ChaunceyRiddle

Thesis: There is but one celestial law. It is Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Many scriptures suggest the singular aspect of celestial law (e.g., D&C 130:21–22, D&C 132). Apparently this singular aspect is not well understood. The purpose of this paper is to explain why there can be but one celestial law and to detail certain consequences of that singularity.

Fundamental to this discussion is the following image of the universe. There exists a God who is morally perfect, omnipotent and omniscient. His work is to bless His children, sharing fully His exaltation with as many of them as share completely His perfect devotion to righteousness and truth. Learning to be fully righteous in the context of truth is the process of salvation made available by God to the mortals of this earth. Righteousness is the process of securing the maximum benefit and blessing for all beings other than one’s self.

The key factor in mortal probation is then the decisions for action which each person makes. Man has agency to affect the other beings; his choice is to affect them righteously or unrighteously. There are no human decisions which affect only the agent, so every choice is a moral choice, for or against righteousness. The moral decisions of daily life are the crux of our problem.

If righteousness is maximizing the benefit and blessings of beings other than one’s self, what opportunities for righteousness does a human being have? One might desire righteousness, but this does not make one moral, for the desire of itself achieves nothing for others. Desire is a necessary condition for righteousness, but not a sufficient condition. To it must be added the knowledge and power necessary to enact in the reality of the universe the maximal benefit and blessing of all other beings. The point is that no human being has within himself the opportunity to be righteous. It follows further that only a god can be righteous.

Let us examine as a paradigm example the moral problem of the father of a family. Every desire he entertains, every thought he thinks, every word he utters, every act he performs affects the welfare of his wife and each of his children. Not only are there many direct effects but also many indirect ones, for each choice has involvements for a man’s spirituality. His spirituality governs his knowledge, physical and priesthood power, and the purity of his desires. If he wishes to be a righteous father, he must think and act to achieve the maximum blessing for his family. This means he must understand all the possibilities there are for thought and action. He must further understand how his enactment of each of those possibilities would affect each member of his family, not only now, but in its eternal ramifications. He must choose that act which will redound to the maximal eternal benefit of each person involved. Then he must have the power to perform that act, quite possibly a performance far exceeding any mortal strength or ability. Again it becomes obvious that only a god could do all these things.

Is every man then doomed to unrighteousness? Indeed, every natural man is so doomed; no matter what he does, no matter what his desires, he cannot maximize the benefits of those around him. Because he is fallen, he is captive to Satan, to unrighteousness, to impotence, to misery. His only hope is to have outside help.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the good news of that outside help. It is the promise that those who will come unto Christ will receive the blessing of a god who will purify their desires and make the omniscience and omnipotence of deity available to each person. The Gospel is the promise of righteousness.

To accept the Gospel, a person must admit that he is unrighteous and demonstrate a hunger for righteousness. He must turn away from what he now sees are sins and trust in the mercy and grace of Christ for both forgiveness and direction. As he accepts baptism, he covenants with the gods never again to be self-willed, but that he now submits his heart, might, mind and strength to the guiding power of Jesus Christ. If he truly completes that covenant he is given the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which brings him the possibility of fullness of the mind and will of Christ.

Under the influence of the Holy Ghost, before or after baptism, a person can exercise faith in Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ is to, a) hear the word of Christ, through personal revelation, b) believe that word of Christ, and c) enact that word or instruction from Christ. Faith is not general, it is specific. A person is faithful relative to particular choices. If he always obeys the instructions of the Savior, he is faithful. But he must choose anew, with each decision and each act, to carry out the will of Christ.

Instruction from Jesus Christ brings to a mortal the opportunity for righteousness. Christ has pure desires, and desires only righteousness. He is omniscient, knowing what acts are and will be of maximal benefit, both now and eternally. And the Savior is omnipotent, having the power to carry out any act necessary to fulfill all righteousness. As the Savior instructs a person, that person receives direction that enables him to choose to act righteously, to participate in maximizing the blessings of every and all other beings. Not only instruction comes from Christ, for as the hearer of the word believes that word with all his heart, he receives the power to carry out that choice. Thus may a man on the earth do a righteous act.

But did we not say that no man of himself can be righteous, and that only a god could act righteously? Indeed we did. For one of the grand keys of salvation is to understand that when a person renounces his selfish desires, yields his heart and mind to the Savior and begins to act on faith in Christ, he ceases to be a natural man, an independent person. As a reborn faithful covenant servant of Christ he is now a “member,” a part, of the Church, which is the “body” of Christ. As each person becomes faithful to Christ, each becomes, as it were, a new toe or a new finger to the Savior, extending His dominion, His power, in the universe. Thus when any of us becomes righteous, it is not our righteousness, but it is the righteousness of Christ which we receive and of which we partake. As we become one with Him, He becomes our mind and our heart, and we are the obedient muscle or limb, helping to carry out the grand design of the gods for the blessing of the whole universe. As we are steadfast in faith, we may grow in power until we are as Christ, equal with Him in purity, knowledge and power, thereafter to work eternally with and under Him in the endless quest for righteousness is the universe. Man then cannot be righteous of himself, but he can become godly by becoming part of God until he has grown to a fullness and is a god.

Having shown how faith in Christ is the only possible way to righteousness, it remains to show how true faith is always a particular and immediate response to personal revelation, and never the mere application of a general rule, even if the rule originally came from the Savior.

Human action is always particular. We act at specific moments in particular places. No two environments for action are ever exactly the same, as are no two successive states of any given human participant. Every time we act, we act uniquely in a unique circumstance.

Human understanding, on the other hand, is general. Historically, humans have sought the greatest possible generalizations of mind by which to appreciate their universe, and have sought for general maxims of conduct. This generalization is necessitated by the overwhelming complexity of the “given-ness” of any moment of experience and the possibilities for action thereunto appertaining. Since we as humans cannot deal with the totality of the reality which confronts us, we artificially simplify, and thus falsify, the universe. We create our own mental version of the universe; believing ourselves to have grasped the “essence” of the situation or circumstance. The frequency of error and the inability to deal with total possibility for action both witness the temerity of supposing we truly “understand” what goes on and what we are doing. This limitation of understanding is further witness to the necessity of faith in Christ.

