George Albert Smith: Loving Persuasion Over Force

January 13, 2012 Leave a comment

Disclaimer: the following post contains the author’s opinion and may not necessarily reflect the complete views of George Albert Smith.

A year after being called to be an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and at the age of 34, George Albert Smith wrote his personal creed—11 values by which he wanted to live by.  The creed emphasized his desires for peaceful living, service, love of mankind, faith in God and using loving persuasion.  His creed is as follows:

“I would be a friend to the friendless and find joy in ministering to the needs of the poor.

I would visit the sick and the afflicted and inspire in them a desire for faith to be healed.

I would teach the truth to the understanding and blessing of all mankind.

I would seek out the erring and try to win him back to a righteous and a happy life.

I would not seek to force people to live up to my ideals but rather love them into doing the thing that is right.

I would live with the masses and help solve their problems that their earth life may be happy.

I would avoid the publicity of high positions and discourage the flattery of thoughtless friends.

I would not knowingly hurt the feelings of any, not even one who may have wronged me, but would seek to do him good and make him my friend.

I would overcome the tendency to selfishness and jealousy and rejoice in the success of all the children of my Heavenly Father.

I would not be an enemy to any living soul.

Knowing that the Redeemer of mankind has offered to the world the only plan that will fully develop us and make us really happy here and hereafter I feel it not only a duty but a blessed privilege to disseminate this truth.”

Many who knew George Albert Smith exclaimed that his creed was not just what he believed but the manner in which he lived. When one carefully reads each point they will realize Elder Smith’s understanding of truth and his attitude towards his relationship with God and fellow man far surpasses most of that age. It’s interesting to note that all of those values are selfless. Paradoxically, those few who live this creed (sometimes unaware) are the happiest, fearless, peaceful people on Earth even though they seek little for themselves.

“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.” (Luke 9:24)

The most notable goal Elder Smith brought up, as it pertains to liberty, was his desire to use persuasion rather than force: “I would not seek to force people to live up to my ideals but rather love them into doing the thing that is right.”  If parents, teachers, businesses and governments were to follow this simple principle authoritarians would turn to loving parents, disciplinarians to mentors, despots to developers, and tyrants to statesmen. Persuasion rather than force is also more likely to turn offspring to family, student to learner, staff to equals, and serfs to freemen.

While those who act in accordance with persuasion instead of force are guiltless of any wrong doing in that particular thing, there is no guarantee that those who are acted upon through loving persuasion will actually repent of their wrong doing. But, as it pertains practically, persuasion has a much higher success rate than force in the long-term. While force might yield temporary results it is the nature of the human spirit to resist force and thus force ultimately fails. On the other hand, when persuasion and truth are paired the results are everlasting. As it pertains morally, persuasion is the only just method of using power and influence that are positive in nature. Force is only justified when it is negative—as an act of defense of last resort.

Mark Skousen (author, professor and statesman) wrote a pamphlet titled Persuasion vs. Force in which he argued that persuasion is the morally justified use of power. President Hinckley received this pamphlet and replied in letter:

Dear Brother Skousen, I have read with appreciation your pamphlet, “Persuasion vs. Force.” Would that the world and its leaders might follow the philosophies set forth therein. As I read it I thought of the 121 Section of the Doctrine and Covenants verses 39–44. Keep speaking along these lines. It is a message that needs constant repetition.

Sincerely,

Gordon B. Hinckley

The moral use of power through persuasion also passes the Benson Test—that is that we can only delegate to government the powers which we have as individuals. If a person doesn’t have the moral authority to force their neighbor to live by their dietary code then they are not morally justified in delegating that authority to government. That is why legislating vices is wrong. A person would not be justified barging into their neighbor’s home, confiscating their mind altering substances, destroying their contraceptives, and taking their money to pay for someone else’s education and retirement. Yet, there are many who feel justified in imposing their moral codes under the banner of government, in the name of morality but in the reality of mob-rule. Though their intentions are usually pure—to rid the world of evil—they unintentionally perpetuate the very thing they aim to annihilate. How are their methods any more justified than the crusaders who wished to bring people to Christ? Whose plan was it to force all mankind to be righteous? Conversely, whose plan was it to allow man their agency and to use love and persuasion to win them back? (Moses 4:1-2)

Not only is it immoral to make laws forbidding vices, it doesn’t make practical sense either. Prohibition in the 1920’s and the war on drugs since the 1970’s serve as sufficient examples of why punishing vices through force is expensive, impractical, and unsustainable.

