  There is no need to forego tithing in order to be just, merciful, or faithful.

            We learn also of priorities in other virtues: “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”  (1 Cor. 13:13).  Charity, then, is the best virtue out of faith and hope.  If, under some circumstances, faith, hope, and charity could not be exercised at the same time and we had to choose one over the other, then we choose charity because it takes priority over the other two virtues.

            One example of when the three great virtues cannot all be used simultaneously might be losing faith or hope in a family member who chooses a life of habitual filth, sleaze, and disrespect.  In those instances, when having faith or hope in him is virtually impossible, we still are charitable to him.  We still are patient, long-suffering, and kind, and maybe even generous.

            We also learn in the end of The Book of Mormon that chastity is at the pinnacle of all that is most valuable: “that which [is] most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue.”  (Moroni 9:9).

            Because virtues are not of the same value, I intend to show you how pairs of virtues can clash and provide opposition to each other.  This opposition allows us opportunities to exercise our God-given agency without needing Satan.

            The advantage to these oppositions is significant.  Many times, neither choice is evil per se.  One is simply better than the other.

II.

Pairs of Clashing Virtues

Chapter 6: Loving vs. Protecting

Part I: Jesus Christ Provided the Example

[T]hey smite him, and he suffereth it….because of his loving kindness and his long-suffering towards the children of men.

1 Nephi 19:9.

          In my work as a criminal defense attorney, I notice a number of attitudes among prosecutors.  Those who have good ones want pure justice, or retribution, an eye for an eye desire. The better prosecutors have vigilant desires to protect the victims of crimes and the community at large.  They feel a deep love for those who have been wrongfully injured.  With that desire to protect them, the prosecutors seek retribution against my clients in order to deter them and other wrongdoers from similarly victimizing others. 

            These are real life examples of how the virtues of love and protection easily go together—there is no clash between loving the victims and protecting them.

            As a side note, the best prosecutors want the welfare of not only the victims, but that of the criminals, too—to help them get healed, not just deterred, so they don’t victimize others ever again of their own volition.  A complete solution through conversion.  That’s the goal of the best defense attorneys, too.  Considering the victims while helping to heal the defendants without there being a conflict of interest is their hope and aim (which is very hard to achieve too often).

            Usually these two virtues of loving others and protecting self and others do not compete.  There are occasions, however, when these two virtues come into conflict.  When they clash, we must choose one over the other.

            Let me give you a specific, scriptural example where there was a clash between loving and protecting—when someone couldn’t have both virtues.  He had to pick one and reject the other virtue.  And, it’s the kind of choice that Satan wasn’t needed for.  I believe the ancient American prophet, Nephi, succinctly taught the virtue of being loving over protecting when he prophetically described the guiding example of our Shepherd, Jesus Christ:

And the world, because of their iniquity, shall judge him to be a thing of naught; wherefore they scourge him, and he suffereth it; and they smite him, and he suffereth it. Yea, they spit upon him, and he suffereth it, because of his loving kindness and his long-suffering towards the children of men.

1 Nephi 19:9.

            Because of the “loving kindness” that motivates our Master, He suffered the criminal assaults against Him.  The people themselves did this violence to Him.  Because of His tremendous love for them, He chose to react with love and not protect Himself.  He could have called down “legions” of angles, yet he didn’t: “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?”  (Matt. 26:53).  He willingly chose to suffer the horrible injustices.  In doing so, He accomplished His mission of offering His life and blood to ultimately save us.  This was not self-preservation on His part.  It was self-sacrifice.

            The ancient near-east prophet, Isaiah, taught the same doctrine, but with the motive of “loving kindness” being implicit rather than explicit like in the prophet Nephi’s unambiguous description quoted above:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.…He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth….He was taken from prison and from judgment: and…he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked….[B]y his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities….he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Isaiah 53:5-12.

          Because of Christ’s selfless love for us, He was willing to bare punishment that He did not deserve.  He was willing to intercede and take the pain and anguish that we deserved for our sins.  Had he been protecting Himself from injustice, He would neither have provided us the great atonement for our sins nor the example of loving virtue that He did give us.

            Another example of Christ not protecting Himself, and even directing that no one try to protect Him, was just after He had suffered the ultimate clash of virtues of loving others and protecting self from grievously painful punishment in Gethsemane.  This example is a smaller, yet instructive one:

And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?....[T]he cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?...[For Christ earlier] went away [in Gethsemane], and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

Matt. 26:51-53, John 18:11, and Matt. 26:42.

          This example is important because it teaches a principle of love that is counter-intuitive to our society.  They who “take the sword” in defense to protect themselves or others “shall perish with the sword.”  A lot of blood is spilt when defending yourself in wars and other fights whether or not you’re justified in fighting back to protect yourself.

            Certainly, being protective of self and others is a virtue.  But sometimes that virtue cannot be sought while at the same time seeking the virtue of loving others.  At times, practicing the noble virtue of protecting others results in perishing by violence.  Instead, practicing the virtue of loving others sometimes requires self-restraint from protecting ourselves against the wicked.

Chapter 6: Loving vs. Protecting

Part II: There is Another Application of Love over Protection: Help the Wicked Self-Realize

[T]he nearer we get to our heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs.

Joseph Smith.

          You may think, though, that this principle of loving self-restraint only applied to Christ and His mission.  It has other applications.  I believe this self-restraint allows the wicked to realize—on their own—the wrong they are committing.

          Anything righteous we can do to foster this kind of self-realization is worth doing because self-realization usually leads to sincere and dramatic change much faster and more genuinely than other methods.  It’s risky, though.  They may not make the self-realization.  Or, they may still choose the evil.  Then more people will be harmed.  But the risk is worth it when considering the potential progress to be made.

          Specifically, by our lack of fighting back, the serious offenders will not have as many opportunities to justify what they did.  They won’t be rationalizing—at least not as much—because mutual combat engenders the conviction that you must be in the right and the other is in the wrong, which is another handy misuse of the process-of-elimination logic.

          As humble disciples, we can use the misuse of the process-of-elimination logic to our advantage simply by not fighting back.  Without the mutual aspect of the fight, the offender cannot blame you for the fight.  If you’re blameless, then who are they to blame?  The only remaining one to blame is the offensive attacker: themselves.  This is where the process of elimination and binary thinking is helpful.  Once they see they are the only ones to blame, they will more easily begin to feel legitimate guilt, remorse, or godly sorrow. 

          This principle was demonstrated when the Lamanites began slaughtering the people of Ammon, who willingly refrained from the mutual combat of war, even when they suffered “death in the most aggravating and distressing manner…before they would take the sword or cimeter to smite them” (Alma 27:29), which is as follows:

          Now when the people saw that [the Lamanites] were coming against them they went out to meet them, and prostrated themselves before them to the earth, and began to call on the name of the Lord; and thus they were in this attitude when the Lamanites began to fall upon them, and began to slay them with the sword.

…

            Now when the Lamanites saw this they did forbear from slaying them; and there were many whose hearts had swollen in them for those of their brethren who had fallen under the sword, for they repented of the things which they had done.

           And it came to pass that they threw down their weapons of war, and they would not take them again, for they were stung for the murders which they had committed; and they came down even as their brethren, relying upon the mercies of those whose arms were lifted to slay them.

Alma 24:21-25.

          By refraining from virtuous, defensive mutual combat, the people of Ammon, in effect, allowed the Lamanites to realize on their own the evil they were committing.  This self-realization was so poignant that many of the Lamanites immediately “repented.”  The repentance was so deep that they were willing to even sacrifice their own lives “even as their brethren.”

          There is another example from our days in the tarring and feathering of Bishop Edward Partridge.  After a mob attacked him and he refused to renounce The Book of Mormon, the mob stripped him of his outer clothes and covered his body with tar and feathers.  He noticed that he had “bor[n]e my abuse with so much resignation and meekness that it appeared to astound the multitude, who permitted me to retire in silence, many looking very solemn, their sympathies having been touched.”  Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Student Study Guide (2005), Chapter 98: A Response to Persecution, pp. 111–112.  The mob gained a repentant attitude by his meekness when he endured their criminal assaults against him.  He could have fought back in ferocious indignation toward them.  But, that wouldn’t have helped.  It would have only served to justify the attack more in their minds.  But, instead, he helped them realize their error.

            Similarly, by allowing wrongdoers—especially the more hardened ones—to come to this realization about their errors on their own, we lovingly help them sincerely repent.  They may not have otherwise ever come to that decision to repent if we had fought back because then they could blame us instead of themselves and then conveniently forget that they were at least equally guilty for fighting.

            From what I gather out of these scriptures, loving kindness wishes for even our enemies to sincerely want to forsake their hatred and sin no more. 

            Loving kindness not only wishes this, but also seeks to provide the best opportunities to them for recovery from evil, including self-motivated recovery opportunities. 

            Loving kindness wishes to forgive them and not necessarily punish them for their wrongs, but to heal them from their willful acts of wrongdoings in the manner(s) best able to heal them (which may entail some form of punishment, but not necessarily incarceration or other typical forms of penalizing consequences).

            And, of course, loving kindness also wishes to heal the victims of sin and bystanders negatively affected.

            Joseph Smith taught about the loving kindness that our Father in Heaven has towards His children:

Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive….God does not look on sin with allowance, but….the nearer we get to our heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith (1976), 257, 240–41.  Emphasis added.

            The liberal view and mercy of our Father that we can adopt is to (1) prevent sin as much as lovingly possible, (2) look with compassion on sinners and criminals, who are spiritually rotting inside, (3) wish to do what is necessary to pick them up out of their weaknesses, and (4) focus not on what they did wrong (only acknowledge it), but on what can be done to heal them.

Chapter 6: Loving vs. Protecting

Part III: Justice May Come By Exhibiting Love Instead

Look unto God with firmness of mind, and pray unto him with exceeding faith, and he will console you in your afflictions, and he will plead your cause, and send down justice upon those who seek your destruction.

Jacob 3:1.

            There is another heart-wrenching example of love that holds back on protecting even victims, while deep, sympathetic love is present.  It was when the ancient American prophets, Alma and Amulek, stood by and witnessed the slaughter of righteous people rather than halt it from happening:

And it came to pass that they took Alma and Amulek, and carried them forth to the place of martyrdom, that they might witness the destruction of those who were consumed by fire. And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames. But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing.

Alma 14:9-11.

          This self-restraint in practicing the virtue of protecting others was loving because by withholding the protection, they made it possible for divine justice to be served on the slayers of the massacred victims.  This is something the victims may value later on because a Higher Power allotted justice perfectly rather than our substandard attempts. The Lord “doth suffer that…the people may do this thing unto them…that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just.”  (Alma 14:11).  Captain Moroni, perhaps considering this same experience, stated, “For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked.”  (Alma 60:13).

          As an important side note, it seems from these two scriptures that because of the Lord’s mercy and tenderness toward sinners, He requires more than just their usual sins to exercise “justice and judgment” on them—He needs them to do great evil before He has “wrath” that leads Him to exercise pure “justice and judgment” on them.

            This loving kindness that does not exercise pure justice toward sinners can be, from the victims’ perspectives, very cruel.  They may be demanding justice be served on the perpetrator.  In many cases, it won’t happen.  God will extend mercy, not His wrath, to those perpetrators.  Christ will have suffered their just penalties instead of them as they repent.

            The Lord’s wrath, then, is much different from ours.  His leads Him to do what He is justly entitled to do, but does not normally do presumably because of His loving kindness, mercy, forgiveness, and long-suffering compassion.  Our “wrath,” however, usually leads us to do what we are not justly entitled to do, which is why our wrath or “contention” is so wrong and is “of the devil.”  (3 Nephi 11:29) (“contention is…of the devil”).

            Loving kindness can insure a minimum of relief in the form of justice on the perpetrators of great evil that’s been unfairly suffered by victims.  But, to receive this guarantee, we sometimes have to hold back on immediately protecting ourselves and/or others. 

            Perhaps this helps explain one reason why it is right to “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39); it may guarantee justice for us as the victim at some point in our mortal or post-mortal existence.  “But if not” (see Elder Dennis E. Simmons, “But If Not,” April 2004, General Conference)—if justice will never be served to relieve the victims or justice will never be served for any another reason—it is still a loving act of kindness to simply turn the other cheek.  It is still the right thing to do.

            The more we become accustomed “to forgive all men” (D&C 64:10), the less potential resentment we may feel if the Lord does not exercise justice on our wrongdoers, on enemies, on criminals in order to give them their best chance at sincere repentance motivated by gratitude that a loving Savior took their just penalties for them.

Chapter 6: Loving vs. Protecting

Part IV: Charitable Love Rivals All Virtues

And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.

Colossians 3:14.

          In our question between which virtue is best, love or protection, the answer can also be gathered from what the apostle Paul emphasized.  He taught the virtue of love being paramount to all others.  He knew this as part of the gospel not because he “received it from any man” (Gal. 1:12 (NIV)), or was “taught it,” (Gal. 1:12 (NIV)), but rather, he “received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”  (Gal. 1:12 (NIV)). 

          With this revealed knowledge, Paul exhorts us:

Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. 

Col. 3:12-14.

            We learn from Paul’s list above the following virtues:

1.      Bowels of mercy, or “compassion” (NIV translation)

2.      Kindness

3.      Humbleness of mind, or “humility” (NIV translation)

4.      Meekness, or “gentleness” (NIV translation)

5.      Longsuffering, or “patience” (NIV translation)

6.      Forbearing one another, or “bear[ing] with each other” (NIV translation)

7.      Forgiving one another

8.      Charity, or “love” (NIV translation)

            Of the eight virtues listed, there is one that rivals the rest: “And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.”  (Col. 3:14 (NIV)).  Love should be the motivating force behind forgiving, or for being patient, or gentle, for example. 

            The motivating force behind virtues as forgiveness, patience, or gentleness should not be self-interest.  Your self-interest would be forgiving, it would be patient, and it would act gently to give you the best outcome if, under the circumstances, these virtues served your purposes: if being these ways would benefit you.  But, the motivation for all these great virtues should be selfless love.

            This doctrine of love being paramount to all virtues, including protecting others, is consistent with the answer Christ gave to the one who asked Him, “[W]hat shall I do to inherit eternal life?”  (Luke 22:18).  The Savior responded, “Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.”  (Luke 22:20). 

            When the inquirer replied, “All these have I kept from my youth up (Luke 22:21),” Jesus said, “Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”  (Luke 22:22).  His answer was not, “Be protective of yourself and property.”  It seemed to be the opposite.

            Because of the man’s sorrowful reluctance to have his wealth redistributed, at least in part, to those less fortunate than he, the Lord Jesus Christ observed with sadness, “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” (Luke 22:24).

            In essence, charitable love binds all the virtues together in unity, including those virtues taught in the Ten Commandments, as Christ related above.  It binds together the implicit virtues in the commandments of sexual purity (as opposed to “adultery” in the list Christ gave to the rich man), non-violence (verses “kill”), honesty (verses “steal” and “bear false witness”), and honoring authority (or to “honour” parents). 

            The binding effect comes from the umbrella effect that love has.  True love will not violate another, even if the violation is between “consenting adults,” which virtue of consent or “liberty” the United States Supreme Court has placed above the virtue of purity. 

            In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court was deciding “[w]hether petitioners’ criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” and the conclusion was that the criminal convictions against the consenting adults were wrong.  It reasoned as follows:

The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558, 578 (2003).

            Thus, according to the Supreme Court, personal choice is paramount to purity.  In its view, the adults should be able to act impurely because, for the government, “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”  Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850 (1992).

            But, despite the “liberty” to do such things, true love will not exercise such freedom because true love loves God’s standards of purity more than mankind’s standards.  It gives up the free will or choice in this matter.  That is a choice.  It is a choice to waive your right to exercise a certain liberty.  We frequently waive our Constitutional rights, for example, when we accept a plea bargain instead of going to trial.  As noted earlier, chastity is “most dear and precious above all things” (Moroni 9:9), which would mean it is even more valuable than the liberty, freedom, or agency to violate the virtue of purity.  You are free to violate purity, but true love won’t.

            Going back to the umbrella effect of true love, true love also will not unlawfully and violently take another person’s life; true love for others will not be dishonest towards others; true love will respectfully honor those in authority over them. 

            But the reverse is not true.  Simply being sexually pure, for example, does not mean you will also be non-violent, honest, or respectful toward authority.  Purity does not have the umbrella effect over all the other virtues like compassionate love does.  Neither do the other virtues of non-violence, honesty, and respect for authority.  For this reason, loving God and others are the two greatest commandments. 

            As Christ explained to the lawyer who asked which was the great commandment in the law, He said the two greatest, umbrella-effect commandments are, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”  (Matt. 22:37-40).

            To wrap this chapter up while considering all the scriptures and thoughts above, loving is clearly the most important commandment and it is the most important virtue.  It rivals protection.  Generally, then, when they come into conflict with each other, compassionate love should be chosen over the virtue of protecting.  This choice is one you can make without Satan because it is a choice between two of God’s virtues, not a choice between good and evil.  It is a choice between two shades of white: porcelain white or sparkling white.

Chapter 7: Loving as Altruistic Edification and Not Self-Interest

Part I: The Motivations for Love

Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.

Mosiah 8:18.

          Before I continue, I want to clarify what the definition of “love” is by explaining what its motivations are.  You may have an idea of what love is and what the motivations are.  You may be like those who say that, ultimately, the only reason you do anything, including good or loving things for others, is to decrease your own pain and increase your own pleasure.  This philosophy is known as Hedonism.  It may have application, but it is not the only motivation for doing good or loving things, as it claims.

            Others reference a far better motivation for doing good or loving things, but apply it in the same way Hedonists apply their philosophy.  Quoting the Book of Mormon, these other people claim that our best motivations to do good ultimately boil down to the reason that it will bring us joy—individually.  Why do they say this?  Because “men are, that they might have joy” (2 Nephi 2:25) as the scripture teaches.  This verse shows obtaining joy as a purpose to existence.  I agree with this.  Note, though, that it does not say “men are only that they might have joy.”  Joy is not the sole purpose to life.

            But, proponents of this position use this scripture to claim that all supposedly “selfless” motivations for doing good or loving acts toward others ultimately boil down to the single motive of seeking joy for yourself.  A kind of divine selfishness.  You do good or loving things only because it brings you joy.  And this is right because that’s your purpose in life, they say.  They seem to believe that this kind of self-interest is the greatest of all virtues.

            The best motivation for doing good or loving acts, though, is not rooted in our personal self-interest—that I might have joy.  It’s not all about me in the end.  Doing things for others in order that I might have joy is certainly better than to do those same things for pleasure, but it is not the best reason for doing good for others.  The scripture bears this out.  Read it carefully—there are five concepts in this tightly packed cluster of concepts to synergistically make up a stronger one: “(2) men are, (3) that (1) they (4) might have (5) joy.”

1.      The best motivation is that “they” might have joy, as 2 Nephi 2:25 explicitly states.  It’s plural, not singular.

2.      It explicitly says, “men are,” or, as I understand it, “mankind exists.”  It’s men, not man.  And, the reference to men is not just to males.  It refers to everyone.

3.      They exist “that,” the scripture reads.  Mankind exists for a certain purpose.

4.      It says mankind is or exists for the purpose that they “might” have something—“might” means that they “may be able to” have it, or “be provided with the opportunities to obtain” it.

5.      The “it” from point four is joy.  Thus, mankind exists for the purpose that they may be able to provide one another with opportunities to obtain “joy.”  That’s how I break this scripture down and understand it. 

            Mankind is to help all of mankind be able to achieve joy, not break apart from the great team that we are and then separate into single individuals that only focus on self in ways that supposedly help others.  People exist to selflessly provide one another opportunities for joy.              But, the conversation persists (which is based on a real conversation I just had today at church):

THEM: “Why do you do good?” 

ME: “Because of altruism—a selfless desire to benefit others.” 

THEM: “But why do you want to help others?” 

ME: “Because I want them to be happy and improved.”

THEM: “But why do you want them to be happy and improved?” 

ME: “Because I love them.” 

THEM: “No, it’s because it makes you happy to help them be improved—it ultimately gives you eternal life by both wanting to help them and by actually helping them, which means that is why you do it.” 

            But, then I think to myself, “Why do I want eternal life?”  And I have to say, “Because I want to be able to share it—the best good—with others.”

            For me, it boils down to a self-less reason: altruistic love.  Eternal life will mean nothing for anyone if it can’t be shared with others.  This may not be common, but some people truly want good for another for the other’s sake and not for their own sake, although good for self might be a pleasant side-effect.

            But, the conversation makes me think.  Considering a question from their perspective, I ask myself, “Do I love God and want eternal life with Him because loving Him gives me joy?”  Hmmm.  I want to say no.  I love Him because I love Him.  Stated in another way, though, the question could be, “Would I cease to love God if loving Him did not bring me joy?”

            I would say no or not necessarily.  There would seem to be plenty of examples where loving Him entails not experiencing joy because of it.  In fact, loving Him sometimes means being spit upon, slapped, or even stoned to death.  So, reducing this love to something rooted in self-interest, or minimizing it into some fundamental love of one’s self, takes away from the meaning of “love one another, as I have loved you.”  (John 13:34, 15:12).  Christ loved us for our sake, not necessarily for His.  We know this because of how much he suffered for us.  Love for self does not have the power to endure what he did.  Only exceptional love for others could have given Him the strength to endure what He underwent.

            The others would counter my thinking and say that my answer is “yes, you would cease to love God unless it would eventually bring you joy.”  The notion is that I love Him because I have faith that I will ultimately obtain joy as a result of loving Him.  But, then I ask myself, “Would I cease to love God if I knew that loving Him would never bring me joy?”  That’s a good question, but it may be somewhat off by the motive it wrongly implies. 

            Joy in something is also an indication that the something is right.  If I would never feel joy in loving God, then that would be an indication to me that loving God must not be right.  So, no, I would not love God if loving Him never brought me joy, but not because it wouldn’t bring me joy, but because loving Him would be wrong.

            So, hypothetically, even if loving Him would never bring me joy, I don’t have to ever feel joy to love God; I can love Him simply because I love Him.  I choose to be loyal to Him and care about Him because He personifies all that I consider to be good and right.  This love does not depend on joy. 

            In reality, though, the two are inextricably connected—love and joy exist parallel to each other and will not be separate for any long period of time.

            Could there be other reasons to love God?  Out of fear?  Out of a sense of duty?  Out of friendship?

            Yes, but the others would say those motivations all boil down to self interest, too—if you love Him out of fear, it’s because you’re trying to prevent your own condemnation and the lack of joy. 

            They would say that if you love Him out of duty, it’s because you want to prevent punishment to yourself for not doing your duty and to prevent lack of joy from failing to fulfill what you’re supposed to do.

            They would say that friendship is the same way—you ultimately want it so that you’re not lonely and so that you don’t miss out on something truly satisfying to the soul.

            But I ask about whether three other motivations exist:

1.      Isn’t there also a motivation to do something simply because it is objectively or actually right?  If my goal is simply to do those things that are objectively right (no matter the consequence), which do not depend on someone’s subjective preferences, then can’t I follow the right without having to be otherwise benefited by it?  Wouldn’t this be the motivation of truth in itself, not self-interest?

2.      What about doing something out of selfless love that doesn’t depend on joy?  Doesn’t that love actually exist (which is the main question of this chapter)?

3.      What about doing something out of edification that doesn’t depend on joy as the motivation?  Wouldn’t it be the motivation to make others and yourself better simply for the sake of progress?

I say yes to all three:

·         The love of truth itself can be a separate motivator from the motivator of self-interest. 

·         Selfless love of your neighbor, and not just self, is also an inherently distinct motivation in and of itself. 

·         The pure love of God and mutual progress is another motivator to do good, to follow Christ, and to edify all. 

            These three motivations are intrinsic and above and beyond the motivation of self-interest, or righteous self-aggrandizement, as some may call it.  There does not need to be a self-focused reason supporting any of them.  Many times there is.  But, that does not mean it has to be that way.

          Here’s a conversation that I could have with the opposing people:

ME: “Do I serve others only because it brings me happiness in the end?”

THEM: “Yes.”

ME: “Why can’t I serve others because I love God?  Is there not a scripture that says that ‘when ye are in the service of your fellow beings, ye are only in the service of your God?’ (Mosiah 2:17).  Can’t that be my sole motivation—I serve others because I want to serve the God whom I love?”

THEM: “There is such a scripture, but the reason you serve God by serving others is because you obtain joy from loving and serving Him, which is why you do it.”

ME: “Does that also apply to Heavenly Father?  Does He have spirit children only because it brings Him joy and He wouldn’t do so if no joy for Himself was involved in it at all?  Or is He genuinely interested in their welfare outside of any benefit to Himself?  Isn’t there a scripture that says that ‘this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man’?  (Moses 1:39).  It doesn’t say, ‘To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man so I can have joy.’  The portion referring to any kind of self-interest is omitted.  It’s not there because it’s not there.”

THEM: “Yes, but He must do it only because it ultimately brings Him joy.”

ME: “Or could it be that joy is just one of the side-effects of His work rather than the single motivation for the work?  Couldn’t His motivation be like Lehi’s—“And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof….And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit.”  1 Nephi 8:11-12.  Emphasis added.”  Lehi was offering the delicious fruit to his family for their sake, not his own.  He wasn’t giving the fruit to them because the giving of the fruit would make him happier.  He was already experiencing ultimate joy.  He couldn’t be happier.  And, the tree had only so much fruit.  If he shares it with others, then that means less for him, right?  Yet, he still gave it to them so they could also be happy.  It was as if the feeling of true joy engenders selfless motivation.  The selfless motivation is to spread, share, or infect others with joy.”

THEM: “But he’s happy when they’re happy and he stays happy if they stay happy.”

ME: “But happiness isn’t that fleeting.  It’s a side-effect of doing good, not necessarily the sole motivation for doing the good.  It can be the sole motivation.  But it doesn’t have to be—doing good can be for purely selfless reasons.  Because it can be both, I see the motivation, when it is both, as desiring to edify one another—both are benefited by the process, God and His children, or you and others, for example.  Seeking for edification—their benefit and your benefit—captures both motivations.  Isn’t there a scripture that acknowledges both self-interest and selfless motivations when it says that ‘that which doth not edify is not of God?’”(D&C 50:23).

THEM: “But edification is only a side-effect, not a motivation.”

ME: “I disagree.  It can be both a motivation for doing good and a side-effect of doing good, just like happiness can be.”

          The conversation could go on in perpetuity. 

          One reason why some people may only perceive self-interested motivations at the root of anything supposedly “selfless” is that those who are only self-interested (even in the good self-interest of seeking joy) can only see or perceive that motivation.  It reminds me of the verse, “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure.”  (Titus 1:15).

            Similarly, those who are only selfless will only see selflessness as the final motivation—the only reason to seek joy for yourself is so that you can share it with others because otherwise personal joy is useless and self-defeating (in other words, evil).  It can’t be sustained if no one else has it or can gain it.  Joy does not persist in loneliness.  Misery does (but doesn’t want to).

            Joy infects you with selflessness, with desires to spread the joy to others so that they may be equally benefited. 

            Truth is the same way—once you truly have it, you are contaminated with the craving to convey it to others. 

            Love is the same way—if you truly feel it, then you long to leave it with as many others as you can.

            Thus, selflessness is a fundamental aspect of genuinely possessing joy, truth, and love.

            They say selflessness is really self-interest for joy.  I say selflessness is what it claims to be—interest in others without the interest in self.  It’s the motivation for our actions when we follow this counsel: “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.”  (1 Cor. 10: 24).

            At this point, you might be pulling your hair out asking, “So, what’s the truth about this issue?”

Chapter 7: Loving as Altruistic Edification and Not Self-Interest

Part II: Edification can be the Best Motivation for Love

[T]hat which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness. 

Doctrine &Covenants 50:23.

          The answer may not just be selflessness as the motivation for love and being generous, though, as I’ve tried to point out.  It may be that we both are right if we combine the answers together (or we’re both half-way wrong if you want to look at it from a pessimistic view). 

            The final answer could be edification—it is best to be motivated to benefit yourself as long as you are also motivated to benefit another.  The reason is that this is the core meaning of edification: the benefit of both.  Isn’t your benefit what God wants for you?  If you want what God wants, then you’ll want what He wants: your benefit.  And you’ll want everyone else’s, too.

            It’s important to remember that the Lord stated, “[T]hat which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.”  (D&C 50:23).  Thus, if the motivation is only to help yourself when you do good, then you are not seeking to edify.  Is this wrong in and of itself?  You might think that I’m going to say, “Yes.”  But, actually, I don’t think it is inherently wrong, based on this scripture. 

            The answer would be “no” because the scripture says nothing about seeking edification, only causing it—it’s about doing the act of edifying.  So, when you seek your own benefit, you may actually end up causing edification.  And if this happens, then it is of God.

            Our capitalistic, free market economy seems to be a fitting example of self-interest that can end up producing edification because people’s self-interested investing and self-interested creation of business that requires the help of many employees ends up producing a benefit for all in the economy—the owner, the employees, the customers, and those receiving benefits from taxes.  That’s an edification outcome.  (I’m certain there are better ways to produce edification than through the free-market, though).

            That “selfishness,” so to speak, in these cases is okay if the result, side-effect, or outcome is edification.   I would add, though, that your motivation to be “selfish,” so to speak, needs to be first motivated by your desire to want what God wants in order to be the most pure.  He wants you to be benefited, so you do too.  But, if the selfish or self-interested motivation doesn’t end up edifying, then it is clearly darkness and not of God.  So, if the free market, for example, is used in a selfish way where others are not bettered by it, then it is darkness and not of God.  (This seems to happen too frequently in specific commercial transactions here and there).

            Basically speaking, the principle must be the same for selflessness.  If selflessness does not result in edification, then it is darkness.

            But it’s hard to see how selflessness would ever not end up edifying.  Like my opponents emphasize, being selfless makes you happy.  It also makes others happy by design.  Thus, you have edification, whether or not to be happy was your motivation when you were being selfless toward others.

            Here’s another consideration: why do we penalize criminals more who don’t care about their victims? 

Chapter 7: Loving as Altruistic Edification and Not Self-Interest

Part III: We Penalize Criminals More Because They Lack….

And again, verily I say unto you, that my servant Ezra Thayre must repent of his …selfishness….Otherwise he shall…be cut off out of my church, saith the Lord God of hosts.

Doctrine & Covenants 56:8,10.

          So, have you put some thought to why we penalize criminals more who don’t care about their victims? 

          It’s because they lack selflessness.

          Let’s explore this idea a little more.

          While working for a judge for over a year, I took great interest in one of his observations.  When criminals are at sentencing and pleading for a lighter sentence, they almost universally cite how much their crime has ruined or harmed their life or the life of their family.  They frequently comment how they want to be allowed to put their lives back in order.  Then they end their pleas for mercy.  But, the judge asks to himself, what about their victim’s life?  Do they care? 

            Usually they’re not thinking about the victim’s life that was ruined or harmed by their crime.  They’re almost always self-focused.  It’s all about them.  Selflessness is the last thing on their minds. 

            And so, when my judge would notice this in anyone, he was not necessarily inclined to be light on them.  Most juries would feel the same way.  They think to themselves, “If your penance leads you to only reflect on how badly you’ve ruined your life and not on how badly you’ve ruined the life of your victim, then you don’t have pure penance and you deserve a more severe punishment.”

            Selflessness, then, must be real or else why would we make some people suffer more who don’t exhibit it? 

            Personally, being as highly motivated as I am about other’s interests, I don’t think that way.  I feel sorry for these people who lack so much selflessness.  This sorrow gives me motivation.

            Instead of desiring to punish these people for it, I want to help them obtain it.  I want to help them acquire selflessness through some sort of proper encouragement and teaching—perhaps intense, in-person therapy that will heal them from their spiritual or moral sicknesses.  Perhaps teaching them the gospel directly and indirectly.

            Here’s my underlying philosophy—they weren’t so evil when they arrived here on earth; something happened here; so let’s change that here.  Let’s use realistic optimism that expects they can change back to their virtuous selves voluntarily with proper loving care on our part and assistance from our very real God, the Redeemer Jesus Christ, and from our merciful Heavenly Father.

Chapter 7: Loving as Altruistic Edification and Not Self-Interest

Part IV:God wants Us to be Selfless

External religious worship [religion as it is expressed in outward acts] that is pure and unblemished in the sight of God the Father is this: to visit and help and care for the orphans and widows in their affliction and need, and to keep oneself unspotted and uncontaminated from the world.

James 1:27 (Amplified Bible).

          To begin wrapping this up, let me emphasize that it is good to be reasonably self-interested if it benefits both you and others.  It is clearly better to be genuinely selfless as it benefits others and it ends up benefiting yourself.  It may be best to be motivated by the desire for edification rooted in love for God and others as you consider that God would want you to want to be benefited and others as well. 

          This best motivation would be to want to benefit others and yourself, in that order, because you sincerely love God and want to serve Him and because you sincerely love others and want to serve them for their sake.  Others are the primary ones you should want to benefit in order to have the best love that edifies. Benefiting yourself should always be secondary.  Always.

            This is a slight hyperbole because I’m sure there’ll be a few exceptions.  But, to consider the exceptions will make you see them too often.  You’ll see them when they’re not there.  So, it’s better for you to think that benefiting yourself should always be secondary to seeking the benefit others.  Always.  Don’t worry, you’ll notice the exceptions when they come along, if they’re in fact there.

            This love would be the “pure love of Christ” (Moroni 7:47) that we should adopt.  In fact, the Church’s Guide to the Scriptures, when defining charity, notes it is “[t]he pure love of Christ (Moro. 7:47); the love that Christ has for the children of men and that the children of men should have for one another (2 Ne. 26:30; 33:7–9; Ether 12:33–34); the highest, noblest, strongest kind of love, not merely affection.”  Emphasis added.  Note that Christ loves the children of men.  The focus is outward, not inward.

            The Church’s Bible Dictionary adds, “It is never used to denote alms or deeds of benevolence, although it may be a prompting motive.”  Here, the Church has defined charitable love as a motive.  There is no other motive for the motive.  It is a motive by itself.

          The prophet, Joseph Smith, taught, emphasizing the selfless nature of this love:

Love is one of the chief characteristics of Deity, and ought to be manifested by those who aspire to be the sons of God. A man filled with the love of God, is not content with blessing his family alone, but ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the whole human race.

History of the Church, 4:227; from a letter from Joseph Smith to the Twelve, Dec. 15, 1840, Nauvoo, Illinois, published in Times and Seasons, Jan. 1, 1841, p. 258; this letter is incorrectly dated Oct. 19, 1840, in History of the Church.

          This eagerness to bless the whole human race does not come from a desire to bless one’s self.  It comes from a deep, genuine, loving compassion for all others: selflessness.

          Professor Hugh Nibley taught that we must “pray with energy for charity, which seeks not its own self-interest. (See 1 Cor. 13:4–5.).”  See Hugh Nibley.  Ensign.  October 1990.  “The Atonement of Jesus Christ, Part 4.”  Emphasis added.

            Nibley’s citation to 1 Corinthians 13:5 is significant because the Apostle Paul seems to decisively answer the question whether true love is motivated by self-interest when he says that charity “seeketh not her own.”  Charity is not self-interested.  It is not seeking for benefits to self before acting in love toward others. 

            I believe the Lord has enabled us to have this selfless charity toward others.  Pay special attention to the outcome of being able to work miracles: “Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.”  (Mosiah 8:18). 

            One of the great truths I glean from this is that “God has provided a means that man…might…become[] a great benefit to his fellow beings.”  That’s an effect of grace.  He empowered us to benefit others, not self, through the working of miracles.

            Our Father in Heaven wants us to greatly benefit one another.  He wants us to be selfless.  He wants us to have selfless charity.  He wants us to become the means of benefiting others.

            The scripture does not say that we are to become a great benefit to our fellow beings so that we can have joy.  It’s not there.  The focus is not on self, as the focus shouldn’t be.  The focus is on others simply for their sake.  For their benefit.  He made it possible for us to do great good toward others by allowing us to work miracles in their lives when we exercise faith.  Notice priesthood blessings are not given by the giver to the giver himself.  And the reason we do this is out of selfless love for others, not out of self-interest to make ourselves joyful.

            The prophet Lorenzo Snow taught, “It is remarkable that the God who made the worlds…should say: ‘I can of mine own self do nothing…my judgment is just[] because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. [John 5:30.].”  The prophet then commented on this, saying, “That is a wonderful saying, and there is a great deal in it.  Now, what we want is to have that spirit in every act of our lives and in every undertaking, whether temporal or spiritual, and not think of self.”  Teachings of the Presidents of the Church.  Lorenzo Snow.  2012 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc., p. 149.  Apparently, we can do like Christ did and think of doing what the Father wants instead of self-interestedly thinking what we want for ourselves.  That’s selfless.

            Note, particularly, the contrast that the prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley, made concerning love and self-interest, as well:

[Being on the Lord’s side] places upon us an unforgiving responsibility to reach out with concern for all others in the Spirit of the Master, who taught, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matt. 19:19). We must cast out self-righteousness and rise above petty self-interest.

President of the Chruch, Gordon B. Hinckley.  General Conference.  April 2004.  “The Dawning of a Brighter Day.”  Emphasis added.

           According to President Hinckley, we are to have “concern for all others” and “rise above petty self-interest.”

           Clearly, the love we speak of here as a virtue is the highest, noblest, and strongest kind of love that can actually motivate us to do good and be concerned for others instead of relying on any self-interest to motivate that love in the first place.

           If the love for others is at first motivated by an interest in self, then that love comes closer to “petty self-interest” than to selfless charity.

           Elder Richard G. Scott, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote similarly:

[W]hen we give unconditional love; when our interest is first in serving, building, edifying, strengthening without thought of self; when we do not expect an automatic return for each act of kindness, generosity, or sincere effort to help; when we are not concerned about what we will receive or what others will say or whether our own burdens will be diminished, but selflessly seek to build another, the miracle of the power of the gospel is released in our lives.

21 Principles, Divine Truths to Help you Live by the Spirit, Richard G. Scott, Deseret Book, 2013, Principle 17, p. 81.  Emphasis added.