Let us now see why human application of general maxims for conduct, no matter how worthy the maxims, do not yield righteous action. Let us take for an example the maxim, “Always tell the truth.” This maxim by inference warns us that telling untruths is not good, but it is not very helpful in giving us positive direction and instruction. Our first problem is: What is the truth? Do we know it? Only rarely are we in possession of the truth about anything. Secondly, truth is always very particular, being a description of an actual state of the universe. But language is always general, and thus a necessarily false representation of some particularity. We salve our consciences by supposing that our generalizations are really true, but they turn out to be true not of the real world but of our personal, general, imaginary world-construct. Then we justify ourselves by saying, “I did the best I knew.” That may be, but righteousness does not come from a man doing the best he can in a falsified, imaginary universe. A final plea might be, “There is no better way!” And here the lie is truly manifest. There is a better way. It is to say only that which Jesus Christ instructs us to say, that is, to apply the one celestial law, and act only on faith in Jesus Christ. He will tell us what to say to accomplish the most good, and what we say will not only indicate truth, but will convey the particularity of truth by means of the Holy Spirit, and will be moral, besides. More often than not, He will likely have us remain silent, saying nothing being the better course.

Or perhaps we desire to “Love our neighbor.” Shall I take my partial and false mental image of my neighbor with my faulty understanding of his problems and their solutions and pretend that of myself I can decide and do a good thing for him? The self-righteousness of the blind, impotent, impure human being, though perhaps commendable in intent, is a monstrous perpetration of evil in the universe. It can be forgiven if it is done in ignorance of a better way. But if self-righteousness is deliberately chosen by rejecting the way of Christ, it can only be the way of madness, an act totally inconsistent with the desire for righteousness.

For in this world, Jesus Christ is our unique access to that purity and omniscience which makes possible the telling of truth and loving our neighbor as acts of true righteousness, meeting the particularities of time, place and circumstance which are the reality of any life situation. Nor will yesterday’s revelations or someone else’s revelations do. To be righteous, I must act immediately here and now as the Savior instructs me here and now through His Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit thus becomes the nerve channel through which Christ, the head, commands me, the willing member of His body, how to act to do real good.

Thus is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the law of the celestial order.

Thus is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ the only basis of righteous action.

Thus is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ always a particular and immediate response to a particular, immediate revelation.

Corollary 1: All gospel principles are but facets of the celestial law.

If there is but one celestial law, does that mean that there is but one celestial principle? In a qualified way the answer is “yes.” The qualification is that it is useful to separate out many gospel principles for the purpose of full intellectual comprehension of the nature of faith. But operationally each principle must be seen as an enactment of faith in Christ, not existing independently.

To show how principles are facets of the celestial law, let us take several gospel principles as examples, demonstrating how the living of each principle is actuated only as faith in Jesus Christ:

Repentance: The Greek root of the word “repentance” when translated literally means a “change of mind.” To repent is to stop thinking and deciding in the manner that leads us to do evil, and to turn to the Lord letting Him guide our thinking, feeling and deciding by the direct moment-to-moment influence of His Holy Spirit, which is the same thing as faith in Jesus Christ.

Sacrifice: The word “sacrifice” means “to make holy.” In ancient times animal sacrifice was required. But it was not the burning animal that made the one who sacrificed holy; rather it was the immediate and direct obedience to the instructions of God that made the one who sacrificed holy. Such obedience is faith in Christ. The modern sacrifice required is a broken heart and a contrite spirit. The broken heart is our sorrow for sin, our acceptance of the Savior’s warning that we must repent. The contrite spirit is a willingness to accept the revelations of the Lord and to live by them. Again, this is faith in Jesus Christ.

Consecration: The word “consecrate” also literally means, “to make holy.” Sacrifice makes the sacrificer holy, whereas consecration is the occasion whereby one makes or sets apart another person or some object or ability as holy. Thus it is the opportunity of a servant of Christ to reserve his time, his strength, his possessions, even all he has as things holy unto the Lord Jesus Christ. But what is the functional consequence of this consecration? It is that the person who has consecrated will then use his time, his strength, his possessions, all he has, only as the Lord directs. This is to say, he will seek the counsel of the Lord through the Spirit as to how to spend his time and strength, how to deploy his possessions. If he uses all he has through acts of faith in Jesus Christ, he is indeed living the principle of consecration; and vice versa.

Unity: The servants of Christ are always united, or they are not His servants (D&C 38:27). The power that unites them is that glory which is given only by God (John 17:22), but is given by God to all who come unto Him (3 Nephi 12:1). The agent or medium of that glory that makes unity possible is the Holy Ghost. True followers of Christ act in harmony and unity, for each has Christ as his head. Support of the priesthood authority, general or local, is always a delight, because the one supporting has the constant assurance of the Spirit that those over him are indeed appointed by and acting under the Savior. As each person acts, faithful to the instructions of Christ through His Spirit, the whole Church acts in concert. Those who lack that Spirit cannot fully cooperate. They “stand away” from the priesthood authority over them, which is the meaning of the word “apostate.” Thus unity is but faith in Christ.

This same procedure could be followed for every gospel principle. To live each or any is to exercise true faith in Jesus Christ. “But without faith it is impossible to please him.” (Hebrews 11:6)

Corollary 2: The function of lesser laws is to sharpen our consciousness of sin.

The Savior has given many rules or laws in addition to the celestial law. Two particular types may be readily distinguished. The first type is generally known as the law of Moses and has its focus on the ten commandments. The second type is exemplified in the Sermon on the Mount.

The law of Moses was given to the children of Israel because of their rebellion and wickedness. They had rejected the celestial law in rejecting the Gospel and thus had rejected the Lord. But the Lord in His mercy yet gave them a law of performances and ordinances. The performances and ordinances had a single focus: to point their minds towards Jesus Christ (Jehovah) and His righteousness. Every sacrifice was a type of the atonement of Christ. Every moral prescription witnessed that there is a right and a wrong to human action. This law might be seen as a minimum threshold of divine law, obedience to which paves the way for the reception of higher law.

A higher set of laws is found in Matthew, Chapter 5, and is there specifically contrasted by the Savior with the law of Moses. He said, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love you enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.” (Matthew 5:43–44). This higher law is obviously more demanding, more difficult to live.

Both of these types of laws, though they are different from each other, have a common essence which they share with all laws other than the celestial law. Their essence is that they are generalizations. They prescribe typical action. And they are all incomplete, for they do not provide enough specificity to enable the doer of the law to know when he is doing what is required. How should he love his enemy? How should that love be manifest this morning, this afternoon? But one thing we can know from these laws: we can see that ofttimes our lives do not accord with them, for we plainly see when we do not love our enemy.

