Cleaning Our Lenses

LensesImagine that each of us are born with a complete set of virtue-lenses, paradigms by which we’re capable of viewing the world in its proper light. Some of these lenses enable us to see life through perspectives such as (but not limited to) love, justice, freedom and order. Each of these lenses are undeveloped at first. Through time, experience and choices, some of these lenses develop or degrade. A young child may quickly switch from the lens of justice when a toy of theirs is taken, to the lens of love and forgiveness a moment later. A young adult may develop a keen perspective for freedom while their authorities are attempting to administer and maintain order.

Each virtue-lens enables us to decipher truth from error but if any of them are clouded then our virtues can become varying degrees of vices. Much like the lesson from the parable – The Blind Men and The Elephant, an incomplete witness of what is true can lead to faulty conclusions. By matching the columns (clouded lenses) with their respective rows (clean lenses), the following table depicts examples of some vices that we might gravitate towards if one paradigm is clear but another isn’t.

Love (clouded) Justice (clouded) Freedom (clouded) Order/Authority (clouded)
Love (clean) – – –

Dupe who stays with abuser

Millennial “tolerance”

Authoritarian Parent

Socialism

Hippy
Justice (clean) Pharisee: “The law commands that such should be stoned” (John 8:5) – – –

Robbing Peter to pay Paul (aka “social justice”)

(NOTE: Freedom is a boundary of justice but many don’t recognize it)

Revenge

Vigilante

Freedom (clean) Sociopath

Greed

Thief – – –

Libertine

Line cutters

Order/Authority (clean) Inspector Javert (Les Mis) Adolf Eichmann

Milgram Experiment

Fascism

All forms of statism

– – –
Definition of Terms

Love – compassionate caring for the wellbeing of others.

Justice – moral rightness determined by universal (aka “natural”) laws. (malum in se)

Freedom – ability for someone to act according to their free will, unrestrained by others.

Order/Authority – manmade rules aimed towards organizing human to human conduct. (malum prohibitum)

Virtue-blind-spots can be catastrophic to our spiritual journey. Each of us are inclined towards certain virtues but not others. For example, freedom and order seem to be diametrically opposed ideals and so very few people take their opposing view seriously. In his short book, The Enoch Letters, Neil A. Maxwell pointed out that among the righteous, “liberty does not rob order, and order does not mock liberty.” Understanding how our inclinations towards certain virtues can result in the negligence of others helps us to avoid traps we are likely to fall into. It guides our development in a well-rounded, balanced direction.

Approaching disagreements with the understanding that the other person is probably partly right is more likely to open minds and hearts than approaching disagreements with the assumption that the other person is absolutely wrong. Most people have good intentions and valuable perspectives; it’s often the completeness of those perspectives that determine the degree to which they’re correct or not. When our love and justice lenses are clean, we can love the sinner and hate the sin. When our love, justice and freedom lenses are clean we will voluntarily help the needy. When our freedom, justice and order/authority lenses are clean we will want to respect the freedom of others insomuch as they are doing no direct harm to anyone else.

Just like it’s necessary for someone who is visually impaired to wear corrective lenses to see where they’re going physically, it’s even more imperative that we keep each of our virtue-lenses clean so that we can see where we’re eternally headed. Taking a holistic approach to our progression will mean that we will seek improvement in all virtues of life and we will recognize the risks of focusing on some virtues at the expense of others.

Advertisements

The Endurance, Shackleton & Finding Strength In Tribulation

the-enduranceThe Word

My favorite mission companion, Elder Ieremia, was a soft-spoken, faithful and courageous polynesian from Oahu. We served together in a rough part of the Washington DC area known for it’s high crime and drug rates. One day, Elder Ieremia and I were walking passed a group of about seven or eight young men who were getting high on the stairs of a building’s entrance. The alpha male, sitting in the middle of them, offered up his hand and said “You two want something that’ll make you feel real good?” To this my companion responded, “Na, we’ve got something better.” The young man jumped to his feet – “What ya’ll got?!?!” Without skipping a beat Elder Ieremia held up his scriptures and exclaimed emphatically – “The word!”  I’ve never witnessed such a righteous roast. The guys’ friends all roared “Ohhhhhhhhhh…!!!” while covering their mouths and pointing their fingers at him. I’ll never forget the shocked look on this poor kid’s face; that he just got burned by a “Jesus Boy”.