          Elder Scott clearly believes selflessness is real.  It’s a true concept that does not require any thought of self or any benefit you’ll receive for doing good to others.

          As a final idea, we know that the poor we will always have with us, according to scripture (Matt. 26:11), no matter our efforts.  This is so unless we work so hard with selflessness as our motivation and righteousness as our actions that we eventually become as one heart and one mind, a Zion society (Moses 7:18), which, by the way, occurred without the Second Coming.

          I believe it’s possible to work towards this ideal right now.  We don’t have to wait for the Savior.  We’ll usher in His coming better if we struggle to make as best a replica of the social life that He’ll legislate for us that we can.  It’s tremendous effort, but we don’t have to be scared of selfless hard work.  We just have to overcome the giving-up attitude that comes when self-interest is thwarted, when prosperity is curtailed, and when we can’t get everything we want for ourselves.

Chapter 8: Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part I: The Issues

Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin….For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing.

Moroni 8:10,22.  Emphasis added.

          I want to move on now to another clash between two great virtues.  The scripture immediately above may not seem to apply, but it has some application.  Keep the principle in mind that some people are not considered accountable for their errors.  Also consider that of the many errors in life we can commit, one error is being a moocher.

          Before we go in detail about mooching, let me share a personal experience that begins to paint a picture of these virtues of generosity and responsibility on our part. 

          An episode of Highway to Heaven affected me deeply one night as I watched the TV by myself.  As a five or six year old, I saw a young, homeless teenager have to live in a cardboard box during the bitter cold of a snowy-winter.  It was the first time in my life that tears rolled down my cheeks out of sympathy.

          Perhaps it was around this time that I started understanding my regular prayer for “the poor, the sick, the needy, and the afflicted.”  Even though it has continued to be a frequent repetition in my prayers, it is certainly not “vain.”  (Matt. 6:7).  I sincerely wish the poor and needy to be blessed so that they rise out of their depressing circumstances.  Many times, I have tried to be an instrument in bringing about these goals by myself or through others such as Habitat for Humanity, community non-profits, church, or my work.  These efforts are based in what I call the virtue of generosity.

          As I’ve gotten older and became more familiar with collective social issues, politics, and the idea of “teaching a man to fish,” I’ve started to realize the importance of the virtue of being personally responsible by inspiring that same virtue of responsibility in others.

          To explore this virtue more, it’s fair to say that it’s a virtue to be responsible for your own well-being.  It’s good to work hard and earn a living for yourself that keeps you from being poor or needy and having to draw on the well-earned resources of others.  Taking this one step further, it’s good to teach others to do the same rather than to do the work for them.  This is the aspect of the virtue that I want to focus on.  We’re focusing on the responsibility you have in avoiding the acts that enable other people’s laziness.

          Generosity and responsibility are both wonderful virtues.  Usually, these two virtues don’t clash.  You being generous towards others and you being responsible by not enabling others in their laziness aren’t normally mutually exclusive.  Most of the time, you can practice both virtues.  But, in certain circumstances that we see regularly enough, there can be a conflict between these two virtues and you have to choose one virtue over the other.  The conflict comes when the receiver of your generosity is a moocher, a dole, or a dishonest parasite on society.

          In these times, it seems that giving and being generous can tend to take away personal responsibility from the moochers.  It only gives them a fish, so to speak.  And, these handouts seem to enable them in being lazy—to not do any fishing on their own.  It seems to facilitate learned helplessness and cause others, sometimes at great expense to them, to have to take care of these types of helpless ones. 

          So, these are times when being generous is irresponsible on your part.  These are times when being responsible means that you are not generous in order to avoid enabling bad habits.  These are times when the two virtues clash.

          For me, the question naturally arises, if these virtues can clash, then, in most circumstances, which is the right virtue for me to choose?  Do I choose to be generous to the moocher, or do I choose to be responsible and avoid enabling him to continue being a lazy parasite?  Has the Lord said one way or the other, or must I take every case on a case by case basis?  If He has said what we should do, then must I second guess Him every time an opportunity arises to potentially give needed relief to a poor person or to enable a moocher?  Or, if He has spoken and given us a general rule on the subject, then will He prompt me by His Spirit when I shouldn’t follow the general rule?

          Let’s examine the scriptures in the following chapters and see if there is more of an emphasis on being generous or if there is more of an emphasis on being responsible and inspiring that responsibility in others.  I’m hoping that you’ll see that the answers to my questions are that in most circumstances, the right choice is to be generous, even to the moocher, that the Lord has said so already and has laid down this general rule for us, that we don’t need to second-guess His rule every time the opportunity arises to be generous to the parasite, and, because He has given the general rule, we can be confident that He’ll let us know when we should not follow the general rule—we can confidently give to the moocher knowing the Spirit will tell us when we should not. 

Chapter 8:Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part II: Being Responsible and Inspiring Responsibility

            On the subject of responsibility, the Lord has denounced being idle, or irresponsibility.

            Modernly, the Lord addresses the two major issues of (1) the poor taking other people’s property and (2) the poor being lazy.  He said, “Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!”  D&C 56:17.

            A “wo” is pronounced upon the poor who are capable, but deliberately refuse to work and who do not stop taking the goods or property of others.

            In D&C 42:42, the Lord commands, “Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.” 

            The scripture appears to mean that the idler should not be allowed to eat any of the food that has been provided from the funds generated by the gainfully employed. 

            I’m not confident of this broad interpretation, however, because of the context. 

            Based on the context, the application of this scripture may be limited to times when the Lord is having us live by a certain program of the law of consecration, or the United Order, which we do not now live because we have apparently sinned collectively and not changed enough.  The Lord declared, “This order I have appointed to be an everlasting order unto you, and unto your successors, inasmuch as you sin not.”  D&C 82:20. 

            Immediately before verse 42, though, which spoke of the idler not eating the bread of the laborer, the Lord commanded:

            And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.

            And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose.

            And it shall come to pass, that after…the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.

            And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.

…

            And it shall come to pass, that he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out of the church, and shall not receive again that which he has consecrated unto the poor and the needy of my church, or in other words, unto me—

            For inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, ye do it unto me.

          For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel.

D&C 42:30-33,37-39.

           It seems clear, then, that the concept that the idle shall not eat the food of the laborer is reserved only for certain programs of the law of consecration.  There is another scripture, however, that seems to teach the same message:

    For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

          For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

        Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

         But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.

        And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

        Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

2 Thess. 3:10-15.

            The similar commandment is certainly there: “we command…by our Lord Jesus Christ, that…they work, and eat their own bread.”  It may have been in the context of certain programs of consecration because we know that earlier, in Acts 2:44, the people had “all things common.”

            Even though the similar command is there, it’s worth noting that the enforcement of no bread is not there.  Instead, the enforcement is to “have no company with him.”  2 Thess. 3:14.

            What I find most important about these verses is that we are to still treat the able but unwilling idler “not as an enemy” but “as a brother,” whom we admonish and have “no company with” that “he may be ashamed.”  That’s how to deal with the moocher.

            Too often, though, responsible church members speak disgustedly about the lazy poor, as if the lazy poor are their enemies.  We need to shed that bad attitude.  Do we not remember “the worth of souls is great in the sight of God”?  D&C 18:10.  There’s no exception for moochers.  They still have great worth.

            We must speak to and about the lazy poor as if they are own blood whom we love or a valued church member we care about.  Then, our admonishments have the best chance at properly motivating even the capable, lazy idler out of his or her circumstances.

            The Lord states an actual punishment for being idle, which was indicated in the previous verses of 2 Thess. 3:10-15: “Let every man be diligent in all things. And the idler shall not have place in the church, except he repent and mend his ways.”  D&C 75:29.  From this verse, we learn that the punishment to them is not necessarily us withholding food or property from them. 

            The punishment to them is “not hav[ing] place in the church” (D&C 75:29), or, it seems, losing membership in the church—excommunication.  That was the Lord’s ancient direction, too: “have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.”  2 Thess. 3:14.  This may seem harsh at first.  But, this is only reserved for those who refuse to “repent and mend [their] ways.”  D&C 75:29.  They have to have the chance to repent and mend, first.

            As the scripture in 2 Thessalonians emphasizes, though, we are not to count even the excommunicated idlers as our enemies.  We treat them like family and admonish them the same way we would to family members we love.  We are still “not weary in well doing” (2 Thess. 3:13) to them, which may include continuing to give compassionate, charitable assistance to them despite their idleness and excommunication, if it went as far as such church discipline. 

            Before immediate excommunication, however, it’s clear that the Lord gives the idler fair warning and instruction by His servants carrying the message to them that being idle is not good:

Now, I, the Lord, am not well pleased with the inhabitants of Zion, for there are idlers among them; and their children are also growing up in wickedness; they also seek not earnestly the riches of eternity, but their eyes are full of greediness. These things ought not to be, and must be done away from among them; wherefore, let my servant Oliver Cowdery carry these sayings unto the land of Zion.

D&C 68:31-32.

          Consistent with “admonishing” (2 Thess. 3:15) the able, but lazy poor, the Lord instructs His servants to “carry these sayings” (D&C 68:32) to them, which sayings are that He is “not well pleased” with idlers who are “full of greediness” and that greedy idleness “must be done away.” 

          Further instructing us, the Lord directs, “Cease to be idle; cease to be unclean; cease to find fault one with another; cease to sleep longer than is needful; retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated.”  D&C 88:124. 

          The coupled instructions of ceasing to be idle and ceasing to find fault are intentional, I believe.  While we individually are not to be idle, that does not mean we are to individually determine, as a final judgment, who is at fault for failing to cease in being idle.  That judgment is, perhaps, left up to the church leaders who are managing scarce and sacred fast offering funds.

          Being responsible, or not idle, is a part of following the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The servants of the Lord are to inspire responsibility by carrying the message especially to idlers that the Lord does not approve of idleness.  If the moochers absolutely refuse to repent of their idleness, then they are no longer to have church membership.  But, the consequence to them should not be anything more than losing membership, if they are members.  We continue to have patience and, if we can, we give.  We are long-suffering in this way.  We are charitable, even to the despicable moochers.

            Even though not explicitly taught, it appears that we stop giving only when the Spirit impresses us to stop being generous.  If the Sprit does not tell us to stop, then the default rule is to relentlessly give.  The default rule is also to persistently try admonishing them, teaching them with love to take the slums out of themselves and instructing them on how to rise from the circumstances they are in and lend a hand in helping them do so.

Chapter 8:Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part III: The Handbook

            Most people who emphasize teaching responsibility and self-reliance over being generous like to reference the Church’s stance on welfare—that it’s not the Lord’s way to simply be generous.  From what I gather, the latest welfare position is below in the entire chapter on welfare.  Note the portions I’ve italicized, especially what the “aim” of the Church is as opposed to the “function,” “task,” or “operation” of the Church.

Handbook 2:6, Welfare Principles and Leadership

6.1 Purposes of Church Welfare

            The purposes of Church welfare are to help members become self-reliant, to care for the poor and needy, and to give service [in other words, once members are self-reliant, they are to care for those who are not and to give service].

            In 1936 the First Presidency outlined a welfare plan for the Church. They said: “Our primary purpose was to set up…a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim [not mechanical function] of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1936, 3).

6.1.1   

Self-Reliance

            Self-reliance is the ability, commitment, and effort to provide the spiritual and temporal necessities of life for self and family. As members become self-reliant, they are also better able to serve and care for others [not ignore or put down the poor who are not self-reliant].

            Church members are responsible for their own spiritual and temporal well-being. Blessed with the gift of agency, they have the privilege and duty to set their own course, solve their own problems, and strive to become self-reliant. Members do this under the inspiration of the Lord and with the labor of their own hands.

            When Church members are doing all they can to provide for themselves but cannot meet their basic needs, generally they should first turn to their families for help. When this is not sufficient or feasible, the Church stands ready to help.

            Some of the areas in which members should become self-reliant are outlined in the following paragraphs.

Health

            The Lord has commanded members to take care of their minds and bodies. They should obey the Word of Wisdom, eat nutritious food, exercise regularly, control their weight, and get adequate sleep. They should shun substances or practices that abuse their bodies or minds and that could lead to addiction. They should practice good sanitation and hygiene and obtain adequate medical and dental care. They should also strive to cultivate good relationships with family members and others.

Education

            Education provides understanding and skills that can help people develop self-reliance. Church members should study the scriptures and other good books. They should improve in their ability to read, write, and do basic mathematics. They should obtain as much education as they can, including formal or technical schooling where possible. This will help them develop their talents, find suitable employment, and make a valuable contribution to their families, the Church, and the community [the focus is being self-reliant to contribute outward, not self-reliant to merely contribute independently to self without needing help from others].

Employment

            Work is the foundation upon which self-reliance and temporal well-being rest. Members should prepare for and carefully select a suitable occupation or self-employment that will provide for their own and their families’ needs. They should become skilled at their work, be diligent and trustworthy, and give honest work for the pay and benefits they receive.

Home Storage

            To help care for themselves and their families, members should build a three-month supply of food that is part of their normal diet. Where local laws and circumstances permit, they should gradually build a longer-term supply of basic foods that will sustain life. They should also store drinking water in case the water supply becomes polluted or disrupted. (See All Is Safely Gathered In: Family Home Storage, 3.)

Finances

            To become financially self-reliant, members should pay tithes and offerings, avoid unnecessary debt, use a budget, and live within a plan. They should gradually build a financial reserve by regularly saving a portion of their income. (See All Is Safely Gathered In: Family Finances, 3.)

Spiritual Strength

            Spiritual strength is essential to a person’s temporal and eternal well-being. Church members grow in spiritual strength as they develop their testimonies, exercise faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, obey God’s commandments, pray daily, study the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets, attend Church meetings, and serve in Church callings and assignments.

 6.1.2  

Members’ Efforts to Care for the Poor and Needy and Give Service

            Through His Church, the Lord has provided a way to care for the poor and needy. He has asked Church members to give generously according to what they have received from Him. He has also asked His people to “visit the poor and the needy and administer to their relief” (D&C 44:6). Church members are encouraged to give personal compassionate service to those in need. They should be “anxiously engaged in a good cause,” serving without being asked or assigned (see D&C 58:26–27).

            The Lord has established the law of the fast and fast offerings to bless His people and to provide a way for them to serve those in need (see Isaiah 58:6–12; Malachi 3:8–12). When members fast, they are asked to give to the Church a fast offering at least equal to the value of the food they would have eaten. If possible, they should be generous and give more. Blessings associated with the law of the fast include closeness to the Lord, increased spiritual strength, temporal well-being, greater compassion, and a stronger desire to serve.

            Some opportunities to care for those in need come through Church callings. Other opportunities [to care for those in need] are present in members’ homes, neighborhoods, and communities. Members can also help the poor and needy of all faiths throughout the world by contributing to the Church’s humanitarian efforts.

            Providing in the Lord’s way humbles the rich, exalts the poor, and sanctifies both (see D&C 104:15–18). President J. Reuben Clark Jr. taught:

            “The real long term objective of the Welfare Plan is the building of character in the members of the Church, givers and receivers, rescuing all that is finest down deep inside of them, and bringing to flower and fruitage the latent richness of the spirit, which after all is the mission and purpose and reason for being of this Church” (in special meeting of stake presidents, Oct. 2, 1936).

 6.1.3  

The Lord’s Storehouse

            In some locations the Church has established buildings called bishops’ storehouses. When members receive permission from their bishop, they may go to the bishops’ storehouse to obtain food and clothing. But the Lord’s storehouse is not limited to a building used to distribute food and clothing to the poor. It also includes Church members’ offerings of time, talents, compassion, materials, and financial means that are made available to the bishop to help care for the poor and needy. The Lord’s storehouse, then, exists in each ward. These offerings are “to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse,…every man seeking the interest of his neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God” (D&C 82:18–19). The bishop is the agent of the Lord’s storehouse.

            From what I’ve observed, members reference the Church’s welfare principles to support their idea that the Church will not or should not help those who refuse to help themselves. 

            The portion above that seems to indicate their belief is: “When Church members are doing all they can to provide for themselves but cannot meet their basic needs…the Church stands ready to help.” 

            This is a positive statement of what the Church will do.  It is not a statement of what the Church will not do.  The statement does not limit the Church to only being ready to help those who “are doing all they can.”  It merely guarantees what it is ready to do through its resources and members.

            For example, once members are self-reliant, we are then “better able to serve and care for others,” we are to “strive to cultivate good relationships with…others,” to “make a valuable contribution to…the community,” to “give generously,” to “give personal compassionate service to those in need,” to have “greater compassion, and a stronger desire to serve,” to “help the poor and needy of all faiths throughout the world,” and to “seek[] the interest of his neighbor.”  Each of those are direct quotes from the Church handbook.

            The Church recently added a fourth mission to preaching the gospel, perfecting the saints, and redeeming the dead: “caring for the poor and needy.”  (Handbook 2, 2010, Administering the Church, 2.2).

            All of these actions require people to receive the act.  Those people are not limited to the responsible poor.  Thus, the irresponsible poor should be able to receive these things as funds are available and appropriate under the circumstances.  These acts toward moochers are clearly generous ones.

            Welfare principles, therefore, do not prevent the Church or us from assisting the lazy poor.  If anything, welfare principles encourage us to help all types of poor people because of its emphasis to get in a position to help rather than any emphasis on helping only the responsible needy. 

            The focus is on the verb, not on the object receiving the verb.  The verb is to help.  The focus should be helping, not focusing on whether someone is worthy to receive the help because they are more responsible than others.

            But, a recent General Conference talk stated the typical response more conservative Latter-day Saints have:

Even with the universally accepted desire to help the poor and needy, the Lord concurs in our goal but warns, “But it must needs be done in mine own way” (D&C 104:16). Otherwise, in our efforts to help, we may actually hurt them. The Lord has taught us the need to promote self-reliance. Even if we are able to help, we should not give or provide what they can and should do for themselves. Everywhere it is tried, the world learns the evils of the dole. Truly God knows best.

Elder Stanley G. Ellis of the Quorum of the Seventy, The Lord’s Way, April 2013, General Conference. 

          It sounds like the Lord’s way is highly anti-socialism, as this speaker implied in the second to last sentence.  While I don’t necessarily promote socialism in the way it has been practiced by mankind and governments all over the globe through generations of time, it seems the Lord’s way is very similar to forms of socialism.  The reason I say this is because apparently the speaker did not continue quoting the very scripture he used to support his ideas.  Let me include the prior verse and some following verses for some context, as well:

             And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.  But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.

             For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.
Therefore,if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.

D&C 104:15-18. 

            I don’t normally bold when giving emphasis, but it’s especially important in this case to note them.  It sounds socialistic with a heavy, terrible consequence for not making the rich low.

            Other scriptures confirm this somewhat socialistic understanding:

            D&C 70:14—“Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld.”

            D&C 49:20—“But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.”

            Jacob 2:17—“Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.” 

            D&C 51:3, 8-9—“Wherefore, let my servant Edward Partridge, and those whom he has chosen, in whom I am well pleased, appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs…. And the money which is left unto this people—let there be an agent appointed unto this people, to take the money to provide food and raiment, according to the wants of this people. And let every man deal honestly, and be alike among this people, and receive alike, that ye may be one, even as I have commanded you.”

            D&C 42:39—“For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel.”

            Mosiah 4:13—“And ye will not have a mind to injure one another, but to live peaceably, and to render to every man according to that which is his due.”

            1 Cor. 10:24—“Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth [JST: good; AMP: “Let no one then seek his own good and advantage and profit, but [rather] each one of the other [let him seek the welfare of his neighbor]].”

            As a final number of thoughts, an overemphasis on taking “responsibility” or being “self-reliant” can be immoral and a corruption.  “[L]ike all virtues, when exaggerated, it transforms itself into a vice.”  President Boyd K. Packer, These Things I Know, April 2013 General Conference. 

            Our society frequently and passionately rants about many Americans not taking responsibility or being self-reliant.  True, it’s a problem.  But as America complains, the less it acknowledges the cases where people legitimately cannot take on as much responsibility as can the young, the healthy, the capable, the brilliant, and the fortunate. 

            Certain of the elderly, the sick, the physically and mentally disabled, and the less fortunate are, through no fault of their own, unable to adequately take responsibility for meeting their needs on their own.  This fact is downplayed by our society’s overemphasis on the virtue of responsibility or self-reliance.  I think this makes the Adversary very pleased in himself to have achieved this attitude in our blessed society.  As a result of this downplayed truth, we become calloused towards people and circumstances that need an added measure of sensitivity and care.  We are too quick to see times where giving to others is hurting the others.  We are too quick to praise ourselves and pat ourselves on the back for how we made ourselves so self-reliant all by our own efforts.

            I believe Satan has cultivated an attitude in us that charity must be earned by efforts at self-reliance—that charity is a privilege to be gained.   

            Even if church “policy” on welfare seems to teach this, policy will never override centuries of scripture that put virtually no restrictions on charity.  The scriptures and modern-day prophets, like Brigham Young, teach the opposite of being callous.

            The callousness starts when people begin to easily forget how much credit for good they can actually take.  They like to take more credit than they deserve.  I’m sure Satan loves this.  I’m sure he helps them think that their great use of agency and self-reliance has justly earned them the majority of the good results in their lives.  That’s one way to displace God out of their lives.

            They begin thinking that because their agency didn’t seem to have any limitations that everyone else’s agency must be the same—virtually no limits—when the reality is that some people have less agency in certain things than the others do.  Agency isn’t binary—yes you have it or no you don’t.  It’s on a gradation that differs depending on social circumstances and personal limitations or gifts. 

            Maybe people want to argue this point and say it’s not agency that’s limited, but the ability to exercise agency that’s limited.  Personally, I see no significant difference between the gift to choose and the ability to exercise your gift.  Maybe, technically, there is a difference, but in practice, there’s no material distinction between the two.

            The capable, accomplished people can become callous toward others who have apparently not exercised their agency as well as they have.  This callous, hard-heartedness is coming mostly from those who seem to be ungratefully capable or undeservingly prideful in themselves and their ability to be responsibly self-reliant.  The prophet Brigham Young said, “I do not know of any, excepting the unpardonable sin, that is greater than the sin of ingratitude.”  (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 228). 

            That’s a strong statement.  I think the reason ingratitude is such a great sin is because it leads to a lack of charity toward others who have not fared as well as these people think that they have fared by their own self-reliant propulsion.

            These people look condescendingly down upon those not being responsible like they are.  Then, they feel indignant that they have to make up for those not pulling their own weight.  It’s easy for the accomplished to automatically resent having to pay more in doctor bills, car insurance, and cell phone bills rather than cheerfully realize (if you’re self-interested), “Hey, I’m going to get extra credit in heaven for being my irresponsible brother’s keeper—by patiently helping where the help may not be deserved.”  Or, if your selfless, you cheerfully realize, “Hey, these people are receiving genuine goodness, which, if they get enough of, is inevitably going to change them for the better, even if they don’t deserve all this goodness now.”  Remember, it’s what Christ did:

            For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

            For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.

1 Peter 2:20-21.

           Follow Christ’s example by patiently suffering for doing well—for being self-reliant and responsible and then unjustly having to make up for the irresponsibility and lack of self-reliance in others.  It’s not fair.  But, you were called to patiently do this as His disciple.  Follow His steps.

Chapter 8:Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part IV: Not Giving to the Poor is Because of You, not Them

          The previous two chapters examined the twin virtues of being responsible and teaching responsibility.  The following several chapters will examine the virtue of being generous or giving.

          Early on in religious history, The Lord, through the great prophet Moses, said:

If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.

Deuteronomy 15:7-8.

          The Lord then repeated Himself and firmly stated, “For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.”  (Deuteronomy 15:11).  There is no distinction here between the idle and non-idle poor—we give without regard to the type of poor they are.  The reason there is no distinction in giving to certain types of poor is certainly not because the Lord doesn’t distinguish between the two types of poor—He certainly does (see D&C 56:17-18).  To the Lord, I believe, giving is similar to forgiving: “I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men” (D&C 64:10).  I believe He could have rightly stated, “I, the Lord, will give unto whom I will give, but of you it is required to give unto all men.”

          For support of this giving-to-all idea, consider that if the Lord wanted to prohibit giving to the idle poor, then He would not have made the blanket statement through Moses that we shall open our hands "wide" to the poor and, especially, that we shall not "harden" our hearts.  It’s easy to harden our hearts against the capable, but lazy poor.  He understands this.

          Seeming to foresee the arguments that (1) we should not give to the lazy poor because it enables them to remain irresponsible and that (2) if we withhold our gifts, it will motivate them to responsibly pull themselves out of poverty, the Lord Jehovah countered them by stating that “the poor shall never cease out of the land.”  The Lord Jesus Christ also referenced this fact, recorded in three places: “For the poor always ye have with you.”  John 12:8; see also Matt. 26:11; Mark 14:7. 

          No matter how much we sincerely try to be responsible and “teach a man to fish” in order to feed himself for life rather than give him a fish to feed him for only a day, there will always be poor people among us (unless we collectively become so righteous and united as to be “one heart and one mind” and then have “no poor” among us, as the ancients did in Moses 7:18). 

          All of our efforts in educating every one of the poor and making each of them lift themselves out of their slums by withholding our substance from them will not have complete success.  For some reason, we will ultimately fail in eradicating all the poor from among us. 

          Certainly, some will be benefited by those efforts we give to educate them.  They’ll rise out of poverty.  But not all.  Therefore, the problem of poverty is still not solved.  It still needs solving.  One of the only other remaining solutions is to give to them, that is, the remaining solutions that aren’t criminal in nature.  You could always round them up, slaughter them, or ship them out of the country, but then you’re solving the problem criminally or passing it along to someone else who doesn’t deserve it either. 

          Giving to the remaining poor who don’t rise from poverty after being educated prevents the series of complications and serious secondary repercussions that come with people being in need and not having those needs satisfied.  Some of the serious side-effects of poverty are increased crime, health-hazards spreading to the poor and non-poor alike, depressed circumstances and neighborhoods, bitterness and insensitivity toward others, and other related ripple effects.  These negative side-effects can be, and should be, avoided simply by being charitably kind.

          The importance of this command to give generously to the poor is repeated by another great prophet and political leader in the Book of Mormon.  Speaking of our potential reactions to the poor who ask for our help, he said, “Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand.”  (Mosiah 4:17).  This reaction of staying your hand and the rationale for the reaction seem to parallel the other argument of this chapter—that we should choose the virtue of teaching responsibility to the poor by not being generous to those who need to work harder. 

          The servant of the Lord, King Benjamin, warned, “But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth [he] hath no interest in the kingdom of God.”  (Mosiah 4:18).  Having “no interest” is a total lack of inheritance rights to God’s kingdom.  That’s severe. 

          The prophet Mormon included this controversial doctrine with the plates that later became the Book of Mormon; that means a second prophet witnesses to this doctrine.  This is not just a political perspective that can be debated and ignored.  It is not simply one prophet’s opinion.  It is truth.  God approves it.  The Book of Mormon was written for our day.

          Emphasizing the serious consequences for not giving to the petitioning poor, King Benjamin explains not only about a lack of interest in God’s kingdom but also about condemnation: “And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance.”  (Mosiah 4:22). 

          Frequently, we will “judge” the beggar who petitions us as probably dishonest and then withhold our help that we had available to give.  The scripture says we will then be justly condemned.  The “condemnation” is not just a verbal censure, but it is an actual rotting and dying, spiritually: “his substance shall perish with him.”  (Mosiah 4:23). 

          Wanting to avoid the acute consequences attached to not giving to the poor should be enough to choose the virtue of generosity over responsibility when they clash.  But, there are more reasons.

          The prophet Benjamin further explained about a reason for giving—to follow God’s example:

And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another.

Mosiah 4:21.

          The great prophet and king used the example of our loving Supreme Creator to justify how we should act toward one another—we should give to the beggar because God gives to us, who all beg from Him. 

          If we follow God’s example, our giving should be guided by giving for “whatsoever [they] ask” that is “right.”  This adds another dimension to charitable giving.

          Exploring this charitable-giving dimension, King Benjamin stated, “And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength.”  (Mosiah 4:27).  Giving, then, must done rightly in wisdom; giving must not exceed that which you have the ability to give.

          But, in case this provides otherwise capable givers an excuse to withhold their substance from the poor (i.e. “wisdom” would say not to give because it fosters irresponsibility and destroys self-reliance), he immediately said, “And again, it is expedient that [you] should be diligent, that thereby [you] might win the prize.”  (Mosiah 4:27).

          Wisdom may dictate to run the race of a generous life more slowly because you lack the resources to give, but it should never prevent you from being “diligent” at still trying to be generous. 

          This means that at a minimum you “say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.”  (Mosiah 4:24).  Not giving, then, has nothing to do with your beggar, or even with who gives the money you offer (i.e. the government giving your tax money as assistance), but has everything to do with you. 

          You are the reason you do not give.  From King Benjamin’s perspective, you are the only reason you do not give.  The reason is not because someone is undeserving of the gift or because some entity is “forcing” you to give.  Those two reasons are not sufficient justifications for withholding your substance.

          According to scripture, the reason for withholding your substance from the poor is not to teach them responsibility and self-reliance; it is that you have insufficient to give. 

          And then, even if you don’t have sufficient to give, you still must have the attitude that you would give if you could (“I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.”  Mosiah 4:24).  Sincerely having this proper attitude will help you “remain guiltless” (Mosiah 4:25), but “otherwise ye are condemned” (Mosiah 4:25) and “your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.”  Mosiah 4:25.

Chapter 8:Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part V: The Worthy Poor

          Some say there is a concept of the “worthy poor.”  (1 Timothy 5 chapter heading).  The idea of “worthy poor” is not necessarily a doctrine that prohibits giving to the unworthy poor; instead, it conveys the idea that when resources are scarce or sacred, and we have to choose to whom we give limited charity or sacred charity because we physically cannot give to both, then the choice would be for those who are willing to work.  That is, perhaps, the better choice. 

          Even still though, in these circumstances, the attitude must be, “If I had, I would give” (Mosiah 4:24) to the unworthy poor.  The reason we do not give to the lazy poor is not because of them, but because of us, as we discussed in the last chapter part.  We simply do not have the money to give because it is either lacking or because it is sacred and the Spirit tells us it should not be used in that particular instance. 

          Vilifying the “lazy” poor or the moocher has never and will never be taught as a Christ-like principle.  These people are not malicious sinners or evil criminals.  There are a lot worse violators in the world than the lazy poor.  On a scale of good or evil, the poor would be good (as in good, better, best).  They’re not evil, that’s for sure.  Be careful, then, that you do not “call” the merely “good evil.”  Isaiah 5:20; 2 Nephi 15:20. 

          The best choice of being generous would be to give to both the worthy and unworthy when the funds or resources are available, so long as the sacred nature of the funds (i.e. fast offerings) does not prevent the giving of them, as the Spirit dictates. 

          If the funds are not lacking, then sometimes the best choice may be to give to the unworthy poor when it serves the dual purpose of proclaiming the gospel.  This concept comes from Doctrine & Covenants Section 81:

           Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, March 1832 (see History of the Church, 1:257–58). Frederick G. Williams is called to be a high priest and a counselor in the Presidency of the High Priesthood….

            Verily, verily, I say unto you my servant Frederick G. Williams: Listen to the voice of him who speaketh, to the word of the Lord your God, and hearken to the calling wherewith you are called, even to be a high priest in my church, and a counselor unto my servant Joseph Smith, Jun.;

…

            Therefore, verily I…will bless…thee, inasmuch as thou art [1] faithful…in thy ministry in proclaiming the gospel in the land of the living, and among thy brethren.

            And in doing these things thou wilt do the greatest good unto thy fellow beings….Wherefore, be faithful; stand in the office which I have appointed unto you; [2] succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees.

            And if thou art faithful unto the end thou shalt have a crown of immortality, and eternal life in the mansions which I have prepared in the house of my Father.

            Behold, and lo, these are the words of Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Amen.

D&C 81:1-7.

          Here, I see at least two activities that bring about “the greatest good” or “eternal life” to self and others: (1) proclaiming the gospel and (2) succoring the weak.  If those two are the greatest goods to do, then clearly, the virtue of teaching responsibility to others is inferior to giving relief or succor.

          As I understand it, though, there is a place for the virtue of responsibility.  We should teach each other to be responsible.  But, from King Benjamin’s teachings, we must not impose responsibility on the poor by withholding our substance that we have to give.  The prophet Brigham Young taught, “[I]nvite, but do not urge; and by no means compel any one.”  (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 326, “Missionary Work.”). 

          Although this quote is in the context of missionary work, or spiritual salvation, I believe it can reasonably be applied to temporal salvation, as well.  We do not compel the able poor to pull themselves up by their bootstraps by making it impossible for them to do otherwise.  We make it possible for them to pull themselves up with the resources we offer them.  And we instruct them.  Then, they have no excuse not to become self-reliant and take off from there.

          One of the reasons we choose giving a fish over teaching a man to fish when they come into conflict is because there are too many, perhaps, prideful assumptions that come with teaching a man to fish:

1. That the man will actually learn how to fish from you;
2. That the man will actually apply what he may have learned from you;
3. That the man will actually have fishing poles and water sources of opportunity to fish with; and
4. That the man will actually be successful in fishing.

        Those are assumptions that are not always true in every case of teaching a man to fish.  In the event they are not true, how has your teaching him to fish done any good?  Your man is still hungry, still suffering.  You’ve done nothing but delay his satiation.  Hmmm.  Not a very good outcome.  Not a very kind act on your part. 

          “The poor are the people of God….The man who is hungry and destitute has as good a right to my food as any other person.”  (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 316-17).  Notice that the prophet believes people have a “right” to food.  You may say he didn’t mean “right” in the legal sense, but I don’t see any significant difference in what he was conveying and what it means to have a legal and enforceable expectation for something.  This idea of having a “right” to food is contrary to United States law by some interpretations, but not to declarations the U.S. has agreed to be bound by as a member of the United Nations:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25(1).

          This is a very hot topic.  Conservatives get in an uproar when they hear that people claim to have these “rights.”  If there are such rights, they are practically impossible to uphold because we have a hard enough time supporting the socialistic programs we already do have.  But, whether a person has a right to food or anything else should not depend on whether the controlling government has resources to enforce that right.  We have a right to food.  We have a right to medicine.  We have a right to shelter.  These rights are inherent and inalienable.  They are natural rights. 

Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are…those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others.

Thomas Paine, 1792, “Rights of Man.”

          For my “existence,” I need food, water, shelter, medicine, clothes, and those things considered by law as the necessaries of life.  In order to exist in “comfort and happiness,” as Thomas Payne said, which is my natural right so long as I do not injure others in the enjoyment of these rights, I would at least need education and employment.  I would have a right to all of these needs.  And these are basic, not the luxuries of life.  Luxuries are privileges.

          As to the basic rights to these basic needs, the United Nations’ declaration says similarly: “[e]veryone has the right to education” (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26(1)” and “[e]veryone has the right to work…and to protection against unemployment.”  Article 23(1).

          But, we’re here to be tested.  We’re here to see how we’ll deal with nearly impossible situations.  Do we humbly acknowledge that we, as a society, are not yet advanced enough to enforce these rights and need to rely on God or do we try to solve the problem by redefining our rights and calling them privileges, instead?

          If we really want these rights enforced by a higher, governing power, are we willing to pay for it?  Are we advanced enough to be willing to make the sacrifice?  Will we eventually prosper more after making the difficult sacrifice?  Do we realize what the citizens of France recognized as a social duty hundreds of years ago in their “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Of Citzens” in which they stated:

          The representatives of the people of France, formed into a National Assembly, doth recognize and declare, in the presence of the Supreme Being, and with the hope of his blessing and favour, the following sacred rights of men and of citizens:

…

            Thirteen: Contributions for defraying the expenses of Government ought to be divided equally among the Members of the Community, according to their abilities.

…

            Seventeen: The Right to Property being inviolable and sacred, no one ought to be deprived of it, except in cases of evident Public necessity.

Quoted in the “Rights of Man” by Thomas Paine, 1792.

          There is a public need, there is a greater good, in sacrificing to pay for the order and organization that promotes all of our best interests and varied rights.  We must sacrifice to make that balance possible.  That sacrifice is a portion of our labor and a portion of what we receive for our labor.  In the case of public necessity, it is taken from us personally, even if we individually oppose such taking.  The purpose, though, is to help as many people enjoy their rights as is physically possible.  The cause is a worthy one.

          As disciples of Christ, we’re patient if our rights are violated as a result of our governments or communities or families not being able to maintain them for us when we need that help.  We still do our best for ourselves and for others. 

          If we’re in a position to maintain those rights for ourselves and others, then “let the rich be liberal, and lay their plans to assist the poor.”  (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 317).  We are liberal with our goods and we make “plans” to help the poor help themselves.  But, if not—if the poor do not help themselves—we are still liberal and patiently give and assist so long as we can. 

          President Young, however, did add that “the Lord does not require the rich to give all their substance to the poor….but simply, ‘distribute to the poor’ [see Luke 18:18-23].”  Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 317-18.

          I’ve known upstanding members of the Church to place the virtue of self-reliance so far above being generous to others that they maintain we should “never do for another what they can do for themselves,” including, even, for one’s spouse.  Brother Brigham, however, teaches, “It is a disgrace to every man and woman that has sense enough to live, not to take care of their own relatives, their own poor, and plan for them to do something they are able to do.”  Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 318. 

          There are two requirements that apply to everyone, including any who wish to be called a saint or disciple of Christ: (1) take care of your own poor who may even be beyond simply your own relatives, and (2) plan for your poor to do something they are able to do.  We give a fish and then we create opportunities for them to fish with the capacities they have that they may not even realize they have.  But if they cannot do anything, then we still must take care of them or it will be a “disgrace.”