The prime value of most law is negative. It does not enable us to be righteous, but does convict us of sin. The higher the law, the easier it is to see that we are thus convicted. Our conscience smites us with greater range and force in reading the Sermon on the Mount than when reviewing the ten commandments. This difficult but overwhelmingly important idea is the burden of much of Paul’s discourse in Romans, for only as we see this point can we see the overwhelming importance and beauty of the celestial law. “Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That sin hath reigned unto death, even so much grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:20–21).

Even the celestial law itself is essentially negative. It is also general and leaves the hearer without specific instruction. But it has the grand difference that it points the mind of the hearer to the grace of Christ. To say “Have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” convicts those who do not, “for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23). He who will not accept the grace of Christ, no matter what law he thinks he tries to fulfill, is sinning. But if he will turn to the Lord and humbly submit to the will of Christ as received in immediate personal revelation through the Holy Ghost (which revelation is the gift or the grace of Christ) then he is exercising faith in Christ. He is in the way of righteousness. He can be perfected. And there is no other way. (2 Nephi 31:20–21)

The agency of man is then a simple matter. Those who do not have the Holy Spirit with them do not have agency in the Gospel sense. The agency of those who do have the Spirit with them is a choice between submitting to the will of Christ through the Spirit, on the one hand; or to do anything else, on the other hand. Every act of an agent is then a choice between righteousness and sin, between following the Holy Spirit and yielding ourselves to the lusts of the flesh.

“And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life according to the will of his Holy Spirit. And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.” (2 Nephi 2:28–29)

Corollary 3: The most intelligent act a person who desires righteousness can perform is to act on faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

From what has been said before, we have seen that the only access to righteousness human beings have is to have the mind and will of Jesus Christ. If intelligence is defined as goal-oriented action, and if one’s goal is righteousness, then only in Christ can the goal be attained.

But some do not know of Christ. Their actions, though hopefully oriented towards righteousness, cannot be righteous, for they are not free. The Lord is not unmindful of their plight; He has promised that they will have the opportunity to exercise faith. “Yea, blessed are they who shall believe on your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins. … And blessed are they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost” (3 Nephi 12:2,6). Those who do not know of Christ need to hear the word of God. “So then faith cometh by the hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Then, knowing the word of God, they can act intelligently to fulfill all righteousness.

For those who love righteousness and know the good word of God, there is then only one act which is intelligent. Their lives consist of humble daily obedience to Christ. “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:17)

The great gift of God the Father to mankind is His Son, Jesus Christ. Christ is for us the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Only through faith in Him may we tread the way of righteousness. Only when we receive Him as the Truth may He set us free. Only as we live and hope and die in Him can we have eternal life. For there is but one law that suffices to salvation: Have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

“For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father” (Mosiah 3:19).

As we consider our modern dilemma, it seems important to try to get to the root of the problems in our economic, political, educational, and social life as a culture. We see that the problems are enormous. It seems to me that the crux of the problems can be focused on how we try to get answers to our problems.

Socialism, as an enterprise, is sweeping the world. It has a very particular answer to the problems of mankind. It is my belief that this answer is mistaken, but nevertheless, most educated people today believe in this answer. Therefore, it is important to understand the answer, to know how to meet the challenge and to be able to offer something better in its place.

First. I take it first of all that the intellectual basis of socialism is that the wisdom of men is sufficient to solve all human problems. Now, breaking this down into four parts we might, so to speak, take apart the socialistic outlook. The socialistic outlook today is basically a faith in science. In the first place, we live in an age when physical science has given men important control over many problems and great technological ability. Most people would say, if you would query them, that it is only a matter of time until all significant physical problems are solved by scientists, only a matter of time until we can completely control our environment as to light, heat, warmth, perhaps food, clothing, sickness, disease; all these things will be controlled. But they are willing to admit that this is not yet the case and it will take some time for this to happen.

Second. Because of the tremendous prestige which physical science has, people are want to say that social science has progressed far enough that we know how to solve our problems. A typical answer given by most people today is that since we have so much understanding of the economic situation, that a collapse such as that of 1929 is forever impossible now in our enlightened age. It is my belief that future events and even present events show that we are not yet that knowledgeable nor powerful in the realm of social affairs.

But the consensus of opinion, nevertheless, is that social scientists know how to control and solve our social problems and, therefore, it is only a matter of giving these scientists enough power so that they can create a utopia. Those who resist the giving of power to them are looked upon as traitors to mankind, those who would hold back progress of the human race. So, those who believe in science as the panacea for all human problems see that the principal barrier to human progress and happiness is a reactionary attitude which resists the scientists, that wants to put checks on what we do, that wants to have people have determination of their own affairs. People with faith in science are want to say, “Let’s give power to the scientist, let’s make him the governor of controlling boards, let’s let him recommend the legislation, let’s let him set up the government agencies that can take care of our human needs.”

Now, because religion in the last one hundred years has been a principal source of resistance against the encroachments of scientific power, religion is looked upon as a principal enemy to mankind by socialists, saying that it is the “opiate of the people”. Religion today is looked upon, if it holds to any theological commitments, as a reactionary force that binds men to primitive thinking, to medieval institutions, and the only way that man can progress is either to change his church and religion into a progressive system that incorporates social science, or to reject it altogether. I think this is the reason why we see most of the churches of our nation turning to social action as the basis for religious commitment and they neglect anything to do with personal morality as being intrinsic or significant any longer. They preach situational ethics in which anything goes, anything that is, except reaction to or resistance to, the encroachments of social science upon our personal, private decisions.

Those who are enamored of science as the panacea, thus see that the principal problem is to gain control of all educational processes and information sources. Once having gained control of these aspects of our life, then the humanizing of all cultural institutions can take place rapidly. Religions can be converted to civil action movements, students in school can be converted to believe in scientists, they can be taught to look to the government for the solution to all their problems.

People of this kind of thought are not above forceful restraint of reactionary minorities such as religious groups, and I think this is evident in our country as we see attacks upon anyone who would resist the forward movement and increased power of agencies employing the concepts of social science. This, of course, refers to anybody who would believe in “constitutional” government, in religious scruples, in a belief that the private sector of our national life ought to be the most important and crucial sector.