There are a myriad of reasons why people support liberty or freedom of choice. Some are good and some are bad. George Albert Smith taught many important lessons in his creed. One of them being that loving persuasion ought to be used instead of force (D&C 121:39-42). Freedom is an empty vessel. With what freedom we have we should fill it with good things. The more freedom- the greater our capacity to do good. The more good we do- the fuller our joy.

Know this, that ev’ry soul is free
To choose his life and what he’ll be;
For this eternal truth is giv’n:
That God will force no man to heav’n.
He’ll call, persuade, direct aright,
And bless with wisdom, love, and light,
In nameless ways be good and kind,
But never force the human mind.
(Know This, That Every Soul Is Free)

Filed under Charity, Liberty, Peace & Harmony, Political Philosophy, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Ambition: Virtue or Vice?

March 4, 2011 Leave a comment

Before this world was there was a war between opposing ideologies.  One person presented his own plan of salvation before God—“Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.”  Another Person testified in word and deed—“Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.”  The first person, Satan, referred to himself six times to this ambitious endeavor to save all mankind while the second, Christ, didn’t mention Himself once, but rather glorified His Father. (Moses 4:1-2)

Ambition has permeated much of our society.  Striving for one’s own power, status or wealth are often seen as worthy and virtuous endeavors by the world.  Letting these goals go unchecked, though, can destroy a person’s life along with many around them.  In D&C 121 we learn that “many are called but few are chosen”.  The first reason listed for this catastrophe is because “their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men (v. 35).”  Two verses later ambition is mentioned again, “when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man (v. 37).”

Vanity, that nasty ingredient, when added to ambition produces a recipe for spiritual disaster.  Ambition and her close cousin vanity become tantamount when one’s motives are strictly selfish.  Charity seeketh not her own (1 Cor 13:5) but ambition does.  Ambition and charity are both verbs yet one points a person inward and often fails them.  The other points a person upward and it never faileth (1 Cor 13:8).

When ambition ceases to be about our own work and glory but is replaced with an eye single to God’s glory we are endowed with greater power, honor or wealth than the world could ever provide.  Though flesh and Babylon disguise ambition as an investment, its dividends are temporary and shallow.  Charity, on the other hand, pays dividends for eternity.

Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever. (D&C 121:45-46)

Filed under Business, Charity, Peace & Harmony, Political Philosophy, Religion Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

Responsible Unity & Personal Sovereignty

September 17, 2010 2 Comments

“But America must remain united.”  And so goes the knee jerk response to any declarations of state sovereignty, nullification, or independence.  Few understand that the “United States of America” was established on the foundation that people are “entitled” to separate themselves from their government when that government no longer fulfills its proper role.  So states Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

After stating the purpose and proper role of government and how Britain had violated them repeatedly Jefferson continues to lay the cause of secession:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…(W)hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Source of Governmental Power—In answering questions of sovereignty it is important to recognize the source of man’s rights as well as the source of governmental power.  No one explained this more simply than Ezra Taft Benson in The Proper Role of Government:

Since God created man with certain unalienable rights, and man, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man is superior to the creature which he created. Man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around.

Leaving aside, for a moment, the question of the divine origin of rights, it is obvious that a government is nothing more or less than a relatively small group of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to perform certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which have been authorized. It stands to reason that the government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything. Its only source of authority and power is from the people who have created it. This is made clear in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which reads: “WE THE PEOPLE… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So, the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But, it is a question which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper function of government.

The fact that “man is superior to government” and should therefore remain “master over it” seems like an anachronistic idea to some.  Surely this idea has flipped since the creation of the Constitution.  The status-quo now teaches that government is the master and that our rights are derived from it.  Those who believe in state and personal sovereignty over the federal government are not in line with the status-quo.  They are often labeled as extreme, seditious rebels causing disunity.