          And so, it seems clear that the general rule is that when the virtues of generosity and responsibility come into conflict, we should unquestionably choose to be generous.  If we have a sincere question about giving in a particular instance and we don’t feel any unsolicited nudgings of the Spirit, then we can certainly go to the Lord in prayer.  The Spirit can tell us of any exceptions in our particular circumstances.  If He doesn’t, then we should not halt our efforts to be generous.  We are generous to both the beggar and the organizations designed to help him.  We keep giving fishes until we’re no longer reasonably able.  And we don’t need Satan to make this choice.  It’s a choice between virtues.  Choose the better choice of giving a man a fish when you have to choose between it and the other virtue of teaching a man to fish.  This is all consistent with the following lines of thought:

• “[Y]e will…have a mind to…render to every man according to that which is his due.”  Mosiah 4:13.
• “Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.”  Jacob 2:17.
• “[Y]e will seek [riches] for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.”  Jacob 2:19.
• “[Y]e yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need.”  Mosiah 4:16.
• “[Y]e should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief…according to their wants.”  Mosiah 4:26.
• “We believe in…being benevolent…and in doing good to all men.”  Article of Faith 1:13.

Chapter 8:Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part VI: Other Sources

          A number of other sources teach similarly about the importance of generosity.  I quote from these sources because there appears to be statements of virtue here and, as Latter-day Saints, we actually “seek after…anything virtuous.”  (Article of Faith 13). 

          Consistent with Article of Faith 13, the First Presidency issued a formal statement on February 15, 1978, stating:

The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received aportion of God’slight. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.

President James E. Faust, April 2006, General Conference, The Restoration of All Things.

          With this in mind, consider what Mohammed, the Muslim prophet of Islam, taught: “The true believers…are those who…bestow in alms from that which We have given them.”  (The Koran 8:1-8:5, N.J. Dawood translation, Penguin Classics, 1990, p.126).  This teaches that genuine believers in God give to the poor and, significantly, that what we give is originally from God Himself anyway.

          About 130 years before Christ, an ancient Jew—a Pharisee—wrote expositions in the names of each of the twelve sons of Israel.  When writing as if he were Dan, he said:

Do you, therefore, my children, from that which God bestoweth upon you, show compassion and mercy without hesitation to all men, and give to every man with a good heart….Have, therefore, yourselves, my children compassion toward every man with mercy that the Lord also may have compassion and mercy upon you....For in the degree in which a man hath compassion upon his neighbors, in the same degree hath the Lord upon him.

The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Dan 2:16,19,21, World Bible Publishers, Inc., 1926, p. 246.

            According to this Jewish text, giving must be done “with a good heart” to “every man” in need “without hesitation,” which means not even giving it a second thought as to whether the moocher or the worthy poor should get your alms.  Significantly, this text emphasizes that the Lord will have the same amount of compassion and mercy on us as we do to others.  For self-interested people, this is a strong motivation to have compassion on others.

            Siddhārtha Gautama, or Buddha, is attributed to having made a popular saying: “Teach this triple truth to all: A generous heart, kind speech, and a life of service and compassion are the things which renew humanity.”  Not only are individuals helped through generosity, kindness, service, and compassion, but humanity or society as a whole is improved, as this quote explains.

            Consistent with the concepts attributed to Buddha about social order, Confucius taught, “When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are something to be ashamed of.”  The Sayings of Confucius, “On Government,” Heian International, Inc., 1983, p.26.  From his perspective, government, not just individuals or private businesses, must work to eliminate poverty. 

            This is quite significant because it clearly implies a doctrine that does not come out clearly in our scriptures.  Why not?  You may think to yourself, “That’s because it’s an untrue doctrine.”  But, I don’t believe so.  Let me tell you why.

            First, I highly doubt that the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, would disapprove of us working on a large scale as a team with members and non-members alike at eliminating poverty through our governments.  Being Christlike with friends of other faiths would further spreading the gospel.  Because of the two benefits, the reduction of poverty and the spreading of the gospel, we should definitely work with people in government to give to the poor.  This should not be an issue.  We should be glad to assist the government to give to the poor.

            Can you find disapproval for that?  Can you find that prohibition?  As far as I can find, there is absolutely no scripture that prohibits us from using large scale efforts like the government to be charitable, or to spread Christ’s gospel of loving others. 

            The scriptures, if anything, are to the contrary.  I’ll share some of these in the next chapter.

Chapter 8:Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part VII: Using Governments to Give and Do Good to the Poor

Subsection I: Governments were instituted of God for Our Benefit

            I believe our scriptures teach a different principle than is commonly attested to by many people in our society.  I believe God set up governments to do more than simply protect our rights. 

            I base my belief in part on the following modern-day revelation: “We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man….We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside.”  (D&C 134:1,5). 

            From the Lord’s perspective, governments are to “benefit” their citizens, not just defend their fundamental rights, as many conservative viewpoints vehemently argue.  This benefit is broad.  As long as it falls under “public interest,” then it qualifies: “[A]ll governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest.”  (D&C 134:5).

            If a government wants to be more or less charitable with the numerous population’s taxes, then so be it—we are still “bound to sustain” it if we are citizens of that government. 

            Is there any comfort in this?  Yes!  The comfort is in knowing that there is power in numbers.  That power has the potential to multiply charitable, Christlike living a thousand-fold.  The combined resources can help in ways that single, charitable giving can never do.  Consistency of care in multiple, differing communities, long-term care, and large-scale care are each examples.  What, then, is wrong with doing more good?  Especially good that isn’t otherwise available?

            (As the reader, you might not see any wrong in assisting government in helping the poor, but you probably know someone who does.  I’ll speak to you, though, as if you oppose it).

            You may answer to yourself, “It’s wrong because robbing the rich to feed the poor is still a crime.  It’s robbery.” 

            You’re right, but only in a very general way. 

            Here’s how you’re perspective is generally accurate.  The government mandated you pay taxes and never asked your permission to do what it’s doing with your tax money.  In fact, you verbally prohibit what it’s doing because you think your tax dollars are only supposed to be used for a very limited government, that your tax dollars could be used for those better and more essential causes that we don’t have enough money for anyway, and you think that people should be more personally responsible and not depend on the government for aid.  So, the government making you pay for these other causes that you don’t approve of is your general idea of robbery by the government.

            Let’s consider, for argument’s sake, that the government’s use of your tax money to help the nation’s mooching poor is actually a crime—it’s robbery against you.  Okay….Why should that be of huge concern if you’re a devoted disciple of Christ?  Didn’t Christ teach:

“Pray for them which despitefully use you” (Matt. 5:44);

“[D]o good to them that hate you” (Matt. 5:44);

“Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44);

“Give to him that asketh thee” (Matt. 5:42);

“[R]esist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:39);

“[B]less them that curse you” (Matt. 5:44);

“[H]ow oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?...Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee…Until seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:21).         

            If you are wronged in any way by any of the following people, then your response is still with patience, forgiveness, and proactive compassion:

• A person who uses you
• A person who hates you
• An enemy to you
• A person who begs of you
• A person who assaults you
• A person who curses you
• A person who sins against you

            If you’re a disciple of Christ, you love every single one of these people.  It bears repeating that the love you show is by proactively doing good to them, giving of your own resources, turning your other cheek, blessing them, and forgiving them, as Christ taught.

            So, if a person is your enemy and robs you of a small or even a considerable percentage of your income and then uses 60% of your stolen money to try and bless the lives of the poor, both the lazy and working poor, and to help the sick obtain healthcare, and then spoils the remaining 40% of your money for his own living, how upset are you going to be if you’re already supposed to give to him that begs of you?  How upset are you going to be if this criminal to you is your enemy who hates you and sins against you, yet tries to do at least some good with what he took from you?  How enraged are you going to be if your resources were used to bless the lives of those despitefully using you when you were supposed to pray for those people in the first place?  Or were you praying for a curse on them?  Or maybe you didn’t pray for them at all.

            How much of a pessimist are you?  Or, how much of an optimist are you?  Are you more happy about the situation than unhappy since more than half of your money ended up going to a generally good cause that you’re suppose to support anyway?  Or are you more upset than happy by the situation because your sacred agency was violated—you were never asked if you would let that money go to the poor and the sick? 

            You might be thinking to yourself, “Heck, if it were up to me, I’d never let my money go to help the poor and the sick—it’s atrocious to think I would ever even choose that.  I’m not going to enable people’s bad habits.  It’s even more awful because had I wanted it to go to charity, I could have put that money to better use.  I would’ve given it to someone who needs it and deserves it.  That makes this situation doubly horrible.” 

            Or maybe you say, “You know, my agency was violated in two ways—the robber took my money against my will and the money was used for something I didn’t specifically choose it to be used for.  But, if the money is going to be stolen, I’d rather any portion of the money go to at least a mildly good cause rather than all of it to a bad cause.”  This reaction is more in line with the seven principles with scripture references that Christ taught above because the reaction is more loving, it is more of turning the other cheek, and it is more forgiving.  Be like this.  Think like this.  Act like this.  You're not a true disciple if you don't at least try to some degree. 

Chapter 8: Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part VII: Using Governments to Give and Do Good to the Poor

Subsection II: If the Government is your Enemy, should You Hate It?

            Do principles of Christlike behavior toward others change if the other is a collective body of people, like a government, rather than a single individual?  I ask this because it seems to be a real issue.  Some people think we treat governments differently than we treat individuals. 

            Let’s look to Christ’s example—did His Christlike behavior change toward the governments He went before during the hours and moments before His crucifixion?  Was He no longer patient toward the governments He faced, for example?

            Looking to Christ as your example and His doctrine as your guide, if the government is your enemy, do you hate it?  If the government hates you, do you stop doing good to it? 

            If the government begs from you taxes and misuses the funds you give it, do you withhold giving to it?  If the government assaults you personally, do you resist it and violently fight back?  If the government curses you, do you refuse to bless it?  If the government sins against you by robbing you, do you decline to forgive it? 

            The government is nothing more than multiple people trying to be united around a single cause, hence one person, much like the unity of God the Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost in that regard.  Does your commitment to Christlike living change toward multiple people united as one?

            There may be times when the answer to some of these questions is “yes,” but, generally speaking, the answers are a resounding “no.”  The general rule is patience, forbearance, and turning the other cheek no matter how many aggressors there are and no matter how united the groups of aggressors are toward you.  Now, the Spirit and certain conditions that meet scriptural exceptions may have you, as a disciple of Christ, diverge from these general rules.  But not until then.  How often do you get directions that are undeniably from the Spirit and not just your own common sense?  The rule is you follow the Spirit for exceptions to the word of God, not what you think is common sense.  If you follow your common sense to make exceptions, you’re becoming a law unto yourself (D&C 88:35—“That which…seeketh to become a law unto itself…must remain filthy still”) and relying on the “arm of flesh” (2 Nephi 4:34—“[C]ursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.”).  The Spirit, not common sense, not reason, not your best judgment, approves of exceptions to scriptural rule.

            So, you say the government is actually robbing you to do a mediocre job at helping the lazy poor.  Should you really be that offended with the seven guiding principles above? 

            First, you’re supposed to be patient when a crime has been committed against you (“be patient toward all men,” (1 Thess. 5:14)) and, second, you’re supposed to give to the poor and sick anyway (“remember in all things the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted” (D&C 52:40)), so why complain so much that you were the means of doing some good through what you perceive as a group of criminals?  Just because the good wasn’t done perfectly?  Just because it wasn’t done efficiently?  Just because they took away your ability to choose a single choice out of the trillions of other choices you make in a lifetime?  Is that why you’re offended?

            Where does Christ say you should hate groups of the semi-good and the not-so-efficient?  Where does He say you should be angry and contentious about your money not being put to its best use by the organizations of people who demand it and use it?  Where does He say that your Christlike behavior and attitude change if multiple people try to take away one of your choices and violate your agency in that singular regard?  I don’t know, but what I do know is that He said that “contention is not of me, but is of the devil” who “stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another” (3 Nephi 11:29). 

            I’d be more concerned about reacting in a devilish way than I would be in being concerned that the devil’s plan is being implemented against you in your life.  One problem is internal, the other external.  What’s inside matters more.

Chapter 8: Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part VII: Using Governments to Give and Do Good to the Poor

Subsection III: Tacit Consent and Social Contract Justify Government Social Programs

            But, even after all this, let’s say you’re still offended by the government.  You try to disregard the pesky thought that when you have charity, you’re not “easily provoked.” 1 Cor. 13:5; Moroni 7:45.  You complain bitterly that this provocation that comes from the government meddling with all of our lives goes too far—it goes beyond the bounds of reason and patience—and so you’re not being “easily” provoked.  You and everyone else are being robbed!  That’s a very good reason to be provoked, right???

            Unfortunately, what you define as “robbery” is far too broad.  “Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.”  (Black's Law Dictionary).

            So, you’re not correct in the specific way of defining robbery—even in simplified terms, robbery is a taking against your will by force or fear.  The government’s not doing that.  You have no legal justification to believe you’re being robbed in any criminal manner.  Let me explain further.

            Releasing your legally-mandated taxes to fund a government who then gives some of its governmental money to the poor or the sick is not “robbery” from you because (1) it wasn’t taken, you gave the money up, and (2) it wasn’t against your will, you agreed to it through your tacit consent by social contract. 

            What’s a social contract and what’s tacit consent?  Let me explain in reverse. 

            Tacit Consent: First, you may disapprove how your taxes are being used, but that does not mean you did not approve of being taxed in general by the government.  You have given silent, or tacit, approval for the government to tax you and then use your tax money as it deems fit because you did not legally or politically object, in the proper manner, to giving your tax money to it in the first place. 

            This legal and political silence is approval because you have a duty as a citizen of this country to correct errors through the courts or the voting process.  But, you haven’t.  You are failing to resist the action, which means you are permitting it, which means, therefore, that you consent to it.  That’s tacit consent: silent permission.

            Social Contract: Second, by your birth into society, you have become part of a contract with that society to mutually support one another through a governing power that handles social issues.  This is a social contract.  To what degree social issues are handled (i.e. only the protection of fundamental rights or all the way up to pure socialism) are determined by the democracy, the constitution, the king, and/or other lawful mechanism in the government.  These are all kinds of governments that the Lord approves of: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”  (Articles of Faith 1:12).

            Because of the in-general approval by the Lord of various governments and different kinds of governmental leaders, a crime has not been committed against you when your political leaders require taxes that they use as they deem fit.  In fact, the Church teaches, “Church members are obligated by the twelfth article of faith to obey the tax laws of the nation where they reside (see also D&C 134:5).”  Handbook 2:21.1.21. 

            The Church policy goes on to state how to fix potential abuses, which is consistent with the duty as citizens of the United States: “Members who disapprove of tax laws may try to have them changed by legislation or constitutional amendment. Members who have well-founded legal objections may challenge tax laws in the courts.”  Handbook 2:21.1.21.

            The ability to challenge the tax requirements is especially so in America because you have the political power to change that lawful government—you can vote in yourself or a collective group of people that will run the government the way you want it run by immense effort on yours and others’ part. 

            It may be hard.  It may be slow.  It may be frustrating.  It may be a tedious process to make your choice a reality.  But, that doesn’t mean you don’t have any choices like Satan wanted to take from you.  It does not even mean a single choice was taken from you in some evil, the-plan-of-Satan way.  The government using your tax money in a way that you don’t like is not forcing you to support that particular thing—this situation is NOT Satan’s plan.  Not even close.  You don’t even own your tax money any more.  It’s the full property of the government now.  You have no rights to it.  None.  Absolutely zilch.  You have absolutely no right to dictate how the government should use what-you-think-is-your tax money, except for your right to use the legal or political process to alter the way tax money is used.

            In addition to the choice of changing your overly charitable government through the political process, you also have the choice to find a nation with a government you approve of and then to make the inconvenient effort of moving there.  It’s a choice you have.  You’re self-reliant.  You’re independent.  You can do it.  You’re not bound down or restricted from emigrating.  Many people do it.  So can you.  And if your country won’t allow it, then seek asylum in a country that will allow it.  You’re not without choices or opportunities in this modern, civilized age.

            You still have these kinds of choices and opportunities, although difficult or limited.  By not taking advantage of these opportunities to leave, migrate away, seek asylum, or change the politics of your nation, you tacitly consent to, or quietly approve of, being in the nation you’re in.

Chapter 8:Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part VIII: Some More Other Sources

            In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the ancient author writes concerning the rules of the community, and not necessarily just the individual, “They shall love each man his brother as himself; they shall succor the poor, the needy, and the stranger”; about individuals, it continues, “A man shall seek his brother’s well-being.”  The Damascus Document, The Rules 6:20, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 1998, p.132.

            Krishna, a deity described to be in human form, taught in an ancient Hindu scripture to “war against…greed, cruelty, hate, and jealousy” (see Bhagavad Gita 2:31, Jack Hawley translation, New World Library, 2001, p.17).  This “war” would imply exerting the most strenuous efforts in the reverse, such as generosity and not “greed,” compassion and not “cruelty,” love and not “hate,” and altruism and not “jealousy.”  Krishna continues, “The ideal…is to be intensely active and at the same time have no selfish motives,” (see Gita, 2:47, p.21) or, in other words, to be actively selfless with intensity. 

            The great Reformer, Martin Luther, encouraged the virtues of love and charity in his famous Ninety-Five Theses: “Of a truth, the pains of souls…ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.”  Point 17, Ninety-Five Theses, Works of Martin Luther. Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds. (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol.1, pp. 29-38.  Continuing on, he stated, “[B]y works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man.”  Point 44.  Explaining more specifically about works of love, he said, “Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.”  Point 43.  In more firm language, he said, “Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by…only incurs the wrath of God.”  Point 45.

            When it comes to being compassionate to the person begging, it also seems that we can be wise in our generosity by giving to social organizations set up to help the beggar instead of giving directly to the beggar.  These social organizations can range from churches to non-profits to governments.  But, I would still be very, very careful about withholding what you can give when the beggar pleads with you to give to him, unless the Spirit directs otherwise.  Let me explain a little more why.

Chapter 8:Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part XIV: Real Experiences

            “I did not give to the beggar who will use it for drugs, I gave it to God,” I say to the criticizer who says I shouldn’t have “given to someone who will, of course, use it for drugs or bad things.”

            And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40.

            And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me.

Doctrine and Covenants 42:31.

            [W]hen ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.

Mosiah 2:17.

                        “I did not give to the beggar who will use it for drugs, I gave it to God,” echoes in your mind (hopefully) as you consider the morality of giving to the lazy beggar. 

            If this conviction is in your mind, then you, like other righteous people, might easily ask the Lord at judgment day, “Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?”  (Matt. 25:37).  Why would you be puzzled?  Because you didn’t see the beggar in the person asking for food—you saw the Lord as the Lord and not even as a hungry or thirsty Lord.  You were simply worshipping Christ by giving an offering.

            As I write this, I had an experience yesterday afternoon that illustrates some of the issues of giving.  While I was driving off of the freeway, I stopped at the intersection light.  On the side of the street was a short young man, perhaps in his early twenties.  He had a trimmed beard and was dressed decently.  He was holding a cardboard sign with bold black letters, “Help me get home to my family.” 

            In this experience, I was faced with the decision, “Do I potentially be irresponsible and give him money that he may secretly use for a bad drug habit that will ruin his and potentially others’ lives or do I take what he says at face value and give to him optimistically and out of a sincerely generous heart, not wanting to miss an opportunity to help someone who may really be in need of help?” 

            How can I know what the truth is about him using the money for drugs or for getting home?  I can’t.  Not in the short time that I have with him. 

            So, then I have to ask a series of other questions regarding risk—what risk of guilt would I rather have materialize?  Would it be the risk of being guilty of irresponsibility (a “sin” I don’t see anywhere prohibited in scripture) by potentially furthering some bad habit of his, or, guilty of violating the second great commandment (an unquestionable sin) by potentially furthering another’s lack? 

            On the other hand, what risk for extra-credit in Heaven would I rather have materialize—extra-credit for being responsible or extra-credit for being charitable? 

            Or, what specific influence for good would I rather risk be about doing—helping others be more responsible or helping others in their true hour of need?  The answer was easy for me.

            I rolled down the window and handed him my emergency $20 bill that I keep folded away in one of my wallet pockets.  When he saw the money, he was surprised and genuinely grateful.  He explained, without needing to, how thankful he was and how it was going to help him buy a Greyhound ticket to get back to Carlsbad, California.  Carlsbad happens to be an area I’m familiar with because of the times that I studied law in San Diego. 

            Because of the scriptures at the beginning of this chapter, I didn’t give the money to him.  I gave to God.  But, some of you may be disgusted by the thought of offering something to God that will ultimately be misused.  So, let’s examine this a little more.

            Personally, I believe he genuinely needed the help.  I came to this higher level of certainty only after giving to him.  That may be the case more often than not where we aren’t certain until after giving.

            He may have needed the help because of some irresponsibility on his part.  Should he pay a price for his irresponsibility?  Yes, but not a punishment—“being irresponsible” or “enabling irresponsibility” is no where prohibited directly in scripture.  It’s not a sin.  Neither of them is. 

            One reason neither is a sin is because the guilty act of enabling is not coupled with the guilty mind or intention of enabling (“For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.”  D&C 137:9)—I was not intending to enable helplessness by giving him the charity money that I was hoping he would use for good and for that which I had faith the Lord would use for giving him an opportunity to do the right thing with that money.  Notice the italicized three virtues.  Enabling does not deserve a punishment, especially since it can involve all three of the best virtues: faith, hope, and charity. 

            To repeat this important point, if you exercise faith, hope, and charity by prayerfully dedicating and giving your money to the poor, which money only ends up enabling them to remain poor (which you did not intend or even know, but may have suspected), then you will not be punished at Judgment Day for “enabling.”  In the end, your charitable giving will have a net good effect on the community, not a cumulative harm to the financial status of the community.
            Furthermore, I say let the druggie moocher have lots of money to sustain his drug habit!  The more he supplies his drug habit, the more likely he is to get in trouble.  The more likely he is to get in trouble, the more likely he is to get captured by the justice system.  The more the justice system captures him, the more likely he is to get rehabilitative help (so long as he happens to have good prosecutors and great, awesome, smoking-cool criminal defense attorneys) because the system is designed to help these people through proper modes of punishment when used right.  Giving lots and lots of money to the druggie or moocher may have the ultimate side-effect of getting him the help he actually needs when not giving him enough money and resources won't allow him to be as bad as he would like to be.  Let him be bad!  As bad as he wants.  Our society won't tolerate it.  He'll get caught and eventually helped all the sooner.  The sooner he's helped, the less he will victimize society.  And don't we ultimately want less victims?  He may victimize a few in being as bad as he can be, but in the end, if his overall ability to hurt others is curtailed by being caught, then why not help him get caught?  It will save others victims who would have otherwise been injured by the non-captured criminal who sneaked through the system without getting caught because he didn't have the resources to be as bad as he really wanted.
            I'll change this radical opinion if people can show me how it's wrong; but, for now, I'm tending to believe that empowering people to be as bad as they want gets them the help afforded to them by our good society faster than if we let them slowly rot and escape rehabilitation by withholding our substance and money from them.

            As a side note, charitable-giving may be different on larger scales.  An example would be giving continued support to a needy family whom the Church ward is supporting.  The available support should be given until the Spirit directs otherwise.  Typically, the Spirit approves of giving them a plan to follow that actually does have a termination date.  Following the Lord’s direction in these cases is critical.

            Some members of the Church are adamant, though, that in giving to these people we are preventing them from being self-reliant, which then means that the church member was somehow violating the entire Plan of Salvation that is meant to empower people to become better individuals.  They are sinning in these charitable acts of kindness, they proclaim.  They scream that there is a law that “thou shalt not hinder a person’s self-reliance by being charitable to them!”  I’m sorry, you’re wrong.  The prophet Brigham Young said, “There is no law against doing good.  There is no law against love….There is no law against charity and benevolence.”  (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 224, “Obedience”). 

            In fact, the prophet not only declares there is no sin in being charitable, but he also goes a step further and says, “Be just as independent as a God to do good.  Love mercy…be a savior to yourselves…and to your fellow beings just as much as you possibly can.”  (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 271, “Our Fellow Men.”).

            Some people feel they are doing a person a favor by withholding the money and they are preventing him from harming himself—it’s harmful to promote his standing on the freeway and being a traffic hazard as he takes the money.  It’s harmful to contribute to his delinquency. 

            If under the specific circumstances of a situation these are actually valid characterizations, then it may be better to withhold the money or give it to him indirectly through a charitable organization. 

            But, do you have more than a reasonable assumption of delinquency?  Do you have knowledge of the harm you are concerned of?  If not, then the better choice is generally to give with hope, faith, and charity.  Ignore your mere hunches of harm.  It’s reasonable to have those suspicions, but don’t act on them by withholding potentially very valuable help to the needy who may, in fact, happen to need it, even if you can't be so sure or tell.

            But, but, but, you might stammer.  Listen to the words of the prophet Brigham Young, who asked:

Suppose that in this community there are ten beggars who beg from door to door for something to eat, and that nine of them are imposters who beg to escape work, and with an evil heart practice imposition upon the generous and sympathetic, and that only one of the ten who visit your doors is worthy of your bounty; which is best, to give food to the ten, to make sure of helping the truly needy one, or to repulse the ten because you do not know which is the worthy one?

Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 274, “Our Fellow Men.”

            So, what’s your answer?  Are you so disgusted with the nine moochers that it’s worth it to you to let the one truly in need to go without your private charity?  President Young answered, “[A]dminister charitable gifts to the ten, rather than turn away the only truly worthy and truly needy person among them.”  That’s the right answer.  You may protest, but he continues, “If you do this, it will make no difference in your blessings, whether you administer to worthy or unworthy persons, inasmuch as you give alms with a single eye to assist the needy.”

            But, some of you were so adamant that giving to any of the unworthy poor would stifle their spiritual progression and, therefore, be a mistake on your part.  The Lord doesn’t give blessings for mistakes.  Giving to the nine was not wrong.  There is no law against it. 

            Note what the prophet said: you will have the same “blessings” for giving to the “unworthy persons” as the “worthy” ones so long as your attitude is right.  It doesn’t matter towards your salvation if your actions in this case ultimately cause harm to the nine.  What matters is that you sincerely meant to do good.  And, from the Lord’s perspective, helping the one truly in need does more good than helping the nine does harm.  Good is at least ten times more powerful than the harm of enabling.

            But, you may say, this is just Brigham.  He wasn’t necessarily speaking as a prophet.  I ask you, can’t the Spirit verify to you the truth of his words?  Can’t you seek the virtue in what he said and find it?

            If you’re still not convinced, then, here is scripture from a prophet; whatever we choose to do, we should always keep in mind the modern mandates: “remember in all things the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted, for he that doeth not these things, the same is not my disciple” D&C 52:40.  Do you want to risk your status as a disciple by acting on your suspicions and withholding your substance from the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted, in order to avoid enabling them?  Really?  Are you that stubborn and willing to risk your discipleship on a mere hunch or suspicion that someone may not deserve or be worthy of your precious and privileged charity that you must deserve more than him because you have become so self-reliant?

            Another verse, which may have limited application because it seems to be in reference to programs of consecration that we don’t presently follow, says, “[I]f any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not…unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.”  D&C 104:18. 

            You don’t see these kinds of consequences for failing to be responsible.  It's nowhere in scripture.  You don’t have these kinds of consequences for enabling irresponsibility in others, which then leads to their poor choices that end up harming them.  It’s because their poor choices are not your fault, unless you know you’re facilitating the poor choices.  Knowledge is different than educated guesses.  It’s a very high standard to meet.

            Of course there will be a number of exceptions to the general rule.  The Spirit can direct otherwise.  Those exceptions do not change the fact that the general rule is that when the two virtues of responsibility and generosity come into conflict, we should clearly choose generosity.  We clearly give at the expense of potentially being irresponsible.  It’s worth it.  It’s worth it to you, to them, and to the Lord.

            And remember, you are not giving to the poor, you are giving to the Lord.  (See the beginning verses of this chapter).  Can you really be at fault for giving to the Lord?

Chapter 8:Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part X: Political Witnesses

            Below are fascinating scriptures.  They fascinate me not only because of their content, but also because of who gave them.  These sayings came from political, government leaders.  Because of this, they may indicate a governmental approach to dealing with the poor.  The kings David (Psalms) and Solomon (Proverbs) instructed as follows:

The Lord Returns Blessings to the Givers for Lending to Him

            “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.”  Proverbs 19:17.

            Compare, “And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me.”  D&C 42:31.

            “He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse.”  Proverbs 28:27.

            “For the Lord heareth the poor, and despiseth not his prisoners.”  Psalms 69:33.

The Lord does Good to the Poor

            “Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate: For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them.”  Proverbs 22:22-23.

            “Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high…He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill; That he may set him with princes, even with the princes of his people.”  Psalms 113:5-).

            Compare, “He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the world upon them.”  1 Samuel 2:8.

            “For he [the Lord] shall stand at the right hand of the poor [person], to save him from those that condemn his soul.”  Psalms 109:31.

We are also to do Good to the Poor

            “Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.”  Psalms 82:3.

            “The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him....Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.  Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies….She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.”  Proverbs 31:1,9-10,20.

            “The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.”  Proverbs 29:7.

There are Penalties to Us when We are Cruel to the Poor

            “Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.”  Proverbs 21:13.

            “He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker: but he that honoureth him hath mercy on the poor.”  Proverbs 14:31.

            “Whoso mocketh the poor reproacheth his Maker: and he that is glad at calamities shall not be unpunished.”  Proverbs 17:5.

            “The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined.”  Psalms 10:2.

            Coming from the spiritual, political leaders, these directives could be seen as a social solution to poverty, not just an individual solution that we should personally employ.  These directives, then, become a model for future governments that become more sophisticated and able to support the poor through its citizens’ taxes.

Chapter 8:Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part XI: Old Testament Witnesses about The Rights of the Poor

Here’s an interesting example I found about the word “right” being used in the Bible:

            For I know your manifold transgressions and your mighty sins:...they turn aside the poor in the gate from their right....Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate.

Amos 5:12,15.

According to these verses from Amos, I glean some important truths:

(1) the poor had a “right” to be “in the gate” for charitable assistance;

(2) it was a “mighty sin[]” to ignore the poor and violate their right to be helped; and

(3) we have a solemn duty to “establish judgment in the gate,” exactly where the poor are, meaning we are to help them there and give them relief in the form of compassionate justice or “judgment.”

            Two other scriptural witnesses speak of the poor having “rights” to assistance: “I know that the Lord will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and the right of the poor” (Psalms 140:12); and, “Wo unto them that…turn away the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!”  2 Nephi 20:1-2.

            Compare, “And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?”  Genesis 4:9.  To Christians, the answer is “yes, we are our brothers’ keepers.”  If so, then your poor brother has a reasonable expectation of receiving help from you if you’re a true disciple of Christ.  Such a reasonable expectation of help is akin to a right for help, if not identical to it.

            This “right” to assistance comes from the fact that the Lord’s people are commanded to help and not oppress the poor:

            “And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God.”  Leviticus 19:10.

            “And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee.”  Leviticus 25:35.

            “Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates: At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the Lord, and it be sin unto thee.”  Deut. 24:12-15.

          Breaking this commandment, or violating their right to assistance, is sin:

            “Beware that…thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the Lord against thee, and it be sin unto thee.”  Deut. 15:9.

            “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread…neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”  Ezekiel 16:49.

            In fact, from the Lord’s perspective, not only is violating their rights to charitable assistance a sin, but the violation is compared to physical violence against them:

            “O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. The Lord standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people….What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord God of hosts.”  Isa. 3:12-15.

            Compare, “[Y]e have eaten up the vineyard and the spoil of the poor in your houses. What mean ye? Ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor, saith the Lord God of Hosts.”  2 Nephi 13:14-15.

            Compare, “And the Gentiles…preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor.”  2 Nephi 26:20.

            The witnesses from the Old Testament to us teach important truths that (1) the poor have rights that they can reasonably expect disciples of Christ will uphold, (2) disciples are commanded to assist them, (3) it is sin to not help the poor, and (4) failing to help the poor is roughly the equivalent of gruesome violence to them. 

            These four reasons give strong evidence that if the virtues of being generous and being responsible clash, then choosing generosity and being irresponsible is far better.  Far, far better. 

Chapter 28:Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part XII: New Testament Witnesses

            Imagine these words from the Savior directed specifically to you: “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.”  Matthew 19:21.

            If you’re keeping the early commandments like this particular individual had been, then the only thing left for you to do in order to be perfect, or be complete in the Lord’s eyes, is to be altruistic to the poor.  Remember, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”  2 Cor. 13:1.  This doctrine has been repeated two more times:

            Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Luke 18:22.

            One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Mark 10:21.

            During His ministry, Jesus “went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day.”  Luke 14:1.  He spoke to them in parables at first.  Once he was finished speaking parables, He said plainly “to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours.”  The reason was “lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.”  He went on, “But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.”  Luke 14:12-14. 

            The Savior wishes us to give to those who cannot return our charitable gifts.  Unless this seems pointless, He assures those who are self-interested that they will be “blessed” and be restored their goodness at the day of resurrection.  Extra credit in heaven.  They will receive treasure in heaven that more than justly makes up for their loss of riches that have been gifted away during earth life.

            And if these blessings aren’t enough motivation to give riches to the poor, Christ also taught:

And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!  And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

Mark 10:23-24.

Chapter 8:Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part XIII: Modern Scriptures’ Witnesses

            According to The Book of Mormon, a “wo” is pronounced upon those who are affluent and capable of giving to the poor, presumably capable because of their own hard work, and they have developed an attitude of disdain toward the poor: “But wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world. For because they are rich they despise the poor.”  2 Nephi 9:30. 

            When we despise the poor because we are rich, it is because of the undue pride we have in our accomplishments.  This pride that leads to such haughtiness and hate toward the poor is sinful.  If you despise the poor because you feel they are lazy, then you should pay particular, prayerful attention to the following verse.  This pride is referenced in Helaman 4:12-13:

            And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding their clothing from the naked….because of this their great wickedness, and their boastings in their own strength, they were left in their own strength.

            After forsaking this wicked boasting, the remedy for a person with a prideful and bad attitude toward the poor is found in Mosiah 4:26:

And now…for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath.

            To be free of sin, we must do the acts of charity.  Giving is the way the Lord has provided for us to be continually remitted of our sins when we are otherwise righteous.

            The risen Lord repeated His desire for us, saying, “Verily, verily, I say that I would that ye should do alms unto the poor.”  3 Nephi 13:1.

            The prophet Joseph Smith prayed to the Lord the following words, recorded in D&C 109:55—“Remember…all the poor, the needy, and afflicted ones of the earth.” 

            The prayer, here, was “offered at the dedication of the temple at Kirtland, Ohio, 27 March 1836 (see History of the Church, 2:420–26).  According to the Prophet’s written statement, this prayer was given to him “by revelation.”  See heading of D&C 109. 

            The Lord revealed to us in that dedicatory prayer that we should remember “all” the poor, the needy, and afflicted ones “of the earth.”  The Lord speaks in words that are all inclusive, making absolutely no exceptions for the poor “who are lazy or doles,” or the needy “who are irresponsible,” and the afflicted ones “who are afflicted by their own idleness.”  Those exceptions are not there because they are eliminated by the all inclusive language; therefore, we remember even the moochers and doles as well.

            As another witness, which we’ve covered earlier, the Lord said, “And remember in all things the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted, for he that doeth not these things, the same is not my disciple.”  D&C 52:40.

            The Lord made this observation about some of the early saints: “But behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I required at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, to the poor and afflicted among them.”  D&C 105:3. 

            Why didn’t the “saints,” of all people, not impart of their substance to the poor and afflicted among them?  It sounds like they were capable of it, otherwise the Lord would not describe their holding back as “evil.”  I propose it was probably because they rationalized that they would not give to those they considered to be lazy.  This is not the Lord’s rationale.

            The Lord teaches us in D&C 44:6, “Behold, I say unto you, that ye must visit the poor and the needy and administer to their relief.”  When we visit the poor and needy, or remember them, it is not just about being aware of them.  We must also “administer to their relief.”  Relieve them of their suffering.

            Putting this mandate into application, the Lord said: “And now, I give unto the church in these parts a commandment, that certain men among them shall be appointed, and…they shall look to the poor and the needy, and administer to their relief that they shall not suffer.”  D&C 38:34-35.

            The Lord speaks strongly, “Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls.”  D&C 56:16.  Who’s rich?  The rich would be those blessed with the capability to impart of their abundance.  The not-rich, yet not-poor, are those who have sufficient for their needs, but none more.  The poor are those who don’t have sufficient for their needs for whatever reason why.

            In case, though, this emphasis on giving to the lazy poor means the Lord approves of their laziness or idleness, read the next verse, which we’ve already considered earlier in this book:

Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!

D&C 56:17.

            The Lord strongly disapproves of the lazy poor—a “wo” is pronounced upon them.  But, He did not say that these people must not be given to.  It’s not there.  Not giving to them, therefore, is wrong.  The only exception would be if the Spirit tells us not to give to a particular poor person or family or under very, highly particular circumstances.

            Just in case this emphasis on disapproving of the lazy poor makes those capable of giving want to think that all the poor are poor because they are lazy, the Lord said in the next verse:

But blessed are the poor who are pure in heart, whose hearts are broken, and whose spirits are contrite, for they shall see the kingdom of God coming in power and great glory unto their deliverance; for the fatness of the earth shall be theirs.

D&C 56:18.

            There are clearly poor people who are not poor because of any lazy idleness on their part.  The Lord promises them they will be delivered and blessed with “fatness.” 

            In the Pearl of Great Price, other modernly-revealed scripture, the Lord stated about one of the only Zion societies on earth: “And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.”  Moses 7:18. 

            This society was righteous enough that there were no poor among them.

            There were no dissensions either.  There were no divisions of people thinking the poor should be treated one way while others thought the poor should be treated another way.  They all believed the same way with one heart and mind.  There was power in numbers.  They eradicated all the poor from among them, together and jointly as a united effort.  Our individual giving can never do that, but so many of us want to believe it can.  So many of us want to delude ourselves into thinking that private businesses, private charities, and private non-profits can do a better job than the government they don't support in helping the poor.  Support your government.  You're a part of it.  Maybe it will then be able to change so that everyone will be able to be of one mind and then capable of eliminating poverty.  It's up to you to join the good cause.