The net socialist outlook then is that science is the hope of mankind. In science and through science will come all the responsible, reliable answers to the problems of humanity and, therefore, to give science its head and let it lead us where it will is the only intelligent course of action. Because of this belief in science, I take it that modern science, when used this way, becomes a Tower of Babel. It becomes a false way of gaining heaven. I say false way because notwithstanding the great prestige that science has in our age, its accomplishments in solving social problems are highly limited and its failures are notable. A little bit later I will discuss the basic reason for these failures. But at least we can see, I think without reservation, that science is the false god to which the modern world has turned. It rejects the true god and insists upon this god of its own making and its own image. In ancient times men used to create gods of wood and of stone and fall down and worship them. Now men create gods of ideas and fall down and worship them and are just as willing to persecute and destroy those who will not follow this mode of worship as were the ancients.

Now the opposition, the only effective opposition in the world to the socialist outlook, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Other religions, other churches, are fast being destroyed under the onslaught of socialistic thinking, the worship of science. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches men quite a contrary understanding of life. It teaches men that their human way will never solve their problems. Only the ways of God are sufficiently powerful to solve the problems that face humanity. And so those who believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ believe that only in Christ can every good thing be obtained. They look to Christ for the solution of their social and personal problems as well as the solving of their purely physical problems, such as those which are ordinarily solved by the method of science. Now this is not to say that a servant of Christ will reject science. He may indeed want to study it and become a proficient scientist, but the point is that he will never put his main trust in it. He will never see it as the way of answering his problems. Rather will he see faith in Christ as the way to becoming a more proficient, a more powerful, a better knower, a better scientist. For he knows that Jesus Christ is his God. He looks to the Savior who was a man but was also a God and is now a living true God, a being who knows all, can do all, and is morally perfect. He looks to Christ as the source and repository of all good things and his hope for the obtaining of all good things. A person who has a testimony of Jesus Christ knows that through the laws and ordinances of the gospel men can received this power which Christ has and thus receive answers to all of their problems. So, the way to solve the problems of mankind is faith in Jesus Christ, repentance from all of our sins, covenanting with Christ through the ordinances of baptism, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those who have authority to bestow it and enduring in righteousness to the end.

Now this simple formula, age old, is the only formula with the power to save man. It is the hope of every person in whose breast is the spark of righteousness and the love of truth. Any person who tries to be righteous, will through his own experiments discover that he cannot be righteous by himself. He may try to do good but the power to deliver, to guarantee, is not in him and he finds that only when he turns to our Lord and Savior can he be sure that his works will be effective in doing the greatest good for men. So he looks to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. He knows the Gospel works because he has tried it: he knows that he will be able to do good. Those who believe the Gospel see that the principal barrier to human progress is the unwillingness of hardened hearts to accept the testimony of Christ, the unwillingness of stiff necks to bow to the Savior and Lord of all men. It is the unwillingness of men to humble themselves and admit that they know almost nothing about the world and that they don’t know how to solve its problems, thus to be able to come unto Christ as little children and to receive the power and to be able to be strengthened by and through and in Him. Because most of mankind have hard hearts and stiff necks, they cannot come unto Christ. They continue in breaking the commandments of God and as they do this, they fix upon themselves the chains of hell more and more surely.

What can a servant of Christ then do to bring about the emancipation of mankind, to bring about freedom, to do something about the encroachments of socialism? I think it is plain that the only sure and safe and efficient course of solving the problems of mankind and of helping other people, is to bear witness of Christ and of the principles of the Gospel and to invite and entice them to come to the fountain of all righteousness and begin to receive blessing from Christ. It is my testimony that as we look over the world, anywhere we see any person who does any good thing, it is because they have in some measure partaken of the truth and employing the truth they are able to do good in their lives. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the collection of all truth that relates to the problems of mankind and if any man wants to have all blessings and do all good, his only hope is to come unto Christ and receive that power from Him. Men throughout the world are left without excuse because they do have in their hearts a knowledge of right and wrong and when the Gospel message comes to them, they know by that same power which tells them of right and wrong, good and evil, that Jesus is the Christ, that He is the way and the hope, the salvation and the succor for all mankind. So, the net Gospel outlook is then, that we must turn to Christ. The conclusion is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the antidote for every problem of human beings and specifically for this sickness that causes men to worship their own minds and to build a Tower of Babel in this day, even as has been done in past times.

Now let us turn to part three and see if we can explain clearly why science cannot save man. First of all, science cannot solve value problems. Science does a magnificent job of describing the things that go on in the world and of establishing correlations. But it can only state correlations. It cannot tell us the real causes of things. It can only tell us what sorts of things go together. This is especially so, and note worthily so, in the area of social science. But more important for the present moment is the idea that science cannot solve value problems. It might be able to tell a person how he can nourish himself better. It might be able to tell him how to get rid of a certain disease which arises from malnutrition, but it can’t tell him whether he ought to be rid of that disease or not. It cannot assure him that perhaps a disease might be of benefit to his soul and maybe the disease is put there so that he might receive strength to his spirit. Science can have nothing to do with that. Science cannot show him that maybe in the economy of the Lord certain problems are given to mankind that they might suffer, and that through their suffering they might learn obedience. To be able to solve value problems, science would have to see all the scope of eternity, to be able to project the courses of all actions infinitely into the future and to determine the specific nature of each human being and see what would be best for him. Now, God can do both of those things. He has all knowledge and can see what is best for each person, but for science to make value judgments is to become unscientific because the evidence that science has does not warrant any value judgments. Furthermore, for scientists to make value judgments is to arrogate to themselves the omniscience and priesthood prerogatives of God and this becomes clearly a form of anti-Christ. The net result of this idea is that no program of actions is scientific because action always involves goals and goals involve values. Now, if someone says: I want to build a house; science can help him to build that house well, but the judgment that he wants to build a house and should build a house is always non-scientific. It depends upon factors that science can never demonstrate or substantiate. Secondly, it is important to realize that science deals with generalizations, with types. The net effect of this is to destroy the individual. As science, science cannot deal with the individual. It can only typify human beings and treat them as if they were all roughly similar. Typical examples of the group approach, or the typifying approach by which science distorts reality can be seen in our schools where teachers grade on the curve. To grade on the curve is to take the class as the important thing, the group, and to say that the individual members of the group are not important. Scientists treat humanity in this way in general. They say it’s the group that is important and not the individual. Thank goodness that in the Gospel of Jesus Christ it is just the reverse. There is no mention of group salvation. Salvation is always individual. Salvation may be for family units which are groups, but the qualifying for place in family unit is always done as an individual. The Gospel preserves, exalts, promotes the individual integrity of each human being, his own individual worth. Whereas the necessary course of science is to average human beings, to take away their personality, their identity, to force them to be like other people. The net result then of science is that it represses individuality and in so doing represses the very thing a person needs to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is to assert themselves as an individual, to dare to be different from one’s peers, to dare to be a servant of Christ in the midst of a world of unbelievers.

