Korihor and Social Darwinism

The Book of Mormon contains the teachings of three great heretics or Anti-Christs. The most famous of these is probably Korihor, the Anti-Christ who confronted the prophet Alma. Here is a quick recap of the story. Korihor taught that there was no need for Atonement, there was no God and that whatever a man did was no crime. He debated Alma and demanded a sign of God’s existence. As a sign from God he was struck dumb. When Korihor was struck dumb he admitted that he had always known there was a God and asked to be healed, but was denied this request. He ended his life pitifully, trampled down among a merciless crowd.

The Book of Mormon presumably includes these stories and teachings so that we may recognize these same false doctrines today. It serves as a warning. So it is important to understand exactly what false doctrine is being taught. Obviously, Korihor taught that there was no God and we usually focus on this in Sunday school. But this is not the only thing he taught. There are many atheists who are also humanists, care about others and live moral lives. But Korihor was not this kind of atheist. His teachings encouraged an immoral way of living. He had five basic teachings. (Alma 30:17)

1. “There could be no atonement made for the sins of men”
2. “Every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature”
3. “Every man prospered according to his genius”
4. “Every man conquered according to his strength”
5. “Whatsoever a man did was no crime”

In Korihor’s own view we don’t need God. We don’t need atonement for our sins because nothing we do is sinful. The supreme authority is one’s self. The only thing we have to do is climb our way to the top using our abilities, intelligence and strength.

This reminds me of a more modern philosophy called Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is a philosophy that justifies and exalts the pursuit of wealth without regard to compassion or responsibility for others on the grounds that the cutthroat business world promotes the “survival of the fittest.” This philosophy is often placed historically in the late nineteenth century but similar ideas are alive and well today. The English philosopher Herbert Spencer saw natural selection, or in his words “survival of the fittest”, working in nature and concluded that this was not only the way things work in nature, but the way they should work in all areas of life, including economics.

In Spencer’s view, predatory instincts served to "exterminate such sections of mankind as stand in the way, with the same sternness that they exterminate beasts of prey and herds of useless animals." Spencer became wildly popular among the elite industrial tycoons of America. People like to think that their way of life is moral and correct and Social Darwinism not only justified harsh business practices, it encouraged and glorified them. In response to the sympathetic feelings we might have toward those less fortunate Spencer tried to put our minds at ease:

"Those shoulderings aside of the weak by the strong, which leave so many 'in shallows and in miseries,' are the decrees of a large, far-seeing benevolence. It seems hard that an unskillfulness which with all his efforts he cannot overcome, should entail hunger upon the artisan. It seems hard that a labourer incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows, should have to bear the resulting privations. It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life and death... The whole effort of nature is to get rid of such, to clear the world of them, and make room for better."

Social Darwinism today takes form in some of these commonly-held beliefs:

“If you work hard you can make it. Poor people just haven’t put forth the effort to succeed.”

“If the poor would just get up and work then they wouldn’t be poor anymore.”

“If we help the poor it will just encourage them to be lazy.”

“I worked hard for what I have. Why should I help anyone else? No one helped me.”

“This is a harsh, cruel world and some people just aren’t going to be as successful. There’s nothing you can do about it so you just have to accept it.”

“We shouldn’t create a society of dependents.”

These ideas cover a broad range of economic and political issues that I won’t try to cover here. I have my own doubts about the efficacy of government action to solve these problems. But my main concern is the philosophy of Social Darwinism and what religion has to say about it.

Korihor was very concerned with possessions. He accused the priests of taking property from the working people and living off of them. This was a false accusation but we can see that Korihor believed that the church was keeping people from enjoying their own possessions. He said that the church was keeping the people under a yoke of bondage “that they durst no look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges. Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own…” (Alma 30:27-28)

Korihor’s doctrine was very individualistic and meritocratic. In his view, every man prospered according to his own genius and conquered according to his own strength. A man owed nothing to God or to any other person. This was an extreme expression of ingratitude. In the Bible, the Lord, warned the people not to forget what God had done for them.

“Beware that thou forget not the Lord thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the Lord thy God… And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day.” (Deuteronomy 8:10-18)

Everything that we have we owe to God. This includes our intelligence and our strength that allows us to prosper and to conquer. And God does not desire that those who have greater ability and strength than others trample the less-fortunate under their feet. Rather God desires that we impart of our substance one to another. It is true that this is a harsh, cruel world but that doesn’t mean that we should perpetuate that condition deliberately. If you are blessed with great business acumen or technical ability or any number of abilities that have enabled you to succeed the Lord expects that these abilities will be used to serve. Our talents and gifts are not to be hoarded and buried in the earth but should be used to bless the lives of others.