            If all the people among us would think in the same way the scriptures teach, then we could be united enough to collectively eliminate poverty from among us.  That is, perhaps, the only way to do it on a large scale—to do it through social order, not just individual, random handouts to the poor.  Otherwise, the poor we will always have among us, as Christ taught. 

            One of the reasons why we need to administer to the poor and resist labeling some poor as being lazy is because they may have been made poor by the Lord: “The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.”  (1 Samuel 2:7).

            The Lord reemphasized a similar truth in latter-day revelation: “And for your salvation I give unto you a commandment, for I have heard your prayers, and the poor have complained before me, and the rich have I made, and all flesh is mine, and I am no respecter of persons.”  D&C 38:16. 

            As it says, the Lord makes the rich rich.  This scriptural fact should prevent the hard working, wealthy disciples from attributing their success solely to the works of their own hands.  To prevent them from totally crediting their impressive self-reliance and discipline.  No one succeeds on their own.  Opportunities not of their own making assisted them, without which, they could not have accomplished as much as they did.  The Lord takes credit for that, as He should.  And you should give Him that credit, too, otherwise you are ungrateful and committing a the grievous sin of ingratitude.

Chapter 8: Generosity (Giving) vs. Responsibility (Avoidance of Enabling)

Part XIV: Giving the Fish of Self-Reliance

            The people who advocate so strongly about teaching a man to fish may be dissatisfied with the answers here that giving a fish is better if you have to choose between the two.  And if you have to make that choice, then you must also continue to give more and more fish to sustain the one in need or organize others who have the ability to do so until and if something changes for the better. 

            But, does giving a fish itself have to take away self-reliance?  No.  I know this from experience with the charitable organization my wife and I formed to help people with a severe, genetic skin disorder become self-reliant. 

            Because of their circumstances, some of them never leave home.  They are constantly helped by caretakers.  This care sometimes has the real effect of creating learned helplessness.  This environment is not their fault.  To get them out of a learned-helplessness environment, we give them a fish—we give them an airline ticket.  We give them a week away from home.  We give them a social experience with others who can relate.  We give them activities and recreation.  For some of them, it’s the first step of independence or self-reliance.  For all of them, it is a continued step in self-sufficiency and self-reliance.

            After we have given them the fish, then we work on teaching them how to fish.  We instruct them in their areas of interest with mentors.  But, even if we did not teach them to fish, the fish we gave them that they took is a significant step toward self-reliance.  And, if we have the resources, then we’ll continue to give the fish.  Sadly, some don’t even take the fish.  They refuse it.  That is truly tragic.  We should be grateful when helpless people at least accept a fish.

            All of the chapters on generosity vs. responsibility lead us to the conclusion that in the times when you must choose one virtue over the other, you should always choose generosity instead of responsibility.  The Spirit will let you know when this general rule does not apply to any particular circumstance that there may be, and then you can choose otherwise. 

            It’s important to remember that Satan didn’t provide this choice for you.  His opposition was totally unnecessary in giving you the agency to choose between the competing virtues here.  The Lord gave you these two choices.  He made the poor poor.  He made the rich rich.  Now the choice is up to you.  Ideally, you do both—give a fish and teach to fish.  But if you can’t do both, then hopefully you’ll choose the better choice of giving a man a fish instead of just trying to teach a man to fish.

Chapter 9: Caring vs. Freedom

Part I: Universal Healthcare and Satan’s Plan

            I want to explore more the issue of social orders that require collective charity, not just individual efforts to be charitable.  An example of the virtue of caring for others competing against the virtue of freedom is in recent national debates over healthcare for all citizens. 

            As I understand it, to supply needed healthcare to each of the sick and afflicted, all of the citizens are “compelled” to pay for it through increased taxes or required payments toward insurance companies.  Assuming that this constitutes “force” or “compulsion” when the majority voted for it by electing the president who promised he’d create it, and if this is an accurate description of what happens by this new healthcare system, then the question at its most basic level becomes, “Which is the better virtue—to be free from compulsion that forces you to be your brother’s keeper or to be compassionate in helping your brother in ways that you specifically have not chosen and that you actually reject?”

            One helpful way to determine which is the better virtue—moral agency or caring acts—is to rely on revealed knowledge to know whether sacrificing either of the virtues results in “sin.”

            We know from scripture that “to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”  James 4:17.  Following the doctrine here means that sacrificing the good virtue would be sin.  This broad statement, however, does not conclusively resolve the issue because both virtues are good.  Goodness is inherent in the definition of virtue. 

            Unless you’ve received direct revelation on the matter, you may not “know” (James 4:17) which of the dueling virtues would be considered the “good” one over the other (or, in other words, the “better” one).

            Perhaps the absolute statement, “charity never faileth” (1 Cor. 13:8), helps.  The Book of Mormon repeats this doctrine as follows: “my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth.”  Moroni 7:46. 

            But, does it fail at a governmental level?  If charity never fails, then even a governmental level that involves some degree of “force” to make the charity happen for its sick citizens through taxation is proper. 

            Perhaps this “force” is the righteous compulsion that is implicit in the scripture that for priesthood holders at least, they cannot exercise “any degree” of “unrighteous” dominion.  D&C 121:37,39.  There is no prohibition against “righteous” compulsion or dominion. 

            Perhaps if a government chooses to be charitable and requires its citizens to support its decision, then it must be upheld, according to scripture:

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

D&C 134:5.

            As applied to the individual, if charity never fails, then you will never go wrong choosing charity over agency or over any other virtue, assuming you properly apply charity.

            But what does choosing charity mean?  Charity includes caring for others because the list of qualities about charity include “suffer[ing] long, and [being] kind….seek[ing] not her own…[and] not [being] easily provoked.”  These are each examples of surrendering your will to some degree—giving up your will that tries to avoid the suffering that comes from others inflicting it on you, sacrificing your will to be self-interested and self-focused, abandoning your will to seek your own welfare over others,’ and letting go of your will to be provoked by things you consider unfair. 

            Importantly, the complete list of what charity includes never specifically mentions “seeking freedom for self and others.”  It may be “kind” to do that.  But, there is no scripture or doctrine that makes as strong a statement about agency and free will as about charity; there is no verse in holy writ that states “the pursuit of free agency never faileth and without free agency, ye are nothing.” 

            Arguably, though, because the war in Heaven centered on the agency of man, it is certainly a tough contender against the virtue of caring for others. 

            In this healthcare debate, some argue, quite vehemently, that as the government takes away our “agency” by turning us into “socialists,” they are doing just what Satan did.  These proponents maintain that any more limitations on our rights and freedoms to do with our money or taxes as we deem fit takes away our agency to choose.

            Ignoring the fact that we live in a society where, basically, the minority must do according to the majority’s wishes (see Mosiah 29:26 for scriptural approval of a majority forcing a minority to do something they disagree with: “Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people”), let’s first consider this issue from an intellectual, cross-examination point of view and then from a scriptural one:

·         Agency, or the ability to choose, requires there be at least two choices from which you can pick one over the other, right?

·         Sometimes, one pick of the two is not really a choice at all, right?

·         If so, then when is an option between two things so bad that it is not truly an option?

·         Is, “Do this or die,” an example of a choice that is the equivalent of no choice at all?

·         Most would agree that this is usually an example of having no choice at all, right?

·         Is, “Don’t do this and be imprisoned,” an example of a choice between doing something or not doing something that is so bad that there truly is not an option?

·         Most would agree that this last example is not unusual to our social order—it is notper se an example of a choice that is so bad that it is not truly a choice because, if so, then our society’s structure of law, order, and justice is skewed, right?

·         Why, then, is it not a choice to choose to refuse to pay a tax meant for a good cause and then suffer the consequence of being imprisoned for tax evasion—is the consequence for not paying this tax so severe that you are, essentially, forced to pay the supposedly evil, socialist tax? 

·         Isn’t it more correct that the tax is really not so evil that it’s not worth being imprisoned over?  Or would you really rather be in prison than pay it?

·         Why is it not a choice here in our country right now to instead become a legal resident of another nation on earth that does not require such a tax—is it that all other nations on the earth are so repulsive that moving away to any of them is the equivalent of an impossibility?  Is it really impossible?

·         Isn’t it also true that no matter what we are “forced” to do, we always have a choice in what attitude to take about doing it, such as reacting with feelings of contempt and outrage or with determination to endure and make the best of the situation?

            The truth is that there still is agency in a mandatory tax, as demonstrated as follows: (1) the consequence for voluntarily choosing to withhold payment of the tax is not so severe that such a choice constitutes no choice at all; (2) the mandatory healthcare tax is not so evil that it’s worth being imprisoned over; (3) the choice to move away from the tax to a nation without it has not been removed from you; and (4) the choice to maintain a positive attitude about the required, charitable tax has not been taken from you—you can still choose to be grateful for the opportunity to be an instrument in helping the sick and afflicted with a relatively small amount of your money, even if it is done so inefficiently. 

            From an intellectual perspective, then, it’s clear that the charitable healthcare tax is not the same as what Satan tried accomplish in taking away agency because there are still legitimate choices available to you in these circumstances.

            Just to be clear, if Satan were in charge, he would have made you physically incapable of choosing anything besides that which would land you in heaven.  You had no choice to choose otherwise.  You wouldn’t even have had the choice to suffer a punishment instead of going along with his way.  He truly would have stripped you of your agency.  This is quite different than what the healthcare tax does.  At least you can choose to be punished instead of have to pay it.  You have agency.  You might find it distasteful to choose a punishment over it, but this opportunity for choice is a far cry from Satan’s plan of coercive non-choice.

            From the scriptural perspective we already considered, we reach the same conclusion, but from a different angle.  Here is the scriptural point of view to consider:

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly.

D&C 134:5.

            It appears from scripture that all citizens, of whatever nation they may be in, are obligated to uphold their governments.  They should be “punished” for not doing so.  Applying the scripture to our circumstances, we would understand that the Lord expects us to pay the healthcare tax in order to “uphold” our government.  He would look down on us for not paying it and He feels we should be punished if we don’t.

            Those vehemently opposed to the tax may have happily noticed that encoded within this strong language is an exception.  According to the exception, the obligation to uphold government does not exist to the respective citizens when they are not “protected in their inherent…rights” by those governments.  It is becoming of every citizen not so protected to rebel and not be punished for it.

            Those in the healthcare debate who believe a mandatory healthcare tax in America is the equivalent of a Satanic exercise of compulsion are trying to make this exception fit for us. These proponents are, in effect, indicating that America and all socialist countries like Canada, France, and England, with similar taxes:

1.      Are countries that are full of citizens that are exempt from the obligation to “sustain and uphold” their government;

2.      Are countries that are open to “sedition and rebellion,” which would be becoming of “every citizen” not “protected in their inherent and inalienable rights” to be free of such compulsion; and

3.      Are countries that are not allowed to punish its citizens for any such sedition or rebellion.

            Because these three conclusions are clearly not what we believe, the premise that the healthcare tax is compulsory in a Satanic manner must be wrong.  And it is. That premise is false.

            Those who continue to argue that compulsion from government to be your brother’s keeper is evil may cite the popular scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants we briefly examined.  In its context, it is as follows: 

            Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

            Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

            That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

            That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

D&C 121:34-37.

            Certainly, for priesthood holders, any degree of compulsion in unrighteousness will strip him of the power and authority of his priesthood. 

            Interestingly, though, as we’ve already noted in earlier chapters, this scripture seems to also indicate that there can be righteous control, dominion, or compulsion on the souls of the children of men that will not cause an end to the priesthood or authority of a man.  If there were no such thing as righteous compulsion on the souls of people at all, then the government compelling a malicious criminal to prison or to death would be grievously wrong.

            Although having and preserving moral agency is a virtue, and one of the better ones at that, this virtue still does not rank as high as charity, the best virtue.  We should be very careful, then, to speak so harshly about government and taxes that limit our freedom, but which step in and try to help the sick and afflicted when individuals, non-profits, and churches are apparently not doing enough to bless the lives of those unfortunate people who genuinely have medical needs that are not being met by them.

Chapter 9: Caring vs. Freedom

Part II: Similar to the Clash of Mercy vs. Justice

            Viewing the clash of these two virtues—caring for others and seeking freedom—from a different perspective may enlighten us.  Stated another way, the issue between these two is equivalent to the issue of mercy versus justice, which can be one of the most difficult of all clashes. 

            Generally speaking, it is not “just” to be stripped of freedom and then compelled to do something against your will, even if it is to do good; it is also not “merciful” to wish to withhold compassionate love toward others in circumstances where that kindness is involuntarily. 

            In the end, when justice battles mercy, which virtue is the champion?  Because of the close similarities between justice and freedom and the close similarities between mercy and caring for others, the answer to the mercy versus justice clash helps answer the question, “When freedom fights against caring for others, which virtue wins?”

            Mercy, as the Lord provides it, does not “rob justice” (Alma 42:25—“What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God”).  There is no clash in this direction of mercy versus justice. 

            There is no scripture, however, that says justice cannot rob mercy.  So, can mercy be robbed by justice?  In loose terms, mercy is sometimes “robbed” by justice, in my experience. 

            It’s an odd thought, though—how can justice “rob” at all when robbery itself is unjust?  If “justice” can commit “robbery” of mercy, then “justice” is either (1) not really “just” or (2) mercy can only appear to be “robbed” from us because, in reality, we are not entitled to own it or possess it; thus, it cannot actually be robbed from us. 

            When we carefully look at it, justice that takes mercy away from us is neither committing a “robbery” nor any kind of unlawful taking because mercy is not ours.  We don’t own mercy.  It’s the Lord’s.  He applies it.  It’s His grace that He makes use of.  But, from a less careful view, it appears that raw justice takes away or prevents mercy, or, in less accurate terms, “robs” mercy.   

            How would Captain Moroni answer this question of justice over mercy, or freedom over caring?  Didn’t he boldly lash out with phrases like, “[Y]e ought to have stirred yourselves more diligently for…the freedom of this people” (Alma 60:10), or “had they been true to the cause of our freedom…” (Alma 60:16), or “because of the great wickedness of those who are seeking for power and authority” (Alma 60:17), or in “memory of our God, our religion, and freedom,” (Alma 46:12) or threats like:

            [E]xcept ye…show unto me a true spirit of freedom…behold I will…come unto you, and if there be any among you that has a desire for freedom, yea, if there be even a spark of freedom remaining, behold I will stir up insurrections among you, even until those who have desires to usurp power and authority shall become extinct.

…

            I am Moroni, your chief captain. I seek not for power,… but [for] the freedom…of my country.

Alma 60:25-27, 36.

            Not only what Moroni said, but what he did also shows the extraordinary value of freedom and the extraordinary wrongness in the lack of agency from bondage:

            And the remainder of those dissenters, rather than be smitten down to the earth by the sword, yielded to the standard of liberty, and were compelled to hoist the title of liberty upon their towers, and in their cities, and to take up arms in defense of their country.

Alma 51:20.

            And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom.

Alma 46:36.

            Clearly, Moroni valued national freedom and liberty over caring even for his own people that were individually dissenting.  It would seem, then, that he would value agency over caring when they come into conflict in the extreme circumstances where national security is in jeopardy. 

            His stance, however, does not answer the question as to whether he would support freedom from government compulsion to care for the sick.  It doesn’t answer it because national security is not at risk.  His emphasis on freedom and liberty from people usurping power and authority were in the extreme circumstances of national security being in jeopardy.

            On the flip side, what would the people of Ammon say about the how much to value the virtue of freedom? 

Yea, and [the Nephites] also knew the extreme hatred of the Lamanites towards their brethren, who were the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, who were called the people of Ammon…that it was their intention to destroy their brethren, or to subject them and bring them into bondage…and [the people of Ammon] would not take up arms, yea, they had entered into a covenant and they would not break it—therefore, if they should fall into the hands of the Lamanites they would be destroyed.

Alma 43:11 (verse 29 nested within).

            Losing freedom, liberty, and even laying down their lives were acceptable to the people of Ammon in their circumstances.  Perhaps they cared enough for their enemy’s lives that they sacrificed their own agency and will. 

            Such a reaction clearly does not value the virtue of individual freedom over every other virtue.  The people of Ammon would probably support the idea that caring for the lives of your sick is worth sacrificing some of your freedom over.  Sacrificing your agency for your people’s own sick would be more palatable than sacrificing your agency for your people’s own enemies, and yet the people of Ammon went as far as to sacrifice their own freedom for their enemies. 

            It’s hard, though, to draw universal principles from the people of Ammon’s sacrifices because their circumstances were extreme.  Their welfare in the afterlife was at stake if they took another’s life.  There would be no chance for forgiveness for them, even if they justly took another’s life in self defense.  The scriptures record their leader’s understanding as follows:

            And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain—

            Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren.

            Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps,if we should stain our swords again they can no more be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins.

Alma 24:11-13.

            From these verses, we learn that the people of Ammon may have been in a very unique situation—the Lord had forgiven them of “murder,” probably because they had sinned in ignorance from false traditions and not having the gospel, and then later having accepted the gospel by joining God’s church. 

            At all other times, murder is an unforgivable offense: “And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.”  D&C 42:18.  Christ’s atonement will not extend forgiveness to His saints for murder.  But, because “murderers” will be in the Telestial Kingdom, a portion of Heaven, it means that murders must suffer for that sin in order to atone for it enough to be worthy for a kingdom of glory.  Elder McConkie wrote that even most murderers will come out of hell, or spirit prison, in the last resurrection to live in telestial glory:

            When the Lord paraphrases the language of Rev. 21:8 in latter-day revelation (D&C 63:17–18 and D&C 76:103–106) he omits murderers from the list of evil persons. Their inclusion here by John, however, coupled with the fact that only those who deny the truth after receiving a perfect knowledge of it shall become sons of perdition, is a clear indication that murderers shall eventually go to the telestial kingdom, unless of course there are some among those destined to be sons of perdition who are also murderers.

Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–73, 3:584.  

            So, the unique circumstance as forgiven murderers makes the people of Ammon’s refusal to kill and willingness to give up their freedom, perhaps, a bad example to draw general conclusions from which to resolve the healthcare debate and questions about freedom verses caring for others.

            Other scripture about the people of Ammon helps us confidently arrive at a universal principle as we consider how they treated the malnourished “poor” in a heated, and even dangerous, political environment:

            Now the people of the Zoramites were angry with the people of Ammon...desiring them that they should cast out of their land all those who came over from them into their land.

            And [the chief ruler of the Zoramites] breathed out many threatenings against them. And now the people of Ammon did not fear their words; therefore they did not cast them out, but they did receive all the poor of the Zoramites that came over unto them; and they did nourish them, and did clothe them, and did give unto them lands for their inheritance; and they did administer unto them according to their wants.

Alma 35:8-9.

            The care that the people of Ammon showed to these possibly sick, poor people is noteworthy.  These poor were of their enemies, the enemies who were threatening the people of Ammon about accepting these poor.  Their noble, loving kindness for the poor of their enemies shows a strong value for the virtue of caring for others.  They gave up some of their freedom to these poor people, including the freedom to own and posses land.  They gave them food and/or medicine, clothing, and administered not only to their needs, but also to their “wants.”

            From these, I think we can safely say the people of Ammon would lean towards sacrificing freedom to care for the sick in America if the two virtues were truly in conflict.  The reason is that, all things being equal,caring for others rivals freedom and agency.

            This depends on an equal balance between the weight of freedom and the weight of caring for others.  They have to be of equal weight under the circumstances.

            Certainly, we can think of unequal clashes, or imbalances in equality.  We can think of the clash of choosing to care for two people’s cold viruses versus preserving an entire nation’s freedom from captivity.  Clearly, choosing national freedom over caring for others in that instance would be the better virtue because the choices are so out of balance. 

            But, if the two options of mandatory caring for the health of a nation versus the freedom from not caring for the health of a nation are equal in a competition, then caring verses freedom will always win as the better virtue, as demonstrated by the people of Ammon in the care of the malnourished, possibly sick poor of their enemies.This kind of a choice is one the Lord and well-intentioned government officials can provide.  There’s no need for Satan to give us this opposition. 

Chapter 10: Honesty vs. Marital Harmony

            According to modern-day revelation given to prophets and apostles, “[M]arriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.”  Ensign, November 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World.  Note that it does not limit marriage to “temple” marriage.  The marriage, though, must be legal.  We gather this from another statement: “the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”  Even a legal marriage alone, then, is ordained of God. 

            Not only are marriages according to God’s will, but He also wants them to be successful.  The revelation proclaims, “Successful marriages…are…maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.”  By showing true respect towards your spouse and repenting if you’ve sinned, you are on your way to maintaining a successful marriage.

            If you respect your spouse, you’ll be honest to him or her and be an honest person in general.  Honesty is a virtue and commandment, which, if broken, must be repented of.  The Lord spoke anciently to Moses regarding the people collectively, saying, “Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another….Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor.” (Lev. 19:11,13).

            Today, dishonesty and lying is still a sin in violation of Christ’s gospel: “Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man” (Col. 3:9-10); “Verily, verily, I say unto you, wo be unto him that lieth to deceive because he supposeth that another lieth to deceive, for such are not exempt from the justice of God” (D&C 10:28); “Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell” (2 Ne. 9:34).  If one of you is in hell because you’re a liar and the other is in heaven because they were honest, then your marriage is ruined by dishonesty and separation.

            The reverse is true, too—honesty and marital harmony are two virtues that go hand in hand.  Interestingly, though, under Utah law, there can be a clash between being honest and preserving harmony in your marriage. 

            A not uncommon situation illustrating this is when you haven’t been getting along too well with your spouse for a while now.  The two of you are getting on each other’s nerves.  You’re alone at home with no others around.  You’re in another argument.  Then, your spouse erupts and slaps you across the face, leaving a stinging pink mark that goes away quickly.

            You’ve been assaulted criminally.

            You’re shocked because it was totally unlike your spouse to do this—it’s never happened before.

            Let’s say the husband did it.  You, as his wife,feel he needs to learn a lesson.  He won’t listen to you, so, you want to teach him that lesson by calling the police.  Seems reasonable.  The police will come, assess the situation, make sure you’re not in any danger, and then speak with him one on one.  He’s getting the lesson you wanted.  Right?

            Unfortunately, the police will likely take it a step further, a step that many spouses don’t anticipate.  The police write a citation, requiring him to come to court at a later time. They may even handcuff him right there in front of you, take him to jail, and require him to face the judge at a bail hearing a day or so later to see if he can even be released from jail, pending a final outcome.  This is just the beginning.  This starts the process of a criminal proceeding against your spouse that may take a couple months or more to resolve with a number of hearings, missed work, and high stress-frustration all along the way.

            If it resolves with a conviction against him, then he’s looking at the possibility of going to jail for up to half a year and paying a fine of up to roughly $2,000.  That’s not likely given his history, but he’ll lose gun rights for a domestic violence assault on his record, be labeled a criminal, likely have to take anger management classes, pay a smaller fine, and/or do community service in lieu of any additional jail.

            Did you really want him to facethose penalties for slapping you?  You may have thought rightly that he deserves some penalty for the wrong he committed against you, but not jail, a fine, and mental-health treatment that’s costly and time consuming.  If he’s the one who provides for the family, then you might be like a lot of other spouses who are surprised when this process begins against him and he ends up missing a good amount of work because of initial jail time and a number of hearings afterward.

            If the case goes to trial, the only witness the prosecution will have is you.  You’re the only evidence.  Normally, witnesses get subpoenaed and are compelled by law to testify with the threat of imprisonment for not testifying.  Let’s say you get subpoenaed to trial.  You’re now in an interesting situation.  If you testify honestly, your spouse will be convicted.  How will he react to you being the means of putting him in jailor fined or both?  Will that make your marriage better or worse?

            Some marriages take it okay.  Others don’t.  If you’re in the situation where you know that it will make your marriage worse to testify honestly, then what do you do?  Do you lie on the stand?  That’s perjury.  Do you want to face similar penalties if you’re discovered?  Do you want to face the crime of filing false police reports, as well, since your testimony on the stand diverges from the one you told police initially?  Or, do you run from the subpoena, hope you’re never found, and face the potential of contempt penalties if you are found?

            It’s a tough situation that some spouses truly face.  This is a text-book example of a clash between two virtues—do you choose honesty or marital harmony at the expense of the other?

            As a side-note, this opposition didn’t require the devil.  It could have all started and happened without his influence.For example, people can get angry at each other without the devil.  All they need is the natural man, “[f]or the natural man is an enemy to God,” who is not like “a child, submissive,…patient, [and] full of love.”  (Mosiah 3:19).

            In this clash of conflicting virtues, does Utah value the sanctity of marriage?  Does it have any protection for these spouses who want to stay married but know their marriage is lost if they are forced to testify truthfully?  These are spouses who weren’t doing the wrong thing by calling the police, but they will be paying the high price of their marriage for doing so.  Doesn’t that seem like an extreme, unfair,secondary consequence for doing the right thing?

            Fortunately, Utah believes a marriage should not be lost over honesty.  It provides a protection for these kinds of spouses.Article I, section 12 of the Utah Constitution provides that “a wife shall not be compelled to testify against her husband, nor a husband against his wife.”

            This protection allows spouses to avoid the hazards that the virtues of honesty and marital harmony could bring when they clash.  It prevents the clash all together.  In the last hypothetical, the wife doesn’t have to testify about her husband who slapped her, which means there’ll be no evidence at trial, which means her husband can come home a free man after going through a very trying experience. 

            But, let’s consider another hypothetical.  Let’s say there were no such Utah law.  If there were no such protection, then which virtue do you choose?  Honesty that may destroy a marriage or marital harmony that entails dishonesty?  Which virtue is paramount to the other? 

            A marriage preserved by dishonesty is no Celestial marriage. 

            Just because a marriage isn’t Celestial, though, does that mean it shouldn’t be preserved?  In the scenario I gave, the marriage is worth preserving, but not by violating a virtue as important as honesty.  The spouse should testify honestly if she couldn’t refuse.  An interesting scripture teaches:

Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates.

2 Cor. 13:7.

            By being honest, the wife may appear to be a marriage-killer to her husband and others.  She doesn’t need to appear “approved,” or, in other words, she doesn’t need to appear as if she’s not a destroyer of marriage.  She only needs to “do that which is honest,” even if she “be as [a] reprobate,” or appear to be morally unprincipled and heartless.

            Once she’s honest, the husband should then work hard to repair the marriage despite the trouble caused.  The honesty wasn’t the initial cause of the marriage going wrong—his out-of-control anger was.  But, the honesty ended up contributing to the marital strife by the clash of virtues.  That’s not the wife’s fault, however.  It’s still his.  But it affects her.

            He needs the divine help of repentance, forgiveness, and nature-changing grace from Christ.  If he doesn’t take advantage of those, he still needs help.  Who’s going to be compassionate and offer assistance to him?  His wife can provide continuing, companionship help even though she’s not obligated to do so in the same way he is.  She’s only obligated to do so out of love.  He’s obligated out of both the duty to correct sin and out of the duty to love her. 

            What if the marriage still collapses?  Then I would say that a much better marriage can be formed with another person who doesn’t throw away his marital vows because his wife was honest about his weaknesses.That kind of marriage can be worth the sacrifice.

Chapter 11: Forgiving vs. Trusting—the Value of Forgiveness & the Earnability of Trust

            Another clash can come between forgiving and trusting.  It’s not the normal kind of clash, as you’ll see.

            The best direction we have on forgiving comes from the Doctrine & Covenants:

Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

D&C 64:9.

            In this verse, we learn that some sins are worse than others.  There is a hierarchy of sins, just like there is a hierarchy of virtues.  In essence, there is bad, worse, and worst, just like there is good, better, and best.

            If we refuse to forgive someone who has sinned against us in some way, no matter how bad that sin was, we have a worse sin for not forgiving that person.  We have the “greater” sin.

            That doctrine is powerful in what it entails.  It means you must forgive the criminal.  You must forgive the sinner.  You most forgive the wrongdoer.  “I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.”  D&C 64:10.

            But, when you forgive them, does this mean you must also trust them?  Is trust a part of forgiveness?  Or does trust still need to be earned even after forgiveness has been extended?

            About trust being earned, the Lord commented, “And again, verily I say unto you, my servant George Miller is without guile; he may be trusted because of the integrity of his heart.”  D&C 124:20.  This is a specific example where the Lord allows us to trust another.  Because He gives us specific permission to trust, it means that He does not teach “but of you it is required to trust all men.” 

            Instead, the Lord gives a very specific basis for trusting someone: “because of the integrity of his heart.”  Trust is earned by having integrity.  We can conclude, then, that we will likely be permitted by the Lord to trust a person based on the integrity of his heart, if we can generalize the words of this verse, or “liken them unto ourselves.” 1 Nephi 9:24. 

            Does this mean that we can distrust someone because of the lack of integrity in his heart?  Perhaps.  This verse doesn’t say that, but it may be true because it doesn’t prohibit that conclusion.  Let’s view some other verses.

            Appearing to criticize the prophet for putting his trust in another (in Martin Harris, who lost the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon), the Lord said, “Behold, they have sought to destroy you; yea, even the man in whom you have trusted has sought to destroy you. And for this cause I said that he is a wicked man.”  D&C 10:6-7.  If we can generalize a later verse, then it seems to imply that we should not trust others until we know they are not wicked: “But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter.”  D&C 10:37.

            Perhaps the best set of verses I can find about the Lord commanding us to not trust others is found in the Old Testament: “Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother….[T]hey will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity” Jer. 9:4-5.  Not only is this a commandment from the Lord, but He says there’s a curse for those who don’t follow this command: “Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.”  Jer. 17:5.  Clearly, forgiveness and trust do not go together.  The Lord even confirmed this truth in the mouth of a second scriptural witness from The Book of Mormon: “Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men.”  2 Ne. 28:31.

            The doctrine of not trusting others was taught by a great king from The Book of Mormon: “I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you….And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments.”  Mosiah 23:13-14.  So, we should trust others who have integrity, who are of God, who walk in his ways, and keep his commandments.  We can also clearly forgive these righteous people, which would be examples of when the two virtues do not clash.

            But, in general, there is an inherent clash between the two virtues of forgiving and trusting.  They frequently don’t go together.  Which virtue do you choose then?  You choose forgiving because you are commanded to forgive all men and you forgo trusting all men because you will be cursed if you do.

Chapter 12: Compassion for the Criminal vs. Compassion for his Victim

Part I: The Atonement Only takes away Spiritual Punishment for Sins, Not Legal Ones

            Another clash of virtues occurs in the forgiveness of sinner-criminals. 

            Here’s a hypothetical scenario—amember seeks out the bishop’s and stake president’s help for a serious sin he committed.  He sincerely repents. After proper church discipline, the Lord forgives him in full, as declared by the stake president.

            The question is whether this member should be punished by the law of the land for the same wrong if it was also a crime.If you answered yes, then you agree with the scriptures.

            The scriptures teach that people who sin and are also guilty of breaking the law of the land through that sin should be “delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the land.”  D&C 42:79.  The atonement does not completely take away the penalty for our sins if one of the penalties is mankind’s legal punishment under the law.  He allows all of our societies to make our own, additional penalties for sins that are also crimes.  He won’t take those away.

            Specifically, “if any persons among you shall kill they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the land…and it shall be proved according to the laws of the land.”  D&C 42:79.  Or “if a man or woman shall rob….or shall steal….or shall lie, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of the land.”  D&C 41:84-86. 

            We’ve taken the Lord’s promulgations to heart because later on in our modern-day scripture, we firmly state:

            We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

D&C 134:8.

            The scripture clearly teaches that we should make an effort to bring criminals to justice.  Keeping in mind this emphasis on bringing “offenders against good laws to punishment,” it’s clear that the same forgiven-person should be brought to punishment.  But, are there any exceptions to this rule?  Shouldn’t that same person be given the benefit of the law if other,specific laws provide a technical way out of that legal punishment?

            This is the harder question to answer because of the clash between legal justice for the victim and legal fairness to the sinner-criminal.  If the sinner-criminal was forgiven by the Lord, and if the law, on a technicality, lets the person go free, then the victims that there may have been will not necessarily receive any justice from either the law or the Lord in the way they expect.  Is this right?

            Before we answer whether this is right, let me offer one thought for the victims.  It may be that the victims actually do receive justice, even if the sinner-criminal goes free.  The reason is from the Lord’s promise of the atonement to take away the penalty for the victims’ own, unrelated sins as a just reward, which compensates them for the injuries they suffer.

            I gather that thought from what an apostle of Jesus Christ recently stated:

We all participated in the councils of heaven that provided for moral agency, knowing that there would be mortal pain and even unspeakable tragedy because of the abuse of agency. We understood that this could leave us angry, bewildered, defenseless, and vulnerable. But we also knew that the Savior’s Atonement would overcome and compensate for all of the unfairness of mortal life.

Elder Quentin L. Cook, “Personal Peace: The Reward of Righteousness,” April 2013 General Conference.

            It may be that in the next life, the Atonement has an effect of righting the wrongs against us so that we feel like we’ve been fairly dealt with.  It may instead be that those wrongs are righted in this life. It could be that in cleansing us from our sins, the atonement compensates us for “all” the unfairness of mortal life and victimizations we suffer.You might wonder how this could be.  It may very well be that our unrelated sins are so magnificently opposite God’s divine nature that they are more serious than we realize.  And, as a result, we couldn’t suffer enough with the little time we have here on earth to make up for them.  So, when we do suffer injustice, abuse, and victimization, it’s not nearly what it should be to balance out the seriousness of our sins.  When we’re spiritually cleansed by Christ’s blood, we’re receiving far, far more than we deserve, thus compensating us more than enough for all the wrongs we suffer here.

            Going back to the original question, now, as to whether the guilty, unrepentant sinner-criminal should go free on a legal technicality, let me ask again.  Should a technicality or legal exception allow such outcomes?  You may be saying from your gut feelings inside, “Of course not—that’s what’s wrong with our legal system!”  But, what if the technicality is based in the Constitution?  Does that change your reaction?The Lord’sdirection to us here, I believe, helps:

And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land.

D&C 98:5-6.

Constitutional Law          

            The Lord God told us to “befriend” the law that’s Constitutional.  What is the “constitutional law of the land,” though?For our land, it’s found, at least in part, in the Bill of Rights.Here, the Constitution records substantial rights to the criminal and to those accused of crime.  As the Lord stated, and as American jurisprudence repeatedly confirms, Constitutional law supports that “principle of freedom in maintaining rights…[which] belongs to all mankind.”  D&C 98:5-6.  Putting these ideas together, then, we learn that maintaining individual rights to the criminal is for all people.

The Constitution

            Now, we have a better idea what Constitutional law is.  But, what is the Constitution itself?  The answer is that the Constitution is more than what it explicitly says on paper.  The text is not the only place the Constitution exists.  Text gets added in more than one way.  The Constitution is a living document because it allows for changes to it according to social needs.  One way it lives is through amendments.  Look carefully at the language and see how it’s a living document and not a static one like radical individualists like to insist (who, I might add, could make the Constitution “hang by a thread” with the limits they place on the Constitution.  They place terrible limits to the Constitution when they cut out its subsequent history of amendments and judicial interpretations that they don’t like):

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof.

SeeU.S. Constitution, Article V. 

            Amendments are clearly part of the Constitution itself. 

            Besides amendments that add to the Constitution, though, the Judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution also adds to it’s life.  Specifically, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.”  (U.S. Const., Art. III, §2).  Thus, what the judicial branch interprets about the Constitution in cases arising under this great document will be the meaning and application of the Constitution on those particular issues.

The Constitution, Legislature, Judiciary, and the Making of Constitutional Laws     

            Going back to the idea of Constitutional law, the Constitution has also outlined how Constitutional laws are to be made—by the Legislature (U.S. Const., Art. I, §§ 1, 8) and approved through the Judiciary when questioned (U.S. Const., Art. III, §§ 1, 2).  Thus, the laws that the Legislature and state legislatures make that are deemed Constitutional by the judiciary are those “constitutional laws of the land” that the Lord speaks of because they are based on the process described in the Constitution for making and approving laws.

            So, the laws in the Constitution and the laws that have been deemed Constitutional by the very process that the Constitution approves of as determining what is Constitutional and what isn’t Constitutional are the ones that are approved of by the Lord, which we should “befriend” (D&C 98:5-6).  They are laws made by mankind that the Lord allows us to make and which He approves of when we do it through the mechanical process He helped inspire that’s described in our Constitution.

            And, significantly, it’s in the Constitution and its derivative laws that are approved of by the Lord which are where the technicalities are that allow unrepentant sinner-criminals to go free.We’re not talking about any wicked lawsmade by man that let the guilty go free.We’re not talking about inappropriate laws made by rogue judges and judicial activism.  I’m focusing on the Constitutional ones that need no reforming, that are already approved of by the Lord because they follow the exact methods for being created as outlined in that near-sacred document. 

            To be more specific, Constitutional law would allow even a murderer to go free if the police violated his search and seizure rights by going into his house on a mere gut-feeling hunch (which turned out to be right) and then found the murder weapon under a floorboard in his bathroom with the murderer’s DNA and fingerprints and the victim’s blood on it. This setting-free of the murderer only happens if the murder weapon was the single piece of evidence.  In this situation, the Constitutional requirement against“unreasonable searches and seizures” (see Amendment IV) would end up suppressing the weapon in order to maintain that right—so the right has some effect and is not a mere form of words.  It’s suppressed so that police will not become like organized crime, searching innocent people’s homes for evidence that’s not there while trashing doors, walls,carpet, and floors that they cut through in search of that evidence, for example.  With the suppression of the only piece of evidence incriminating him, the murderer would be let loose for lack of any evidence. 

            As a side note, the reason suppression of evidence works is because police would be discouraged or deterred from searching homes for evidence without facts leading a reasonable person to believe the evidence is truly there if all the evidence they find during those searches get thrown out of court.  They would have to follow the Constitutional standard of “probable cause” to keep it in and only search places where the actual facts lead them, not hunches and suspicions.

            How is releasing a murderer, though,morally right, no matter how bad the “good guys” violated his rights or no matter how much damage to innocent persons’ property they do to catch the murderer to stop him from killing people’s lives? 