Benson’s question, “What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of government?” applies to state and personal sovereignty.  In the absence of government, does the power, or authority, for one party to force another party to remain under the same bands exist?  No!

Responsible Unity—An example of personal sovereignty could be illustrated by a marital contract.  Should the urge for unity supersede the right for others to separate themselves when they are being abused?  Should a woman continue an abusive marriage where the husband coerces her to abide under his drunken dominion…for the cause of unity?  Should she continue to support him and be loyal to him when he has repeatedly maxed out every credit card, betrayed her trust, broken his vows, and violated his side of the marital contract?  Common sense would require a person to answer these three questions, irrevocably—No!  How is this different in the national sense?  Since the states have entered into a contract with each other, aka the Constitution, shouldn’t either side have a right to divorce itself once the contract has been repeatedly violated?  Unity is ideal when all parties are being respected but to exalt unity at the expense of sovereignty is to rob people of their inalienable rights.  While giving his speech, Stand Up for Freedom, Ezra Taft Benson spoke of “irresponsible unity”.

Another recent development has been the call for national unity. I believe there needs to be a unity in our land. But it must not be blind, senseless, irresponsible unity. It should not be a unity just for the sake of unity. It needs to be a unity built on sound principles.

Speaking of the increasing political trend towards socialism Benson said:

If this has lead to disunity then by all means let us return to a program of sound Constitutional principles on which we can unite.

History has repeatedly taught us that our government continues to give little to no regard to uniting under Constitutional principles.  One might argue that the federal government has already seceded from the Constitution and therefore the people who wish to continue a Constitutional form of government aren’t actually advocating leaving the Republic but in restoring it.  From this perspective—who are the rebels?  Who are the law breakers?  Who are the extremists?  Who has caused disunity?

Joseph Smith recognized the importance of unity:

Unity is power; and when I reflect on the importance of it to the stability of all governments, I am astounded at the silly moves of persons and parties to foment discord in order to ride into power on the current of popular excitement. (Joseph Smith, Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States, 1844.)

But Joseph also recognized that obedience to unconstitutional laws is foolish after which he cites the 10th amendment (which specifically claims sovereignty to the states and people):

Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No!…The Constitution acknowledges that the people have all power not reserved to itself.” (Joseph Smith, Latter-day Prophets and the United States Constitution)

Obeying, Honoring, and Sustaining the Law—Many Latter Day Saints will detest the notion of separation based on an isolated reading of their 12th Article of Faith:

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Few members are familiar with another scripture of theirs (D&C 134) which sheds light on the subject of the role and relationship of government with its people.  In the 5th verse we read:

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

It is apparent that latter day saints believe “all men” are to uphold their governments only IF their governments are fulfilling their duty of protecting its people’s inalienable rights.

After studying the 12th Article of Faith and D&C 98 together, Latter Day Saint Americans should believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law—the “Constitutional law of the land”:

And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. (D&C 98:5-7)

The idea that our national government has repeatedly overstepped its Constitutional bounds should be accepted by millions of LDS American citizens.  Every President of the Church since Joseph Smith has warned of or pointed out violations of that sacred document.  What if elected officials at the national level are no longer obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law which they have sworn an oath to do?  Based on the above principles and scriptures—are LDS citizens required to remain subject to such a long train of abuses and usurpations?

Hypocrisy and Tyranny or Liberty and Sovereignty—Many Americans, both LDS and not, have accepted a hypocritical policy of pushing for foreign states to separate themselves from their oppressive central governments (i.e.- Georgia Vs Soviet Union) but have long-since attacked the same policy when it applies at home.  ‘Independence abroad but blind-unity at home’ is the motto of the pseudo-liberty-lover.  What was once a moral principle of sovereignty, which laid the foundation of this country, has been replaced by an idea that oppression must be permissible for the sake of unity.  Only the power-driven would spread such a lie and only an unprincipled ignoramus would accept it.