What of the philosophy that we shouldn’t help the poor because it will make them lazy and create a society of dependents? King Benjamin addressed this in the Book of Mormon. “Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent.” (Mosiah 4:17-18) It is not for us to judge others, ever. Maybe the beggar would just buy a beer with some change. But that doesn’t mean you can’t give him food directly. What’s even better is to work to address the social and economic conditions that led to the beggar being where he is in the first place. We have a culture in the workplace and in management that can be more employee-focused. We don’t have to depress wages and salaries to the lowest possible level to increase profits. That is the culture of Social Darwinism, not Christianity.

The essence of Korihor’s teaching was selfishness. Korihor replaced worship of God with worship of self. Korihor taught that we should use our strength, intelligence and any other advantages to conquer and to prosper over others. The Lord asks us to use our gifts and talents to benefit and bless others.

Are We Not All Beggars?

The Expansive Mormon Views

Thomas Paine, according to his own account, realized soon after writing Common Sense, “that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion.” [1] He had observed that the “adulterous connection of church and state” was effectively employed to limit religious discussion and exploration by means of the established creeds.  He also believed that if this connection were dissolved “a revolution in the system of religion would follow.” [2] Paine was prophetic in maintaining that a religious revolution would come, though this revolution was not a widespread conversion to Deism, as he might of hoped.  The America visited by Alexis de Tocqueville years later was teeming with religious fervor.  The religion of America was not some stale, second-hand observance but a dynamic driving force impelling people’s lives.  De Tocqueville reported: “The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.” [3]

It was at this time that Joseph Smith burst onto the American religious scene seeking “to lay a foundation that [would] revolutionize the whole world.” [4] Joseph Smith, like Paine, resisted the constraints of creeds.  He thought himself a prophet and spoke with confidence as one having authority that transcended creeds. Like Moses, he wished enter into the very presence of God to receive knowledge directly from its eternal source.  “I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;’ which I cannot subscribe to.” [5] Joseph Smith was willing to push the boundaries of religious innovation further than most would dare.  “Thy mind O man if thou wilt lead a soul into salvation must search into and contemplate the darkest abyss and the broad expanse of eternity, thou must commune with God.” [6]

Joseph understood that during his short ministry he was sliding fast into heterodoxy, at least relative to the creeds of established Christianity.  And he often felt frustrated that his followers were not able to keep pace.  “But there has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation.  It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle.  Even the Saints are slow to understand.  I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions.” [7] I can certainly sympathize with the Saints for being slow to accept Joseph’s more radical teachings.  But I also admire Joseph’s tenacity in pushing religious ideas to a more expansive vista of possibilities.

One of Joseph’s followers, Parley Pratt, was nearly as intrepid.  In his great work Key to the Science of Theology, Pratt celebrated “an age of progress, of change, of rapid advances, and of wonderful revolutions.” [8] He was especially enchanted by the discoveries of science and technology.  Yet he, like Joseph, was frustrated with the comparatively slow pace of religious development.  “While every science, every art is being developed; while the mind is awakened to new thought; while the windows of heaven are opened, as it were, and the profound depths of human intellect are stirred—moved from the foundation on all other subjects, religious knowledge seems at a standstill.  The creeds of the Fathers seem to have been cast in the mold of other ages, to be adapted to a more narrow sphere of intellectual development, and to be composed of material too much resembling cast iron; or, at least, not sufficiently elastic to expand with the expansion of mind, to grow with the growth, and to advance with the progressive principles of the age.” [9]

This time was a veritable Pentecost for the early Saints.  The heavens were opened and the Spirit surged forth among them as a rushing wind, “as pure intelligence” generating “sudden strokes of ideas.” [10] This spirit led to new and innovative views.  There are certain ideas from this movement that I would call expansive.  They were expansive because of the freedom with which they were explored and also because of their immense implications.  I have thought of ten ideas or doctrines taught to one extent or another in the history of the Latter-day Saint movement that I think best exemplify this expansive spirit

1.  Revelation

2.  Free Agency

3.  Rejection of Original Sin

4.  Pre-mortal Existence

5.  Materialism

6.  Universal Salvation

7.  Law of Consecration

8.  Heavenly Mother

9.  Eternal Marriage

10.  Mortals Can Become Gods

While some of these ideas are not unique to Mormonism, taken together they constitute perhaps the most dramatic restructuring of Christian doctrine in all of history.  The pioneers of Mormon thought did not settle for a tidy systematic theology beginning with creation and ending with the final judgment.  Rather, they probed further past the veil into the eternal past and eternal future.  What was going on before creation?  What are even being saved for?  Joseph had a vision of eternity that extended far beyond playing harps in the clouds.  What could be more expansive than to progress from one state to the next for all eternity, creating and designing as God, attaining all power and all intelligence?