Chapter 12: Compassion for the Criminal vs. Compassion for his Victim

Part II: The Constitution Remedies the Rights of the Criminal over the Victim’s during Clashes

            The Constitution protects us against the unlawful encroachments of the government, whoever they may be of the government.  Police are government agents.  Police tearing through a person’s home to find evidence are actors of the government’s they work for, federal or state.

            The Constitution views the state and federal governments, acting through their police, as greater threats against the people and their rights than a single criminal, no matter how heinous the crime was.  You can begin to see why from the examples I’ve given above.A lot of innocent people’s lives can be greatly affected by police misconduct.  The Lord approves of this view that the government threatens us because our Constitution and the laws based on the document are “justifiable before me.”  D&C 98:5-6.

            With this background in mind, in the clash between remedying the violated rights of the victim or those of the sinner-criminal, which person do you remedy if you have to choose one over the other?  As wrong as it may seem to you, the Constitutional choice is for the criminal.  The Lord’s direction in scripture about “befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land” (D&C 98:6) approves of this.

            Some people argue in favor of allowing the Constitutional technicalities for the criminal so long as he is repentant.  They say:

If we are talking only about a person who is truly repentant and has been forgiven of the Lord since their sin was worked through with the proper authority, then I have zero objection to their being free or being shown mercy.  The problem here lies in giving mercy and forgiveness to sinner-criminals who are completely unrepentant, who know how to slip through the system and harm others of God’s children.

            This is a reasonable position.  But, these people then go on to defeat this position by arguing that we, as a society, should not use the technicalities for any sinner-criminal because “man can’t judge whether the sinner-criminal is repentant or not.”  The default rule for them, then, is that no Constitutional exception should ever exist so that we don’t lose a single criminal.  America does not favor this rule because that refusal to let one criminal go free comes with a price—it captures too many innocent people.

            I say that for a disciple, it doesn’t matter which one they are.  It doesn’t matter because we love others and apply mercy, compassion, and the best available rehabilitative efforts we can to them no matter who they are, repentant or not.  We don’t give up on anyone of them, if we can avoid it.

            Some people feel that because manyof our brothers and sisters will be harmed by the sinner-criminal’s repeated offenses, they are more important than the one who has chosen to remain in the darkness of sin. They’re the ones that should be protected, not the criminal, they say.  The focus for them is quantity, not quality.

            This makes me wonder whether, in the balance, giving up on the single unrepentant sinner-criminal and allowing him no chance to change is better than allowing the cost to many victims that may happen if he reoffends after the chance to change by a Constitutional technicality has failed to heal him.  It’s a challenging question because the Constitutional technicality or protection ends up serving as an extension of a kind of mercy, or forgiveness, or healing hands that released him from custody.  We would normally like to extend such blessings to one another.But when so many victims are involved, how can we justify such legal kindness to the sinner-criminal?

            My answer to it is that if the victims’ souls would inevitablybegin to rot like the sinner-criminal’s, then we should give up on him and not enforce his Constitutional rights.  Let’s call this exception the “just-jail-the-sinner” principle.I propose this answer because the just-jail-the-sinner-criminal exception seems to be in line with another scriptural exception to something right.

            Recall the time when the prophet Nephi was commanded of the Lord to slay the wicked king Laban.  The right thing to do was to preserve mortal life.  There’s a commandment that specifically says, “Thou shalt not kill.”  Exodus 20:13.    The Lord made an exception to this.  I call it the “slay-Laban” exception.There, “It [was] better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.” 1 Nephi 4:13.  The exception that allowed for the killing applied when an entire nation would spiritually decay.

            Similarly, the right thing to do toward the criminal is to enforce his rights, which is an act of trying to heal him.  This healing treatment is like grace.  It comes from giving him a completely undeserved, second chance to change his ways before he’s forced to stop his ways through imprisonment.  On the flip side, intentionally not enforcing his Constitutional rights means that you are willfully giving up on healing the sinner-criminal.  You’re just jailing him regardless of his Constitutional rights to be free from misconduct by the “good guys.”

            So, the general never-give-up rule is to never give up on trying to heal the sinner-criminal with Constitutional protections, even if it means many more victims will be created by releasing the sinner-criminal who ends up not being treated by his second chance to change. 

            The never-give-up rule would have the jail-the-sinner exception, though, like the slay-Laban exception, if all the victim’s would inevitably begin to spiritually rot because of the victimizations.  In this kind of unique, inevitable scenario, the just-jail-the sinner exception should apply and it would then be better to halt all efforts of healing the sinner-criminal and just imprison him against his Constitutional rights.  In this way, we don’t give up on spiritually protecting his future victims that would have happened had we enforced his rights.

            We have to be careful in applying this kind of slay-Laban exception that we’ve termed just-jail-the-sinner.  If we apply the exception, we have to know the victims of future crime will inevitably perish, spiritually.  That kind of knowledge is hard to obtain.

            If the victims remain spiritually intact, yet physically, emotionally, and otherwise harmed, I think the sacrifice of them to not give up on the sinner-criminal is worth it out of principle—the principle that we all should be willing to suffer whatever the cost is as we reach out to the clearly lost sheep, whether or not the lost sheep chooses to be found or even if he chooses to bite the hand the reaches out to help him.  It’s what Christ did. He suffered for the unrepentant as well as the repentant in some of the most physically, emotionally, and otherwise excruciating ways.  Yet, as such a victim, He was still spiritually intact.

            As I consider the guilty (perhaps unrepentant) sinner-criminal going free on a Constitutional basis, I do take comfort in a principle that“it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished.” Mormon 4:5.  Justice doesn’t have to be meted out by the righteous.  The demands of justice can be satisfied by wicked people punishing each other.  And the wicked will inevitably do so.  I say let them do the dirty work.  We do the redemptive work.

            Here’s another consideration.  If it’s any comfort to you, who’s rotting more spiritually?  Who’s the more lost sheep?  The victim or the sinner-criminal?At most, both are rotting for different reasons.  It’s safe to say, though, that the criminal is rotting worse because he was so far lost that he acted out against another who didn’t go as twistedly far as to do what he did.

            Now what do we do?  Shouldn’t we seek to heal the rotted soul?  To find the lost sheep, even if the lost lamb tries to stamp on the feet of his rescuer?  Wouldn’t doing so have the best chance of making a permanent solution to a problem rather than simply delaying it for later through imprisonment and release?  We need to remedy souls who are full of blackness and if we have to choose between two blackened souls, you choose the darker one.  The darker one is the criminal, usually (unless the victim became so darkened by the victimization that he became a criminal himself, which does happen from time to time).

            Some may argue that a sinner released on a technicality, when clearly guilty, can cause hard hearts and hatred in the victim and their family members.  I agree that hard hearts and hatred get ignited, but did the sinner-criminal “cause” that or did the victims “allow” that? 

            Let’s say it’s both, that he sparked it and contributed to it, but he was not solely responsible for those negative reactions because “it takes two to tango,” so to speak.  Victims don’t have to respond with hatred and hardened, bitter hearts.

            If they had to respond with embittered hearts, wouldn’t the Lord then say to these hardened victims, “You may have a hard heart and hate your enemies if your enemies victimize you or your family”?  We know He hasn’t said that.  He said the opposite, “[D]o good to them that hate you.”  (Matt. 5:44).  The way I look at it is that victims first need to do the mature thing, regardless of whether the victimizer is punished.  This may seem harsh, but it’s an ideal.  Let me develop this thought a little more.

            The obligation is on the victims to react to the criminal the way they should, even if justice is never served.  The reason is that if we’re ultimately going to have universal harmony with one another, then it’s easier for the victims to act rightly than it is for the sinner-criminals to act rightly.  Said another way, the blackened soul is harder to convert to the right way than the traumatized, injured, and suffering soul.  This is so unless this victim’s soul has become a criminal, too, as a result of the sinful, criminal, and traumatic injury to them.  Then the victim-criminal may be harder to heal.

            I acknowledge the fact that many victims don’t turn to God to be healed and then become blackened themselves.But, if it takes withholding mercy from the criminal in order to prevent the victim from blackening, then it’s too late.  The victim has already developed a blackened soul. 

            Withholding mercy would only aggravate an already blackened soul, not a pure soul. 

            Would withholding mercy from the criminal heal a victim’s soul who’s pure?  Heaven forbid if withholding mercy from a sick soul is a tool for healing victims of the sickened soul.  Victims need other cures for healing. 

            Assuming the victims act rightly,then we have no additional sinner-criminals from the crime or sickness.  Then, when we apply the correct mercy (not just any mercy) to the sinner-criminal, their soul is converted and we lose sinner-criminals, thus reducing the overall population of sinner-criminals and, consequently, the number of victims in the world.  Isn’t that outcome what we really want?

            Let me offer a concrete example.  One of my clients got pulled over.  The officer searched his vehicle and found twenty pounds of cocaine in his trunk.  At a preliminary hearing, I proved the officer lied about the reasons for pulling over my client in the first place.  My client was seized illegally.  The officer had no Constitutional reason to initiate the traffic stop in the first place, but he tried to make one up so he could catch the “bad guy” and put him away for distributing drugs.  The victim in this case is society.  Society is victimized by the illegal drugs my client had and would likely have sold.  Even though a good portion of society is harmed by these drugs, that fact does not change the reality that the police officer violated my client’s right to be free from unreasonable seizures.  In the end, the judge suppressed the evidence because it was obtained through police misconduct.  Because the drugs were suppressed, there was no evidence of crime.  Without any evidence, my client had to be freed from the legal process.  Dismissing his case was the result of the Constitution and its protections.  He was remedied.  Whether he’ll respond rightly to this correct kind of mercy is still to be seen.  The important point is he’s been given a second chance to be the one who cleans up his life rather than the prison doing it before he gets caught again. 

            Remedying a criminal whose rights have been violated by the “good guys” (i.e., police officers) is an act of healing the blackened soul with proper mercy or blind justice (see below for more on “blind justice”).  So, too, is remedying the victim whose rights have been violated by the “bad guy” criminal.But, remedying the criminal’s rights not only heals his blackened soul, but it also rights a wrong that should never have happened.  That wrong is that the good guys should never be allowed, encouraged, or otherwise enabled to use criminal, wrong, or illegal methods in order to achieve a good goal. 

            Law enforcement’s good goal is stopping crime to protect victims and insure justice.  If they do use illegal methods to achieve this goal, then they are just as criminally guilty as the bad guys who often do the same thing.  The criminals, too, use criminal, wrong, or illegal methods to achieve good goals, the good goals of prosperity, comfort, or the avoidance of pain and hardship. 

            Achieving justice tends to heal the wounded soul.  This process of righting the wrong against the criminal is an act toward healing his darkened soul with “righteousness,” or justice, as righteousness is sometimes translated.  Remember, justice goes both ways—justice against the criminal for what he did wrong and justice for the criminal if something unjust happened to him, too.  Justice is blind in that respect.  You may see this kind of blind justice as mercy.

            Imagine, though, that instead of administering this blind justice (or mercy) to the criminal, we do nothing.  We let the wrong against him go unrepaired.  By doing nothing and allowing the unjust violation of rights against the sinner-criminal to remain, we will reinforce the minimal-appearing wrong against him.  This reinforcement of wrongs will, more often than not, make him rot worse.He rots worse because, of all people, victims included, he’s in no condition to be patient and forgiving against the good guys for violating his rights.

            In this way, he becomes even more lost.  His soul becomes even more blackened.  He becomes even more hardened.  You might say, “So what?”  You might be saying, “Mosiah 15:9 lets us know that Jesus satisfied ‘the demands of justice,’ but that principle is for repentant souls; those who are not repentant must suffer ‘even as’ (D&C 19:15-18) Christ did.”  It’s a good point.

Chapter 12: Compassion for the Criminal vs. Compassion for his Victim

Part III: Do Disciples Like the Fact that Anyone Suffers Tremendously?

            But I ask you, do we, as Christ’s disciples, really want that spiritual blackening and immense suffering for one of the souls of our brothers or sisters whose worth is still great in the sight of God?  (D&C 18:10—“Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God.”).

            Do we like the fact that anyone suffers tremendously?  Do we like that someone isn’t forgiven by Christ?  No, and neither does Christ.  “He wants to forgive.”  Elder Craig A. Cardon, The Savior Wants to Forgive, April 2013 General Conference.

            Because this thought is repugnant to one who loves even his enemy, wouldn’t a disciple of Christ do everything in his power to prevent people from choosing to be unrepentant?  Or are you so committed to the Law of Moses kind of justice that you demand, “Actions have consequences!”

            If we, as disciples, know methods that have the best chances of converting the unrepentant souls, shouldn’t we exert our whole heart, might, mind, and strength in using those methods, whether or not they prove effective in the end?Shouldn’t we act similarly towards them whether or not the consequence you perceive as required were meted out to them?

            Perhaps this is why the Lord, through modern revelation alone, emphasizes doing missionary work with such intensity:

[D]eclare my gospel unto a crooked and perverse generation….Yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that the field is white already to harvest; wherefore, thrust in your sickles, and reap with all your might, mind, and strength….Yea, open your mouths and they shall be filled, saying: Repent, repent, and prepare ye the way of the Lord. 

D&C 33:2,7,10. 

            This new command is a step more difficult, or, at least a clarification of: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.”  (Luke 10:27).  When you love Him, you love others to the point that you will be a missionary to even the crooked and perverse among us with all of your heart.

            I can hear some people still protesting.  Sure, it’s the sinner-criminal’s fault that he’s rotting, you say.  He misused his moral agency to get there, right?  And it’s his fault that he reacts with greater hardening of his heart when his rights are violated, right?  Serves him right, didn’t it?

            If we have the power to prevent him from rotting more, why wouldn’t we, as Christ’s disciples, do what we could to prevent that?  That’s what the Constitution ends up doing with its protections for even the unrepentant sinner-criminals.That’s the principle Mormon taught his son, “Pray for them, my son, that repentance may come unto them. But behold, I fear lest the Spirit hath ceased striving with them” (Moroni 8:28) and:

And now, my beloved son, notwithstanding their hardness, let us labor diligently; for if we should cease to labor, we should be brought under condemnation; for we have a labor to perform whilst in this tabernacle of clay, that we may conquer the enemy of all righteousness, and rest our souls in the kingdom of God.

Moro. 9:6.

            These scriptures convey the important message that even if the wicked, even if the sinner-criminals, and even if the hardhearted do not accept a new life in Christ, we still present it to them in the form of opportunities to be better, opportunities to avoid bitterness and injustice to them, and opportunities for protection by the Constitutional technicalities.  We labor diligently.

            And, by implementing the Constitutional technicalities in their lives, not only do we create the best secular chance of preventing a criminal from rotting further, but we also would prevent him from rotting further in a way where he himself voluntarily chooses not to rot anymore.

            He can and should think to himself, “I got lucky.  I don’t have to be punished for what I did wrong because the good guys wronged me.  I should take advantage of this chance to start a fresh new life.  This is my chance to get back on my feet.”  And some actually do respond this way.  Not one of them,who’s been wronged by the “good guys,” should be stopped from having this opportunity.

            A criminal in this circumstance won’t become embittered by his rights beingupheld.Strip him of the enforcement of these rights and he’ll likely become bitter.  Bitterness is a hard obstacle to overcome, but if we prevented it through application of the Constitution, then the sinner-criminal has the best chances offreely choosing of himself not to rot anymore.  This is an option that’s open to him.  His conscience, the Holy Ghost, can help move him to take the option.But, the option’s virtually gone if he feels bitterness because bitterness replaces a guilty conscience, easily.

            Isn’t this process of removing bitterness and enhancing his chances to choose a better life more in line with the Savior’s mission?In this way, we give the sinner-criminal more agency.  We empower him with the real choice between making a new life and choosing to continue a life of crime.  A bitter criminal won’t be thinking of making a new life, so, in effect, we’ve allowed his agency to be restricted by his own weaknesses when we could have stopped that process.We could have made a difference in his life.  We could have given him more choices.  Restricting his choices, or taking away a person’s agency, should never be done lightly.

            You may argue, “Letting him get away with something doesn’t help him stop rotting, we only encourage him to commit more wrongs.  We reward him for being bad.  That encouragement is not in line with the Savior’s mission.”  As logical as that argument may sound, that’s not how the Savior perceives these efforts.

            He declared, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick…I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”  (Matt. 9:12-13).  And how does the Lord call them to repentance?  He continues, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.”  (Matt. 9:13).  Somehow, the sick sinners, who need a physician and not an executioner, heal better with mercy.  This mercy can even be blind justice to the criminal, which appears an act of mercy rather than an act of justice.

            Understanding this analogy of sinners being sick and Christ being a doctor, we can expect that some of the sick may heal, but then feel recovered enough to misuse the opportunity for a fresh start to spread their spiritual disease further.  To recommit crime.They are the ones who feel “encouraged” or enabled to spread their contagious disease if healed enough.  But, it’s their perception, not reality.  They perceive that they’ve been enabled to do wrong.  That’s not reality.  The doctor wasn’t encouraging him.  The doctor offered him healing so he wouldn’t do it again, not a reward for his evil.

            Similarly, if the Constitution let’s a criminal loose on a technicality and he responds by feeling encouraged to commit more crime, it’s not the Constitution’s fault he did that.  It’s theirs.  He still chose not to be healed in the right way by the Constitutional provisions for justice to all. 

Chapter 12: Compassion for the Criminal vs. Compassion for his Victim

Part IV: The Sickened Employee

            This analogy of the physician and sick can be used and expanded to demonstrate how other people can be the ones at fault for the sickness spreading, not the doctor or the sick one.  Others become responsible, at least in part, for crime continuing to spread in the following example.

            Imagine that a doctor offers healing medicine to a terribly sick soul.  The sick soul partakes, buthasn’t finished the dose and isn’t healed all the way.  He gets healed enough, though, to have enough energy to get back to work.  At work, because he’s not healed, his contagious disease spreads.  The other employees become enraged at him for not staying home until he was done with the medicine and healed. 

            This anger does nothing but exacerbate the problem—the first employee is still sick.  He tries to go back to the doctor because he doesn’t think the medicine’s working.  The other sickened employees, angry because he got them terribly sick, quarantine him.  They effectively prevent the doctor from giving him any more healing medicine or a second look.  The sick soul remains sick.While quarantined, he’s discouraged from taking the remaining medicine, thinking it’s useless.  The sickness gets worse.  His sickness then spreads to more and more people when released from quarantine.

            What do you think about this scenario?  Who’s at fault for the contagious sickness spreading?

            The doctor wasn’t at fault for the contagious sickness spreading to the other employees when he first gave medicine to the sickened soul.  The sick soul was technically at fault for that.

            The other employees who hated the sick employee for making them sick are genuinely at fault for preventing the doctor from giving him anymore medicine.  They hated the first sick employee so much for giving them his sickness that they didn’t want him to recover from his sickness.  They think he didn’t deserve to recover.  They determined that he should continue to suffer “consequences” for his actions by quarantining him.So, they successfully stopped the doctor from healing him.  When his sickness spread to more people after quarantine, they were mostly at fault for facilitating that to happen.  This is what our society is trying to do when they try to prevent the Constitutional protections to the criminal.  This is what happens to the imprisoned one who wasn’t given a real chance at rehabilitation.  Once he’s released from imprisonment, or quarantine, he’s going to spread his criminal sickness to others either by victimizing others or making more criminals out of others.

Do I say love your enemies?  Yes, upon certain principles.  But, you are not required to love their wickedness; you are only required to love them so far as concerns a desire and effort to turn them from their evil ways, that they may be saved through obedience to the Gospel.

Discourses of Brigham Young, Our Fellow Men, p. 272.

            The prophet Brigham Young had it right—when we love others, we not only desire them to turn from their evil ways, but we make the effort to turn them from their evil ways.

            In sum, the giver of proper mercy is not at fault for criminals failing to take all of their medicine, for them not taking advantage of the chance to get back on their feet and have a fresh start.  The givers of mercy are not at fault for other victims becoming blackened by the criminals. 

            Victims who are blackened by the sinner-criminal’s sins or crimes against them should be eager to have medicinal mercy offered to their perpetrators in order to best stop the likelihood of the blackness spreading to others.  That’s a Christlike response to criminal and sinful injustice. 

            Our Savior and Redeemer further said of His mission, “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep….” (Matthew 15:24); “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”  (Matt. 18:11).  Not only does He think His mission is to save those who are lost instead ofpunish them, but He also believes it should similarly be ours: “What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?”  (Luke 15:4).We are finding lost sheep, not slaying filthy-defiant lambs.  We are saving, not exacting eye-for-an-eye like justice.

            We should seek after our lost, unrepentant sinner-criminal’s restoration to the good fold “until [we] find [him]”(Luke 15:4)restored to the good fold.We “labor diligently” (Moroni 9:6).  We never stop.

There is no man or woman within the pale of saving grace but that is worth saving.  There is no intelligent being, except those who have sinned against the Holy Ghost, but that is worth, I may say, all the life of an Elder to save in the Kingdom of God.

Discourses of Brigham Young, Missionary Work, p. 321.

            If we never stop, and we do so on a national scale, rather than on a merely personal scale or individual to individual missionary-work scale, then perhaps Confucius’ prediction will be realized:

If good men were to govern a country a hundred years, they would be able to transform the violently bad, and dispense with capital punishments.

The Sayings of Confucius, “On Government,” Heian International, Inc., 1983, p.30.

            Transforming the violently bad to the point that none of them will need to be punished with death sounds like moving an entire society toward a Zion society.  It sounds a little closer to the one we’ll experience during the Millennium.  But, that’s a long ways off, you say.  We’re just going to have to wait until the Savior comes, you say.

            I say we don’t have to wait for the Second Coming in order for this to happen.  If we follow this process of proper mercy today, then we bring the Second Coming into our lives before it’s officially here.  We bring it by doing every best righteous thing we can, both spiritual and secular, to convert the unrepentant sinner-criminal.  Why wait to be “acted upon” (2 Nephi 2:26—“they have become free forever…to act for themselves and not to be acted upon”) to have this society when we can prepare by acting now?

Chapter 12: Compassion for the Criminal vs. Compassion for his Victim

Part V: Don’t Kill Off the Abusers

            I had a conversation recently with a former stake president and member of B.A.C.A. (Bikers Against Child Abuse).  He emphatically said that all pedophiles should be “killed” because they cannot change and because the spirit world is better suited to take care of them. 

            As I consider his position, I think it’s a victory for Satan if we do as he recommends. 

            Ask yourself, “Should we also kill a percentage of the children they harm because a percentage of them will inevitably grow up to become abusers themselves when they would not have done so without the abuse?” 

            In these cases when the abuse spreads from generation to generation, is the victim really 100% at fault for becoming an abuser, too?  Or, is there some percentage of fault that is subtracted away because the initial abuser shares some fault for contributing to the victim’s acquisition of abusive tendencies?

            The reason I think it’s a victory for Satan if we kill off the abusers, whether they are former victims or not, is because of two groups of scriptures:

·         For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God…[F]or after this day of life,…if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed….[F]or that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. For behold,…ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his.

Alma 34:32-35.

·         [I]t were better that he should fall [dead] than thee, for behold, he has repented of his sins; but if thou shouldst fall [dead] at this time, in thine anger, thy soul could not be saved.

Alma 20:17.

            There is real value in being alive.  There is spiritual progress we can only make here.  Even though there is work among the dead, there’s no guarantee that it will be effective to each and every spirit because of the danger the ancient prophet Alma warned of.  He cautioned if “we do not improve our time while in this life,” then the devil could potentially “seal you his” in the “eternal world.” 

            Further, there is a real danger that an unrepentant person who dies in his sins cannot be saved.

            So, do we really want unrepentant souls to die sooner than natural?  Do we really want to send them “home to that God who gave them life” (Alma 40:11) if they haven’t “improve[d] [their] time while in this life?”  (Alma 34:33).  Not me. 

            If I can keep the wicked here, I do my best because it’s here that they may certainly gain the greatest measure of repentance in the easiest way available. 

            This rule against capital punishment doesn’t necessarily apply to murderers who “deliberately killeth.”  (2 Nephi 9:35—“Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die”; Alma 30:10—“if he murdered he was punished unto death”). 

            Except for some murderers, we shouldn’t destroy these “evil” souls.  We should eliminate them through conversion.  Transform them.It’s good to lock up pedophiles. That way, they can no longer victimize children. But there is a better solution. We need to try our best to convert them in a safe environment.  We help them recover from their terrible sickness that I imagine no one desires to have inside them.

            Perhaps the current methods for treating them fall short.  That doesn’t mean they can’t be healed.  It may simply mean we need to become better at the healer’s art. “Brethren, if we truly follow our Lord Jesus Christ, we must embrace a third title: healer of souls. We who have been ordained to the priesthood of God are called to practice ‘the healer’s art.’”  President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Four Titles, April 2013 General Conference.

            Perhaps we use a combination of strategies beginning with incarceration, then placement in secure treatment facilities that help motivate and encourage them to want to participate in cognitive behavioral therapy while taking antidepressants and antiandrogen treatment, if necessary (which have both shown to be very effective when used in conjunction for some offenders).Then, as they progress, they can move on to less restrictive confinement until we can safely conclude they are ready for a new life outside of captivity that they are willing to succeed at.

            Perhaps we also make a better effort at encouraging them to voluntarily take advantage of the institute system while incarcerated so that the Savior can better work miracles in their lives: “The Savior is the worker of miracles. He is the great Healer,” said President Dieter F. Uchtdorf.  If anyone can change these abusers, Christ can.

            Another apostle stated,“There is only one cure for the evils of this world,…and that is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and…obedience to [His] commandments.”  Elder David B. Haight of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  General Conference.  Ensign.  October 1987. “Ethics and Honesty.”  If this is true, then we need to place more trust in Christ and His ways.

            President Uchtdorf went on about Christ, “He is our example, our light, even in the darkest moments, and He shows us the right way.  Let us follow Him. Let us rise up to our role and become healers by serving God and our fellowmen.”  We don’t just let Christ do everything.  We try our best to mimic Him.We try our best to heal the sinner-criminal.  We can even follow Him on an institutional scale and prepare the worst of souls to “meet God” (Alma 34:32)by helping them change their own “spirit” so a better “spirit will have power to possess [their] body in that eternal world.”  (Alma 34:34).  We help these people gain an improved character and personality.

            Thus, in the clash between healing the sinner-criminal or healing the victim when you can only do one, then you heal the criminal over the victim to prevent further victimizations, to give greater opportunities for agency to the criminal in order for him to voluntarily choose a new life, and you never quit trying to cure the blackened, rotting soul because that’s what disciples of Christ do.

Chapter 13: Friendliness vs. Avoiding Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

            It seems to be a virtue to avoid certain types of people—the wolves in sheep’s clothing, for example.  Christ, however, simply taught to be aware of these wolves and detect them by their works: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.Ye shall know them by their fruits.”  (3 Nephi 14:15; Matt. 7:15).

            The apostle Paul, however, taught: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”  (Romans 16:17).  He took it a step further than merely “mark[ing]” these people or to simply “[b]eware” of them.  He says avoid them.  He taught this same idea more than once, which the Amplified Bible, as opposed to the King James Bible, more clearly expresses:

“But now I write to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of [Christian] brother if he is known to be guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater [whose soul is devoted to any object that usurps the place of God], or is a person with a foul tongue [railing, abusing, reviling, slandering], or is a drunkard or a swindler or a robber. [No] you must not so much as eat with such a person.”  1 Cor. 5:11 (AMP).  Emphasis added.

            The apostle John said similarly with the apostle Paul: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine [is disloyal to what Jesus Christ taught], do not receive him [do not accept him, do not welcome or admit him] into [your] house or bid him Godspeed or give him any encouragement.”  (2 John 1:10 (AMP)).

            The wise King Solomon, however, focused on avoiding not the person, but instead on the person’s ways: “Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.”  (Prov. 4:15).  He taught the same idea more than once: “My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not….My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path.”  (Prov. 1:10,15).  The focus is more on the path or behavior than on the person.

            Like King Solomon, Christ seemed to be less concerned about telling us to avoid these people: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”  (Matt. 10:16; Luke 10:13).  Wisdom would help us see wrong behavior and doctrines and avoid those, rather than the people.  Sometimes avoiding people can be harmful to the people you avoid; thus, be “harmless as doves.”These people need good examples.  They need good friends who help them change from their ways.

            Christ taught modernly to become friends with people that others may have us avoid: “Make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you.”  (D&C 82:22).

            In fact, Christ specifically taught not to resist, stand against, set yourself against, or oppose certain evil, harmful people.His teaching appears more clearly in these various parallel translations than in the King James of the turn-the-other-cheek scripture in Matthew 5:39:

Amplified Bible (AMP)	Wycliffe Bible (WYC)	Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)	GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
“But I say to you, Do not resist the evil man [who injures you]; but if anyone strikes you on the right jaw or cheek, turn to him the other one too.”	“But I say to you, that ye against-stand not an evil man; but if any smite thee in the right cheek, show to him also the other.”	“But I say to you, Do not set yourself against the rasha (evil person), but whoever hits you on your right cheek, turn to him also the other cheek”	“But I tell you not to oppose an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn your other cheek to him as well.”  Scripture is taken from GOD’S WORD®, © 1995 God’s Word to the Nations. Used by permission of Baker Publishing Group.).

            Christ also taught a related doctrine about how we should consider outsiders: “And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us” (Luke 9:50) and “he that is not against us is on our part.”  (Mark 9:40).

            Along with this related doctrine, the policies of the Church encourage us to find the good in others and not feel threatened: “Much that is inspiring, noble, and worthy of the highest respect is found in many other faiths. Missionaries and other members must be sensitive and respectful toward the beliefs of others and avoid giving offense.”  (Handbook 2:21.1.27, Other Faiths).

            So, there seem to be virtues that can contradict each other; either you (1) avoid unrighteous persons or (2) go among them, be aware of their ways, become their friends, convert them, and, if necessary, turn the other cheek when they hurt you.

            All things being equal, what should you do when faced with a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”?  Unless the Spirit directs otherwise, you choose the higher virtue of being in the world, but not of the world.  You avoid their unrighteous ways, behavior, and thinking, but you love them, try to be their friends if they don’t shun you first, and try not to feel threatened by them. 

            If you unnecessarily feel threatened by them, then you’ll seek to withdraw from them and you may lose out on assisting a soul make their long journey back to Christ.  Don’t feel threatened.  Be ready to be hurt.  Turn the other cheek if you have to.  But, in no case adopt their behavior of cruelty and shunning others.

Chapter 14: Interdependence vs. Independence

Part I: Capitalism Neither Prevents War between Nations nor Adequately Unites Them

            There are two virtues that can conflict when it comes to the general concept of governing: being independent and being interdependent. 

            These two virtues are both reflected in a philosophy that was important to the founding of the United States of America.  As to interdependence, the great philosopher Thomas Paine spoke of a compact between people with independent, sovereign rights to join together into one:

If we trace government to its origin, we discover that governments must have arisen either out of the people or over the people. In those which have arisen out of the people, the individuals themselves—each in his own personal and sovereign right—have entered into a compact with each other to produce a government; and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise.

Thomas Paine, 1792, “The Rights of Man.”  (Emphasis added.  Two commas replaced by dashes for clarity).

            It is only when independent figures agree to be a team that a governing body has a right to form. 

            Drawing on this same understanding of the importance of an agreement, one of our Founding Fathers explained the dangers of independence between sovereign powers (or their half-baked efforts to unite in interdependence with one another): 

A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.

The Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 6, Alexander Hamilton.  Emphasis added.

            As experience has repeatedly shown, some common interest must unite independent bodies who neighbor one another or else they become enemies.  Giving lip service to the need for sovereign States or nations to be connected in order for there to be harmony between them, proponents of free market economies and capitalism frequently put their trust in these kinds of commerce to solve the problems inherent in disunity.  They think the free market will save our world from war.  But, as one of our Founding Fathers sagely questioned:

Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.

The Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 6, Alexander Hamilton.

            To many conservatives (especially the Tea Party kind, or the extreme right kind), this Founding Father’sposition is blasphemy.  But, let me appeal to their spiritual side for a moment.  Notice in the next part the two chapters of revelation that the ancient prophet Ezekiel received from the Lord about the inflated regard that a successful merchant had about the free market commerce between merchants of many nations. 

Chapter 14: Interdependence vs. Independence

Part II: Ancient Revelation on Inflated Regard for Free Markets

            The first chapter below shows the extent of the free-market King Tyrus had built and the prediction that it wouldn’t last.  I’ve underlined each nation or people one time while putting the commerce portions in italics:

Ezekiel 27:1-36

1The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,

2 Now, thou son of man, take up a lamentation for Tyrus;

3 And say unto Tyrus, O thou that art situate at the entry of the sea, which art a merchant of the people for many isles, Thus saith the Lord God; O Tyrus, thou hast said, I am of perfect beauty.

4 Thy borders are in the midst of the seas, thy builders have perfected thy beauty.

5 They have made all thy ship boards of fir trees of Senir: they have taken cedars from Lebanon to make masts for thee.

6 Of the oaks of Bashan have they made thine oars; the company of the Ashurites have made thy benches of ivory, brought out of the isles of Chittim.

 7 Fine linen with broidered work from Egypt was that which thou spreadest forth to be thy sail; blue and purple from the isles of Elishah was that which covered thee.

 8 The inhabitants of Zidon and Arvad were thy mariners: thy wise men, O Tyrus, that were in thee, were thy pilots.

 9 The ancients of Gebal and the wise men thereof were in thee thy calkers: all the ships of the sea with their mariners were in thee to occupy thy merchandise.

 10 They of Persia and of Lud and of Phut were in thine army, thy men of war: they hanged the shield and helmet in thee; they set forth thy comeliness.

 11 The men of Arvad with thine army were upon thy walls round about, and the Gammadims were in thy towers: they hanged their shields upon thy walls round about; they have made thy beauty perfect.

 12 Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kind of riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded in thy fairs.

 13 Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, they were thy merchants: they traded the persons of men and vessels of brass in thy market.

[The Amplified Bible, verse 13—“Javan (Greece), Tubal, and Meshech [in the mountainous region between the Black and Caspian Seas] traded with you. They exchanged the lives of men [taken as slaves] and vessels of bronze for your merchandise”].

 14 They of the house of Togarmah traded in thy fairs with horses and horsemen and mules.

 15 The men of Dedan were thy merchants; many isles were the merchandise of thine hand: they brought thee for a present horns of ivory and ebony.

 16 Syria was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of the wares of thy making: they occupied in thy fairs with emeralds, purple, and broidered work, and fine linen, and coral, and agate.

 17 Judah, and the land of Israel, they were thy merchants: they traded in thy marketwheat of Minnith, and Pannag, and honey, and oil, and balm.

 18 Damascus was thy merchant in the multitude of the wares of thy making, for the multitude of all riches; in the wine of Helbon, and white wool.

 19 Dan also and Javan going to and fro occupied in thy fairs: bright iron, cassia, and calamus, were in thy market.

 20 Dedan was thy merchant in precious clothes for chariots.

 21 Arabia, and all the princes of Kedar, they occupied with thee in lambs, and rams, and goats: in these were they thy merchants.

 22 The merchants of Sheba and Raamah, they were thy merchants: they occupied in thy fairswith chief of all spices, and with all precious stones, and gold.

 23 Haran, and Canneh, and Eden, the merchants of Sheba, Asshur, and Chilmad, were thy merchants.

 24 These were thy merchants in all sorts of things, in blue clothes, and broidered work, and in chests of rich apparel, bound with cords, and made of cedar, among thy merchandise.

 25 The ships of Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market: and thou wast replenished, and made very glorious in the midst of the seas.

 26 ¶Thy rowers have brought thee into great waters: the east wind hath broken thee in the midst of the seas.

 27 Thy riches, and thy fairs, thy merchandise, thy mariners, and thy pilots, thy calkers, and the occupiers of thy merchandise, and all thy men of war, that are in thee, and in all thy company which is in the midst of thee, shall fall into the midst of the seas in the day of thy ruin.

 28 The suburbs shall shake at the sound of the cry of thy pilots.

29 And all that handle the oar, the mariners, and all the pilots of the sea, shall come down from their ships, they shall stand upon the land;

 30 And shall cause their voice to be heard against thee, and shall cry bitterly, and shall cast up dust upon their heads, they shall wallow themselves in the ashes:

 31 And they shall make themselves utterly bald for thee, and gird them with sackcloth, and they shall weep for thee with bitterness of heart and bitter wailing.

 32 And in their wailing they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and lament over thee, saying, What city is like Tyrus, like the destroyed in the midst of the sea?

 33 When thy wares went forth out of the seas, thou filledst many people; thou didst enrich the kings of the earth with the multitude of thy riches and of thy merchandise.

 34 In the time when thou shalt be broken by the seas in the depths of the waters thy merchandise and all thy company in the midst of thee shall fall.

 35 All the inhabitants of the isles shall be astonished at thee, and their kings shall be sore afraid, they shall be troubled in their countenance.

 36 The merchants among the people shall hiss at thee; thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt be any more.

            Before we continue to the next following chapter in Ezekiel, take note of the thirty-seven varied nations and people with whom Tyrus traded:

·         Senir

·         Lebanon

·         Bashan

·         Ashurites

·         Chittim

·         Egypt

·         The isles of Elishah

·         Zidon

·         Arvad

·         Gebal

·         Persia

·         Lud

·         Phut

·         Gammadims

·         Tarshish

·         Javan (Greece)

·         Tubal

·         Meshech

·         Togarmah

·         Dedan

·         Syria

·         Judah

·         The land of Israel

·         Minnith

·         Pannag

·         Damascus

·         Helbon

·         Dan

·         Arabia

·         Kedar

·         Sheba

·         Raamah

·         Haran

·         Canneh

·         Eden

·         Asshur

·         Chilmad

            Now, considering the vast, commercial, free-market empire of Tyrus, this is what the Lord had to comment about how the prince regarded the powers of capitalism (“capitalism” in a broad sense), an attitude not necessarily too far from many who seem to worship the free market.  Important details are in italics:

Ezekiel 28:1-19

1 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

 3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:

 4 With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures:

5 By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:

 6 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God;

 7 Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.