We the people are sovereign.  People are, or ought to be, masters over their government.  People have the responsibility to sustain their government when the government is protecting their inalienable rights; but when governments become destructive to those ends it is their right and it is their duty to separate themselves from such oppression.

These questions apply now: is your government fulfilling its role of protecting your inherent and inalienable rights?  If not, for how much longer will this be tolerable?

Filed under Liberty, Origin of Rights, Political Philosophy, Religion, Sovereignty, US Constitution

‘Ends Justify Means’ Fallacy

August 24, 2010 2 Comments

One of the biggest lies ever adopted as truth has been the philosophy that a good end is justified by any means necessary—good or bad.  Most people have good intentions and wish to obtain praiseworthy goals (ends) but some forget, ignore, or try to justify using immoral methods (means) to accomplish those goals.

In a letter to the Romans, Paul shed light on a false teaching attributed to him—“Let us do evil that good may come” (Romans 3:8).  Yet many Christians, even today, rationalize some degree of evil committed by themselves, governments, or others because of the “greater good” which supposedly came from their questionable methods.

The following is an excerpt from Elder F. Burton Howard’s talk “Repentance” which sheds more light on this false philosophy.

Just as foolish as believing that we can “pass it on” is the idea that the satisfaction of being in the circle, whatever that may be, can somehow excuse any wrongs committed there. This notion is widely shared and is most often expressed by the phrase, “The end justifies the means.” Such a belief, if left undisturbed and unchecked, can also impede the repentance process and cheat us out of exaltation.

Those who teach it are almost always attempting to excuse the use of improper or questionable means. Such people seem to be saying, “My purpose was to do good or to be happy; therefore, any little lie, or misrepresentation, or lapse of integrity, or violation of law along the way is justified.”

In certain circumstances, some say it is “okay” to conceal the truth, to dig just a small pit for an adversary, to pursue an advantage of some kind—such as superior knowledge or position—against another. “This is just common practice,” or “I’m just looking after Number One,” they say. “All’s fair in love and war,” or “That’s the way the ball bounces,” they say. But if the means which prompt the saying of these things are wrong, no amount of rationalization or verbal whitewash can ever make them right.

To those who believe otherwise, Nephi said: “Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord.” (2 Ne. 28:9.)

Some seek to justify their actions by quoting scripture. They often cite Nephi’s killing of Laban as an example of the need to violate a law to accomplish a greater good and to prevent a nation from dwindling in unbelief. But they forget that Nephi twice refused to follow the promptings of the Spirit. In the end, he agreed to break the commandment only when he was convinced that “the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes” (1 Ne. 4:13; italics added) and also (I believe) when he knew that the penalty for shedding blood had been lifted, in that one exceptional case, by Him whose right it is to fix and waive penalties.

The truth is that we are judged by the means we employ and not by the ends we may hope to obtain. It will do us little good at the last day to respond to the Great Judge, “I know I was not all I could have been, but my heart was in the right place.”

In fact, there is danger in focusing merely on ends. To some who did, the Savior said:

“Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name have cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them: I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (3 Ne. 14:22–23.)

The war in heaven was essentially about the means by which the plan of salvation would be implemented. It forever established the principle that even for the greatest of all ends, eternal life, the means are critical. It should be obvious to all thinking Latter-day Saints that the wrong means can never attain that objective.

The danger in thinking that the end justifies the means lies in making a judgment we have no right to make. Who are we to say that the Lord will pardon wickedness done to attain a perceived “greater good.” Even if the goal is good, it would be a personal calamity to look beyond the mark and fail to repent of the wrong we do along the way.

Consider a few more ‘ends justify the means’ arguments made throughout mankind’s history:

Crusades—it’s better to force people to accept Christianity than let them die unsaved.

Offensive War—it’s better to attack a potential enemy before they can attack you (Pre-emptive war) OR going to war is justied if it can save your nation’s economy.

Atomic Bomb—it’s better to kill 250,000 civilians than possibly lose 1,000,000 soldiers (intentional collateral damage).

Terrorism—it’s ok to kill innocent people to get a point across.

Torture—it’s better to use cruel methods to obtain information which can potentially save many others.