Third. Science can deal skillfully with areas where the variables can be controlled. The science which has made most progress in the last four to five hundred years is physics, and this is simply because, or for the main reason because, science needs to be able to control the variables to be able to progress, and in physics we can control the variables more easily than in any other science simply because there are fewer pertinent variables in the thing that we study. So, physics has made the most progress. When we go to the other end of the spectrum in science to psychology and social science there is a situation where there are literally hundreds of variables. Now statisticians will tell us that they can account for and average out these factors. And indeed they can for the group. They can show you marvelous statistical analyses where group variants become rather sure and where they can guarantee that certain factors can be controlled out. But you see they do this only for groups and never for individuals and therefore, the individual yet remains stultified, codified, and shorn of his individuality through these approaches. It is dealing with the individual that counts because when you stop to think of it, only individuals exist. All groups of people are artificial ideas in our own minds. We group them because of our own convenience in thinking about them. But they exist as individuals and therefore the only system that can help them with their problems is a system that treats them as individuals. The net result of this is that social science engineering, because it cannot control the factors, relative to either groups or individuals, must set up a false image of the world and on the basis of this false image it projects programs, ideas, projects and attempts to enforce them upon mankind. In so doing it rides rough-shod over the tender individuality, over the integrity of each individual child of our Father in Heaven.

Fourthly, and most important. Man is a dual being. He is not just a body. He has also a spirit and his spirit is the most important thing about him. This spirit is a source of his success and the source of his greatest difficulties. He can solve his problems, spiritual and physical, only by solving his spiritual problem. Science cannot take account of the spiritual realm at all. To be science, it must deny the existence of the spirit being of man. Therefore, to prefer science to Christ is to reject the very reality which is the source of man’s problems and his hope of progress. To prefer science to Christ is to be an Anti-Christ. It is to be blind, it is to prefer darkness to light and this rejection dooms all those who participate in it to spiritual damnation. Since the spiritual is the key to our physical problems, this leads also to physical damnation. It is noteworthy that notwithstanding social science as we have it today, our American civilization is faced with its greatest crises since its beginning. Not since the dark days of the revolution has our government been in such peril and never have our people been in such peril. But this is because man has become enamored of his own thoughts. He has come to believe that he is a god, and that he can solve his own problems. Those who are asked why then hasn’t science solved the problems will say, well, because scientists don’t yet have enough power. So if you would give them all power and make them absolute dictators over our economy, our education, our social life, how we make our friends, how we run our churches, they would be able to straighten everything out and then all would be peaceful and wonderful. But the more they do in this, the more disastrous we see it is and the worse situations get. So the point is, we are locked in a head-on conflict. Those who worship science see those of us who believe in Christ as the principal force that blocks the progress of humankind. They even see themselves engaged in a crusade to try and save mankind. They see that perhaps, if necessary, they will have to take measures against us. Perhaps to eliminate us physically so that the ground can be cleared for the progress and conclusion of scientific government. Those of us who worship Christ know that the Savior will never let them do that, but in the meantime, we must bear our witness, we must be sure that we are not espousing the right cause for the wrong reason. We must be servants of Christ, doing his work, doing his will at all times and places, promoting his cause. President McKay has commended to us to read Section 121 of the D&C wherein we are told that no power or influence ought to be exercised on the souls of men except in love and kindness, in long-suffering, in pure knowledge without hypocrisy and without guile. The hope of mankind is that those who do have answers will work that way, that the servants of Christ will not use the tools of Satan, but that they in the simplicity of a child of Christ will go forth bearing their witness in the world, showing forth the good works of the Master. Our Savior, then, might come forth and sustain them, and bless them, and prosper their works and protect them and bless them that their enemies will not vanquish them. We, as servants of Christ, have nothing to fear. The enemy can hurt us physically. But should we come to fear physically and begin to fight the enemy with his own weapons, if we begin to exercise unrighteous dominion and try to force people, even psychologically, to believe as we do, then we have given ourselves over to the means of the adversary, and we have given ourselves to the goals of the adversary. It is my hope that we can serve Christ, and him alone. I hope we all remember that science is not of itself bad. Science is good but it is not the greatest good. It can be used for evil. And when it is used for evil to tyrannize the lives of men and take away their individuality, to detract from their worship of Christ, it becomes the Tower of Babel. But if we can turn to Christ and serve him, then we can become the world’s greatest benefactors and show men both physically and spiritually that Jesus is indeed the Christ, and very God of heaven and earth.

I bear you my testimony, that I know that Jesus Christ is our hope, and it is my hope and prayer that we will serve him and be effective in the cause of righteousness that we might promote true peace and happiness on this earth. I say it in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Dr. Chauncey C. Riddle
February 25, 1966

We are addressing ourselves to the problem, “Can Religion be Objective?” The problem was raised, of course, by the fact that a great many people in our age think it cannot and so we’ll attempt an answer to this. But first of all we will lay some groundwork for the answer. It’s not enough to have an answer. Perhaps even more important is to know why the answer is so, which makes the answer important. To begin with, any time you have discussions on anything important, the obvious thing to do is to define your terms. Let’s first of all define objectivity. There are three definitions which are important relative to objectivity. The first, which is, you might say, the one that people probably think of the most in their minds when they think of being objective is to think that that which is objective is the absolute truth—that which is really so. The problem of this definition is that we human beings don’t have the ability to know very much absolute truth. We see through a glass darkly. We don’t really know the world around us. We don’t really know our surrounding. True, we are discovering more and more about these things, but still we see through that glass darkly, and so for a really good, practical definition we will have to reject this one. Not because it isn’t a fine thing to have, but we just don’t have very much of it.

We might define objectivity in the sense that that which is objective is that upon which people agree. Now this happens to be a very functional definition. This is actually what passes for objectivity in our society, but on the other hand, it’s a somewhat cynical definition. I don’t think it’s the best definition, simply because we all know that a hundred million Frenchmen can be wrong. We all know that people, as a group, can err. All the progress of science comes from individuals who dared to defy the rest and to prove that it’s so.