8 They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.

 9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.

 10 Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God.

 11 ¶Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

 12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

            King Tyrus developed an attitude that he was deified by expertly using the tools of a pure, free market economy.  One of the features of his trade was human trafficking (Ezek. 27:13).  As I understand it, this isn’t unusual for unregulated free markets.

            It’s interesting to me that it is “the iniquity of thy traffick” (Ezek. 28:18) and “[b]y the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence” (Ezek. 28:16) that King Tyrus “has sinned” (Ezek. 28:16).  His pure, capitalistic trade brought violence and would be used against him.  The free market has its place, but I believe our society has inflated its value exponentially beyond its true worth, similar to King Tyrus.

            The Lord promised “I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations”(Ezek. 28:7) and “they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.”  (Ezek. 28:7-8).  The resulting war from this free-market economy seems to be an example of Alexander Hamilton’s caution, quoted in the last chapter.

            Am I against the freemarket?  No.  Am I against the near-worship we’re beginning to give it?  Yes.  Am I for appropriate regulations on the freemarket?  Yes.  Am I convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the freemarket as we use it is ethically the best way to go about our commercial business?  No.

Chapter 14: Interdependence vs. Independence

Part III: Our Founding Father Understood the Free Market is Insufficient for Peace

            Understanding the concepts found in the previous part’s scriptural verses simply from reviewing history, our Founding Father and first author of the Federalist Papers asked us:

From this summary of what has taken place in other countries, whose situations have borne the nearest resemblance to our own, what reason can we have to confide in those reveries which would seduce us into an expectation of peace and cordiality between the members of the present confederacy, in a state of separation? Have we not already seen enough of the fallacy and extravagance of those idle theories which have amused us with promises of an exemption from the imperfections, weaknesses and evils incident to society in every shape? Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age, and to adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue?

The Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 6, Alexander Hamilton.

            The free market, with its shared interests of commerce, trade, and business between the Confederate States of America, was incapable of producing peace between the sovereign powers and lacked the strength to resist foreign attacks on our soil.  Capitalism was not enough.Strong independence and a weak political alliance was not enough.  America needed more interdependence to be powerful. 

            Similarly, now that the world is a smaller place, every nation is our neighbor. In order for us to have real peace, I submit we need to follow similar steps that our Founding Fathers took.  We must establish greater interdependence between the sovereign, independent nations of the world.  We don’t strip them of independence or sovereignty, but we unite together as a team of nations.  We do this in order to form a more perfect union on earth.  We do this to establish peace and tranquility and provide for the common defense of the oppressed wherever they may be.  We do this to allow all the inhabitants of earth to enjoy the blessings of liberty.  We do this because disunity and separate sovereignty cannot do it, even with the common interests of a free-market economy.  History has proven this fact in the establishment of our own great nation with its central government unifying the individual States.

            As our Founding Fathers have said, which now apply to the world where every nation state is neighbor to the other through the Internet and the ease of international travel:

[There are]those who endeavor to lull asleep our apprehensions of discord and hostility between the States, in the event of disunion, [but the following saying has,] from long observation of the progress of society[,] become a sort of axiom in politics, that vicinity or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies. An intelligent writer expresses himself on this subject to this effect: "NEIGHBORING NATIONS (says he) are naturally enemies of each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors." This passage, at the same time, points out the EVIL and suggests the REMEDY.

The Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 6, Alexander Hamilton.

            Does this mean we have to give up some of our sovereignty to become united?  The answer is as one of our Founding Fathers said: “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.”  The Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 2, John Jay.  The power comes from the natural rights and sovereignty of individuals or other bodies.  We have to self-sacrifice for a greater good. 

            Interestingly, in the day of the Founding Fathers, there were radical “politicians” that appeared, according to the second author of the Federalist Papers,“[W]ho insist that this opinion [of a need for a central government] is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties.”  (The Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 2, John Jay).  The fallacious reasoning back then continues today in the guise of national sovereignty that must not sacrifice any of its powers to form a united body of world nations.  But the reasoning for a more united, central government remains today, as Hamiliton quoted Montessqueu:

            “‘This form of government is a convention by which several smaller STATES agree to become members of a larger ONE, which they intend to form. It is a kind of assemblage of societies that constitute a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, till they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the united body.

            “‘A republic of this kind, able to withstand an external force, may support itself without any internal corruptions. The form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniences.

            “‘If a single member should attempt to usurp the supreme authority, he could not be supposed to have an equal authority and credit in all the confederate states. Were he to have too great influence over one, this would alarm the rest. Were he to subdue a part, that which would still remain free might oppose him with forces independent of those which he had usurped and overpower him before he could be settled in his usurpation.

            “‘Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states the others are able to quell it. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound. The state may be destroyed on one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.

            “‘As this government is composed of small republics, it enjoys the internal happiness of each; and with respect to its external situation, it is possessed, by means of the association, of all the advantages of large monarchies.’

            “I have thought it proper to quote at length these interesting passages, because they contain a luminous abridgment of the principal arguments in favor of the Union, and must effectually remove the false impressions which a misapplication of other parts of the work was calculated to make. They have, at the same time, an intimate connection with the more immediate design of this paper; which is, to illustrate the tendency of the Union to repress domestic faction and insurrection.”

The Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 9, Alexander Hamilton.

            Similarly, a better union of world nations would be able to “repress domestic faction and insurrection” among the member nations.  It would help prevent war and achieve world peace better than mere Capitalism could.  An agreed upon constitution that respects the human and civil rights of all people throughout the world would create greater harmony.  If there will be such a constitution, it should mirror our own in many ways.  Like Thomas Jefferson, another Founding Father, “I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire & self government.”  (Jefferson to James Madison, 27 April 1809).  But, I am not persuaded that it cannot be improved and applied to the most extensive empire—the world.

            The union that I am in favor of forming between the separate, sovereign, world nations would be more like that described by our Founding Father Alexander Hamilton:

The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be "an assemblage of societies,'' or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.

The Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 9, Alexander Hamilton.

            The importance of member nations retaining their separate sovereignty, much like our individual States did, is critical.  An initially limited, central government between these nations would be as effective as our own federal government when managed right.  A union much like the United Nations, if not the United Nations itself, is what I envision as a better union for the world society we have today.  As society progress, the central government would need to expand from limited government to necessary government—whatever government is necessary for the benefit of the people is the character it takes on as the union and society mature.

            The virtue of interdependence does better for people and nations than does the virtue of independence.

            This point is not new:

The utility of a Confederacy, as well to suppress faction and to guard the internal tranquillity of States, as to increase their external force and security, is in reality not a new idea. It has been practiced upon in different countries and ages, and has received the sanction of the most approved writers on the subject of politics.

The Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 9, Alexander Hamilton.

            The opposite has been shown in another scripture.  The separation of distinct groups of people into their own, independent societies contributed to a loss of security and to losing a war:

            And now behold, I say unto you, I fear exceedingly that the judgments of God will come upon this people, because of their exceeding slothfulness, yea, even the slothfulness of our government, and their exceedingly great neglect towards their brethren, yea, towards those who have been slain.

            For were it not for the wickedness which first commenced at our head, we could have withstood our enemies that they could have gained no power over us.

            Yea, had it not been for the war which broke out among ourselves; yea, were it not for these king-men, who caused so much bloodshed among ourselves; yea, at the time we were contending among ourselves, if we had united our strength as we hitherto have done; yea, had it not been for the desire of power and authority which those king-men had over us; had they been true to the cause of our freedom, and united with us, and gone forth against our enemies, instead of taking up their swords against us, which was the cause of so much bloodshed among ourselves; yea, if we had gone forth against them in the strength of the Lord, we should have dispersed our enemies, for it would have been done, according to the fulfilling of his word.

Alma 60:14-16.

            The scripture recorded in The Book of Mormon here exemplifies the need for a well-developed union, as stated by another Founding Father and last author of the Federalist Papers: “AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.”  (The Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 10, James Madison).

            Similarly, a more united world will have the strength to “disperse[]”enemies in every nation where they may be found and “control the violence of faction[s].”  But, that union mandates giving up a measure of “power and authority,” a desire for which is unhealthy for that union at some point.  The sacrifice for interdependence is ultimately better than the hoarding of self-sufficient independence.

            There is no need for the devil to give us a choice between independence and interdependence.  They are both virtues.  When they cannot simultaneously be enjoyed, then you pick interdependence.  This is true especially as it relates to government and maintaining harmony between diverse peoples.

Chapter 15: Democracy vs. Republicanism

Part I: Condemning that which is Good

            As you may have started to gather from the last chapter, there is an impressive amount of clashes between virtues in politics.  Before we go on, though, there is a curious, two-part, conditional promise from the ancient prophet Moroni that I believe merits our serious attention. 

            The prophet guaranteed, “[I]f ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.”  (Moroni 7:19). 

            The promise is that we each will certainly be a child of Christ if we do two things.  The first is about laying hold upon every good thing.  There’s no question about the worthiness of or need to sincerely try to do that.  Note that the requirement is not to “cast out every bad thing.”  The focus is on obtaining the good, not throwing out the bad.  The approach is a positive gathering, not a negative dispersing.  The bad will naturally dissolve as we gain more and more good and come closer and closer to Christ.  Bad is like darkness.  It’s naturally extinguished with the more light that’s acquired.   

            The second part is interesting: “and condemn it not.”  The “it” refers to “every good thing.”  Don’t condemn good things.  How necessary of a condition is this?  Who would “condemn” something good?  That can’t happen too often by decent people, can it? 

            Yet, this scripture warns us about making such condemnations.  It must be a real risk, then, if Moroni is taking the time to carve out a permanent caution to us on metal plates that are meant for us in our day.

            So, if these mistaken condemnations can happen, as this scripture implies, then every person who aspires to be a child of Christ must be very careful about condemning anything except for the most blatant evil that is clearly from Satan.  The reason is that people who are comfortable with condemning run the risk of mistakenly condemning that which is good.  No child of Christ wishes to even be close to making that mistake—especially if it means no longer being a child of Christ, even for a moment.  They avoid the very appearance of evil and one of those evils is even appearing to condemn that which is good.  (1 Thess. 5:22—“Abstain from all appearance of evil.”).

            Unfortunately, this mistake happens frequently in our society.  In their zeal to support what is right and good, many decent people condemn, curse, vilify, demonize, and revile good principles, doctrines, beliefs, and practices of others in the opposing political party or in another religion or faith. 

            These kind of political or religious people go beyond healthy argument, debate, and criticism.  They get angry and treat others as their enemies.  They communicate that a substantial amount of the opposing party’s beliefs are from the devil.And they fight as if a violent war of words and emotions is necessary to prevent false notions from indoctrinating society.In fact, one of my political/religious debate friends told me during a discussion about religion, “I don’t believe you are a demon. Demons are not human. You still strive to do Lucifer’s bidding. I hope you the best Taylor Charles.”  I take this comment as an example of going to the extreme and labeling a person’s different views (mine), which are clearly not evil, as evil and condemning those holding these views as workers of evil (me).

            Like the prophet Moroni, the prophets Isaiah and Nephi both warned us of this same problem: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put…light for darkness; that put…sweet for bitter!”  (Isa. 5:20; 2 Nephi 15:20).

            What many don’t seem to realize is that when we join in the political arena, we are engaging in the exact kind of clash that neither needs the devil nor his contention.

            Why? Because politics is the clash between virtues, for the most part.

            For example, what’s the better virtue, helping our economy grow from the middle-class out, or from the upper-class down?  They both seem to have some basis in fact.  They both have the same, virtuous goal of helping the economy and, thereby, improving people’s quality of life.Both methods are, at least on the surface, good because they benefit a specific portion of society in order to promote the overall goal.  The two virtues, then, leave us with these two questions:

·         Which method is more effective financially (since both can be effective)? 

·         Which one is more effective ethically (since both can be an ethical route of building our economy)?

            And if the answers are different to these two questions, then what’s more important—financial effectiveness or ethical effectiveness?

            Stated another way, if the answer is that is more effective financially to do the top-down approach, but more ethical to do the middle-out approach, then what’s more important, financial effectiveness or ethical effectiveness, if you have to choose one over the other?

            Because angry debaters about politics mistakenly misuse the process of elimination in their “logical” thinking, these people end up saying that if their own side is good by their estimation, then the other side must be bad or evil.  They then do nothing to investigate or confirm this conclusion.  In other words, they “condemn” that which is good.  They treat the other people’s political beliefs as evil when they should not.

            President Dieter F. Uchtdorf explained, “As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are united in our testimony of the restored gospel and our commitment to keep God’s commandments,” and then, without indicating any impropriety to this next part, he said, “But we are diverse in our cultural, social, and political preferences.”  Four Titles, April 2013 General Conference.  It’s okay to differ in our political preferences while being the same—the same as disciples of Christ.

            These people who revile those in opposing political parties are failing in the goal to become a “child of Christ.”  We should remind ourselves and others that in our efforts to be a child of Christ, we do our best not to condemn that which is good.  (Moroni 7:19).  We should do our best to be like Christ “who went about doing good” (Acts 10:38) and remember that “[u]nto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure.”  (Titus 1:15).  Be skeptical about “defiled” things until you absolutely know they’re defiled.  So, by and large, be optimistic, especially in the political arena.

            Another area of intense debate, where many faithful members easily condemn as coming from the devil, is whether the government, using our tax dollars, should handout social benefits to citizens.  There are, however, a number of scriptures that clearly justify today’s democratic or socialistic ideals:

Foundation Principles

            EQUAL POSSESSIONS: “That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.  For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things.”  (D&C 78:5-6)

            SIN IF NOT: “But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.”  (D&C 49:20)

            TEMPORAL EQUALITY: “Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld.”  (D&C 70:14)

            WON’T INJURE & GIVE FAIRLY: “And ye will not have a mind to injure one another, but to live peaceably, and to render to every man according to that which is his due.”  (Mosiah 4:13)

            SEEK ANOTHER’S WEALTH: “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.”  (1 Cor. 10: 24)

            SEEK EQUAL RICHNESS: “Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.”  (Jacob 2: 17)

Specific Actions Required

            DISCIPLES REMEMBER THE POOR: “And remember in all things the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted, for he that doeth not these things, the same is not my disciple.”  (D&C 52:40)

            ADMINISTER RELIEF: “Behold, I say unto you, that ye must visit the poor and the needy and administer to their relief, that they may be kept until all things may be done according to my law which ye have received. Amen.”  (D&C 44: 6)

            CONSECRATE PROPERTY & SUBSTANCE: “If thou lovest me thou shalt serve me and keep all my commandments. And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken. And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me.”  (D&C 42:29-31)

            IMPART PROPERTY: “Impart a portion of thy property, yea, even part of thy lands, and all save the support of thy family.”  (D&C 19: 34)

Amounts According to Circumstances

            EQUAL ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCES, WANTS, & NEEDS IN ORDER TO BE ONE: “Wherefore, let my servant…appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs….And the money which is left unto this people…take the money to provide food and raiment, according to the wants of this people.  And let every man deal honestly, and be alike among this people, and receive alike, that ye may be one, even as I have commanded you.”  (D&C 51:3, 8-9)

            “[T]hat every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.”  (D&C 42:33)

            REDISTRIBUTION: “ I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel.”  (D&C 42:39)

Warnings & Promised Blessings

            NOT GIVING SUBSTANCE CANKERS SOUL: “Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!...But blessed are the poor who are pure in heart, whose hearts are broken, and whose spirits are contrite, for they shall see the kingdom of God coming in power and great glory unto their deliverance; for the fatness of the earth shall be theirs.”  (D&C 56:16, 18)

            EARTHLY RICHES ARE THE LORD’S TO GIVE: “And for your salvation I give unto you a commandment, for I have heard your prayers, and the poor have complained before me, and the rich have I made, and all flesh is mine, and I am no respecter of persons….And if ye seek the riches which it is the will of the Father to give unto you, ye shall be the richest of all people, for ye shall have the riches of eternity; and it must needs be that the riches of the earth are mine to give; but beware of pride, lest ye become as the Nephites of old.”  (D&C 38: 16)

            And so, in summary, condemning that which is good is a very serious mistake and, fortunately or unfortunately, there are enough opportunities for making those mistakes without the intervention of Satan.The opportunities for invigorating opposition exist without him.

Chapter 15: Democracy vs. Republicanism

Part II: A Child of Christ Upholds Virtues Wherever They Are Found

            A child of Christ recognizes the differences between good things, better things, and the best things.  A child of Christ labels things and virtues with varying degrees of goodness in their minds, attitudes, and actions, whether consciously or not.  This behavior or “righteous judgment” (John 7:14) avoids the undue condemnation of good things that binary thinking produces.

            As we explore the virtues that democrats and republicans believe in, for example, we will then decide which collection of virtues rivals the other in an appropriate balance of ideals. 

            As we come to these conclusions, does that mean the Church supports one political party over another?  No.One reason is that these collections of virtues are not static—they change over time even within the same party and platform.

            The official Church policy is: “While affirming the right of expression on political and social issues, the Church is neutral regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate.”Handbook 2:21.1.29, Political and Civic Activity.

            Should we use our religious beliefs at all in politics?  Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained that the Church does encourage members to “draw upon their religious beliefs, including personal inspiration, in all their important choices — political and otherwise.”[1]

            Where are our religious beliefs found that we should draw upon?  Many of them are found in scripture and in the teachings of modern-day prophets.  In other words, those religious beliefs are found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  So, let’s draw upon those religious beliefs from the gospel that we can find in the scriptures and in the teachings of modern-day prophets and apostles and even in Church policy when the other sources may be missing.

            To start drawing upon them, the first question we should ask is as follows: do the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ favor the principles of one party’s platforms more than the other’s at any given time? 

            I believe the answer is yes.I will try to show how this is so in the specific platforms of Utah County in 2012 for both parties—platforms which record the principles and beliefs of each party in their written declarations.  I like these platforms because I’m familiar with them, they’re brief, and because I think the comparison will surprise some of the readers.

            This doesn’t mean the Church supports or endorses one of the platforms or parties.  It simply means that one party or platform, at that time, happened to voice a cluster of virtues that were closer overall to the principles and beliefs of the gospel than the other’s was.  We come to this conclusion using a best-efforts estimation.

            Some argue this effort is futile because even the parties don’t follow their own platforms.  While this may be true to an extent, which party will get closer in practice to the Utah County Democratic Platform, for example?  I don’t think the republicans will.  Similarly, even if the democrats don’t follow what they say on paper, that doesn’t mean they’ll end up closer to the republican platform in practice.  They’ll still be closer to their own platform than republicans will be to the democratic platform.

            We will proceed with a selected comparison between the two party platforms, virtue by virtue.  The individual principles will be numbered so you can compare what these democrats say on a particular concept and what these republicans say on the same concept.  Remember, these democrats and republicans don’t necessarily represent republicans and democrats in general. 

            I will then pair scriptures and doctrines below the political points that I can find supporting the numbered points of each separate political statement within the particular party’s points. 

            We will then evaluate the political positions with some commentary and additional considerations after the charts.  This evaluation will not necessarily tie in every scripture or quotation supporting each political point.

            Because the list of spiritual support will not be exhaustive, feel free to note for yourself other scriptures or doctrines that support (or contradict) the platform points. 

            Through this effort, we will see roughly which platform is objectively closer to the most important parts of the gospel of Jesus Christ with the cluster of virtues it advances at that time.

Chapter 15: Democracy vs. Republicanism

Part III

            As a note, the charts below sometimes show “N/A.”  The N/A either means (1) there is no applicable parallel concept for the virtue cluster, or (2) I couldn’t find support for the mirroring concept of that number.  For example, in the first point of the Faith chart on the republican side, it has nothing in its statements that would parallel the democratic side’s concept.  The democratic side at point one says, “We believe in the importance of religious faith.”  The republican side in its discussion about faith said nothing about the concept of religion being important.  So, I placed an “N/A” there because nothing paralleled that democratic idea. 

            The other meaning of “N/A” comes out, for example, in the Education chart, where point four on the Republican side says, “To promote excellence, consumer choice in education should be encouraged.”  This consumer-choice concept in education is one that I could not find any closely related, mirroring support for in scripture, general conferences, or church policy.  So, I put “N/A.”

Charts

Faith

2012 Platform: Democrats	2012 Platform: Republicans
Faith 1.  We believe in the importance of religious faith. 2.  We seek the protection of religious liberty for all. 3.  We seek to work together with people of all faiths and affiliations to make our state a better place to live. 4.  N/A 5.  N/A	Freedom of Religion 1.  N/A 2.  We must be free to worship Godin public and private. 3.  N/A 4.  God is our supreme Sovereign. 5.  God is the sole source of our rights.
Scriptures that Support 1.  IMPORTANCE OF FAITH: Romans 1:17—“The just shall live by faith”; D&C 134:4—“We believe that religion is instituted of God”; Alma 44:4—“God will support, and keep, and preserve us, so long as we are faithful…unto our faith, and our religion.” 2.  PROTECT RELIGIOUS LIBERTY FOR ALL: Article of Faith 1:11—“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may”; Alma 46:11-12, 24—“Moroni, who was the chief commander of the armies….wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom….Yea, let us preserve our liberty.”  3.  WORKING WITH PEOPLE OF ALL FAITHS: D&C 82:22—“Make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you”; Handbook 2:21.1.27, Other Faiths—“Much that is inspiring, noble, and worthy of the highest respect is found in many other faiths. Missionaries and other members must be sensitive and respectful toward the beliefs of others and avoid giving offense.” 4.  N/A 5.  N/A	Scriptures that Support 1.  N/A 2.WORSHIP EVERYWHERE: Article of Faith 1:11—“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship…where…they may”; D&C 134:4—“We…do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.” 3.  N/A 4.  GOD’S SOVEREIGNITY: Bible Dictionary, Pauline Epistles—“The characteristic doctrine of this third group[of Pauline Epistles: Philippians; Colossians; Ephesians; Philemon; Hebrews] is the ascension and present sovereignty of Jesus Christ over the world and the Church”; Psalms 97:9—“For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods”; Ps. 83:18—“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth”; Ephesians 4:6—“One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” 5.GOD IS SOLE SOURCE OF RIGHTS: Not true—no scripture or authoritative source confirms this idea that God alone is the source of our rights.  He may be the source of fundamental rights (i.e. “inherent and inalienable rights” in D&C 134:5) but, legally speaking, we can give and frequently do give one another a large variety of civil rights through contract and agreements.  Those are sourced in us and our combined agency, not directly in God.

            As you consider the parallel lists of principles and scriptures above, answer for yourself which grouping is more in line with the gospel of Jesus Christ.  As I understand the gospel and consider the scriptural support, the Utah County Democratic Platform on faith is more closely aligned than the republican one.We’ll tackle why in a moment.

            My assertion, however, does not mean the republican platform has no aspect of the gospel to it.  It does.  It does especially in its declaration that God is our supreme Sovereign.  That is a perfectly true point in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  This statement, though true, is rudimentary and does not put the gospel into action as much as other stressed virtues.  So, it’s of lesser importance or value than the other virtue statements it competes with.

            So, let’s look at the republican cluster of virtues emphasized on the faith issue.  The republican platform mentions nothing specifically about the importance of faith and religion to the political process, which, if they did,would begin to put the gospel into action.  Faith and religion are essential components of the Plan of Salvation.

            Faith and religion are clearly important from the supreme Sovereign’s perspective.  The scriptures cited above demonstrate it as well (Romans 1:17, D&C 134:4, Alma 44:4).The democratic platform, however, reflects this truth in saying it “believe[s] in the importance of religious faith.”  The importance of faith and religion is an important truth that should be kept in mind at every political process of every state and nation. The very first rights listed in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution proclaim this truth as well:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution.

            Each one of these rights is critical to religion.  Besides the non-establishment of one national religion and the free exercise of proper religious practices, religion needs to be free to speak to others about its beliefs.  That’s how missionary work operates. 

            Religion also needs to be free to use the press to print its religious materials, such as scriptures, for its members and for sharing its beliefs.

            Religion needs to be able to assemble its members and nonmembers alike, such as to group together for Sabbath-day worship. 

            And, religion needs to have the government to turn to, or petition, in order to protect its rights instead of resorting to self-help about its grievances and then cause war, like the fallible members of religion have done many times in the past.

            The freedom of speech, press, and assembly all contribute to missionary work, which, the democratic platform also addresses indirectly in its interest with “work[ing] together with people of all faiths and affiliations.”  This working together is one way we’re able to share the gospel: interfaith service projects or other efforts to do good with one another.  I’ve used those before in conducting collective missionary work efforts, which were great at planting seeds, so to speak.

            Missionary work is a highly important virtue to support when considering that our Lord and Master Jesus Christ directed anciently, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature”(Mark 16:15) and modernly, “[I]n proclaiming the gospel in the land of the living, and among thy brethren….thou wilt do the greatest good unto thy fellow beings” (D&C 81:3-4).

            Preaching to “every creature” and fellow “being” clearly covers every single human being of whatever religious persuasion and whatever physical, mental, emotional, social, financial, political, national, or spiritualcondition.  And, missionary work’s the “greatest good.” 

            The Lord ranks the virtue of missionary work as high as charity.  The Lord states this in scripture as He says that in “succor[ing] the weak, lift[ing] up the hands which hang down, and strengthen[ing] the feeble knees,” a person that is “faithful unto the end” in doing these things will “have a crown of immortality, and eternal life.”  (D&C 81:5-6).  It doesn’t get better than eternal life.  Clearly, then, charity is also among those few things that qualify as the “greatest good” with missionary work.

            The republican platform simply says people should be free to worship publicly or privately.  Arguably, public worship can be a mild form of missionary work, just as working together with other faiths can be a moderate one.So, both platforms could be said to involve missionary work to some degree.  The republican one, though, is focused on where people should be worshiping.  It doesn’t concentrate on who is worshiping. 

            In fact, the republican platform can be reasonably read to mean that not necessarily everyone should be allowed to worship, so long as some people can worship both publicly and privately. 

            Interestingly, the democratic statement can reasonably be read to mean that every person does not necessarily have the right to worship both publicly or privately, so long as everyone can worship in at least one of the two ways.

            Ideally, the platforms should both concentrate on the two aspects of worship: people and places. 

            They don’t.  There’s a potential conflict because by emphasizing the focus of one, there’s a risk that the other focus will be excluded, or at least minimized.  So, if there’s a conflict, which there is here in print (not necessarily in practice, but there still could be in practice),which virtue trumps the other, people or places?  Which virtue can we afford to minimize underneath the other?

            If you have to choose one over the other, then people should win over places.  The reason is that everyone should be able to worship, whether it has to be only in public or only in private, because this virtue undeniably treats people equally in being able to worship somehow.  This kind of equality made the grace of God “abound” (Mosiah 27:5) when people followed it politically in the days of king Mosiah, who required for all citizens, believers and non-believers alike, that “there should be an equality among all men…that every man should esteem his neighbor as himself.”  (Mosiah 27:3-5).

            Equal treatment is an important Constitutional right under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments respectively: “[N]o state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” and “No person…shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”Without a compelling reason to do so, unequal treatment by the law in circumstances regarding religion would be unconstitutionally and unjustifiably unfair.

            So, if you can only have one focus in religious worship, you chose the focus that is more important and supported by other rights.  Here, that focus is people and equal treatment, not places,which lack another major, supporting right.  The Utah County democratic platform on faith focuses on what matters more, if you have to pick between the two faith positions.

Abortion

2012 Platform: Democrats Abortion 1.  We believe in the sanctity of human life. 2.  There should be a balance between the rights of the woman and her unborn child.  3.  Every abortion is a tragedy. 4.  We oppose elective abortion for personal or social convenience. 5.  Abortion should be limited to instances of pregnancy resulting from (a) rape or (b) incest, or in cases of (c) fatal fetal deformities, or when competent medical authority determines that there is a (d) serious threat to the life or health of the mother.  6.  We again recognize those who hold differing views on this issue. 7.  We seek to resolve our differences in a spirit of respectful cooperation.

2012 Platform: Republicans Protection of Human Life 1.  All people should be protected from abuse and exploitation. 2.  We affirm the fundamental, unalienable right to life for both the born and the unborn. 3.  N/A 4.  We oppose using public funds for abortion or to support any organizations that promote abortion. 5.  Abortion should be illegal except where (d) the life of the mother is at serious risk, or the pregnancy is the result of (a) rape or (b) incest.  ((c) “fatal deformities” are N/A). 6.  N/A  7.  N/A

Scriptures that Support 1.  “What is happening to our appreciation of the sanctity of human life?...You are the mothers of the sons and daughters of God, whose lives are sacred. Safeguarding them is a divinely given responsibility which cannot be lightly brushed aside.”President Gordon B. Hinckley, November 1998, Ensign, Walking in the Light of the Lord. 2.  “There may be some few circumstances under which it can occur, but they are extremely limited and for the most part improbable.”President Gordon B. Hinckley, November 1998, Ensign, Walking in the Light of the Lord. 3.  “Abortion is…evil, stark and real and repugnant, which is sweeping over the earth. I plead with the women of this Church to shun it, to stand above it, to stay away from those compromising situations which make it appear desirable.”President Gordon B. Hinckley, November 1998, Ensign, Walking in the Light of the Lord. 4.  “The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience.”  Handbook 2:21.4.1. 5.  “The only possible exceptions are when: 1. Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest. 2. A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy. 3. A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”  Handbook 2:21.4.1. 6.  “There is a brotherhood that accommodates differing views and personalities, but we are one.”President Boyd K. Packer, April 1995, President Howard W. Hunter—He Endured to the End. 7.  “[M]embers must be sensitive and respectful toward the beliefs of others and avoid giving offense.”Handbook 2:21.1.27, Other Faiths.

Scriptures that Support 1.  “We believe that men should appeal to the civil law…where personal abuse is inflicted…where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves…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.”  (D&C 134:11). 2.“Thou shalt not...kill, nor do anything like unto it.” (D&C 59:6); “[S]uch laws [must be] framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual…the protection of life.”  (D&C 134:2). 3.  N/A 4.  Although not a statement about the use of public funds, an older statement of the Church on abortion said, in part: “Abortion is one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality. …As far as has been revealed, the sin of abortion is one for which a person may repent and gain forgiveness.”www.lds.org/ensign/print/1976/07/news-of-the-church?lang=eng&clang=eng 5.  (Abortion is not limited by the Church’s policy to only these examples). 6.  N/A 7.  N/A

            The conflict between virtues here is less between differing virtues than it is between differing degrees of the same virtue. 

            Both views regard human life as sacred so that it should be treated properly without abuse.  (See points one above on both political platforms). 

            The political platforms begin diverging significantly at points two.  While both views acknowledge rights to the unborn child, the democratic one simply acknowledges that there are some rights the unborn child has that should be reconciled with those of the mother.  The republican one, however, bundles these rights of the unborn child together and describes the bundle as a “fundamental, unalienable right to life.” 

            The republican view is deeply troubling from a criminal law perspective. 

            If an unborn child has a fundamental, unalienable right to life just as born children, then that means the rape victim who aborts her child suddenly goes from being a tragic victim to an evil murderer.  Plus, absent a need for self-defense from a criminal assault by the unborn child, intentionally causing the death of either the born or unborn for every other reason is equivalent to murder or manslaughter.That stance would increase the number of murder prosecutions exponentially, and yet the woman being prosecuted would be a victim of her father or brother who had violated her, for example. 

            There’s another unintended side-effect of giving unalienable rights to unborn children.  If we carve out any exceptions allowing us to kill the unborn child, then it would be disastrous because the very same exceptions would have to apply equally to born children—that they can also be killed—because their rights are exactly the same: fundamental, unalienable rights. 

            This would mean that if we can disturb the fundamental, unalienable right to life of an unborn child because it was conceived through incest, then we would also have to acknowledge that it would be proper to euthanize a born child who had been conceived earlier through incest.  It would mean the same for a severely disabled child who had unexpectedly lived past birth and continued to struggle—we could euthanize her, too.

            Is either of these outcomes appropriate?  If you think they are, then we shouldn’t worry about the spiritual, emotional, social, and financial cost of dramatically increasing murder prosecutions.  We shouldn’t worry about allowing for a few kinds of euthanasia for living children.

            But, if they’re inappropriate, as I believe, then we should forego murder prosecutions and refrain from claiming that all abortions must be murderous.  We should also entirely avoid any forms of euthanasia based on typical justifications for abortion.

            What does the gospel of Jesus Christ teach?  It’s silent on this matter except for the commandment, “Thou shalt not...kill, nor do anything like unto it.” (D&C 59:6).  We have quotes from general authorities, but no established doctrine in the scriptures that specifically addresses the morality of abortion and the rights of unborn children.  The next best option in situations like this is to see if the Church has any policy on the issues.

            The Church’s position on abortion will be enlightening because it will indicate whether every intentional abortion is considered murder or not from a religious perspective.

            According to the Church’s Handbook, “The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience.”The Church opposes aborting unborn children for selfish reasons.  The language is not very strong.  It seems stronger wrongs would be used for stronger opposition.  As such, the opposition appears to not be exceptionally strong.

            If elective abortions were tantamount to murder, then I believe the Church would say, “The Church denounces and condemns elective abortions for personal or social convenience in the strongest way possible.”  But, the Church doesn’t express this kind of opposition to even elective abortions.  Why doesn’t it? 

            Good, solid reason would say it’s because the underlying wrong is not as egregious as the worst kind of wrong; elective, selfish abortion is less bad than intentional, selfish murder.  How can that be?  Good, solid reason would say it’s because the rights of unborn children and living people are different.  The unborn child has less rights than a born, living person.

            TheChurch’s statement that abortions for the purpose of “personal or social” convenience are inappropriate also implies that abortions that are not for either of these purposes may be appropriate.  It continues about the possibly appropriate abortions:

The only possible exceptions are when:

1. Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.

2. A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.

3. A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. 

Handbook 2:21.4.1.

            These exceptions balance the rights of the unborn child with that of the mother.  If the unborn child had the fundamental, unalienable right to life, then it would not matter that the mother became pregnant because of crime. 

            If the unborn child had such rights, then it wouldn’t matter that the mother might die in bearing it. 

            If the unborn child had such a right to life, then it would be as murderous to abort an unborn child with fatal defects as it would be to euthanize a born child with the same fatal defects.

            These are the ramifications of the republican position: all abortions without exception would be murder, even though their position gives a couple exceptions.  There would be no logical reason why extending the same exceptions of aborting an unborn child would not also apply to killing a child born of rape or incest.  There would be no logical reason why a surviving baby having continuing, severe deformities shouldn’t be euthanized, either.  But, of course, both of those positions are shamefully absurd.

            If the rights are exactly the same, then so should the exceptions be.Making a rule that allows for killing live children born of rape or incest is near unthinkable.  But, that’s the logical outcome of applying the republican platform’s position on offering the same rights to life for unborn children that living children have.

            The republican position on this point is also contrary to the Church’s position because the Church includes an exception that the republican platform excludes: fatal, fetal deformities.  The Utah County democratic platform’s position on abortion is nearly identical to that of the Church’s, the main difference being the precise wording of the same exceptions for abortion.

            So, in the clash between the cluster of virtues supporting life and denouncing abortion, the better position that is closer to the Church’s is the Utah County Democratic Platform’s.

Immigration

2012 Platform: Democrats	2012 Platform: Republicans
Immigration	Immigration
1.  Those who come to the United States should do so legally.	1.  We support efforts to enforce the law while welcoming immigrants who enter America through legal avenues.
2.  We call for Congress to adopt policies that control our borders.	2.  We support the Constitutional mandate for the federal government to protect and secure our national borders.
3.  We call for Congress to do so while providing for a viable immigration policy that respects the contributions of immigrant workers to our economy.	3.  America is a stronger and better nation because of the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit of immigrants.
4.  We call for such a policy that respects the contributions of their families and children, many of whom are United States citizens.	4.  N/A
5.  This policy must also discourage exploitation by employers deliberately recruiting undocumented workers.	5.  N/A
6.  N/A 7.  N/A	6.  Taxpayers should not be covering state benefits for illegal aliens. 7.  We support reforming the immigration system to ensure that it is legal, safe, orderly and human[e;] as such[,] we support the 2008 National Republican Party Platform under the title of Immigration, National Security, and the Rule of Law.
8.  N/A	8.  We also support measures to ensure that the immigration system is structured to address the needs of national security.
Scriptures that Support	Scriptures that Support
1.“We believe in…obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”(Articles of Faith 1:12).	1.  “We believe in…obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”  (Articles of Faith 1:12).
2.Worldwide Newsroom, November 11, 2010, www.MormonNewsroom.org, Church Supports Principles of Utah Compact on Immigration—“ We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders.  All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.”	2.  Worldwide Newsroom, November 11, 2010, www.MormonNewsroom.org, Church Supports Principles of Utah Compact on Immigration—“ We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders.”
3.Worldwide Newsroom, November 11, 2010, www.MormonNewsroom.org, Church Supports Principles of Utah Compact on Immigration—“The Church regards the declaration of the Utah Compact as a responsible approach to the urgent challenge of immigration reform[, which says]….We acknowledge the economic role immigrants play as workers and taxpayers. Utah’s immigration policies must reaffirm our global reputation as a welcoming and business-friendly state.”  Deseret News, Friday, Nov. 12 2010 11:00 a.m. MST, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700080758/Official-text-of-Utah-Compact-declaration-on-immigration-reform.html?s_cid=rss-30, Official text of Utah Compact declaration on immigration reform	3.  “We acknowledge the economic role immigrants play as workers and taxpayers.”  Worldwide Newsroom, November 11, 2010, www.MormonNewsroom.org, Church Supports Principles of Utah Compact on Immigration
4.Worldwide Newsroom, November 11, 2010, www.MormonNewsroom.org, Church Supports Principles of Utah Compact on Immigration—“We recognize an ever-present need to strengthen families.   Families are meant to be together.  Forced separation of working parents from their children weakens families and damages society.”	4.  N/A
5.Worldwide Newsroom, November 11, 2010, www.MormonNewsroom.org, Church Supports Principles of Utah Compact on Immigration—“We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors.  The Savior taught that the meaning of ‘neighbor’ includes all of God’s children, in all places, at all times”; “Public officials should create and administer laws that reflect the best of our aspirations as a just and caring society.   Such laws will properly balance love for neighbors, family cohesion, and the observance of just and enforceable laws.”  Id.	5.  N/A
6.  N/A	6.  (This statement is not necessarily supported by the Church because refusing to offering state benefits to illegal immigrants can violate the Church’s principles on immigration: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.”  Immigration: Church Issues New Statement, OFFICIAL STATEMENT, 10 JUNE 2011. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement See also: “We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of ‘neighbor’ includes all of God’s children, in all places, at all times.…We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders….Public officials should create and administer laws that reflect the best of our aspirations as a just and caring society. Such laws will properly balance love for neighbors, family cohesion, and the observance of just and enforceable laws.”  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/immigration).
7.  N/A	7.  (This statement is not the same as the Church’s position because instead of the national Republican stance on immigration, “The Church regards the declaration of the Utah Compact as a responsible approach to the urgent challenge of immigration reform.”  NEWS RELEASE —  11 NOVEMBER 2010 Church Supports Principles of Utah Compact on Immigration.  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-supports-principles-of-utah-compact-on-immigration
8.  N/A	8.  (This view does not appear to be shared by the Church that illegal immigration presents a threat to national security; the view, however, is not contradicted by the Church, either).

