In this episode, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Jennifer Finlayson-Fife, Chelsea Fife, and Michael Fife discuss these tensions, their possible origins, and the reasons for the ascendance of “obedience to leaders” rhetoric and a focus on performing activities that yield more easily measurable results. They also explore the call to deeper discipleship and the understandings and pathways that help keep the ideal of free agents freely submitting to the divine will based upon their own relationship with God. The primary questions underlying the discussion are: What is spiritual maturity? How can we work toward it and come to live joyfully in a church culture that doesn’t always encourage us to grow too far beyond “I Am a Child of God”? How do we become “adults” of God? How do we remember always that the true call is not to remain children but to mature to the point where we are ready to become brides of Christ, full partners with God, partakers of the eternal life?

After listening, please share your ideas in the comments section below!

In one of her videos, the Non-Muslim Hijabi said something like, ‘Don’t just do something because the Koran says so. Find out the reasons for yourself and do it because you feel the benefits.’  One Muslim woman responded, ‘What is wrong with doing it only to show your obedience to God?’

I thought that was a good point, and it was a clarifying moment for me. If I believed I had a reliable source of God’s Word, I’d be all over it, and I would do my best to be obedient to it, trusting that His understanding was greater than mine. I don’t happen to believe that we have a very reliable, literal, Word of God, so I rely on “living a commandment in order to gain a testimony of it.”  I find that all of the Mormon lifestyle teachings have really good, practical reasons behind them. While some people criticize the church as trying to “control” its members with all these rules, I experience the church as trying to protect its members from suffering by giving good counsel on Natural Law.   I appreciate the Mormon sentiment I’ve heard that those of other religions who live the same lifestyle teachings will progress in their spiritual lives because of it.

The Mormon lifestyle teachings seem to be really definitive of Mormonism in a lot of people’s minds. Many non-Mormons know Mormons as “those guys that don’t drink or smoke or even drink coffee”.  People so often assume that those who leave do so because of their relationship with the commandments, rather than their relationship with the theology. This would make sense if you thought the commandments were the hallmark of Mormonism, or at least the hardest part. I do know some people who lost their testimony and then immediately tried all the vices, since there was no longer a reason not to.  So, it does seem like the commandments are the main focus and deciding factor for a lot of people.

I confused people by being an “active” non-member.  One person said to me, “If you attend services and follow the commandments, what else is there? My eyes popped out of my head. But I guess that question makes sense if you assume that following the commandments is a demonstration of faith in the Prophets and the Book of Mormon.  (Which is the “what else”.)

My questions for the reader are:

Do you follow the commandments out of faith and obedience, or because of a personal conviction that they are important to your spiritual growth?  Do you think one reason has greater merit than the other and why?

Are the commandments central to your faith as a Mormon? Are they outdated relics? Control tactics? Unnecessarily rigid guidelines? Or essential tools for your spiritual progress and transformation?

[poll=99]

The phrase “Moderation in all things” is attributed to Terence, a Roman comic dramatist who lived from 185-159 B.C. (or alternately to Plautus, same profession, who lived from 250-184 B.C.)  However, suffice it to say, the philosophy of living moderately (avoiding excesses) was common in ancient Greece and Rome.

First, a few quotes from church leaders about this concept of “moderation in all things”:

Joseph F. Smith:  “The saints should not be unwise, but rather understand what the will of the Lord is, and practice moderation in all things.”

Ezra Taft Benson:  “A priesthood holder should actively seek for things that are virtuous and lovely and not that which is debasing or sordid.  He does things in moderation and is not given to overindulgence.”

James Faust: ”Part of the spirit of the Word of Wisdom is moderation in all things, except those things specifically forbidden by the Lord.” 

Dallin Oaks:  “Moderation in all things is not a virtue, because it would seem to justify moderation in commitment.”

It would seem there are some differences of opinion about whether moderation is good or not.  This seems like a question of personal philosophy rather than a matter of doctrine.

So, where do you fall on the path between abstinence and indulgence?  Do you tend to push the envelope, believing that the restrictions are already strict without making them more stringent, or do you define things as narrowly as possible, believing that even the very appearance of evil can lead to a weak person’s downfall?  Is it situational?  Personal?  Here’s a poll to see where you fall on some of these possible Word of Wisdom indulgences:  coffee, tea, alcohol, and meat.

 [poll id="61"]

[poll id="62"] [poll id="63"] [poll id="64"]

Discuss.