So let’s try a third definition of objectivity. Objectivity, could be construed to be doing the very best you can, using all the evidence available to you and the very best thinking that it’s possible for you to muster in your situation. Now this is the one I choose to use in our discussion today. This is the one that a man must use if he’s going to be an Einstein, and dare to let everybody think he’s crazy. Einstein was willing to run that risk because he had something that was extremely valuable, and he knew it was valuable because he had performed all the tests that he could perform on his ideas and found them to be good, and then he opened them to the criticism of others to let them test also. Time has vindicated him, and so today he is honored as a great scientist. Not so when he first brought forth his ideas. He was considered to be quite a crackpot then. But, you see, it’s awfully easy to say that Einstein is objective 50 years after he has come to acceptance. The problem is to see that Einstein is objective when he first formulates his ideas, and the problem is that the individual has to go back over the same ground and make the same examination of the evidence and the conclusions which Einstein himself made to avoid just going along with the herd. Well, science is the paradigm for objectivity in our world, not that it should be this way necessarily, but it happens to be that way. So, let’s discuss science a little bit and see wherein this good thinking, this objectivity, has come to science.

Science began as an offshoot of philosophy in ancient Greece 2,500 years ago and until just a hundred years ago or so, all science was called natural philosophy. Many discovered that as they sought to be wise, which is to love wisdom, to be philosophical, that one of the first things they had to know was, “What is the nature of the problem?” “What’s the situation in the world in which I live?” As men sought to know the nature of the problem, they found that it did not pay to take other people’s word for it. They had to find a way to discover for themselves the reality of the world, and this is where science was born. As men began to make this search, the first tool they used to try and discern reality was their own reasoning power, and so the simple cannon for objectivity in Ancient Greece was, “Is it rationally consistent?” Almost all of ancient Greek science was, what you might call, a pure rationalism. If a thing was deductively valid, it had to be true. The paradigm science for them was Euclid’s geometry—this tremendous intellectual feat where you could have taken a few fundamental axioms and tied together all the laws of geometry that had been observed and forming a beautiful, wonderful deductive system. It was thought that all sciences would eventually be formed after this same pattern. But ancient Greek science laid some very important groundwork that didn’t get very far off the ground. There were a few men such as Archimedes, who did go beyond rationalism. The monuments of their work were the beginning points of modern science, but nevertheless, the tenor in ancient Greek science, the hallmark of objectivity was simply to be rationally consistent.

Now this has remained to this day to be a hallmark of objectivity. It is not the hallmark, however, as it was then. The type of approach made in the middle ages when theology was the queen of the sciences was essentially no different from that of the Greek temper. Rationalism again was the key to objectivity, and the pursuit of theology was done almost strictly by means of a rationalistic approach, taking premises from the scripture and tradition then working out the rational involvements of these things.

Modern science, as we know it, was not really born until the 16^th century. We had the work of the early modern thinkers such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, going down to the time of Newton who pretty well set the stage, you might say. The scheme of modern science sort of climaxed in Newton, with his tremendous triumph, not only in actual scientific ideas, but in methodology. That’s the thing we’re interested in here, is the methodology of thought. Even since Newton’s time the methodology of science has continued to grow and to increase.

Let’s review some of the further postulates or guidelines which have been introduced into modern science as a help to keep these people from making grievous errors of thought, to help them evaluate evidence and come out with propositions that are highly defensible. The next proposition modern science uses is the idea of uniformity. Uniformity is basically the notion that it is reasonable to consider that the universe at other times and places is like it is here and now. Now the closest tie we have to the universe is sensory observation, but our senses are quite limited. We can’t see very far, and we’re limited, of course, to time and the moment of the present. We cannot perceive tomorrow or yesterday. We can perceive right now. We can’t perceive far away, but we can build yesterday and tomorrow and far away in our minds. We can build imaginative pictures of these things. And we do this on the basis of the principle of uniformity. It just so happens this is the only way we can think. If nature doesn’t happen to be uniform, we can never know it. And so the areas where we have progressed most, in our science, for instance, are the areas of greatest uniformity. Where the number of factors influencing something are the fewest or where we can get down to get experimental control, we thus very quickly achieving uniformity. When we have this uniformity we can project, we can predict, and our hypotheses come to be verified in this kind of a situation. Uniformity is one of the very life bloods of science. We couldn’t have thought very much without this principle of uniformity because we couldn’t have it without the necessity of being rationally consistent.

Thirdly, science postulates the need for a cause for every effect. This principle is called various names, but it doesn’t matter what you call it. It’s the same thing under any title: causality, determinism, sufficient reason—these are all names for the same idea. This is the notion that events do not happen fortuitously in the universe. Everything that happens happens for some reason. There is a sufficient reason behind every event.

Now science, from the days of Aristotle down to now, has had as one of its significant points that it’s not enough to observe the world; we must understand what we observe. Understanding comes from our way of thinking, through knowing causes. Causes are relations of things, and understanding is a matter of relating things. The more relationships we see for something, the better we understand it. In our modern terminology we tend to think of causes as the efficient cause; something pushes something. But the word cause has a much broader heritage than that. Perhaps the word because is a little closer to the historic usage. The word because suggests a reason for something and cause simply means a reason. It’s the rational cause, the intellectual explanation, that gives understanding to our observations of the physical world. And so science has said this, “You don’t really know anything until you can explain it.” Just to see the moon eclipse doesn’t give you science, but when you understand why the moon is eclipsed and you see that there is a sufficient reason for it—you see that the earth is interposed between the sun and the moon, the shadow of the earth therefore blots out the light that would otherwise be reflected from the surface of the moon, then, having the sufficient reason or the cause of the phenomenon, we can appreciate what the phenomenon is and we then have scientific knowledge of it. And so, as we pursue science in the world, we try to get this kind of understanding for everything.

A fourth postulate is the idea of naturalism. This has come since Newton. Newton believed that God was a very important part of the universe and he introduced the notion of God into his theories to account for things that he could not otherwise account for. It so happened, in the last few hundred years, that men have been able to account for all these functions that God was supposed to perform and so God is no longer necessary. No longer is God necessary in the theories of physics. In modern science, if you were to go to a convention and read a paper including the idea of God or such notions as spirits or devils or such beings of any kind, you would be laughed out. This is just not scientific objectivity anymore. Scientific objectivity now includes the idea that we must limit ourselves to what is called the natural universe. We limit ourselves because this is the only way we can be sure to avoid certain kinds of errors. The errors of ancient scientists are many and as our methodology increases and refines, we are able to eliminate more and more of these errors. By limiting ourselves to the natural universe we have been able to make greater progress in describing and accounting for the phenomena of the material world.