Religious ideas matter.  They impact they way we see the world and each other.  They affect the way we treat each other.  What is the impact of seeing people not as fallen creatures, stained with sin from birth, but rather as divine beings, gods in embryo?  What if we took the Law of Consecration seriously and strived to build Zion with no poor among us?  We hear a lot of people telling each other they are going to Hell.  What if instead we told each other we were all going to Heaven and started creating Heaven on earth now?  There is power in these ideas and I believe they are worth exploring.

References

[1] Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (from The Thomas Paine Reader, Penguin Classics) p. 401

[2] Ibid

[3] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851) p. 335

[4] History of the Church 6:365

[5] Ibid, 6:57

[6] Ibid, 3:295

[7] Ibid, 6:184-185

[8] Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology (Deseret Book) p. vii

[9] Ibid, vii-viii

[10] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 151.

Women in the Early Church

Emmeline B. Wells

This is the written version of a talk a gave in church on Mother's Day.

I have been asked to speak about the positive influence of righteous women of the early, restored church.  I was quite excited to speak about this topic because it so happens I have been interested in this subject for some time.  Heather and I have taken an institute class covering the history of the church in Utah in the nineteenth century.  It is fascinating history and perhaps not so well known among members of the church.  This is especially true when it comes to the history of women.  This isn’t true only with Mormon history but history in general.  Whether it’s Roman history or American history the story of men tends to dominate but we forget about half the population.  There’s a lot more going on if you take the time to look for it.

The nice thing about Mormons is that they have tended to write things down.  And this has been very helpful for going back to learn about the early church and the settlement of Utah.  And even just regular people would often keep journals.  That’s where we get a lot of the really interesting stories.

Some of these stories are actually pretty funny.  I just love learning about life on the frontier.  This is a story from the diary of John D. Lee. 

“One day when Lee was away from home, John Lawson, one of his neighbors, and George Dodds, Lawson's son-in-law, commenced to chop down the trees and willows that grew along a creek that ran through Lee's property. This was just behind the house occupied by Emma and Ann, Lee's two youngest wives. They both went out and asked Lawson to stop, stating that they needed the shade for their ducks and chickens. But Lawson paid no attention to their protests, so they sent for their husband. Lee and his son Willard came on the run, took Lawson's axe away, and ordered him off the place.

“Early the next morning Lawson returned with additional help and began once more cutting away the brush from the creek bed. This time Ann had no time to send for help. She filled a pan with boiling water and when Lawson disregarded her protests, she threw it at him. She was so far away that it fell harmlessly in front of him, and he said, "Pour it on," and continued his chopping. Desperately, Ann ran back to the house and returned with Emma and a pan of hot water each. Seeing that they were determined, Lawson held up his ax, and told them to stand back. Emma threw her water at him, and when his attention was diverted, Ann sprang at him and grabbed the arm that held the ax. They both fell, with Ann on top. ‘When I with several others reached the scene of action," wrote John D. Lee in his diary,  I found them both on the ground & Ann with one hand in his hair & with the other pounding him in the face. In the mean time Emma returned with a New Supply of hot water & then pitched into him with Ann & they bothe handled him rather Ruff. His face was a gore of blood. My son Willard finally took them off him.” [1]

These women out of the frontier really had to be pretty self-reliant and they had certain tenaciousness so that when they wanted things done a certain way they got done.  I use this humorous story as an example of a theme I have found reading about all these pioneer women. When I read about the women in the early church the thing that sticks out to me is a common drive to action.  Mormon women saw opportunities, both big and small, to make a difference in the church and in their communities.  I find this over and over.  Issues like poverty, education, women’s suffrage, they were all over that stuff.  And they came up with plans do something about them and they were unstoppable.

The sad thing is that I don’t think we really know much about the women in our church history.  I think we know the names of Lucy Mack Smith and Emma Smith, maybe Eliza R. Snow.  But probably fewer people would be familiar with Emmeline B. Wells, Susa Young Gates, Aurelia Spencer Rogers, Louisa Lula Greene, and Sarah M. Kimball.  These are really names we should all know because they shaped the church from its early days.  And I have to emphasize that this is not history that just women should know.  For us men in the church it’s important to realize how the early women of the church have shaped our heritage. 