I often wonder whether sometimes we at church focus too much on quantitative things. It’s the last day of the month and so we call the people we’re supposed to home or visit teach and ask them if we can come over. And we’re relieved when they say yes, because that means we can go visit them and then check that box off of our to-do list. Have we really fulfilled our calling if that’s the way we do it? Quantitatively, I guess we have, but qualitatively, I would say we definitely missed the mark.

I have known people over the years who, when something bad happens in their lives, will say: “I don’t understand. I’ve done everything I’m supposed to do. I read my scriptures, I say prayers every morning and night, we got married in the temple, we attend the temple once a month (or whatever the number might be), we have FHE every week. So I don’t understand how this bad thing could happen to me.”

I’m not even going to begin trying to understand why bad things happen to people, but I find this tendency that we have to make lists of all the things we’re “supposed to do” curious because it seems, to me, to miss the mark. It seems to be more quantitative in nature. It seems like the kinds of qualities we are supposed to be developing cannot be surveyed; they cannot be checked off on a box or scratched off of a to-do list. They’re not things that we are ever done with. They’re things that are a process and they are difficult, it not impossible, to measure. They’re messy. They’re complicated. Christ did not come to earth and deliver a checklist to us and suggest that once we had checked everything off, we were finished. Sure, he gave us an example to follow and we have commandments that hopefully help us make good choices, but I prefer to think of things as much more of a process of becoming, rather than arriving at some point at which we have done all the right things.

Don’t we sometimes judge people with a checklist? Does he come to Sacrament meeting? Check. Does he do his home teaching? Check. Does he go to the temple every month? Check. Does he keep the (outwardly obvious parts of) the Word of Wisdom? Check. Does he wear a white shirt and tie to church? Check. If you don’t judge people like this, then good for you, but I have been in church meetings and have participated in such conversations about people. It’s not our place to pass those kinds of judgments on people. We don’t know what’s going on in people’s lives and in their hearts. There are some things we can see, but there are so many more that we can’t see. And I think often, those things that we can’t see are what matters most.

So what do you think? Are we (Mormons) quals or quants?

Charles Radford

A colorful case in point: in March 1971, East Pakistan won the majority of the seats in the National Assembly. This would center power in the ethnically distinct Bengali East Pakistan region. However, the Western military dictator, Yahya Khan would have none of it. He sent his forces to repress the Eastern Bengalis en masse, killing hundreds of thousands of East Bengalis. This would culminate in a flood of refugees to Eastern India—somewhere to the tune of 10 million. This obviously caused strains for the Indo-Pak relations. War broke out quickly—a war which the East Pakistanis won. They eventually broke off and declared themselves to be an independent Bangladesh. Around this same time, a low-level bureaucrat in Dakka, Bangladesh named Archer Blood sent a barely classified (marked with only “secret” instead of “top secret”) memo declaring the U.S. government to be “morally bankrupt” for its complacency on the issue.

Radford had access to key U.S. documents regarding U.S. policy during this war. During the famed

Jack Anderson

India-Pakistan War in 1971, Nixon notably declared the United States to be neutral. However, Nixon was privately “tilting” in their direction, a reality that Radford leaked to fellow Latter-day Saint Jack Anderson, a prominent newsman for the Washington Post through stolen documents . This was no mere geopolitical move, however; Jack Anderson would win a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the incident. Anderson would later find himself on Nixon’s enemies list and even a possible target of assassination. G. Gordon Liddy even talked to a doctor about putting LSD in his soup. Nixon’s men were also considered trying to tie Anderson and Radford together through a possible homosexual relationship. I do not take that claim at all seriously—this is Nixon after all (and my M.A. thesis is on Nixon—this is a man I know something about).

Faithful Latter-day Saints—what are we to do? Anderson was as active as they come. Radford as well. Was Radford’s actions justified given the horrific situation of genocide taking place? Anderson revealed secret documents about the powers-that-be to the world. Was he standing up for the right or failing to follow Christ’s counsel to “render unto Caesar” and Paul’s counsel to let the powers that be reign supreme until Christ comes again?

For the purpose of this post, I will set aside war-time or mass killings (sorry, but the arm cutting off incident is out) and only consider the individual killings in which God was specifically implicated in the text as an accomplice.

Back to Laban.  This Book of Mormon story is often cited as an example of Nephi’s obedience.  It is also pretty disgusting.  After Nephi hacks off his head with his own sword, he takes the clothes off the headless body and puts them on so he can pretend to be Laban.  Yech.  Nephi hesitates.  He doesn’t ask if Laban deserves to die in his sins, like when Hamlet vacillates about killing his uncle.  He hesitates because he doesn’t want to get his hands dirty.  He doesn’t want to commit a sin.