Socialism—it’s ok to forcefully take from Jane to pay for Mary’s schooling, medical bills, retirement, etc.  (it’s ok to steal from others if it’s for the ‘greater good’.)

Abortion—it’s better to abort an unwanted child than allow it to live in unfavorable conditions.

Prostitution & Drug Dealing—selling drugs or your body is ok if it’s a matter of survival.

Involuntary Vaccinations—forcing vaccinations on individuals is just in order to save everyone.

Our options between right and wrong often get distorted by how complicated the world gets.  Let’s not forget the chorus line from the Hymn “Do What Is Right”:

Do what is right; let the consequence follow.
Battle for freedom in spirit and might;
And with stout hearts look ye forth till tomorrow.
God will protect you; then do what is right!

Filed under Just-War, Political Philosophy, Religion, Socialism

Relative Extremism

August 4, 2010 2 Comments

Extremism is relative. Depending on where someone stands on any social, political, or cultural spectrum they’ll view anyone “too ideologically distant” as an extremist.  But this perspective has its shortcomings.

Many members of the LDS Church cling tightly to the teaching to be “moderate in all things” but confuse the phrase’s origin and proper applications.  This teaching is found nowhere in LDS canonized scripture, not even in D&C 89 where most members attribute the phrase to come from.  The teaching to be “moderate in all things” actually roots itself from Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean, which teaches that a virtue lies in the middle of two extremes.  The problem is that “extremes” shift at the whims of society but the gospel of Christ is a sure foundation and is immovable.  In the few cases where LDS prophets have used that term they were referring to living a balanced life- the balance, of course, being with the best things in life.  Being “moderate in all things” does not mean that people should approach all things, healthy and unhealthy, with moderation.

Many members use half-truths such as “moderation in all things” and “avoid extremes” to justify their viewpoints or to criticize others.  The truth is- being moderate in all things doesn’t mean that people should compromise, or shift to the middle of every controversy that exists in society.  Truth and righteousness are extreme notions to a society who love to follow Satan.  Outside of the Church society views the Church’s teachings as extreme. This isn’t justification for members to shift their standards to meet halfway with the world.  In every dispensation those who have preached the truth have been perceived as extremists.

Perhaps Noah should have met the Lord and the world half way and just built a canoe.  No one would have made fun of him or perceived him as an extremist.

Perhaps Jesus should have refrained from proclaiming himself as the Son of God and the Savior of the world.  After all, these proclamations were seen as extreme to most people at the time.

Perhaps Joseph Smith should have kept silent about his experiences with God and angels in order to avoid controversy.

Perhaps the Church should “get with the times” and start allowing homosexuals to marry in their temples.

Truth is not established on Gallup polls. –Ezra Taft Benson (An Enemy Hath Done This, pg 282)

If the path to salvation is straight and narrow then who are the real extremists?  The one’s clinging to the iron rod or the ones making fun of them (1 Ne 8)?  If someone really believed there is only one Lord, one faith, and one baptism (Ephesian 4:5) then wouldn’t an eternal perspective make them completely uninterested in the judgments of man?

…the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world (John 17:14).

People take the moderate position because, to them, it’s safe.  It’s uncomfortable and embarrassing to be perceived as an extremist.  So rather than take a stand on moral ground they compromise their principles and values to accommodate the most amounts of people.  I suspect these could be some of the same cowards that Jesus said- because of being lukewarm, that He will spew them out of His mouth (Rev 3:16).

Moderation in all things is not a virtue, because it would seem to justify moderation in commitment. That is not moderation, but indifference. That kind of moderation runs counter to the divine commands to serve with all of our “heart, might, mind and strength” (D&C 4:2), to “seek … earnestly the riches of eternity” (D&C 68:31), and to be “valiant in the testimony of Jesus” (D&C 76:79). Moderation is not the answer. –Dallin H. Oaks (Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall, Ensign, 1994)

The question boils down to this:  Who do you fear perceives you as an extremist?  Those who fear the world are obsessed with pleasing it through compromise and moderation.  Those who fear the Lord and act accordingly are not extremists to God.

For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth (Deut. 14:2).

Filed under Religion

Newer posts →