I think to start off I’d like to talk a little about the Relief Society.  This is an interesting story.  And what’s interesting about it is that this was maybe the first big move in the restoration of the church that was led by women.  They asked Joseph Smith to organize them officially but the idea started with the women of Nauvoo.  The first person to really move in this direction was Sarah M. Kimball.  I’m going to read her version of the story as she wrote it in an autobiographical essay in the Woman’s Exponent in 1883.  First as background to this story, Sarah M. Kimball had been working with a seamstress named Margaret A. Cook and they wanted to make shirts for the men working on the temple.  This is how it all started.  Sister Cook said she would love to do it but she didn’t have the material to make the shirts so Sarah M. Kimball told she would provide that.  From this they decided that it might be good to get a lot of the women in the city together to work together on this and they eventually decided to form a Ladies’ Society.  Now I’ll read from her account.

“The neighboring sisters met in my parlor and decided to organize.  I was delegated to call on Sister Eliza R. Snow and ask her to write for us a Constitution and By-laws, and submit them to President Joseph Smith prior to our next Thursday’s meeting.  She cheerfully responded and when she read them to him he replied that the Constitution and By-laws were the best he had ever seen.  ‘But,’ he said, ‘this is not what you want.  Tell the sisters their offering is accepted of the Lord, and he has something better for them than a written Constitution.  I invite them all to meet with me and a few of the brethren in the Masonic Hall over my store next Thursday afternoon, and I will organize the women under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood.’  He further said, ‘The church was never perfectly organized until the women were thus organized.’  He wished to have Sister Emma Smith elected to preside in fulfillment of the revelation which called her an Elect Lady.” [2]

The object of the Relief Society was nothing less than “the relief of the poor, the destitute, the widow and the orphan, and for the exercise of benevolent purposes.”  That’s a big mission and a very noble one.  These wonderful Nauvoo sisters saw a problem and they banded together to do something about it.  Joseph Smith wrote afterward, “Our women have always been signalized for their acts of benevolence and kindness.” [3] What I have found in reading back into all of this is that these women, along with Joseph Smith is seems, truly viewed the organization of women in the Relief Society to be an essential part of the Restoration of the Lord’s church.  I found an interesting line in the first issue of the Woman’s Exponent, published in Utah in 1872.  Eliza R. Snow wrote a brief sketch of the organization of the Relief Society.  She said: “According to authentic testimony, an organization, of which the present Female Relief Society is a fac-simile, has always existed when the Church of Jesus Church [Christ] has been fully organized.  ‘Elect lady,’ as it occurs in the New Testament, has direct reference to the same—alluding to one who presided over this Institution.  See 2d Epistle of John, 1^st verse.” [4]

So to further consider the impact of righteous women in the early restored church I invite you all to think about your church experience, especially as youth.  In addition to the Sacrament meeting and Priesthood meeting we have Relief Society, Young Men, Young Women, and Primary.  The remarkable thing is that these organizations that have probably been so crucial in our spiritual growth also have their roots in the initiative of faithful women.

The Young Women organization used to be the Young Ladies’ Retrenchment Association and was started by Brigham Young.  This organization has an interesting history and a really fun church video made sometime back in the seventies I think.  The basic idea was to encourage simplicity and frugal living.  Eliza R. Snow played a huge role in running this organization as she traveled from ward to ward.  While she did this she found many bishops distressed by the behavior of the young men.  She started suggesting that a similar organization be set up for young men.  During one of her visits she asked all the girls to bring their boyfriends to the meeting and warned all the young men that if they did not “have off their drinking and tobacco, where were the young girls to get husbands?”  It seemed she struck a nerve with these young men and it was said that they were after their bishop before the next morning to get them organized like the young women. [5] And so it went on.  The historian Maureen Ursenbach Beecher was of the opinion that the Young Men Mutual Improvement Organization was organized in part resulting from indirect but persistent pressure from Eliza R. Snow.  So it seems that to a certain extent, even the Young Men organization that many of the brethren here grew up with arose out of the initiative of the faithful Latter-day Saint women.