The Savior taught:

“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28–30)

How often do we seek relief from life’s trials through the temporary, silly or harmful means of the world? Contrast those occasions to how often we seek relief through the lasting and healing means of the Word. Man’s solutions to hardship include escape and dulling life’s pains through artificial means. God’s solution to our hardship is to come to Him and let Him carry our load. Hardship is a necessary part of life. We can’t learn or grow without it. But just because hardship is necessary that doesn’t mean that life has to be hard.

The word “comfort” is derived from Latin and means to support, console and strengthen. Seeking comfort, or strength, isn’t passive. It doesn’t mean removing or dulling our pain like a sort of emotional anesthetic. It requires action, movement, progress, patience, faith and endurance.

The Endurance

One of my favorite stories about finding strength in difficult times is about the Antarctic voyage of the Endurance. The year was 1914. Ernest Shackleton was an explorer who wanted to lead a British expedition across the Antarctic continent – a feat which had never been done before. To advertise help for this mission he allegedly placed an ad in the newspaper which read:

“Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success.”

Over 5000 people responded to this ad. He and 27 others along with 69 dogs embarked on the adventure aboard a ship appropriated named The Endurance. Before they could reach the shore of Antarctica they got stuck in the ice pack of the Weddell Sea. For months they tried to free themselves from the ice but eventually the ship was crushed and sank. They were stranded on a large, flat sheet of ice (aka floe) and slowly drifted further from land.

After several failed attempts to reach land on foot they set up a long-term camp to wait for the ice to melt so that they could reach land by several rafts they salvaged from The Endurance before it sank. Over this period of time – boredom, hunger, homesickness and cold challenged them daily. Food became so scarce that eventually they had to turn to penguins, seals and their own dogs for survival. Rations grew smaller and smaller to the point that bone broth became a delicacy.

Finally, months later, when the ice pack began to melt and the floe their camp was on was too small to fit on, they put their rafts in the water and attempted to row towards the closest island. The flows were breaking up but with the movement of the sea, the floes would constantly collide with each other which created constant danger for them and their little rafts. For days they tried rowing their way through the crushing ice. They’d constantly have to bale water out of the rafts to keep them from sinking. Once they found a floe big enough for them to fit they’d pile on top to rest but the floes were breaking so fast that they couldn’t stay on them long enough to rest before they had to get back in the water.

After finally escaping the crushing ice, they set sail for Elephant Island. Never before had man placed foot on this pile of ice and pebbles. Here the team set up another long-term camp as Shackleton and a few others embarked on what they saw as their best shot for reaching rescue. Their aim was a whaling station island called South Georgia. Fierce winds and waves, strong currents, some amazing navigational skills and 800 miles later, they finally reached the island.

They barely made it ashore but they landed on the opposite side of the island and their raft was in no condition to take them any further. Shackleton and two of the crew had to make it on foot to the other side of the island to reach rescue. It was unexplored, mountainous, rocky and icy terrain. They drove nails from the raft through their shoes so that they could climb the ice. They were in a race for time, not only because of their starving and exposed companions who were depending on them but also because they didn’t have the means to stay warm when the temperature dropped at night. As their march progressed they would climb cliffs only to find out that their was no way down on the other side and so they’d have to climb back down and find another way. Finally, after one of these failed attempts on a high mountain Shackleton pointed out that, due to the dropping temperature, going back down where they came from wasn’t an option so the only option they had was to slide down the mountain and hope that there weren’t any cliffs or sharp rocks at the bottom. After miraculously surviving the slide down, they soon found the station.

The station foreman received a knock at the door. When he opened it he saw three men with long hair, long beards, ragged clothes and filthy faces. When he realized who they were his tears wouldn’t let him speak. Several years had passed since the voyage began. Everyone assumed they were dead.

Our hardships have differing sources including our choices, others’ choices, accidents or natural causes. Regardless of the source, God will provide comfort and strength to endure and overcome those hardships if we will turn to him.

Shackleton discovered the support which God can provide during hardship when he later wrote:

“I know that during that long and racking march of thirty-six hours over the unnamed mountains and glaciers of South Georgia it seemed to me often that we were four, not three. I said nothing to my companions on the point, but afterwards Worsley said to me, “Boss, I had a curious feeling on the march that there was another person with us.” Crean confessed to the same idea. One feels “the dearth of human words, the roughness of mortal speech” in trying to describe things intangible, but a record of our journeys would be incomplete without a reference to a subject very near to our hearts.”