            The two views are almost the same.  Tone is one of the major differences.  While the republican position does use the positive term “welcoming” immigrants, it pushes for “enforce[ment]” of the law rather than simply making the statement that people “should” come here legally.  There’s more teeth in the republican view on this first point.  It takes a more prosecutorial approach. 

            On the tone of the second point, the democratic position merely “calls” on Congress, while the republican one is for the “mandate” of controlling of our borders.  There’s a bit more bite here.  It’s a little more prosecutorial, again.

            On the tone of the third point, the democratic one is quick to advocate for defending people while the republican one just makes a somewhat cowardly, lip-service statement: “call[ing]” on Congress to “respect[]…immigrant workers” verses “America is stronger and better” because of “immigrants.” 

            Points four and five of the democratic platform are concerned about taking care of illegal immigrants with “respect[]” and “discourag[ing] exploitation” while the republican one apparently has no regard for who they seem to see as their enemy, whom they consider to be those who steal our tax money, as point six implies. 

            What I do like about the republican platform that the democratic one misses out on is thinking about ourselves as a collective unit, a nation, and not just a bunch of individuals, when it focuses on “national security.”  Overall, I think the democratic one is more loving toward our brothers and sisters, a little more towards persuasion than compulsion, and, therefore, a bit closer to the gospel of Jesus Christ than is the republican one. 

Education

2012 Platform: Democrats	2012 Platform: Republicans
Education	Education
1.  Education is our greatest investment in the future.	1.  A well-educated and informed citizenry is essential to the long-term well being of a free society.
2.  Strengthening public education as the foundation of a democratic republic is a fundamental value.	2.  The primary responsibility for education rests with the student and the family.  Parents have the right to choose whether a child is educated in private, public or home schools and government should not infringe on that right.
3.  We deplore Utah's ranking as the lowest in per pupil spending and the highest in students per teacher in the nation.	3.  N/A
4.  We stand for strengthening our public schools through: (a) adequate funding to allow for smaller class sizes; (b) higher salaries to better attract and retain qualified teachers; (c) better equipped facilities	4.  To promote excellence, consumer choice in education should be encouraged.
5.  We are to provide a world-class education for every student.	5.  N/A
6.  We also call for sufficient resources for higher education to: (a) prepare our young people to take their place in society (b) contribute to our state's economic development.	6.  Funding for Utah’s public higher education institutions should be based on the number of students currently attending that college or university and the type of degrees offered, and not on past history.
7.  We believe that education should receive priority in any state tax surplus.	7.  N/A
8.  We believe in local control of our public schools.	8. We favor local accountability and control in all aspects of the education system.
9.  We oppose the unfunded, top-down model of No Child Left Behind	9.  N/A
10.  We call for the development of local working partnerships between educators and parents to help every student develop the (a) academic skills (b) reasoning skills (c) social skills that are required by our global economy and society.	10.  Schools or other government entities should not invade the privacy of parents or their children.
11.  We believe that solutions to education problems are within reach through (a) seeking broad community involvement in developing our most precious resource, our children.	11.  N/A
Scriptures that Support	Scriptures that Support
1.  D&C 130:19—“If a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life…he will have so much the advantage in the world to come”; D&C 88:118—“Seek ye out of the best books…seek learning, even by study and also by faith”; D&C 90:15—“Study and learn, and become acquainted with…languages…and people”; D&C 93:53—“It is my will that you should…obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion”; D&C 131:6—“It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance”; D&C 93:36—“The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.”	1.  “[T]he lifelong pursuit of knowledge and education by Latter-day Saints is both a spiritual mandate as well as a secular necessity.”  COMMENTARY —  2 NOVEMBER 2007, “Mormon Studies” and the Value of Education.  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-studies-and-the-value-of-education
2.  President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, October 2009, Two Principles for Any Economy, General Conference: “For members of the Church, education is not merely a good idea—it’s a commandment. We are to learn ‘of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad.’ (D&C 88:79–80)…If formal education is not available, do not allow that to prevent you from acquiring all the knowledge you can.”	2.  L. Tom Perry, Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, October 1988, Train Up a Child, General Conference: “The responsibility for training children rests primarily with the parents”; Elder Boyd K. Packer, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, April 1982,The Gospel—The Foundation for Our Career, General Conference: “There is a recurring theme in the revelations having to do with learning. And, from the beginning, Church leaders have counseled us to get all of the education we can.”
3.  Elder Dallin H. Oaks, June 1987, Gambling—Morally Wrong and Politically Unwise, Ensign: “California’s lottery profits will be used entirely for education, but they will add only $187 to the average per pupil expenditures of $3,573, 31 an increase of only 5 percent. That kind of increase is not worth the costs associated with this morally tainted tax.”	3.  N/A
4.  President Thomas S. Monson, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, October 1991, Precious Children—A Gift from God, General Conference:  “The Church has always had a vital interest in public education….President David O. McKay said, “Teaching is the noblest profession in the world. Upon the proper education of youth depend the permanency and purity of home, the safety and perpetuity of the nation. The parent gives the child an opportunity to live; the teacher enables the child to live well.” (David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, p. 436.) I trust we shall recognize their importance and their vital mission by providing adequate facilities, the finest of books, and salaries which show our gratitude and our trust.”	4.  N/A
5.  N/A (But this statement doesn’t seem at all counter to LDS doctrine, given its constant emphasis on education, knowledge, and intelligence)	5.  N/A
6.  N/A	6.  N/A
7.  President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1983, Be Not Deceived, General Conference: “We have in the Church a strong tradition regarding quality education. Over the years we have allocated a substantial part of the Church budget to education, both secular and religious. As a people we have supported publiceducation. Where there is a well-demonstrated need, we should be supportive. Such can become an investment in the lives of our children, our communities, and our nation. However, let it not be supposed that all of the remedies may be found only with increased funding. There is need for a searching analysis of priorities and a careful weighing of costs. Let us be supportive; let us also be prudent concerning the resources of the people.”	7.  N/A
8.  N/A	8.  N/A
9.  N/A	9.  N/A
10.  President Thomas S. Monson, June 2009, Precious Children, a Gift from God, Ensign: “The Church has always had a vital interest in public education and encourages its members to participate in parent-teacher activities and other events designed to improve the education of our youth.”	10.  N/A
11.  In 1840 the Prophet Joseph Smith sent an epistle to the Twelve wherein he taught less about individualistic efforts and more about communal efforts to bless others: “A man filled with the love of God, is not content with blessing his family alone, but ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the whole human race.”  History of the Church, 4:227. Chapter 15: Democracy vs. Republicanism Part IV:	11.  N/A

Selected, Clashing Portions

2012 Utah County Democratic Party Platform	2012 Utah County Republican Party Platform
Families 1.  Government should rarely make laws with regard to family responsibilities, and then only to protect the weakest among us when life or liberty are threatened. 2.  Like most Utahns, we define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.	Family 1.  Parents have the right to bear children, (or otherwise add children to their families), to determine their own family size, and to determine what is in their best interest without interference from government. 2.  We believe that marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman and that no other domestic union should be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equal legal effect.
Healthcare 1.  Everyone should have access to affordable, quality health care. 2.  We call for efficient and effective public health programs for (a) children (b) seniors (c) the working poor (d) leading to universal health care for all citizens.	Personal Agency and Accountability 1.  Individuals have the primary responsibility for their own welfare. 2.  Family, church, and private organizations should provide secondary support when needed. The focus of assistance programs should be the development of self-reliance.
Open and Limited Government 1.  Government is the way we organize our community to do what we cannot do individually….We call for open and limited government that serves all the people….We stand for the common good.	Proper Role of Government 1.  The proper role of government at all levels is to protect each person’s unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and each individual's right to own and control property.Any other rights or privileges should not be construed or applied in any way to infringe on our God-given unalienable rights.
Economic Opportunity 1. We call for public policies that create good jobs for all Utahns. 2.  We support well-planned infrastructure. 4.  We support workers and their right to a living wage. 5.  We call for an increase in the minimum wage. 6.  We stand for equal pay for equal work. 7.  We stand for a safe workplace. 8.  We stand for the right to organize. 9.  In order to maintain a highly qualified labor force,we call for cooperation between business and government to support working families with (a) access to affordable health care (b) retirement benefits (c) comprehensive training and apprentice programs in the skills and trades.	Economy 1.  [G]overnment…is to create an environment in which free enterprise, innovation, investment and risk-taking can thrive….Utah's economic growth should be sustained through the principles of free enterprise. 2.  Funding shall be formula based to provide an adequate source of funding to develop and maintain Utah County’s infrastructure. Decisions need to be made now on how to build the necessary infrastructure to handle growth, or future economic development could be lost, and our quality of life rapidly diminished. 4. - 8.  We oppose excessive and restrictive government regulation. Regulation should be minimized, or eliminated, unless a convincing case can be made that the collective good is clearly improved by such regulation. Regular review of regulatory goals is necessary to insure their effectiveness. 9.  We encourage the privatization of public services where appropriate.

Parallel Comparison of Party Platforms

            Below is a parallel comparison between the two party platforms in the issues that parallel each other without major changes so you can have a fairly comprehensive reference to digest if you wish.  The only other change is in the sequence of the republican platform so that the same issues are matched up with those of the democratic platform.  Issues that don’t clash, or match up, are omitted.

2012 Utah County Democratic Party Platform	2012 Utah County Republican Party Platform
Faith As Utah County Democrats we believe in the importance of religious faith and the protection of religious liberty for all as guaranteed by the Constitution. We seek to work together with people of all faiths and affiliations to make our state a better place to live.	Freedom of Religion God is our supreme Sovereign, and the sole source of our rights. We must, therefore, be free to worship Him in public and private.
Education As Utah County Democrats we believe that education is our greatest investment in the future, and that strengthening our long standing commitment to public education as the foundation of a democratic republic is a fundamental value. We deplore Utah's ranking as the lowest in per pupil spending and the highest in students per teacher in the nation. We stand for strengthening our public schools through adequate funding to allow for smaller class sizes, higher salaries to better attract and retain qualified teachers, and better equipped facilities to provide a world-class education for every student. We also call for sufficient resources for higher education, that our colleges and universities may fulfill their roles in preparing our young people to take their place in society and to contribute to our state's economic development. We believe that the educational system should receive priority consideration in the allocation of any state tax surplus. We believe in local control of our public schools. We oppose the unfunded, top-down model of No Child Left Behind and call for the development of local working partnerships between educators and parents to help every student develop the academic, reasoning, and social skills required by our global economy and society. We believe that bold and innovative solutions to the problems of education in our state are within reach through seeking broad community involvement in developing our most precious resource, our children.	Education A well-educated and informed citizenry is essential to the long-term well being of a free society. The primary responsibility for education rests with the student and the family. Parents have the right to choose whether a child is educated in private, public or home schools and government should not infringe on that right. To promote excellence, consumer choice in education should be encouraged. Schools or other government entities should not invade the privacy of parents or their children. We favor local accountability and control in all aspects of the education system. Public schools should abstain from teaching promiscuity in any form. Higher Education. Funding for Utah’s public higher education institutions should be based on the number of students currently attending that college or university and the type of degrees offered, and not on past history.
Families As Utah County Democrats we believe the family is the basic unit of society. It is through the family that we support and care for each other, and share values from one generation to the next. We believe we cannot expect our county, our state, or our nation to rise above the level of our families, and that as we support the family we build the community and safeguard society. Yet many families struggle today. Often two or more incomes are required to meet daily economic needs. Too many families are without basic healthcare. Many of our elderly face difficulties caused by poor health, poverty, or restricted services. We call for supporting families with high standards of morality, a clean environment, reasonable taxes, recreational opportunities, affordable housing and health care, safe and reliable transportation, and excellence in education.  Occasionally families may also need support from the community in order to fulfill caretaking roles.  We believe families should assume the primary responsibility for teaching children about procreation, abstinence, and birth control. We believe government should rarely make laws with regard to family responsibilities, and then only to protect the weakest among us when life or liberty are threatened. We recognize that many of today's families include single parents, stepparents, blended families, multi-generational families, and many other variations.  For many, families are a group of individuals related by blood, marriage, or choice who are committed to supporting and caring for each other.  Like most Utahns, we define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. However, we also acknowledge that some have deeply held and sometimes differing views on this issue. We seek to understand those differences in a spirit of civility, hope, and mutual respect.	Family We believe that marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman and that no other domestic union should be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equal legal effect. Parents have the right to bear children, (or otherwise add children to their families), to determine their own family size, and to determine what is in their best interest without interference from government. We encourage all efforts to strengthen the moral character of our children and oppose policies, practices, and public expressions that degrade humanity and the sanctity of family relationships. We oppose efforts to include sexual orientation as a protected minority.
Abortion As Utah County Democrats we believe in the sanctity of human life and that there should be a balance between the rights of the woman and her unborn child.  We believe that every abortion is a tragedy. We oppose elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and believe that abortion should be limited to instances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or in cases of fatal fetal deformities, or when competent medical authority determines that there is a serious threat to the life or health of the mother.  We again recognize those who hold differing views on this issue and seek to resolve our differences in a spirit of respectful cooperation.	Protection of Human Life We affirm the fundamental, unalienable right to life for both the born and the unborn. We oppose using public funds for abortion or to support any organizations that promote abortion. Abortion should be illegal except where the life of the mother is at serious risk, or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. All people should be protected from abuse and exploitation.
Healthcare As Utah County Democrats we believe everyone should have access to affordable, quality health care. In the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth we believe no one should have to choose between seeing a doctor or paying the rent. We call for efficient and effective public health programs for children, seniors, and the working poor leading to universal health care for all citizens.	Personal Agency and Accountability Individuals have the primary responsibility for their own welfare. Family, church, and private organizations should provide secondary support when needed. The focus of assistance programs should be the development of self-reliance.
Seniors and Social Security As Utah County Democrats we honor our seniors for their contributions to our community and our quality of life. We believe in assisting them to live with dignity and self-reliance. We support the Social Security system and call for its protection and preservation. We oppose privatization that would convert this essential benefit for millions of Americans into a program of investment schemes for the profit of a small segment of the private sector. We are open to any and all ideas that ensure that the current and future generations of retirees receive the benefits they were promised without adding trillions to our national debt. We also recognize that Americans rely on more than just Social Security for their retirement. We therefore call for genuine reform that protects working families from future Enron-style abuse, and for the development of new ways to help hard-working Americans save for retirement.	Social Security Social Security must satisfy its obligations to those who have contributed to it, and become an optional program for any who wish to participate. All Republican elected officials, candidates and party officers are expected to endorse these principles and agree to be held accountable to the people and to the party.
Open and Limited Government As Utah County Democrats we believe that government is the way we organize our community to do what we cannot do individually. As such it should be held to the same standards we expect of individuals: honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others. We call for open and limited government that serves all the people. We oppose decisions about our future being made behind closed doors. We call for checks and balances, professional ethics, and the protection of our rights by those we elect to represent us. We stand for the common good and reject the promotion of personal agendas at the expense of the rest of us by those who would manipulate laws or regulations for their own profit. We call for vigilance on the part of our elected and appointed officials to eliminate corruption in our government wherever, whenever and by whomever it occurs.	Proper Role of Government The proper role of government at all levels is to protect each person’s unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and each individual's right to own and control property. Any other rights or privileges should not be construed or applied in any way to infringe on our God-given unalienable rights.
Fiscal Responsibility As Utah County Democrats we believe government should live within its means. We deplore the current ballooning federal deficit and the irresponsibility of those who have caused it through mismanagement and failed policies. We seek to elect federal representatives who will work to reduce our out-of-control federal debt. At the state level, we support maintaining a healthy rainy day fund to prepare for emergencies. We also urge better governmental accounting procedures for estimating revenues and expenditures.	Fiscal Responsibility Government at all levels should be required to live within a balanced budget. Increases in government spending should not exceed inflation and population growth.
Economic Opportunity As Utah County Democrats we call for public policies that create good jobs for all Utahns. We support…a skilled and well-educated workforce, and well-planned infrastructure. We support workers and their right to a living wage and therefore call for an increase in the minimum wage. We stand for equal pay for equal work, a safe workplace, and the right to organize. We call for cooperation between business and government to support working families with access to affordable health care and retirement benefits, as well as comprehensive training and apprentice programs in the skills and trades in order to maintain a highly qualified labor force.	Economy The proper role of government in economic development is to create an environment in which free enterprise, innovation, investment and risk-taking can thrive. In order to create such an environment, we believe the following principles: Economic Development. Utah's economic growth should be sustained through the principles of free enterprise. We encourage the privatization of public services where appropriate. Regulation. We oppose excessive and restrictive government regulation. Regulation should be minimized, or eliminated, unless a convincing case can be made that the collective good is clearly improved by such regulation. Regular review of regulatory goals is necessary to insure their effectiveness. Taxation. Taxation should be as equitable, simple, and minimal as possible. Limited government dictates that taxpayers should keep the majority of their money instead of giving it to government. Utah’s system of taxation has improved and government should continue to refine and improve it. Appropriate tax policy is essential if Utah is to compete globally. Infrastructure. Funding shall be formula based to provide an adequate source of funding to develop and maintain Utah County’s infrastructure. Decisions need to be made now on how to build the necessary infrastructure to handle growth, or future economic development could be lost, and our quality of life rapidly diminished.
Agriculture, the Environment, and Natural Resources As Utah County Democrats we believe we must balance the food and environmental needs of the people of our county. We call for improving farmers' income, monitoring agribusiness, and promoting conservation, as well as supporting enterprises and cooperatives that will help our farmers gain a greater share of the food dollar in our markets. We recognize the value of green space and the importance of agriculture in a healthy living environment. We believe we should maintain a healthy and sustainable ecosystem supporting a balanced wildlife population with adequate winter and summer range. We call for the protection of wilderness along with the right of access to use it responsibly for hunting, fishing, other recreational activities, and multiple uses that do not endanger our natural resources. We also call for the protection of Utah Lake and our canyons.	Environment There must be a balance between the economic benefits of growth and the need for clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. We are stewards of the earth, and we should leave our posterity an earth in better condition than we started with. Market forces should be considered when managing environmental issues.
Immigration As Utah County Democrats we strongly believe that those who come to the United States should do so legally. We call for Congress to adopt policies that control our borders while providing for a viable immigration policy that respects the contributions of immigrant workers to our economy and to their families and children, many of whom are United States citizens. This policy must also discourage exploitation by employers deliberately recruiting undocumented workers.	Immigration We support reforming the immigration system to ensure that it is legal, safe, orderly and human as such we support the 2008 National Republican Party Platform under the title of Immigration, National Security, and the Rule of Law. We also support measures to ensure that the immigration system is structured to address the needs of national security. We support efforts to enforce the law while welcoming immigrants who enter America through legal avenues. America is a stronger and better nation because of the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit of immigrants. We support the Constitutional mandate for the federal government to protect and secure our national borders. Taxpayers should not be covering state benefits for illegal aliens.
Firearms As Utah County Democrats we stand for the Constitutional right of citizens to possess firearms for sporting purposes and for lawfully defending their families and property. We also support the enforcement of existing gun laws, educating citizens on the responsible use and storage of firearms, and common sense measures to reduce gun violence and enhance public safety.	Right to Bear Arms The right of individuals to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.
Tax We call for comprehensive tax reform and responsible tax policies. We support a business climate characterized by fair tax policies	Taxation Taxation should be as equitable, simple, and minimal as possible. Limited government dictates that taxpayers should keep the majority of their money instead of giving it to government. Utah’s system of taxation has improved and government should continue to refine and improve it. Appropriate tax policy is essential if Utah is to compete globally.

III.

The Premortal Clash: Competing Ideas to Convince Souls

Chapter 16: The Plan Presented in Premortality from Lucifer’s Perspective

But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

Alma 42:16.

            I have often wondered what the details were of the original plan that were presented in Heaven before each one of us chose them and came here to earth.  Because we were all children of Deity, evil probably didn’t appeal to any of us.  It seems that only things of divinity could convince us differently—clashing virtues.  Misprioritized values and principles of goodness could probably be the only things that would persuade us away from God’s plan and lead a “third part” of the hosts of Heaven away (D&C 29:36).

            Below, I propose what I believe the plan consisted of.  These are my best guesses.  To prevent it from appearing to be actual doctrine, I have presented it from Lucifer’s perspective.  He’s trying to quote the Father, which means we have to take what he says with a grain of salt and realize it’s just hearsay.

            Please see chapter four for a better disclaimer about this attempt.

______________________________________________________________________________

           My dear brothers and sisters, please let me offer my thoughts on the Plan of Salvation that has been presented to us.

           From what I understand, the Father introduced His plan by saying:

            All those of you who are worthy of earth,[i] you have each progressed far enough that it is time for you to receive a body and gain eternal life as a great eternal family if you choose to pursue these goals now during this, your first estate, and then continue to choose to do so in your second estate.

          He continued, and I will quote Him as best I can without much interruption.  He said:

            Let Me share with you a plan that can accomplish both of these purposes.  It’s a plan of love to help bring about your immortality and eternal progression.The fulfillment of these two purposes will occur by keeping your second estate.  Your second estate includes your experiences on earth and some in the afterlife.  The whole afterlife includes a spirit world, resurrection, a final judgment day, and three general degrees of glory with three differing kingdoms within Heaven.

            If you choose to accept this plan, then you will receive a body.  Receiving a body will be a two-step process.  First, you will be united with a mortal body on earth and second, you will receive an immortal, resurrected body, which is like My own, in the afterlife.  For most of you, you will be united with your resurrected body after you have been separated through death from your physical body and your spirit has spent some time in the spirit world.  Very few others will be changed immediately, without any separation.

            You will receive a resurrected body as a reward for keeping your first estate regardless of any choices you may make while on earth or in the spirit world during your second estate.

            Receiving eternal life is the second purpose I have for you.  It will be a multiple-step process.  You will get to exercise your will or agency like never before.  You will be given opportunity after opportunity to choose eternal life, or to choose a life in the hereafter with less glory. 

            The different degrees of glory in the afterlife you may choose to prepare for are those of the Celestial Kingdom, Terrerstrial Kingdom, or the Telestial Kingdom.  The resurrected body you receive will differ in glory and power based on your decisions.  It will correspond to the Kingdom for which you prepare—to the one that you prefer[ii] as demonstrated by the kinds of choices you make and the desires you have. 

            Eternal life, or life with Me as I enjoy it in the Celestial Kingdom, is not a certain reward for keeping your first estate.  You must also choose it during your second estate if you wish to live here with Me according to My ways.

            To have the many opportunities for choice, I will establish laws.  There are three kinds.  Some laws will tell you what to do.  Other laws will simply tell you what not to do.  Other laws will be more complex as a combination of these two kinds of laws.  By forming laws, I will outline My ways of righteous living for you, including laws that you follow simply for trust, faith, and obedience sake and not necessarily for any other reason.

            In order to maximize your ability to exercise your moral agency and choose to follow a law or break it, you will need to have some opposition to the law.  The opposition may entice you to completely break it or only follow it partially rather than all the way. 

            The greatest source of opposition that I will provide for you is your first body.[iii]  Your first body will be imperfect with weaknesses.  It will be subject to pain, injury, injustice, sorrow, sickness, accidents, stress, disability, death, and desires that, if followed, may result in breaking some of My laws.  This is a naturally fallen condition. 

            When you follow the opposition or deliberately choose to violate the law, then you will have committed transgression or sin.  Being in sin will be a spiritually fallen condition.  Sin of any degree is not of Me and is evil.[iv]  I cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, and so, there are consequences and affixed punishments for each sin.  As a consequence, sin will make you unclean.  It is destructive to the divinity within each of you.  As to the punishments for the sin, much of the punishment will come in the form of anguish to soul.  The anguish can be endless torment that is as strong as weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. 

            As soon as even the least of My laws is intentionally broken, you will become unworthy for eternal life because no unclean thing can dwell in My presence.  Staying out of My presence is another punishment for sin and unworthiness.  As a natural consequence of your sins, you will be limited more and more in your ability to progress eternally and in your capacity to experience divine joy.  As your capacity for joy shrinks, you may feel like you have never been happier because the amount of joy you feel almost completely fills what you are capable of feeling.  Those who have a great capacity for joy, though, may be feeling the same amount of happiness, yet feel sadder because they could be feeling so much more joy.Where I am, there are no limits to progression and your joy will be full in the greatest capacity for joy that is possible.

            There is hope for you, however, when you have made mistakes and placed yourselves in a sinful, unworthy state.  There is knowledge that gives you this hope.  First, know that I give unto you mortal weaknesses that you may be humble and turn to Me.  Second, know that as you turn to and rely on Me, I will make weak things become strong unto you.  Third, know that when you are spiritually unworthy, you will be able to become completely pure again through the power, grace, and love of a Savior.  As you follow this course, I will empower you to independently do many things of your own free will and to bring to pass much righteousness on your own.

            The One among you, who will be your Savior, will be perfect in all My ways.  He will sacrifice Himself by suffering selflessly and unconditionally for all of your sins and take on the punishments[v] for each of them in your behalf.  He will die for you.  All His sufferings and the available blessings to you from His pain and death are called the atonement.

            If you do the minimal effort of accepting with faith the Savior’s sacrifice for you, realize the wrong you have done, regret it, repair what you can, and seek to permanently change your sinful behavior, then His atonement and grace will completely cleanse and purify you and let you begin anew.  You will not have to suffer the full punishment of your sins when you rely on Him.  He will sanctify you in a way that you can never do on your own.

            Your reactions in life to the pain, injuries, unfairness, sorrow, sickness, accidents, stress, disability, death, and immoral desires will determine whether you sin or whether you grow from the opposition.  You will not otherwise be able to attain this growth.  Sinful reactions will include selfishness, pride, lack of concern for others, and anger.  You can avoid these by developing virtues such as charity and hope toward all people.  And the hope you will have toward them will be based on your trust in the Savior to be able to change their very natures.

            If you choose, the opposition will have the potential to make you strive harder, work more resolutely, and behave more diligently in doing what is right before Me.  As you do these things, you will become more pure, individually and collectively.  And I will seek to help you grow individually and collectively.

            Know also that in your efforts to be diligent, you will have My Spirit to softly encourage you to do what is right.  First, He will help you in your desires to do right.  Second, He will testify of the truth and help you know what the right decision is.  And third, He will help give you the strength and comfort you need to follow what is right. 

            With both the negative opposition from your body’s limitations and the positive opposition from My Spirit, this mortal experience will be a test to see if you will do all things that I will command you to do. 

            Life will not only be a test, but it will also be a growing experience that will help you develop further and achieve joy.  This joy, rooted in selflessness, can only be reached as you help one another each develop and obtain happiness for themselves.  Happiness is rooted more in proper self-interest.  Happiness is a step toward joy.  People are, collectively, meant to have joy, which is the best form of happiness.

            The more spiritual intelligence you gain by your obedience to truth, the more advantage you will have in the life to come, which will also give you more opportunities to grow, develop, and become more like Me.

            To best make these things happen for you while on earth, I will place a veil over your minds and take away the memory of your pre-earth life.  You will essentially start over in learning My doctrines, My principles, My teachings, My laws, and My gospel.  This re-learning will take place both on earth and afterwards in the spirit world.[vi]  I will expect you to work together, to teach one another, and to help each other along the way.  Some of you will have advantages that others will not.  Seek to be equal one with another, especially in those things that matter most, such as knowledge of the truth and the strength to live the truth, as well as in the love you should have and exhibit toward one another.

            For those of you who come to earth and never have the chance to know My gospel, I will make the salvation of My children who have the gospel depend in part on them performing saving gospel ordinances on your behalf.[vii]  You without them will not be able to be made perfect while they without you will not be able to be made perfect.

            In the natural, fallen state, you will also not be able to see Me.  Even though none of you (with the exception of only a small number of you) will be in and also see My physical presence while on earth, and even though none of you will remember Me and your experiences here, you will not be left alone.  The Spirit, at times, will guide you individually and for some of you, He will even be your constant companion as you obtain certain ordinances and follow My counsel. 

            You will not normally be aware of the Spirit with your physical eyes or normally sense Him with your other physical senses.  You will mostly be able to feel him spiritually, which may cause a physical reaction.[viii]  Through this mild form of opposition that comes from the difficulty to prove the reality of the Spirit by your physical senses, you will better be able to develop faith.  Faith is an important principle of power and divinity that you have yet to develop fully.  Faith is critical to developing charity, compassion, and mercy: My greatest attributes.  Knowledge, as opposed to faith, is critical to developing justice and enacting justice properly, which are essential characteristics of Mine.

            Not only will My Spirit be with you, but I will also send My servants, the prophets, to guide and direct you collectively.  You will be able to sense these servants physically, but you will still have to discover from the Spirit whether they teach the truth and are authorized by Me as My servants.  In these ways and limitations, you will be able to grow stronger and mature more spiritually.

            Without the memory of your upbringing here and without your ability to see Me, you will not be overly influenced to choose what I would have you choose.  You will choose according to the character you have developed here and by the character, desires, skills, and faith that you develop from the choices you make there, on earth.  In this way, the choices you make will be fully yours that you can claim as your own.  This will be true for the most part.  The two opposing forces—your fallen body, and the Spirit—will counter each other enough so that your will is not overwhelmed by influences beyond your control.[ix]

            You must know, however, that as all of you progress through life, many of your other brothers and sisters will choose evil over good.  The evil they do will create circumstances, not of your choosing, in which you may find yourselves.  The evil they choose will bring a force into some of your lives that will contribute to causing you to do things that you would not ordinarily do.[x]

            For example, some of you will be born without the gospel because your parents rejected it, others of you will experience additional physical, emotional, or mental limitations or struggles that most of you will not, and yet others of you will be influenced by the sins committed against you.  There will be other unjust and unfair circumstances from the evil that, ideally, you should not have to endure.  But, as you do so, you will eventually come to know all things and learn to treasure that which is just, fair, merciful, and holy because I will help you in this process.  I assure you that I will also make all things fair for you in the end.[xi]

            Because of your brothers’ and sisters’ choices for evil besides good, or their choices for good besides the better, or for better besides the best,  you will suffer these additional conditions of injustice, unfairness, inequality, or even abuse.[xii]

            In these circumstances, you may either not know the truth and then unintentionally break My laws, or you may know My laws, but be caused to some degree to break them by the evil, or even natural circumstances, surrounding you or within you.[xiii]  You may suffer a combination of these two situations.  If to any degree either of these happens, then the Savior’s atonement will ultimately cleanse you and you will not be held responsible for the evil that you did not willfully choose.  On occasion, the sins you commit will be on the heads of your parents or upon your leaders because they will be substantially more accountable for your wrong choices than you will be.  

            If, however, a way is provided for you out of those evil or natural circumstances that you know of and you choose not to take, then you will be held responsible to the degree you were able to escape and to the degree that you could control your circumstances. 

            You will also be judged by the desires of your hearts because sometimes your actions and opportunities for action will not accurately reflect what you truly wished or intended.[xiv]

            With your independent, moral agency and the many opportunities to exercise it, you will also have the options in life to choose a different course than the one I would have you take.  And some of you will.  If it is truly the desire of your heart to live your own way, then you will ultimately be able to do so in one of the other two kingdoms in Heaven that are of a lesser glory than the Celestial, which have lesser laws that are fit for your preferences.[xv]

            In eternity, you will not be compelled to live My way of life.  That is not the way of My priesthood to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon your souls in any degree of unrighteousness.  You will also not be punished for not living My higher ways in the other kingdoms of glory that have lesser laws to abide by.[xvi]  For your time on earth, however, you agree to live by My laws and be blessed with the blessing that is coupled with obedience to that law.  If you do not, then you will not receive the blessing but the consequences and any punishments assigned for not keeping the law you break.

            During your mortal probation, you will be able to do many things of your own free will and choice.  You will be agents to yourselves: agents of your own willpower.  The power will be in you to be eagerly engaged in many good causes of your own making.  I encourage you to make for yourselves productive lives of your own choosing so long as they are within the limits I have set.  The opportunities within those limits are countless.  You will never run out of good to do within the limits I set.  You can still think critically and put your ideas into action.

            In order for you to arrive in a fallen condition on earth, you will choose from among you who will be the first man on earth, who will be named Adam, and who will be the mother of all living, named Eve.[xvii]  They will be placed in a garden paradise there.  I will marry them and they will be companions to each other.  They will still be in My presence and will not leave it unless they do something that deserves the punishment of being cast out of My presence.

            Adam and Eve will start their time on earth as immortal and innocent.  The veil of forgetfulness will make their minds simple, knowing very little.  I will provide them moral agency by giving them two basic commandments that, by living one, they will end up breaking the other.  Each commandment entices the breaking of the other one since both cannot be lived at the same time. 

            One commandment will be good to follow while the other commandment will be better to follow.  This situation will be a necessary opposition that I provide them in order to give them agency to choose one moral choice over another as a part of My plan.[xviii]  You need to remember that the choices will be between two good things, and not one righteous and one evil choice.  I am not the author of evil and do not make it part of My plan.  When one of the laws is broken in this situation, the wrong will only be wrong because it is something prohibited and not because it is something inherently wrong or wrong in and of itself. 

            As Adam and Eve learn line upon line and precept upon precept from both Me and their experiences in the garden, they will learn one commandment is more important than the other.[xix]  It could take a great deal of time before they recognize one commandment is more important than the other and why it is more important.[xx]  This learning process is important.[xxi]  If, after they discover these truths on their own, they voluntarily choose to keep the higher commandment and break the lesser law, then they will be able to become fallen and condescend of their own free will.[xxii]

            By virtue of their transgression of the lesser law, they will leave My presence, which is a punishment for violating one of my laws.[xxiii]  This violation will be a transgression, not a sin, though, because in violating the law, they will only have been enabling themselves to keep the higher law.  They will then be able to introduce mortality and faith into the world where each of you may be born to experience this final phase of your progression.  Their choice to voluntarily keep the higher commandment will make this plan possible for you to then go on to decide to obtain eternal life, endless progression, and to enjoy one another as an eternal family. 

            If Adam and Eve intend to bring these blessings about before they choose to transgress the lesser commandment, then they will be keeping the higher law for the right reasons.[xxiv]  This is My desire for them—that they both keep the higher law and choose to keep it for a selfless reason—the reason of bringing about mortality for all of you to experience so that you all may have joy.  Anything else would be less than appropriate in My plan.[xxv]

            Besides your fallen bodies, differing advantages in life, and your own individual choices, no other source of opposition is necessary for this plan to achieve its purposes.[xxvi]

            If, however, some of you choose to reject this plan, then I will allow you to still go to earth because you have already made choices that make you worthy of earth.[xxvii]  You may oppose My plan as it seems fit to you.  Your choices will not be part of My plan, even though your choices will have the ability to influence your other brothers and sisters on earth.[xxviii]  Your ability to influence earth life for those there will be limited mostly to what those there will allow you to exert.  Understand, though, that I may compensate for your wicked choices and make darkness become light before My children.  I may cause benefits to be able to come from the evil you choose to do because I will not allow your choices to frustrate My plan.

            If you think My plan is in error, I will let you try to prove the error and accuse Me or others of wrong as you wish.  In this way, I will still permit you your agency.  I will not take it away because I love you.[xxix]  It is a gift for you to use at your own discretion.  But, I hope you will decide to follow My plan and not reject it.  I hope you will exercise your agency righteously.  Just know, however, that punishments will still be meted out for rebellion and the unrighteous exercise of your agency.  One punishment is that you will not be able to participate in My plan by receiving a body.  Another is that you will not be able to remain in My presence.  You will be cast out to earth as spirits.  When earth life is complete, you will live in your own place absent any glory, which is not a kingdom of Heaven, but which is a kingdom called Hell or Outer Darkness.

            Then, the Father asked, “Now, considering all of this, is this a plan that you, My children, would like to participate in?”

            After many of you responded to whether you wanted to participate by rejoicing and shouting for joy, He went on to say, “Seeing there is a majority who would like to participate, and for this plan to go forward, we need to select a Savior.  Who would offer to be the perfect Savior to redeem mankind, to take on the punishment for sin without deserving any of the punishment, and to provide a way back for all to return to My presence and have eternal life?”

            This is what I understand the Father to have taught us about the plan just now.  I offer myself as the Savior.  But, as I said before, I would like to comment on this plan and propose alternative modifications. 

Chapter 17: Satan’s Sermon to Convince Souls Using Virtues that Clash

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!...For thou hast said in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;…I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.