10 And it came to pass that I was ^aconstrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

  11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the ^aLord hath ^bdelivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had ^ctaken away our property.

  12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

  13 Behold the Lord ^aslayeth the ^bwicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is ^cbetter that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in ^dunbelief.

Does Laban deserve to die?  Not to blame the victim, but any decent defense attorney would point out that Laban was not a nice guy.  He wouldn’t give them the brass plates even for a very generous price; up to that point, he was merely being difficult.  After that, he lusted after their property and stole from them, and then he ordered his servants to kill them.  And he was a lush, lying drunken in the streets, so not even a polite, gentlemanly sort of person.  The Spirit’s rationale is basically “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” in this case, Laban.

Was the murder justifiable homicide?  Would Nephi have been convicted for this murder?  I’m no legal expert, but I have watched a lot of Law & Order, so I’m close.  Nephi could plead self-defense because Laban had ordered his servants to kill him and his brothers.  He could probably plead severe emotional disturbance after the beating he took from his brothers who didn’t want to go back and the difficulty of leaving their home to live in the desert.  He might even get that defense upgraded to PTSD (post-tramatic stress disorder).  Nephi would also have a solid case to plead insanity (he saw an angel in the cavity of the rock and heard a voice tell him to kill Laban).  And he was really just doing what God (or the Spirit) told him to do, so he could have rolled on God (or the Spirit) in a plea bargaining agreement.  And no jury is going to convict God (they might convict the Spirit, but just try putting Him in a holding cell), even on Law & Order.

So, Laban was on God’s hit list because he was wicked, and he was at the wrong place at the wrong time and got in the way of God’s plan.  So he had to go.  But, didn’t a nation dwindle and perish in unbelief anyway?  The Lamanites weren’t exactly church-going, law abiding citizens for the next few hundred years.  So shouldn’t Laman and Lemuel have been on God’s hit list to prevent their future generations from dwindling and perishing in unbelief due to their poor examples?

I see a few problems with killing off Laman & Lemuel:

• While many of their kids were bad, many were good.  In fact, they kind of came out on top at the end.  Although not all benefited from the plates of brass, some did.
• The spirit progeny of prematurely dead Laman & Lemuel would presumably still have to be born somewhere, some other time.
• Can you really totally blame the parents?  Don’t we believe that men will be punished for our own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression?
• God didn’t order the hit; therefore, it’s not okay to kill.  The rule is don’t kill.  Except when God says.  Then, go for it.

Contrast this with another group of people in the Book of Mormon who were on God’s hit list:  the faithful who were being martyred in the auto-da-fe after being converted to Christianity by Alma and Amulek.  Amulek wanted to stretch forth his hand to stop the killing

11 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 ^aglory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the ^bjudgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the ^cblood of the ^dinnocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

Admittedly, there are some differences to these two incidents:

• Nephi takes action, whereas Alma is constrained to non-interference.  He does not actively kill anyone.

• Laban was guilty of attempted murder and died in his sins.  The victims in Alma’s story were completely innocent and would theoretically have salvation.

• Laban was standing in the way of other people’s salvation (or so we are told).  The victims in Alma’s story were killed to provide damnation to their killers.  Weren’t they pretty much damned already?  Alma wanted to stop the killing, not prevent it from starting. 

So, who is safe from God’s hit list in the Book of Mormon?  Not the wicked, and not the innocent and righteous.  So, perhaps the real lessons here are:

1. When and how we die isn’t that important to God, just how we live our lives.  No one is totally safe from being killed in nasty ways.  Think of that as you are drifting off to sleep tonight.

2. God merely cares that His plan goes forward unchecked, so interfering with His plan could lead to an unfortunate incident involving one’s death.  I’m just sayin’.

 So, will God cut Laban some slack on judgment day for being killed at his peak of wickedness since the order came down from on high?  And would the world have been a better place without Laman and Lemuel making it to the promised land?

And how does this compare with God’s hit list in the OT?  (No one is on God’s hit list in NT or D&C–and in the D&C, a few are pretty darn lucky they are not!)  The weirdest individual killing in the OT, IMO, is Uzzah being killed for steadying the ark.  It would be hard to argue that Uzzah was in the way of God’s plan.  So, does that mean that individual killings in the OT (implicating God) are to make an example out of someone or to teach an object lesson (e.g. “don’t steady the ark”)?  Or is that just the best we can do with such weird material when confronted with teaching a Gospel Doctrine lesson?  Or, perhaps the ark had some sort of technological security system that made it fatal to steady vs. God actually having to intervene in real-time to strike Uzzah down (a la the Smoke Monster on LOST).