Attempts to cross South Georgia have been repeated several times since Shackleton’s rescue mission. Each one with the benefits of planning, rest, better equipment and the means for food and warmth. Those who cross the island admit that it would have taken a miracle to survive the trek. I don’t want to spoil the whole story of the Endurance so I’ll stop here.

Gethsemane

While those on the Endurance expedition suffered greatly, there isn’t a greater example of suffering than what the Savior experienced in the garden of Gethsemane when he suffered for all of our pains and sins. So great was His pain that He bled from every pore. The Savior’s example in the garden teaches important truths about how we can find strength during our suffering:

“Jesus asks his disciples to stay awake with him. Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed.” (Matthew 26:38, 40-45)

The Savior ended up asking his disciples several times to stay awake with him but they kept falling asleep. There are several key points I’d like to point out from this scripture:

  1. Jesus wasn’t afraid to ask for the help of others when he truly needed it. Are we afraid?
  2. How often is the Savior asking for our help but we are spiritually asleep?
  3. Jesus prayed.

 

When sore trials came upon you,

Did you think to pray?

When your soul was full of sorrow,

Balm of Gilead did you borrow

At the gates of day?

(Did You Think To Pray, Hymn 140)

Despite the failings of Christ’s disciples, strength was provided from the other side.

“And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.” (Luke 22 – 43)

Note how the pains and hardships of the atonement weren’t removed by this heavenly help. Rather, Christ was strengthened; much like the people of Alma who, while in bondage, did not have their burdens removed right away but rather “the Lord did strengthen them that they could bear up their burdens with ease.” And this because they “poured out their hearts to him.”

When we find ourselves alone; in a dark, cold place spiritually or emotionally – when we turn to the Word. To God. When our voyage in life is directed heavenly homeward we will receive strength from the other side.

 

Judging The Baptist By His Cover

John (The Baptist)While in prison for calling out Herod’s illegal marriage to Herodias, John (the Baptist) sent two of his disciples to Jesus to ask whether Jesus was the Christ prophesied of or if they should look for another. During that same hour Jesus showed them many miracles and told them to report to John what they had seen and heard. After they left, Jesus praised John while rebuking some by asking the remaining crowd:

“What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind? …A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings’ courts… [or] A prophet?” (Luke 7:24-26)

In other words, Jesus was challenging their view of John by rhetorically asking them if they were expecting someone fickle who would be tossed to and fro by the winds of societal change, someone of worldly status and elegance or a prophet. Contrasting the first two options against the acceptance of a prophet causes the honest at heart to acknowledge their natural tendency to “look on the outward appearance” (1 Sam 16:7) when judging man and truth.

The “outward appearance” of John was peculiar, which makes Jesus’ remarks especially meaningful. His clothes were made of camel’s hair and were held together by a leather belt. He neither ate bread or wine (Luke 7:33) but his diet consisted of locusts and wild honey (Matthew 3:4). John’s delivery was straightforward. He told it how it was. When many Pharisees and Sadducees arrived at the baptisms going on at Jordan, he directly called them a ”generation of vipers” who, unless they repented, would burn as chaff in an “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:7,12). He was unafraid to tell the uncomfortable truth, despite how “important” or powerful the people he was inconveniencing were. This steadfast loyalty to truth resulted in his imprisonment and eventual beheading.

Despite John’s style and lack of outward appeal, Jesus affirmed John’s mission by teaching that he was “much more than a prophet”, that he was the one prophesied of who would prepare the way for Jesus and that “Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist” (Luke 7:26-28). Could a mortal receive better praise than this? The man, whose mission it was to prepare the way for and baptize Christ, was not crafted in the art of eloquence or adorned with fine apparel and worldly prestige and titles. He was a simple man who faithfully, courageously and honestly spoke the truth–undaunted by worldly opinions. Even Christ, the very Savior of mankind, was prophesied of by Isaiah that He would have “no beauty that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2).

Contrast John (and Christ) to the appeasers who water down the teachings of the gospel out of a fear of the reproach of men. They would exchange their honor for temporary appeasement. Because they fear man more than God their luke-warmness will cause God to spew them out of His mouth (Revelation 3:16). While John’s firmness caused him to temporarily lose his head, some people’s fear will cause them to eternally lose their souls.