2 Nephi 24:12-14.

            I have often wondered what Satan, as Lucifer, could possibly have said in premortality to convince a “third part of the hosts of heaven” (D&C 29:36; Rev. 12:4, 9)to follow him.  That third part consisted only of spirit offspring of God.  They were not evil.  At least, not initially.  They were inherently good as children of The Most High.  I imagine Satan tried to persuade others with the following misuse of reason, scripture, and competing virtues.  Today, I think he’s much different.  I believe he now persuades no one to do good: “[F]or after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one.”  (Moroni 7:17).  What he proposes in his temptations today is “inverted good,” as Brigham Young would say.  “Show me one principle that has originated by the power of the devil. You cannot do it. I call evil inverted good, or a correct principle made an evil use of.” (Journal of Discourses, 3:156–57).

            My prayer in sharing these opposing views that Lucifer could have had is to help us appreciate even more the Father’s wisdom in making His plan for us—it rivals any combination of good and better virtues because it is the best combination.  Some of these opposing views may seem logical, reasonable, or rational.  Remember that reason is very shaky ground upon which to base your testimony.  Reason is also very shaky ground upon which to have your testimony challenged. 

            Revealed knowledge in the scriptures, the words of our modern-day prophets, and personal experiences you have with the Holy Ghost are solid ground upon which to establish your testimony.

            If the following views disturb your hope, trust, or faith in Christ or in the Plan of Salvation, then I plead with you to go to your Father in sincere prayer, asking in the name of Jesus Christ, to reveal to you the truth about Christ and the Plan. 

            I have gone to Him in those prayers and He has revealed to me that Jesus Christ is our Savior and that the Plan of Salvation, as taught in the scriptures and by the Church, is true, right, good, beautiful, wonderful, and is the perfect balance of the best virtues.  It’s wonderful to know this for yourself.  That’s the one of the values in asking Him.

            So, I don’t mean at all to cause you to doubt by sharing these thoughts.  If I do, I apologize.I pray you will experience a revelatory experience that strengthens your confidence and testimony.

______________________________________________________________

            My dear brothers and sisters, I, Lucifer, have just related to you the plan that our Father wants each of us to participate in for our eternal progression and joy.  As a fundamental part of this plan, a Savior is required.   

            Please consider why I should be the Savior over our eldest Brother.  If He is chosen, then He will further the plan as it has been explained to us.  If I were the Savior, however, and if I were given the Father’s honor and power, I would improve the plan. 

            As the plan now is, some of us—if not many of us—will be rejected, rejected from the Celestial Kingdom.  The plan can end the progress we have made and the progress that is each of ours—the progress that evolves us into the Beings that we fundamentally are.  Specifically, we have been warned that if we do not use our moral agency to follow certain laws, then we will be punished.  We will be treated as if we are defective.   We will lose our rights to a future of perfection and glory, to a future of all knowledge, and to a future of unlimited power.

            We are, however, exalted beings destined to become who we are—divine.  This is what we have been raised for.  We have all been endowed with this nature since our beginning as spirit children of God.  And this cannot be overstated.

            As your savior, I would make it possible for all of us to reach our divine potential without any risk of losing that inheritance.  I would truly save you—all of you without exception.

            I will create a certain outcome for each one of us by allowing us to be who we are without any of our behavior being labeled as wrong or evil.  All of our choices will be deemed acceptable.  In this way, I will make it impossible for any of us to make mistakes or commit sin.  All we will be able to do is good.  You will have the security that you will be able to choose nothing else.

            And is not this what we want—to remain pure and righteous for eternity?  To choose right now, once and for all, to never be evil or to be anything less than divine?  Do not we always want to avoid any fallen condition that causes us to digress from who we are?  If I were your Redeemer, I would make it so that you avoid feeling sorrow, sickness, stress, and pain, and avoid experiencing disability and death.  I will prevent you from being caused by these influences to become selfish and think of your own survival and welfare above others.’

            I will make sure you remain caring and compassionate as we have been raised to be.  But, as the plan is, the Father invites us to become mortal—a flawed nature that makes us an enemy to Him and to one another.  It makes us corrupt.  This troubles me deeply.  Yet, our Brother supports this. 

            Why would any of us ever choose to digress in order to progress if we do not have to choose that?  The fact is we do not have to choose that if I am your savior.  By following me, I would insure that you retain your identity as children of the Most High.  You would still go to earth, but you would be freely given a resurrected body at the outset, not an imperfect and degrading one. 

            While you sojourn on earth, not only would you have a perfected body, but you would also not have any inequality among you.  I would make sure each of you is accepted.  You would be of the same value.  There is no inequality in our worth here, so, why should there be any there?  I would be no respecter of persons. 

            But, the plan our Brother supports will make us perceive inequality when there is none. 

            I have to ask myself, “Why fool us into such a belief by the unequal skin color, unequal distribution of wealth, unequal measure of fame, unequal amounts of opportunities, advantages, power, education, and resources?” 

            Even if the different worth among us on earth is only “perceived” in the Father’s plan, why have the possibility of that perception at all?  As savior, I would prevent any of you from feeling worthless or appearing as if you have any different worth than another.   There would never be any inequality in any of your appearances, power, education, wealth, or fame.    

            Each of you would have the same earthly advantages if I were saving you.  If our Brother were saving you, though, He would go along with a plan that pits you against each other.  Your differing advantages would cause selfishness and contention between one another.  They would make you treat each other as if you do not love one another.  Why disrupt this harmony and well being we now enjoy with one another?  I cannot see any benefit to this.

            In fact, the plan is centered on pitting us against each other, which makes me unconvinced it is the best way to achieve eternal life.  It requires that the Savior go to earth and sacrifice His life for us. He will be killed.  Who is going to take His life?  Us. We will be killing Him.  Our evil natures and bad choices will lead us to wage war against Him.

            I am not comfortable with a plan that anticipates our evil nature and does not prevent it. Why should any of us be permitted to digress so severely?  Can we not improve this plan and come up with something that anticipates the evil, but will take measures to extinguish it before its inception?  Can we not craft a way to allow us to grow at our own pace and develop only in an upward direction?

            What is more, our Brother supports a plan that will inevitably make us face injustice and undeserved punishments.  We will be put on “probation” as if we have already done something wrong.  I would never permit such unfairness.  We should never be treated like outcasts and the reason why is that we are inherently the offspring of Deity.  As such, how could we be defective?  God made us.  We are all equally worth saving in the condition we are and in any condition we may later be in. 

            Because of our nature, we deserve continuous and absolute justice, constant and complete fairness, and never-ceasing rich blessings.  We deserve paradise, not a mortal prison or a mortal probation.  We have done nothing wrong to merit such suffering.  It is not fair.  It will not be a part of my improvements to the plan.  My modifications prevent any need to suffer any unfairness or wrongs.  

            Earth life is supposed to be difficult, especially for the Savior, who cannot commit a single, small sin.  Because our eternal well-being will rest on one individual being morally perfect in the Father’s plan, what absolute assurance do we have that He will not fail when it comes time for Him to perform His atonement?  There is none.  We may be doomed to eternal destruction if He makes a single mistake in mortality.  I do not want to put my eternal welfare in His hands.And I do not like the idea of having to wait for Him in the hopes He will not err in the least bit.  It’s far too risky, especially with so many moral laws that label behavior as sin.  We need the plan to operate to save us immediately without relying on some future, risky event to succeed.   

            In addition, our older Brother wants to be a Savior that you rely on.  He wants you to depend on Him.  He wants to extend mercy to you because of your lowliness.  In these ways, He puts you in bondage to Him and takes away your freedom.Ultimately, He usurps power and authority over you.  He leads you away from self-reliance and brings you down to do according to Hisdesires.Your freedom should never be limitedin any way to any degree.  Keeping you in reliance on Him does exactly that, though.

            But, as your savior, I would take on a less controlling role.  Instead, I would empower you from the beginning and not allow you to be helpless at any point in your life.  I would permit you to be self-reliant, not in need of any mercy.  Your freedom would not be conditioned on something or someone or be limited in any way.  You would have individual responsibility for you own salvation and not be able to lose it.  I would not make you think that you cannot do things yourself.  I would not make you feel restricted.  I would give you unfettered freedom immediately, not bind you down to a foolish and vain hope that someday you will be free if you follow my desires and whims.  Basically, my improvements to the plan would be giving to you, not taking away from you.    

            Recall that as a part of the Father’s plan, Adam and Eve will begin the fall for each of us—we will not each be given the chance to choose to fall or choose not to fall.  We will be guilty and fallen because of the transgression of a parent—yet, I believe a child should not be guilty because of its parents.  No one should.  This takes away individual responsibility.  If I am going to suffer anything, including a fallen condition, then I want it to be by my choice, not someone else’s.  But I do not choose to suffer at all.  And I will not make you suffer by taking away your individual responsibility.  Rather, I will increase your individual responsibility by letting you save yourselves by whatever way you choose.  I would let you lift yourselves up to a higher state with the raw power and mental strength that you currently have.

            This brings me to one of the most difficult things for me to accept about this plan as it is.  It is that the plan would strip us of our memories and mental capacities that we now possess.  A veil would be placed over our minds.  Instead of pure knowledge and accurate memories as we now have, they would be replaced by the uncertainties of “belief” and “faith.”

            In that weakened state, you will be vulnerable to trickery and deceit.  The servants of our Brother will inevitably bring you to believe, by their traditions and their dreams and their whims and their visions and their pretended mysteries, that you should, if you do not do according to their words, offend some unknown being, who they say will be God.  I cannot bear that.  As your savior, I will preserve your intellect and even expand it while you move through life on earth so that you will never be able to be deceived.  I will let you make informed decisions, informed by the memory of what you have been taught for so long.

            Another detriment to losing our powerful mental capabilities is what I just mentioned—fear.  In the Father’s unmodified plan, we will fear that we may not be doing things right and that we will offend God.  If I were your savior, you would have no need to fear me.  You would never have to worry whether you are doing something right or wrong.  You would never have to question whether anything that you do would displease me.  Whatever you do will be nowrong.  You can do and be what you want without being penalized for it.  In effect, I will keep you from ever being able to choose evil or choose anything less than perfection.  In so doing, you will never have to fear or be afraid.

            My improvements to the plan would not be imperfect or flawed with anything digressive.  You would only be able to progress and become better.  These alterations would not be unloving and reject any of you. 

            If the Father no longer holds me back from developing fully into who I am—a Divine Being of limitless knowledge, power, and ability—then I will make sure that everyone of you, our whole family, returns united after the journey on earth that perfects our final stage of development.  I will do it.

            I will show the true love that a Parent should have—the love that makes sure every one of His own children comes home and then makes all of them equal to Him. 

            Look at our older Brother, for example.  He is exalted; He is God—He is one in unity with God the Father without having gone through this unaltered plan of mortality and a fallen body.  All of us can do the same without a fallen body as He did.  He is not special.

            There would be nothing silly, foolish, or insulting about my changes to the plan.  There would be no perversions of the right way.  I will avoid even the appearance of evil.  And so, I reject the Father’s plan as it is and ask that I become the Savior who will make sure none of us become corrupt or have to endure anything unpleasant.

            In conclusion, I testify to each of you that I have carefully reviewed the merits of the Father’s plan.  The earth life of this plan is supposed to be a test to see if we will refuse the wrong and embrace the good.  But what if the test starts now?  The Father has already given us the power to accept or reject this plan as it is—He’s testing us. 

            This is our first opportunity to exercise our agency to refuse evil at the very outset.  And so, I reject His plan and choose the best good—I choose my own, improvements to the plan and humbly ask that all of you do the same.  We’re not rejecting all of the plan, we’re making it better.  And remember, in this modified plan we can rejoice on earth from the fact that God has created all men, which means that He will also redeem all men.  In the end, all men will have eternal life no matter what they do.  That is what I will do for you as your savior.

_______________________________________________________________

            After Lucifer’s likely over emphasis on these less important virtues, a third part of the Father’s spirit children chose to follow his reasoning.  There was weeping in Heaven for that loss.[xxx]

Chapter 18: Why Satan and His Priority of Virtues are Wrong

And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

Moses 4:4.

            From the above description of how I believe Satan may have been able to convince so many spirit children of our Father with his emphasis on certain virtues, I have put a parallel comparison with the competing virtues.  What I found to be striking is that a lot of virtues, if made constant, take away agency.

            Significantly, by labeling all actions as good, Satan not only takes away agency so that you can only do good, but he also redefines what “good” is.  He makes an objective quality subjective. 

            Taking away this objectivity leaves us without standards to which a moral compass can show us the way.  The reason a compass fails is that there is no “the” way.  Any and every way works in Lucifer’s improvements to the plan.

            Additionally, by labeling all actions as good, Satan strips us of the agency to choose our own destiny.  No matter what we do, we can have only one outcome: Heaven in the highest degree.  That’s not agency, even though we freely choose our actions.  If our actions never change the outcome, then our actions mean nothing.  They do not matter.  That’s not agency.  That’s force, albeit passive. 

            Even though the force to do good is passive, it’s activecompulsion into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  It uses the passive method of deeming every action we choose as “perfect.”

            Here’s a chart contrasting the virtues Satan may have championed against the Father’s opposing virtues.  It’s important to note that nearly all of Satan’s virtues depend on being constant:

Satan’s Criticism of God’sPlan	Satan’s Virtue	The Father’s Virtue
Rejected from the Celestial Kingdom	Acceptance	Agency to Refuse and be Rejected
End the progress that is each of ours	No Damnation	Agency to Digress and be Damned
Makes us lose out on the Beings that we fundamentally are: exalted beings destined to become who we are—divine and endowed with this nature	Preservation of Identity	Agency to Change and Not be Divine—No Compulsion to Continue on in Eternal Progression and be as God
Treats us as if we are defective	Inevitable Perfection	Agency to be a Law unto Ourselves and not be Perfect
Makes us lose our rights to a future of perfection and glory	Unconditional Preservation of Rights	Agency to Maintain or Lose Rights for a Future of Glory
Prevents some, if not most, of us from being saved by treating us as defective when we choose differently	Universal, Unconditional Salvation	Conditional Salvation: Agency to Choose no Salvation and Other Ways
Prevents us from being certain about our futures	Certainty	Opportunity; Agency to Venture and Develop Faith
Behavior being labeled as wrong or evil	Sameness	Quality: Creating Various Degrees of Quality or Worth by our own Choices
Makes us unprotected against ourselves choosing wrong	Security	Choice; the Ability to Choose Wrong or Right and Create Security of our own Choosing
Makes us so we cannot remain pure	Permanence	Agency for Flexibility; Ability to Change our Minds
Makes us suffer unnecessarily	Perpetual Contentment	Exposure to Opposition
Makes us ignore others’ welfare	Constant Selflessness	Agency to Rise above Selfishness or Not
Makes us flawed and mortal	Continuous Immortality	Agency to Rise from No-Fault Corruption or Not
Makes us unequal in many ways or at least perceive inequality	Ongoing Equality	Agency to Equalize One Another or Not; Empowered to Fix no-fault Disadvantages in Life
Pits us against each other	Never-ending Harmony	Agency to Refrain from Contention or Not
Makes us digress with an evil nature	Prevention of All Evil	Agency to Eliminate Evil from Ourselves
Makes us experience injustice and unfairness	Justice Alone	Agency to Correct Injustices and Rectify Unfairness or Not
Unfairly punishes us with a probation that’s undeserved	Freedom from All Punishment	Agency to Prove Ourselves and Take Responsibility or Not
Takes from us deserved blessings and riches, making our lives painful	Pleasure	Growth of Character through Difficult Challenges
Makes us dependent on a Savior	Self Reliance Alone	Growth through Teamwork
Restricts us from doing all things our own way	Unrestricted Freedom	Freedom with Proper Limits
Controls us and makes us helpless	Steady Empowerment	Empowered to Grow from Lowliness or Not
Makes us fallen because of a parent	Individual Responsibility	Responsibility to Struggle Upward from No-fault Mortality (no-fault by Christ’s Atonement) or Not
Punishes us for being who we want to be and for living the way we want to	Unfettered Individuality	Oneness in Unity with God or Not
Takes away memory, knowledge, and mental capacities, making us vulnerable	Unlimited Capabilities; Lack of Disabilities	Development of Trust and Hope through Restricted Faculties
Takes away knowledge to make right decisions	Informed Decisions	Development of Faith
Makes us fearful to offend God	Undeviating Confidence	Carefulness and Respect
Separates us and divides us in eternity	Fully United Family	Agency to Remain as an Intact Family or Not; Ability to Help One Another Choose to Stay Together
Makes us so we cannot be equal with God if we choose wrong	Unconditional Equality with God	Conditional Equality with God

            It’s my testimony that the virtues Heavenly Father wants us to learn and exercise are more complex than Lucifer’s.  They are more advanced than the adversary’s.  Satan wanted to simplify and cement certain virtues so there would be no exceptions to the virtue’s existence.  By so doing, he turned virtues into vices. 

            It’s also my testimony that Heavenly Father designed into His Plan of Happiness a significant amount of opposition that’s not evil.  He created many instances where no matter what we choose, it will be at least a good choice.  He didn’t design His plan for us to fail.

            Our Father did, however, give us the opportunities to make the same decision that Satan did—we can follow the urges within our natural man to rebel against Him and His ways of life. 

            Satan seeks to thwart the Father’s plan, I believe, by amplifying the natural man tendencies within us, making it more difficult to choose the right.  But, the Father will always, “with the temptation[,] also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”  (1 Cor. 10:13).

            That “way to escape” many times is the protective power that we can draw on that only comes from our Savior Jesus Christ.  He is the “way,” not us: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way.”  (John 14:6). 

            That way of escape is not always within ourselves, as, I believe, many people mistakenly interpret the first part of the scripture above: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able.”  (1 Cor. 10:13). 

            Simply put, you don’t always have the ability within yourself to resist temptations that may come your way. 

            Christ enables each of us in especially difficult circumstances, giving us abilities not of our own, but the enabling power of grace comes from Him, not us. 

            We need to remember, particularly, that we might not be able to resist certain temptations on our own.  We are actually incapable.  Satan is sometimes stronger than us.  But, Christ is capable.  He provides the way out—either prospectively through what He teaches us and by His example or retroactively through His atonement and by our repentance.  Draw upon His strength and upon the opportunities for escape that He has fashioned for you and then you’ll certainly not suffer a temptation above what you are able to bear. 

            In this process, if we come to know Christ, His voice of revelation, and His teachings well-enough, then we’ll be able to put the right virtues first in our lives.  When there are clashes between good and better or better and best, we will choose the best and live the plan the way Heavenly Father intends us to—we’ll make “grape juice” instead of “apple juice” or “orange juice,” so to speak (see chapter two), and receive the “wages [and] fruit unto life eternal.”  (John 4:36).

           

---

[1]September 4, 2012, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, in the 2012-13 Notre Dame Forum, “Conviction and Compromise: Being a Person of Faith in a Liberal Democracy.”  Reported by Worldwide Newsroom, September 11, 2012, “Mormon Apostle Among Prominent Religious Leaders Discussing Faith and Politics at Notre Dame,” http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-apostle-among-prominent-religious-leaders-discussing-faith-and-politics-at-notre-dame.

---

[i] This is a gap-filler.  It answers the question, “If Satan was not part of the original Plan of Salvation, then why was he sent to earth with us?”  Conceivably, the Father could have punished him by sending him to another realm away from us where he would have no influence on us, but, He didn’t.  My best guess is that the Father sent him here because he, along with all the other spirits, had already proven worthy to come to earth by actions in the premortal world.  The reward of coming to earth would be similar to the reward of obtaining a resurrected body after this life.  Whether good or evil here in mortality, we have already proven worthy to receive a resurrected body by keeping our first estate before being born into our second estate.  Similarly, whether good or evil in our first estate, if any of us had already proven worthy of going to earth at some earlier point in premortality, then the Lord would still send us here.  So, He would still send Satan and his followers to earth, even though they were evil just before mortality began.

[ii] This is a reasonable interpretation of scripture.  At Judgment Day, when the Lord assigns us to a kingdom within Heaven, it does not seem at that point that we will disagree with Him.  We will end up where we feel most comfortable because of the lesser laws of the kingdom to live by and because of the kind of people we will be with.  It seems reasonable that the others in the same kingdom will have similar desires to live by the laws of that kingdom as we do.  They will prefer that lifestyle.  We are usually more comfortable living with people that live by the same standards we do.  Thus, in the end, we will be in the kingdom of Heaven we most subjectively prefer, even if it is not objectively the most ideal kingdom in Heaven. 

[iii] This shows my belief that Heavenly Father allowed agency for us by providing necessary opposition without requiring Satan.  He provided opposition.  By giving us a fallen body at first, He gave us the opportunity for choosing to follow its base desires or to follow His commandments.  The Lord’s laws would clash with the fallen body’s carnal desires because by following those desires, we violate God’s commandments.  By following His commandments, we don’t follow the unrighteous impulses that are rooted in selfishness.

[iv] Rebelling against God’s laws or intentionally violating them creates “evil.”  Thus, I believe evil can exist without Satan.  We can be our own source of evil. 

[v] I believe it is an accurate interpretation that in “taking upon” Him “our sins,” it includes Christ taking upon Him the punishments for our sins.

[vi] There seems to be some disagreement among Latter-day Saints about when the veil is lifted.  Some believe it will be lifted upon death and that people will go through the spirit world with a memory of premortality.  I believe that for most people, it will not be lifted until Judgment Day in order to allow people a fair chance to reject or accept the Gospel as taught in spirit prison by the many righteous spirits.  Even the righteous spirits will not have the veil lifted, I believe, to give them a fair chance to teach the Gospel.  With the veil lifted, it would be easier for them to be overbearing on others about accepting the Gospel.

[vii] The doctrine of redeeming the dead seems to be that which would convince spirits to willingly accept the Plan even though they would know in premortality that many of them would go to earth and live a full life without ever having the fullness of the Gospel.

[viii] Some may disagree with me here and say that “feeling” the Spirit is always a physical sensation.  Because of Romans 8:16-17, I believe it is always Spirit to spirit and the physical sensation is secondary and sometimes not even present.

[ix] I don’t know of any mathematical balance between the influences of the Spirit and the natural man, but it seems that the oppositions would be enough to prevent us from being overly influenced one way or the other by these forces that are outside of the individual wills of our spirits.

[x] This statement recognizes the concept of multiple causes for a single outcome just as a baked loaf of bread is not the result of a single ingredient.  Each cause should be given its due credit for making the outcome happen; each should be responsible to the degree it caused the outcome.  I believe the choices we make are based on many factors that each help in causing us to make our ultimate decision.  We want will power to be the most influential factor for our decisions.  But, it seems to me that our will power can be easily manipulated by forces beyond our control and we end up “choosing” to do things that we would not have otherwise done.    

[xi] I don’t know of scripture that teaches this, but I believe it to be solid truth that the Lord will, at some point in our physical or spiritual existence, compensate us for all the injustices we individually suffer in life in order for us to be treated at least fairly and justly.

[xii] It seems to me that the Lord would give us this fair warning about how our negative choices could impact the rest of us so that our decisions to accept the Plan are informed decisions.

[xiii] This warning is about the two types of situations where we would not be responsible for our wrong decisions, or at least not fully responsible.  Either (1) we sin in ignorance or (2) we sin because of causes and forces beyond our control that overwhelm our will.  We don’t typically recognize the second situation where we are not accountable for our sins; I believe there are times when we “willingly” choose to commit sin, but after examining the entire situation better, we see that we were caused in whole or in substantial part to make that choice by unfair circumstances not of our choosing.  In these situations, our guiltiness for sin would be reduced by the percentage that the circumstances unfairly made us supposedly choose the sin.

[xiv] The reason why we are judged by the desires of hearts and not just by our actions is my best guess here—I believe we are judged by our desires because our actions do not always reflect what we wanted to happen or wanted to do.

[xv]See endnote two (ii).

[xvi] This is a reasonable interpretation by the fact that there will be differing laws in each kingdom; in other words, other kingdoms will not have as high of standards to live by as in the Celestial kingdom, which means living lower standards will be acceptable.  See D&C 88:36,38,22-24: “All kingdoms have a law given....and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions....For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he…must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.”

[xvii] This is a gap-filler.  We don’t know how Adam and Eve were chosen.  It may very well have been the Father Himself who selected them because of their righteousness in premortality.  After all, He did the choosing of who the Savior would be.  But, the objection that it is not fair for us to be fallen because of the decisions of our parents, Adam and Eve, would seem to be a valid one.  It would be valid unless we had chosen beforehand to let them fall for us.  This seems logical that we did make this premortal choice because we know that we did, in fact, make the premortal choice to accept God’s Plan.  Receiving a fallen body was part of the Plan. 

[xviii]See endnote three (iii).

[xix] This is a gap-filler.  The scriptures never say this.  I believe, though, that in order for God’s Plan to work without Satan, then Adam and Eve, of necessity, would have to have the opportunity to learn the importance of each commandment and then recognize the differing values. 

[xx] This is a gap-filler.  It answers the question, “Why did Satan do wrong if he tempted them to do what they were ultimately supposed to do?”  One of the reasons Satan did wrong here, I believe, was that he sped the process up without allowing Adam and Eve to learn things on their own.  The Lord would have wanted them to learn from Him what to do, either through answers to their prayers to Him on this subject, or through subsequent training and experience they would have gained later.    

[xxi] This is my belief that it would be important for Adam and Eve to go through a learning process before making the decision to follow the best commandment.  They must learn to do a proactive effort rather than learn to refrain from doing what they are already doing.  The Lord didn’t keep secret what they were prohibited from doing, but He did keep secret what they needed to do to follow the best law so they could learn it on their own or ask Him about it later.  There seems to be wisdom in this set up.  It starts them out not committing an explicitly prohibited wrong—the wrong prohibited was an act, not an omission.  It would be very negative in the reverse.  If instead of making a prohibition against doing an act (eating the fruit), the Lord made the explicit prohibition against ever omitting the right act (having children), then Adam and Eve would have been transgressors from the very outset by not having children immediately.  This, of course, would have been unfair if from the beginning they had not learned how they would be able to have children.  Additionally, prohibiting any omission of the right act would be especially bad if the right omitted was the most important law, like the law to have children was.  I also see wisdom in the prohibition being against doing something, rather than omitting something, because it makes the omission of that effort a virtue.  It is easier to omit than commit.  So, the Lord not only set it up so that omitting the best right was not prohibited, but that omitting the wrong act was a good virtue by itself.  I think it’s also important to note that the “omission” was never truly an “omission” because no time frame within which to do the act had been set; therefore, the act cannot be omitted unless it is never done after all time is ended. 

[xxii] This is a gap-filler.   Nowhere in scripture or other doctrine have I heard of the idea that Adam and Eve would be voluntarily condescending to a fallen state as a part of the Plan, much like Christ voluntarily condescended to be born mortal so He could later complete the atonement.  I believe that for God’s Plan to work without Satan, Adam and Eve would learn of the need to become fallen in order to have children.  Then they would be following the more important commandment.  This leads me to believe that as a part of making an informed decision to follow the better commandment, they would also have to realize that they must voluntarily choose to fall for the Lord’s Plan to continue correctly.  And, in that way, they truly exercise agency between two opposing options.

[xxiii] This can be a questionable statement because it pairs virtuousness with transgression.  It shows how the Lord’s punishments can be beneficial for us.  It’s very loving to make a punishment so valuable.

[xxiv] The idea here provides another reason for why Satan’s involvement in tempting Adam and Eve was so wrong—it wasn’t necessarily that he tempted them with a proper goal, but it was that he tempted them to achieve the goal for wrong reasons.  He tempted them with selfish reasons about how good the fruit would be to them, not with the selfless reason of eating it so they could obey the higher law and have children as a part of God’s Plan.

[xxv] This reflects that it was not part of Heavenly Father’s plan for Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit because of Satan’s temptations or for any other reasons than to obey the higher law that “man may be.”  (2 Nephi 2:25).

[xxvi] This reiterates my position that God’s Plan was fully sufficient with only the oppositions He provided and not with Satan and his oppositions.

[xxvii]See endnote one (i).

[xxviii] This expresses my position that evil was not and is not a part of God’s Plan, but He allows the devil and his angels their agency to oppose the Plan.  They have this opportunity because they were already worthy of at least coming to earth (but not necessarily with a body).

[xxix]See endnote twenty-five (xxv).

[xxx] The following is a chart with some of my more salient beliefs coupled with some scriptural and general authority support I’ve found:

The Fall of Adam & Eve

Taylor’s Beliefs/Understandings	Authoritative Support
AGENCY: The Lord not only gives His children the gift of agency, but also provides them with opportunities to exercise the gift of choice for their spiritual growth.	2 Nephi 2:27—Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. “God has given to all men an agency and has granted to us the privilege…to do that which is right or that which is wrong.”  Joseph F. Smith. “Next to life itself, free agency is God’s greatest gift to mankind, providing thereby the greatest opportunity…to advance.”  Harold B. Lee.  “[God] always acts with unfailing respect for the freedom and independence that we possess.  He wants to help us and pleads for the chance to assist us, but he will not do so in violation of our agency.”  Howard W. Hunter. Helamen 14:31—He hath given unto you that ye might know good from evil, and he hath given unto you that ye mightchoose life or death. Moses 6: 55—And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good. 2 Nephi 2:16—[M]an could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. D&C 93:30—All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself.
AGENCY IN ACTION: Consistent with His work of providing opportunities to exercise agency, the Lord gave Adam and Eve two opposing commandments that required a conscious exercise of agency—either proactively have children or passively refrain from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.	Gen. 1:28—And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply. Gen. 2:16-17—And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of…the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gen. 3:12,24, 4:1-2—And the man said…I did eat….So he drove out the man….And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived. 2 Nephi 2:22-23—And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed…they would have had no children. Moses 5:11—And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed.
OPPOSITION WITHOUT SATAN: The two commandments provided Adam and Eve with opposition, without relying on Satan to create that opposition.	2 Nephi 2:15-16—And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man…it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition….Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself.
CONTRADICTORY COMMANDS: Obedience to one commandment would lead to the breaking of the other.  For example, if Adam and Eve chose to follow their first command and have children, they first would have to have become mortal and the only way provided to become mortal was eating the fruit; but if Adam and Eve chose not to ever eat the fruit, they would have never been able to have children and thus keep their first commandment, which equates to an eventual breaking of their first commandment to have children.	2 Nephi 2:20,22-23—And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth….And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen….[a]nd all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children.
EVIL/SIN WITHOUT SATAN: The consequent Fall for eating the fruit provides enough evil through the condition of the “natural man” without any reliance on Satan for that evil.  This means that God’s Plan of Salvation could have worked without Satan.  People still could have progressed or digressed to the varying kingdoms of Heaven.	Ether 3:2—[W]e[,]…because of the fall our natures[,] have become evil continually. Mosiah 3:19—For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man. But see: D&C 29:39—And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter [not “experience bitter” or “know bitter”] they could notknow the sweet. However see:Moses 6:56—And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves. 2 Nephi 2:5—And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil.
SATAN EXISTS: Satan exists here on earth because in premortality, before he rebelled, he made choices that assigned him to this earth.  Even though God does not need Satan, He allows him to exist and makes the best of a bad situation by having a benefit come from his evil.	“Long before this world was created, all of the men and women who were assigned to this earth lived in a spiritual existence.”  Spencer W. Kimball. “We began to make choices as spirit children in our Heavenly Father’s presence. Our choices there made us worthy to come to earth.”  Gospel Principles, pp. 17-21. “[Satan] is a spirit son of God who was once an angel ‘in authority in the presence of God’ (D&C 76:25; see also Isaiah 14:12; D&C 76:26–27). But in the premortal Council in Heaven, Lucifer, as Satan was then called, rebelled against God. Since that time, he has sought to destroy the children of God on the earth.”  True to the Faith, p. 154. “God allows Satan to oppose the good. God said of Satan: ‘I caused that he should be cast down; And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice’ (Moses 4:3–4).  Satan does all he can to destroy God’s work. He seeks “the misery of all mankind. … He seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself” (2 Nephi 2:18, 27). He does not love us. He does not want any good thing for us (see Moroni 7:17). He does not want us to be happy.”  Gospel Principles, pp. 17-21. Isaiah 42:16—And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not…I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.
OTHER WAY: Instead of choosing to eat the fruit when Satan tempted them, Adam and Eve could have prayed or spoken directly with the Father and asked Him how to resolve the dilemma.	3 Nephi 18:15—Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye must watch and pray always, lest ye be tempted by the devil, and ye be led away captive by him. D&C 93:49—What I say unto one I say unto all; pray always lest that wicked one have power in you, and remove you out of your place. Alma 34:23—Yea, cry unto him against the devil, who is an enemy to all righteousness. Luke 18:1—And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint.
THE FATHER’S RESOLUTION: Had Adam and Eve desired to keep both commandments and asked the Father how to resolve the situation, the Father would have given them additional light and truth.  He would have told them of a way that resembles what Satan had tempted—eat the fruit—but which was profoundly different.  He would have told them that they could selflessly choose to voluntarily sacrifice their lives in order for the children of men to be born—a sacrifice much like the Savior’s.  They would have to choose to partake of the fruit to voluntarily condescend and take upon themselves a fallen state, which is the natural result of breaking the first command to Adam.  That choice, however, would not be considered “sin” in part because one of the consequences of doing so was a blessing—to become as God in knowing good from evil and to have a greater depth of understanding about life.  The Lord provided, therefore, for edification.  The sacrifice would bless both mankind as a whole and Adam & Eve individually.	D&C 93:28—He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things. Moses 6:48—Because that Adam fell, we are. 2 Nephi 2:25—Adam fell that men might be. Alma 12:22,24-25—Adam did fall by the partaking of the forbidden fruit…And we see that death comes upon mankind….Now, if it had not been for the plan of redemption, which was laid from [before] the foundation of the world, there could have been no resurrection of the dead; but there was a plan of redemption laid, which shall bring to pass the resurrection of the dead. Moses 4:6-12—And Satan…sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God. 2 Nephi 2:24—But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. “In the Garden of Eden, God commanded Adam and Eve to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Moses 2:28). He also commanded them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Moses 3:17). As long as they did not partake of the forbidden fruit, they would remain in the garden and would not die. But they also would not be able to obey the command to multiply (Moses 5:11; 2 Nephi 2:23). Heavenly Father gave them agency to choose between the two commands.”  Lesson 4: “Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened”, Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, 12. “The Fall was not an accident, not an obstruction to God's plan, and not a wrong turn in the course of humanity. ‘The Lord…created the earth that it should be inhabited’ by his children (1 Ne. 17:36), and since Adam and Eve would have had no children in their Edenic condition, the Fall was a benefit to mankind. It was part of the Father's plan, being both foreknown to him and essential to the human family. All these things were "done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things" (2 Ne. 2:24).”  Encyclopedia of Mormonism, p. 485. “Adam and Eve were chosen to come here as the primal parents of humanity.  And they were placed in the Garden of Eden where there was no death and we read in the scriptures that they could have lived in that Garden forever, but not under the most favorable circumstances.  For there, although they were in the presence of God, they were deprived of certain knowledge and understanding in a condition where they could not understand clearly things that were necessary for them to know.  Therefore, it became essential to their salvation and to ours that their nature should be changed.  The only way it could be changed was by the violation of the law under which they were at that time.  Mortality could not come without violation of that law and mortality was essential, a step towards our exaltation.  Therefore, Adam partook of the forbidden fruit, forbidden in a rather peculiar manner for it is the only place in all the history where we read that the Lord forbade something and yet said, “Nevertheless thou mayest choose for thyself.”  He never said that of any sin.  I don’t not look upon Adam’s fall as a sin, although it was a transgression of the law.  The temporal law.And he became subject to death.”  Elder Joseph Fielding Smith. (*See last page below chart for more information)
The motivation of eating the fruit also for the sake of bringing forth mankind was an essential motivation—not Satan’s temptation that they should do so solely for selfish purposes and solely for their own benefit.	Moses 4:6-12—And Satan…sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world. And he said unto the woman: Yea, hath God said—Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (And he spake by the mouth of the serpent.) And the woman said unto the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; But of the fruit of the tree which thou beholdest in the midst of the garden, God hath said—Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman: Ye shall not surely die; For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it became pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat. “One of the major techniques of the devil is to cause human beings to think they are following God’s ways, when in reality they are deceived by the devil to follow other paths.”  Bible Dictionary, 656–57. “Eve was fulfilling the foreseen purposes of God by the part she took in the great drama of the fall; yet she did not partake of the forbidden fruit with that object in view, but with intent to act contrary to the divine command, being deceived by Sata….Adam’s part in the great event was essentially different from that of his wife; he was not deceived; on the contrary he deliberately decided to do as Eve desired, that he might carry out the purposes of his Maker with respect to the race of men.”  James E. Talmage. D&C 50:22-23—[B]oth are edified and rejoice together. And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

*“Just why the Lord would say to Adam that he forbade him to partake of the tree is not made clear in the Bible account, but in the original as it comes to us in the Book of Moses it is made definitely clear.  It is that the Lord said to Adam that if he wished to remain as he was in the garden, then he was not to eat the fruit, but if he desired to eat it and partake of death he was at liberty to do so.  So really it was not in the true sense a transgression of a divine commandment.  Adam made the wise decision.”  Elder Joseph Fielding Smith.

“God prepared this earth as a home for His children. Adam and Eve were chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34; 4:26). Their part in our Father’s plan was to bring mortality into the world. They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:54–56.)….Adam and Eve were foreordained to become our first parents.”  Gospel Principles, pp. 26-30.

“Some people believe Adam and Eve committed a serious sin when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, latter-day scriptures help us understand that their Fall was a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us. Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.  After the Fall, Eve said, “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed [children]… (Moses 5:11).”  Gospel Principles, pp. 26-30.

“The Fall is an integral part of Heavenly Father's plan of salvation (see 2 Nephi 2:15–16; 9:6). It has a twofold direction—downward yet forward. In addition to introducing physical and spiritual death, it gave us the opportunity to be born on the earth and to learn and progress. Through our righteous exercise of agency and our sincere repentance when we sin, we can come unto Christ and, through His Atonement, prepare to receive the gift of eternal life.”  True to the Faith, p. 57.

“Latter-day revelation makes clear that the Fall is a blessing and that Adam and Eve should be honored as the first parents of all mankind.”  Guide to the Scriptures, Fall of Adam and Eve.

“The fall of Adam is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations.”  BibleDictionary, p. 670.