The beginning of the Primary is interesting.  It started off very simply as a local organization in Farmington, Utah.  It was organized by Aurelia Spencer Rogers.  Once again Eliza R. Snow was involved in this too and encouraged sister Rogers to do this.  Eliza R. Snow wrote that Mrs. Rogers “expressed a desire that something more could be effected for the cultivation and improvement of the children morally and spiritually than was being done through the influence of day and Sunday Schools.  After consulting together a few moments, I asked Mrs. R. if she was willing to take the responsibility and labor on herself of presiding over the children of that settlement, provided the Bishop of the Ward sanctioned the movement.  She replied in the affirmative.” [6] Well, the Bishop was very enthusiastic about the idea and so the Primary began, just from the desire of one woman to do some good in her ward.  I keep seeing this again and again that these women just saw a need and did their best to fill it.

This drive to do some good extended to very broad areas as well.  The Mormon women in Utah recognized that the way their sisters around the world were treated was not right.  The 1870s were tough times for members of the church.  The rest of the nation was pressing down on the church and its members and women bore a huge share of this treatment.  Women had had the right to vote in Utah since 1870 when the territorial legislator granted them suffrage by unanimous vote.  However, in 1887 the United States Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which, among other things, specifically took the vote away from women.  However, Utah was a hotbed of Latter-day Saint women no longer content to live below their privileges.  In a religion that taught them that they would be queens and priestesses to the most high God, they could not allow the world to treat them as anything less.  I think there is an important lesson in this example.

The best information I have found on the thoughts of feelings of Mormon women during this time period is a biweekly newspaper called the Woman’s Exponent, which I have quoted previously.  In its later issues the newspaper carried the subtitle: “The Rights of the Women of Zion, and the Rights of the Women of all Nations.”  This newspaper basically functioned as the newspaper for the Relief Society, though it was officially independent.  The founder of the paper was Louisa Lula Greene, afterword, Emmeline B. Wells was editor for most of the paper’s history.

Even as a modern reader, the positions taken by the authors in the Woman’s Exponent seem to me remarkably bold.  I would like to read from an article from the first installment titled “Women’s Rights and Wrongs.”

“The agitation of the woman’s rights question aims at obtaining a broader recognition for the rights of women, as a moiety of the social structure, now deprived of many privileges it is contended they should enjoy, and refused rights which it is claimed they should possess equally with men… There are many rights which woman should possess yet of which she is denied by custom and by statute law, but more especially by the former.  She should have the right to live, and to live purely, and not be compelled by the force of custom and fortuitous circumstances to seek a living death that the physical body may be sustained.  And to secure her this right, she should have access to every avenue of employment for which she has physical and mental capacity… Custom also says that if a woman does as much work as a man, and does it as well, she must not receive equal pay for it, and herein a wrong is inflicted upon her by the deprivation of a right to which she is justly entitled… In the application of manhood suffrage a wrong is inflicted upon the women of these United States, as States—one which the women of Utah do not have to bear… women are deprived of it, simply because nature qualified them to become mothers and not fathers of men.” [7]

The women of Utah stood shoulder to shoulder with the great names of the Women’s movement in the United States such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.  Emmeline B. Wells, later President of the Relief Society, could be considered on of the great women’s rights advocates in United States history.  Sisters Wells herself represented the state of Utah when she spoke at conventions of the National Woman Suffrage Association and the National and International Councils of Women.  Emmeline B. Wells had the opportunity to speak on behalf of women around the world in front of Congress and the President of the United States.  When Utah was granted statehood in 1896 women’s suffrage was restored along with full access to political office.  Thus women in Utah enjoyed the right of the vote twenty years before the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment made that right universal throughout the country.  Mormon women like Emmeline B. Wells and Susa Young Gates continued to advocate the rights of woman along with many other faithful sisters working behind the scenes.

I think in this way and many more ways the women in the early church fulfilled the commission the Relief Society for “the relief of the poor, the destitute, the widow and the orphan, and for the exercise of benevolent purposes.”  These were go-getters who got things done and I think they are a great example to every one of us. 

The historian Claudia L. Bushman has said that it’s important to remember that history is more than just studying the lives of the most prominent members of society or of the church.  History is really lived by the regular people.  Today I have talked a lot about some of the more prominent women of the church, mostly because I don’t think we know enough even about them.  But there are also the stories of our ancestors and the women who lived more quiet lives that can give us just as much inspiration.  I’d like to share two examples from an article by historian Leonard Arrington. 

“The first is found in the diary of Christina Oleson Warnick.  It is evident from this diary that Mrs. Warnick helped build her house, being primarily responsible for the fireplace and chimney. She dug irrigation ditches; she plowed, planted and fertilized the land while the men put in the dam; she cut the 'wild hay along the river bottoms and stacked it for the cows for winter; she grubbed the brush and sheared the sheep; she took in washings and spun and wove cloth; and she always walked from one village to the next with her knitting in her hands.