The fifth one of these things we have mentioned is the postulate of publicity which is simply to say that we can have sciences only about things that are publicly observable. The meaning of “publicly observable”: where two people can see the thing in question and agree on its description. Science has had to introduce this postulate to get rid of certain vagaries of opinion that caused it much embarrassment over the years. What it specifically excluded in this is anything that is private or personal. My thoughts, for instance, would never be a subject matter for science because no two of you can observe them and agree with them. This includes feelings that I have; the values that I have. You could take what I say, you can ask me questions. You can take the response I give and use that as a basis for science. This is called behaviorism in psychology, and by limiting yourself to a behavioristic approach, you can get fairly reliable generalizations about things. But you can never have a science about my personal thoughts because you cannot observe them. So, anything that is not publicly observable is simply a sufficiently dangerous ground for even theorization or hypotheses. Scientists, in protecting themselves from making gross errors, delimit themselves from this area.

Now the strength of science is to take these five principles and apply them, and apply them only where they can be well applied so that what science comes out with is a defensible generalization. As a matter of fact, these principles and others that apply are applied more or less thoroughly by different individuals, but the thoroughness to which an individual applies these things, in the long run, becomes the hallmark of his worth as a scientist. I was talking with an eminent sociologist the other day, a man who is deeply engaged in research in the field and has published, I guess, a hundred articles in the journals. He stuck his neck our quite a bit, and he was telling me that one of the reasons he feels so confident about his work in sociology is because he and the men he respects in sociology have the good sense not to try to make statements about at least 95% of the questions they would like to know about. There’s only a very small area where they have tools and they can apply the methods of scrutiny with sufficient care to be sure of their results. So on the other 95% they don’t even pretend to have answers, and this is the way they obtain objectivity. This is very commendable. It’s not very commendable to make wild statements about something where one has no basis for statements, but if one can limit themselves to the area where they can be objective and then make statements in that area, this indeed is doing very good thinking and it’s the kind of thing I think we would all want to commend. I mentioned the fact that a certain study was done trying to vindicate certain of Freud’s ideas. One hundred fifty tests were made on a certain population. Only about twelve of the tests turned out to be significant. Half of them tended to vindicate Freud and half of them tended to disqualify Freud’s ideas. Probably in this particular study that he mentioned the people picked the half dozen that vindicated Freud’s ideas and published them and, thereby, completely ruined their reputation because other people went out on the same experiment, got different results, not only once but several times. This was brought to the attention of the community of sociologists and now these people aren’t listened to anymore. Why? Because they weren’t careful enough. They did not accept the data and the evidence with sufficient care to be awarded with the kindness, you might say, of being listened to. Maybe they can redeem themselves, but that is awfully hard after making that kind an error. There are a lot of lessons in that for us too. The point of all this is that scientific objectivity is obtained by highly limiting what will be studied. Don’t study and don’t make assertions on anything you can’t be reasonably sure about. That’s the net point of this great approach of objectivity on the side of science.

Now let’s turn to religion and consider objectivity on the side of religion. Religion also, I think, must come under this third definition. In religion, to be objective, we must do the very best kind of thinking that we can possibly do with the evidence available to us. So, there are postulates in religious thinking that are just as important as there are in scientific thinking. They’re not the same postulates. But let’s go through and see where they are the same and where they differ. The first postulate, the idea of being reasonable, is necessary. In science reasonableness is the thing which, shall we say, is kind of an end product. You don’t start out by being reasonable. You end up by being reasonable. Today we know that light is probably neither a particle nor a wave, because neither of these hypotheses is reasonable. In other words, it’s not consistent with all the evidence, but nevertheless, we continue to use these until we can get something better. So, as we go on, the thing we are saying is that, until this thing works out to be completely consistent, we will openly admit that this is not any kind of final hypothesis. Even if it were reasonable, science has learned enough that you have to experiment. You have to test, and you have to go on. Even then, it might be wrong. Just because it’s reasonable does not mean it’s right or true; but if it is unreasonable, you know there is something wrong; you need to gather more evidence. You need to do something more. That’s the real problem that’s involved. The same thing happens in religion. If a thing is inconsistent, you need to go on gathering evidence and not make any final pronouncements. Science and religion happen to coincide in this particular postulate.

Secondly, there is the postulate of uniformity. We need a uniformity just as much in religion as we do in science. Again, if it so happens that the spiritual universe is not uniform, we can never know it. That is because our human minds or brains are so equipped to deal with something where the same sort of thing happens again and again. Supposing that no two days were ever of the same length. How could you ever plan a day? If the days were not only not of the same length, but you could not ever know of what length they would be, you could never plan a day, could you? Similarly, if there were no spiritual uniform realities, you could never have knowledge of anything spiritual. It’s interesting as we look into the scriptures you see the statement that God makes about himself. One thing he wants to inform us of, as a hypothesis which we might personally test and find for ourselves to be true, is simply the notion that He is uniform. He tells us, “I am without variableness or shadow of turning. My course is one eternal round. I am the same yesterday and forever.” Why is that important? It’s important simply for this reason: If God is that uniform in His dealings with His children, then if we perform an experiment now and get a certain result, it is very highly likely that if we perform that experiment again we will get the same result. If it were not so, what could a person ever do to live a good life? He wouldn’t know what to do. This is the same as in science. If the sun didn’t come up every morning we couldn’t plan a thing. There has to be a uniformity in the universe for us to “know” it. So far as I can observe the uniformity in the gospel, the spiritual uniformity is at least as great as that of the physical uniformity enjoyed by the physical world. Therefore, we have at least as good a basis. How do you tell there is a uniformity in the physical universe? Only by experimenting, only by trying it to see if there is one. How would you know there is a uniformity in the spiritual universe? With exactly the same test, by trying it and seeing if it works. Only then can you say that you know what you are talking about.

Let’s go on to the third postulate, the postulate of causality. Again, this is absolutely essential to religion. In religious thinking, there is a cause for everything: there are reasons behind things; there are laws—this universe is run on the basis of law and order. This, of course raises the problem of agency. If everything is determined in the universe, and here’s a causality which is valuable both in science and religion. How does the problem of agency get solved? We don’t have time to solve that one today, but suffice it to say there is a very simple, beautiful explanation. There is such a thing as agency. At the same time there is a determinism. But we don’t have time to follow that one through.