Sometime last year, a visitor came to church. His outward appearance left much to be desired. He wasn’t clean shaven. His hair was a mess. His ragged clothes made me think he was homeless. When given the opportunity to speak over the pulpit and during sunday school, he spoke long and with a stutter. I remember it getting to a point where a few of us would smirk at each other whenever he spoke. Upon reflection, later that day, I recalled the things that this visitor had said and I noticed something profound- his words testified plainly and truthfully about the gospel of Christ. He was humble, yet bold. He taught scripture and applied their principles in meaningful ways. “So who was this visitor?”- I thought. A gospel-savvy hobo? An angel sent to test us? I don’t know and I don’t know if it matters. God saw my reaction to the unadorned truth. I failed. I ignored the truth due to the lack of outward appeal of the messenger.

An underlying purpose of modern marketing and public relations is to increase the appeal (or “packaging”) of people, products and messages. While there is nothing inherently bad about this objective, it can be detrimental when we allow the outward appearance to blind us of the inner core. If we were alive two millennia ago would we have rejected the gospel because of its packaging, or lack thereof? The answer to that rests in our manner of judgement now. Does outward appearance with its polished packaging, its worldly titles, prestige and eloquence influence our perception of truth? Does the source of a message alter our willingness to believe it? If academia or the media tell us what we should believe, do we unquestioningly believe? If celebrities tell us what to believe, do we believe? Do cultural norms or the traditions of our fathers influence our perception of truth? Does one’s title or “authority” blind us from the unadorned truth? Let’s not forget that “the way, the truth and the life” was rejected by the religious and political authorities of His time. Influenced by those authorities, “his own received him not” (John 1:11).

Isaiah’s council, “…fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings” (Isaiah 51:7) ought to guide the way we judge and deliver truth- for are our souls worth the approval of man?

Objectivity and The Quest For Truth

One of the most underrated qualities a person can have is objectivity. Being objective leads to truth. Truth to freedom (John 8:32). Freedom to salvation. For how can a person be saved in ignorance? Or how could that person dispel that ignorance without first seeking truth objectively? This presupposes that truth is not relative in which there are different truths depending on different people’s perspectives. Truth, in this context, is reality—things as they really are.

Everyone has preconceived notions about what reality is. These preconceived notions often come from cultural, religious, philosophical, scholarly, family and other societal norms and traditions. Much like the parable of the Blind Men and The Elephant, we all come to fallacious conclusions about what is true.

It was six men of Indostanblind men elephant
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a WALL!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a SPEAR!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a SNAKE!”

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he:
“‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a TREE!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a FAN!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a ROPE!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

(John Godfrey Saxe’s Rendition)

In a sense, we are all blind. Our perspective of reality is severely limited by too few experiences and by our tendency to jump to hasty conclusions about what those experiences mean. Is it any wonder why there are so many versions of history when the people who actually experienced the times and events pass on their limited (often distorted and one-sided) versions to those who then pass it on and on from one generation to the next? Much like the game Telephone, what may have been reality in the beginning is almost never reality by the end.

In order for people to learn truth there are several conditions and qualities which must be met. If any of these are missing then truth will not be fully realized.

  1. The truth must be available—one can seek truth all they can but if it is out of their capacity to learn then truth will not be fully realized.
  2. People must be free—if the truth is available but people don’t have the freedom to research, proclaim, publish, and share it then truth will not be fully realized.
  3. People must have a desire for truth—if one has an apathetic approach (or no approach at all) to learning then truth will not be fully realized.
  4. People must investigate—what good is a desire without an action? Without the doing then truth will not be fully realized.
  5. People must be honest (aka objective)—the whole process and quest for knowledge requires that a person be willing to accept truth over bias but if people remain biased to their own opinions (or the opinions of those who they trust) without looking at all facts and evidence then truth will not be fully realized.

Let’s assume all of these conditions and qualities are met. Will that automatically make a person omniscient today? No. Learning is a process. If living according to other correct principles are any indication of what the quest for truth is like, it will require a significant amount of time, diligence, patience, energy, hard work, humility and yes—faith. Doing so will initially be unpopular.