“A second example comes from the diary of Mary Julia Johnson Wilson.  She tells the story of a young man who was leaving in one week on a mission, but had no suit to wear. When the neighbor women heard of this, they went to work with the result that ‘one Sunday the wool was on the sheep's back, but by the next Sunday it had been clipped, cleansed, corded, spun, woven, and made into a splendid suit and was on the back of the missionary as he delivered his farewell address in the little church house.’” [8]

I really like this last story.  Here was a missionary standing before the congregation in his new suit.  But the story behind it is these many women in his ward that made that suit for him and got him on his mission.  On this Mother’s Day I invite you all to think about the women like this Mary Julia Johnson Wilson who have made it possible to do the things that you do every day.  Every part of the restored church we enjoy today has been touched by faithful women.

References

1.  Arrington, Leonard. “Blessed Damozels: Women in Mormon History.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Vol 6, Num 2 (Summer 1971): 24

2. Sarah Granger Kimball. "Auto-Biography." Woman's Exponent. Vol. 12, Num 7 (September 1, 1883): 51 (Available here)

3.  History of the Church, 4:567

4.  Eliza R. Snow. “The Female Relief Society.” Woman’s Exponent. Vol 1, Num 1 (June 1 1872): 2 (Available here)

5. Beecher, Maureen Ursenbach. “Eliza R. Snow” from Mormon Sisters. Edited by Claudia L. Bushman. (1997) p. 29

6.  Beecher, Maureen Ursenbach. “Eliza R. Snow” from Mormon Sisters. Edited by Claudia L. Bushman. (1997) p. 30

7.  “Women’s Rights and Wrongs.” Woman’s Exponent. Vol 1, Num 1 (June 1 1872): 5

8.  Arrington, 23

Radical Nonviolence in the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon can be read as a story of two brothers—Nephi and Laman.  It begins with the family of Lehi, which is constantly divided between the influences of these two sons.  The brothers ended their lives as enemies, separated from one another and the rest of the history of this family was a constant struggle between these two groups, the Nephites and the Lamanites.  After hundreds of years this bad blood and intense hatred boils over into destruction of epic scale.

The Book of Mormon is written from the perspective of the Nephites and their perspective of the Lamanites is often less than flattering.  Historian Richard Bushman has speculated what the history would have looked like if Lamanites had written it. [1] The two groups had many prejudices toward each other, which they had carried down from their parents. 

The Lamanites taught their children that Nephi had cheated Laman of his inheritance and sought to rule over his people and had stolen all of their records.  The Lamanites also taught their children “that they should hate them, and that they should murder them, and that they should rob and plunder them, and do all they could to destroy them; therefore they [had] an eternal hatred towards the children of Nephi.” [2]

For their part, the Nephites didn’t have a very high opinion of the Lamanites either.  When the four sons of the King, Mosiah, intended to go to the land of the Lamanites they were mocked by their fellow Nephites.  They said of the Lamanites that their “hearts delight[ed] in the shedding of blood.”  Some even suggested violence as the only solution: “Let us take up arms against them; that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us.” [3]

But the four sons of Mosiah did go the land of the Lamanites and their first experiences among them did much to confirm the prejudices of the Nephites.  They were treated very harshly.  Ammon was bound and taken before the local leader.  Luckily, he was able to win over the king, Lamoni.  His brothers were not as lucky, and they were beaten and thrown into prison.  But eventually, relations started to ease and many of the Lamanites began to change.  They had been murderous and bloodthirsty, but when they learned of the Gospel they began to see the error of their violence.

Some of the Lamanites began to change in ways so radical that we might even think unwise.  They still lived amid the danger of invasion and attack but their hearts were so transformed that they had no more desire to fight.

Their king said to his people: “Now, my 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… Oh, how merciful is our God! And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright, let us hide them away that they may be kept bright, as a testimony to our God at the last day, or at the day that we shall be brought to stand before him to be judged, that we have not stained our swords in the blood of our brethren since he imparted his word unto us and has made us clean thereby.  And now, my brethren, if our brethren seek to destroy us, behold, we will hide away our swords, yea, even we will bury them deep in the earth, that they may be kept bright, as a testimony that we have never used them, at the last day; and if our brethren destroy us, behold, we shall go to our God and shall be saved.” [4]

So they buried their weapons, promising never to raise them again.  They were indeed attacked and began to suffer a mass slaughter.  And they just gave up their lives, because “they buried the weapons of war, for peace.” [5] As the other Lamanites were killing them they saw that they didn’t fight back.  “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.  And it came to pass that the people of God were joined that day by more than the number who had been slain.” [6] This radical nonviolence by the Lamanites was more disarming than retaliation.  But many died in the process.  It was a heavy cost but the result was a dramatic transformation of an entire people.

In modern times nonviolence has been extremely effective in bringing about dramatic change. Mohandas Gandhi used nonviolence to end the occupation of India from British rule.  Martin Luther King, influenced by Gandhi, used nonviolent protest in his struggle for civil rights for African Americans.  But these men have been criticized by some who believed that nonviolence was weak and ineffective.   George Jackson, a member of the Black Panthers, said, “the concept of nonviolence is a false ideal. It presupposes the existence of compassion and a sense of justice on the part of one's adversary. When this adversary has everything to lose and nothing to gain by exercising justice and compassion, his reaction can only be negative.” [7]

But the enduring impact of Martin Luther King and Gandhi seems to vindicate and validate their nonviolent practices.  For one thing, the former oppressors have for the most part admitted their wrongdoing much as the murderous Lamanites recognized their own sin.  Had Martin Luther King encouraged violence, civil rights for Africans Americans might not have the widespread acceptance it has today.

The practice of nonviolence is not only effective to win people’s rights and freedoms.  It also brings people together.  The dream of Martin Luther King was not only that black Americans would enjoy the freedoms of white Americans.  Rather it was that “all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing…” And who could argue with that?  Why would we not all want that?  At its heart, nonviolence appeals to the desire of every man and every woman for peace and love, that’s why it touches us all.  To quote the Book of Mormon one more time: "the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else." [8]

Notes

[1] Bushman’s essay is titled The Lamanite View of Book of Mormon History.  It can be read in his book Believing History: Latter-Day Saint Essays.

[2] Mosiah 10:17

[3] Alma 26:24-25

[4] Alma 24:12,15-16

[5] Alma 24:19

[6] Alma 24:24-26

[7] Jackson, George. Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson. Lawrence Hill Books, 1994

[8] Alma 31:5

The Charter for Compassion

It’s very simple and maybe even obvious but that’s kind of what I like about it.    I think most people would agree with the general spirit of the charter even with all our diversity of opinion and belief.  The Charter for Compassion was the idea of author Karen Armstrong.  She won the TED prize in 2008 and got to make a wish from the organization (Technology Entertainment Design, TED).  So she asked for help in promoting and propagating a Charter of Compassion.

The website for the charter is a place you can go to read it and endorse it if you like.  Over 60,000 people have affirmed it so far.  The website is http://www.charterforcompassion.org

Here is the text of the charter:

“The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

 “It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.

 “We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.

 “We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.”

I think that puts it very well.  Compassion is essentially what it’s all about.  Compassion is more than just feeling sorry for someone.  “Com-passion” means to feel a union with another person.  In my understanding of Christian theology this is the most important teaching we have.  It’s akin to the Greek agape, or love, Paul spoke of to the Corinthians.

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.  And if I have prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  If I give away all my goods, and if I give my body to be burned, but do not have love, I gain nothing.  Love suffers long; is kind; love is not envious; love does not vaunt itself; is not puffed up; does not behave unseemly.  It does not seek its own; is not provoked; does not keep record of wrong; it does not rejoice in evil, but rejoices in truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.  Love never fails.”  (1 Corinthians 13:1-8)

Two Ways of Seeing One Reality

One of my favorite works of music is the Sonata quasi una Fantasia by Ludwig van Beethoven.   The first movement is best known as the Moonlight Sonata.  I’ll give a brief description of it.

The piece begins with three pitches produced simultaneously.  Each pitch is produced by a hammer striking a string.  When the hammer strikes the string it causes it to vibrate.  In the case of the Moonlight Sonata, the first three pitches vibrate at frequencies of 69.2957 Hertz, 138.591 Hertz, and 207.652 Hertz.  The frequencies at which these strings vibrate are determined by their length, thickness, and tension.  These pitches are produced at about 50 decibels.  The strings producing the two lower frequencies remain undamped for the first measure continuing to vibrate while the string at the highest frequency it damped by a damper as another string is struck, vibrating at 277.183 Hertz.  This string is then damped and replaced by another string vibrating at 329.628 Hertz.  The three pitches at 207.652 Hertz, 277.183 Hertz, and 329.628 Hertz are played in succession four times for equal values of time.  Each “triplet” lasts 1.154 seconds.  This is the first “measure” of the piece.