Throughout history, whenever someone challenges the status quo in their quest for truth, they have often met heavy resistance from the prevailing powers. People such as Moses, Christ, Martin Luther, John Wesley, some American founders, Joseph Smith, Gandhi, and many more all had to meet heavy resistance when they dispelled ignorance.

If a certain truth scares you, that might be a signal that either your conviction is false or deep down inside you doubt its validity.

If you hide or distort the truth, that might be a signal that your allegiance to truth is not primary.

Those who hold certain convictions tend to be concerned with those who investigate differing points of view. Regardless of what our convictions might be, we shouldn’t fear but should rather praise the objective efforts of those seeking truth. Their efforts might lead them away from the truth. But, if they diligently seek it objectively and honestly, they are very likely going to find light that most of us have never found.

It is interesting that an atheist and a religionist can both believe they are applying the principle of objectivity but yet arrive at conflicting conclusions. On the one hand, an atheist will argue that they let the evidence of existing tangibles guide them to their conclusion. On the other hand, a religionist can argue that they let the evidence of spiritual manifestations guide them to their conclusion. They both can’t be right—at least not completely.

Ask yourself, “Had I been alive during Christ’s ministry, the reformation, the American revolution, the early restoration, or any other meaningful societal shift, would I have been the type to give up my old ways to accept a better way?” or “Would I have clung to the old order of things?” The best indication of how you would have chosen is determined on how you view the world now. The same spirit that possesses your body now would have possessed it in the past.

“The man who has a certain religious belief and fears to discuss it, lest it may be proved wrong, is not loyal to his belief, he has but a coward’s faithfulness to his prejudices. If he were a lover of truth, he would be willing at any moment to surrender his belief for a higher, better, and truer faith.” –William George Jordan, The Power of Truth; Individual Problems and Posibilities, 1902

Being objective is a virtue. It requires being honest, humble, teachable, and courageous. Blind conviction is a vice. It blinds our eyes, covers our ears, hardens our hearts, and damns our souls.

If the truth were to arrive at your door right now would you be willing to let it in? Are you open to it? Or are you stuck in your convictions? You have the truth. Anyone else with a different belief is automatically wrong. Perhaps we convince ourselves of these things but maybe, in reality, our convictions are based less on truth and more on tradition; or because we’ve invested so much into the system already and we feel the need to stay committed; or maybe we’re afraid to be wrong- so wrong for so long; or maybe it’s not comfortable to change; or maybe we’ve benefited from this system for so long that to recognize its flaws is to risk losing its payments. Conviction can be damning when it keeps us from progressing toward the truth.

Ultimately though, one could come to an understanding of what is true and choose to live contrary to what they now know. Knowledge alone will not save you. If you know Truth you do well; but the devils also know and tremble (James 2:19). Wisdom—truth in action—is what makes the difference between death and life, misery and joy.

Obeying Authority and the Rule of Thirds

soldier shooting civiliansHalf a century ago Adolf Eichmann was captured and taken from Argentina to an Israeli civilian court to answer for crimes against humanity and the Jewish people. Several decades earlier, Eichmann was a German Nazi lieutenant colonel tasked with the responsibility of managing much of the logistics of the Holocaust. During Eichmann’s cross-examination the prosecution asked him if he considered himself guilty of the murder of millions of people. Eichmann’s defense—that he was just “following orders” and that he “never did anything, great or small, without obtaining in advance express instructions from Adolf Hitler or any of (his) superiors.” His defense was rejected; he was found guilty and hanged the following year.

Inspired by the Eichmann trial, Stanley Milgram, a Social Psychology professor at Yale, performed an experiment aimed at answering the question: “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” In Milgram’s own words the experiment went as follows:

“A simple procedure is devised for studying obedience. A person comes to the laboratory and, in the context of a learning experiment, is told to give increasingly severe shocks to another person (who is actually an actor). The purpose of the experiment is to see how far a subject will proceed before refusing to comply with the experimenter’s instructions.”

The experiment was originally performed on 40 test subjects. Each one of them was told by Milgram (the authority in the room) to ask questions and administer shocks by increments of 15 volts to the person in the other room whenever that person answered a question incorrectly. This was to persist until the voltage reached the full 450 volts. The person in the other room, who was not really getting shocked, acted as though each shock was getting increasingly worse by screaming, complaining about his “heart condition”, and then after the 300 volt administration he went silent. Many of the test subjects, assuming that they were really inflicting pain or possible death on the man in the other room, felt bad and asked to quit the experiment. Milgram’s scripted response was that he took personal responsibility for whatever happened and that he required them to continue until the experiment was completed.