The beginning is hauntingly soft, so soft it is almost imperceptible.  The repeating treble line lulls you into peaceful stillness as the bass notes descend slowly.  The tone is distinctly minor and then shifts briefly into major chords as the intensity increases and falls back into the repeating minor chords.  Finally the slow melody breaks the monotony of the repeating patterns.  The melody is slow and soars over the substructure of the supporting broken triplet chords.  The melody follows the same minor chord pattern but then begins to surge forward into major chords and receding back like a wave.  Each time the melody pushes forward with greater intensity, climbing toward immanent resolution and falling back into the same repeating cadence.

Both descriptions I have presented of this piece of music represent reality.  However, their approaches are markedly different.  The first, objective description was actually easier to write, although more technically rigorous.  Music has measureable, physical properties.  Music is sound and sound has frequency and amplitude.  Sound waves can be measured, quantified, and characterized.  These sound waves can be plotted with respect to time and give a completely accurate demonstration of what the music is.  But the second approach is the subjective relation of the experience of the music.  The physical properties explained in the first description are the same whether or not any person is listening or not.  But the emotional and sensational effects of music depend on the person hearing it.  These effects, while real, are much more difficult to describe.  But it is because of the emotional and sensational effects of music that we even bother to produce and listen to it.

These are two ways of seeing one reality.  Reality is the same regardless of how we choose to look at it.  One definition I like was put forward by Phillip K. Dick: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”  If I am listening to the Moonlight Sonata there are real sound waves traveling through the air and entering my ear.  From there, the sounds are interpreted via various chemical processes in my brain.  The emotions produced in my brain are just as real as the sound waves that led up to them.  Emotions can be explained by chemistry but I don’t generally bother to think about them that way.  I just feel them.  All these things comprise the whole sum of reality, which is vastly more complex than we can ever take in at any one time.  There are so many ways to look at a single reality but I group them into two categories. 

The first way I think of looking at reality is the way of science, including logic, mathematics and so forth.  Everything in the universe can be reduced to the particles that make up matter, their vectors of motion, the forces acting on them, and their configuration with each other.  Science is able to explain a great deal, and even with its obvious limitations it is quite probable that those things that cannot now be explained are at least explainable. 

The second way of looking at reality is to see things as whole things, in entirety.  While a person is indeed a complex configuration of particles organized in a living body, a person can also be viewed as a person as such.  A person can be loved in a way that particles in their body cannot.  Or to use my example of music, the Moonlight Sonata is more than a series of combined sound waves.  It is also a beautiful work of art.

The most interesting description of these two methods I know of was written by Martin Buber (1878-1965).  He said, “The world is twofold for man in accordance with his twofold attitude.”  He described these two attitudes in accordance with two basic words, or word-pairs.

1.  I-It

2.  I-You

The I-It attitude is the way we relate to an object.  These objects can be people or things.  The difference between the I-It and the I-You is not the specific parties involved but the attitude we take toward them.  The I-It view is not bad or wrong.  In fact, the I-It is the way we usually live.  In order to survive we need to understand the general order of things and find our place in that order.  We live in a universe of cause and effect, and the better we can understand this pattern the more successful we will be.  This is the attitude of analysis and in its formal application, science.  The objects we experience in the I-It relationship are seen as the sum of their components rather than as whole entities.  This is the dissection of the sonata into its physical description and it is one way of looking at Beethoven’s music.

The I-You attitude is the way of encounter with our whole being.  The “You” can be a person but can also be inanimate, even a sonata.  If I relate to you as an “I” to a “You” I see you not as the sum total of the particles that make up your body but as “You”, your whole being.  This encounter (Buber describes it as an encounter as opposed to experience) is acutely centered in “You”.  For that moment the entire universe as far as I am concerned is centered in “You”.  Rather than the dissection of the sonata into physical descriptions, The I-You encounter with the Moonlight Sonata is a relationship to the music as a whole.  It is seeing the reality that transcends the sum of its parts.  I believe it is the way Beethoven viewed his music, which is why he was such an exceptional artist.

How is it possible to be spiritual in the wake of the tremendous successes of science?  Science can so accurately describe the universe.  To live in the life of the spirit can almost seem superfluous.  But the two world-views are not different explanations of the universe.  Rather, they are two unique ways of seeing the same universe, two ways of seeing one reality.  Both are correct and both are important. The Moonlight Sonata is a collection of sound waves.  But it is also something more, and to know what that something is you have to encounter it for itself.  The first view is necessary in order to live successfully in the world.  But it is the the second view that really makes life worth living.