Of the 40 test subjects 26 administered the full 450 volt shock. That is a 65 percent compliance rate. After the experiment was published some astonished psychologists presumed that the experiment was done incorrectly so they tried their own variations and found almost identical results. Variations of the experiment have been conducted across time and cultures to see if the results would change. The compliance rate averages around two thirds.

It appears it is generally in our nature to obey an immoral command when that command is administered by an apparent authority figure. But should that relieve us of accountability? If you or I were in the shoes of Eichmann, Milgram’s test subjects, or acting as agents of some other despot we would probably tell ourselves that we would disobey. “I am different. I would act morally. I would not be acted upon.” we tell ourselves. But would we? Let us hope so- for our own sakes and for the sakes of others. Edmund Burk is oft-quoted as saying, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” It appears that evil also needs mindless agents willing to obey orders. Let us be neither the complacent good nor compliant to evil.

Looking at Milgram’s experiment alone might offer us little hope as to how we would likely behave if commanded to execute an undesirable action but an experiment performed by Indiana University psychology professor Steven Sherman suggests that “education can strengthen the power of conscience over authority” when we consciously decide ahead of time to do so. Interestingly, the experiment showed that consciously making that decision ahead of time dropped the compliance rate from 2/3 to 1/3.

While I am not a social psychologist nor do I have sufficient evidence to back up this theory- there does appear to be some proof, in my mind, to submit a theory of obeying authority and the rule of thirds. That is that there is a breaking point at which, for better or for worse, a group is broken up into three factions for a particular cause- the obedient, the neutral, and the defiant.

In a 2009 Rasmussen poll—31% of Texas voters said that their country had the right to secede from the union and form their own independent country. Similarly, a 2012 HuffPost/YouGov poll given to 1000 adult Americans across the country found that “29 percent said states should be allowed to secede if a majority of their residents supported secession, while 38 percent said they should not, and a third weren’t sure.”

Following the War for American Independence, British General James Robertson, in his testimony before a committee on the conduct of the war, estimated that the American population during the war was one-third for the cause of American independence, one-third neutral, and one-third loyalists.

John Adams similarly wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on Nov 12, 1813 concerning the Continental Congress that “To draw the characters of them all would require a volume, and would now be considered as a caricature-print; one-third tories, another whigs, and the rest mongrels.”

In response to the former Delaware Continental Congressman Thomas McKean who believed that “the great mass of the people were zealous in the cause of America” Adams wrote in Aug 31, 1813 that:

“Upon the whole, if we allow two thirds of the people to have been with us in the revolution, is not the allowance ample? Are not the two thirds of the nation now with the administration? Divided we ever have been, and ever must be. Two thirds always had and will have more difficulty to struggle with the one third than with all our foreign enemies.”

Upon reflection Mckean agreed.

Referring to the French Revolution in an 1815 letter to Massachusetts Senator James Lloyd, John Adams estimated that the Americans were generally one third “averse” to the revolution, one third for the revolution out of “a hatred of the English”, and the “middle third” that were, as Adams put it “the soundest part of the nation” and “averse to war”.

Finally, the war of wars which has existed since before the beginning of man on Earth—The War in Heaven, as it is known amongst latter-day saints, repeats a similar social psychology statistic. One-third of God’s spirits rejected the appointment of Christ as their savior, were cast down to Earth, and became devils. As the Bible Dictionary points out:

“Although one-third of the spirits became devils, the remaining two-thirds were not all equally valiant, there being every degree of devotion to Christ and the Father among them.”

Could it be that of the two-thirds who accepted the appointment of Christ that half of them were fence-sitters? I truly don’t know but that’s what I might guess.

So if all of these examples teach us anything it might be these: 1) choose the right regardless of who your authority is and 2) be prepared to have anywhere from a third to two-thirds obey a different authority than you—whether that authority is natural law or man’s law. To conclude his findings Professor Sherman wrote:

“When you look before you leap or predict behavior before you behave, the leaping and the behavior are likely to be altered; and indications are that the behavior will become more socially desirable and morally acceptable.” (Sherman, On the Self-Erasing Nature of Errors of Prediction, p 220, 1980)

It’s time to ask ourselves- “What would I do…?”