The next postulate, which is necessary to religion and which differs from science now, is the postulate of honesty. Now, this is the one that corresponds, you might say, to the postulate of publicity in science. The way you keep a scientist honest is by forcing him to be public. As long as he is forced to publish his results in order that people can compare, you don’t have to worry about whether he is going to be honest or not because someone else will come along and check it. So you don’t have a postulate of honesty in science, although it is a fine thing to have. But you don’t need to enforce it by any rule. The social system that we are in in the scientific world enforces honesty; in other words, objectivity, if you will.

But you see the thing that we deal with in religion is a different universe; we are not even talking about the same sort of thing, at least in large measure. The universe and the area we are talking about in religion is what is going on inside my mind. The important thing to know in religion is: What things do I do that make me happier and what things do I do that make me less happy? This can’t ever be possibly studied by science until we can someday learn to interpret brain waves or something like that. At the present time this can’t be done. But this is the area that is central to religion. It is what makes up my relationship to the rest of the universe—not physically speaking, but within my own mind, my thoughts, my feelings, my values, my hopes, my desires, my fears. Before I can do some kind of good, clear thinking in this area, I can never be a stable person; I can never grow and develop as I ought to; I can never become a religiously mature person; I can never have the blessings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ until my thinking is objective. So the first thing I’ve got to do is to be sure that I’m honest. Specifically, if I perform an experiment and I discover that a certain thing leads me to be happier and then I perform the contrary experiment and find that this leads to unhappiness, I’ve got to be honest enough to admit that the one thing led to happiness and the other didn’t. If I can’t be that honest, you see, since there’s no one that can check—there’s nobody outside that can know my thoughts and my experiences and my happiness—the only salvation I have is to be absolutely and rigorously honest. And as soon as I start kidding myself and telling myself that maybe I enjoy this little bit of sin and I’ll pretend that it leads to happiness, we destroy ourselves religiously right there. There’s no hope for us. It’s no wonder that when the missionaries go out, they look for whom? The honest in heart. They’re the only ones they can possibly help religiously. Unless people have that they just can’t get off the ground, religiously speaking.

The next postulate in religion is the postulate of courage. This isn’t really a postulate, I guess; this is a way of acting. But it figures very importantly in being objective religiously. Why is courage important? Simply for this reason: When you study psychology you know that social pressure has a tremendous effect on people’s thoughts, beliefs and values. Maybe you’ve seen the experiment where the teacher draws a straight line on a board and asks everybody how long it is. They go around the room saying how long it is. Just guessing, from a distance. What they do is they have everybody except two or three in the back who have been planted to tell them all to say 45 inches long. Well, by the time you get around to the people who don’t know what’s going on, they tend to make a judgment somewhere between what they really think and what the group has said. Almost nobody is strong enough to call a spade a spade the way he sees it. Now, there’s some good in this because we frequently find that we are wrong and other people are able to help us temper our judgment. But you see, in the area of religion you can’t afford to do that. Why not? Simply for this reason. The data you are dealing with in the area of religion is your own personal consciousness. You are not the same as another individual. You never have the same experiences and experiments as another individual, so you can’t afford to depend on what other people say. You’ve got to perform the experiment for yourself and then have the courage to stand by it when you have made the evaluation of the data within your own mind. Religion is thought out in the inside of the individual. It is not a public thing. Every individual has come to his own testimony, to his own light. Don’t mistake me—this is not saying you pay no attention to anybody else. You do. But what you receive from other people is hypotheses, not conclusions. You receive structures of experiments to perform yourself, to be evaluated and to form conclusions on your own. You can’t get a testimony from any other human being. You can’t know right from wrong or what makes you happy or unhappy from any other human being. Now you can go along with other people but that will never make you an individual. That just makes them your master, as it were, and makes you their slave. But the purpose of God is to free all men from every other man. Read Section 1 of Doctrine and Covenants where the Lord tells why He restored His Gospel. Why? So that man would not have to counsel his fellow man, so that every man might speak in the name of the Lord God from his own personal knowledge. Now, that’s freedom, that’s the freedom from tyranny that every human being needs. But he’s got to have the courage to perform his own experiments, he’s got to have the honesty to call a spade a spade and then he’s got to stand forth before the world and bear his testimony to what he thinks is true.

In religion we don’t have the same kind of thing that we have in science. Science is a community project and the thing that really counts is the consensus of the community in science. And that’s good, that safeguards science. But it also limits science to those things which can be publicly observed.

Religion, too, by delimiting itself to the consciousness of our own conscience, our own personal feelings, thoughts and desires, it gets strength and we avoid certain kinds of errors that come from letting other people influence us too much. But at the same time, all that we can then assert is that I believe this—on the basis of my experiments, this is what it seems to be. And that’s why the missionaries from this church don’t go forth in the world saying, “I’m right and you’re all wrong.” The missionaries from this church go forth and the only righteous thing they can say is, “I know for myself that this thing that I’m telling you is true. Won’t you please perform an experiment for yourself and see if you find this is true for you.” Personal testimony is the hallmark of our religion. It has to be.

Well, let’s make a few concluding remarks about objectivity. The important thing about objectivity is not to be concerned with the subject matter. I hope it is clear from what I said that objectivity is not a function of subject matter or discipline. Objectivity is a function of people. It’s meaningless to say that science is objective because science doesn’t even exist. That is a generalization or a platonic idea in our minds which doesn’t have any real existence; it’s just a generalization. The thing that exists is people who act as scientists. Those people who act as scientists have a great need to be objective but because they are pretending to be scientists doesn’t mean they are objective; they must meet the canons and if they meet the canons, they are objective. If they don’t, they aren’t. By the same token, in religion the important thing is to be an objective thinker; to do the very best we can in analyzing, thinking, experimenting so that when we come out with some notions that for our own experience, for our own area of life, we are justified in making the statements that we make.

So—let’s answer the question, “Can religion be objective?” Well, religion is a thing again that doesn’t exist. The question is, “Are you objective in the religious matters of your life?” That’s the real question, isn’t it? It has nothing to do with whether or not you are thinking about religion. If you are a scientist, you need explanations. As a matter of fact, every human being has a pattern by which he makes his decisions in his life. That is his religion. The question is, “Are you objective about your religion? Do you do the very best kind of thinking you can do?” One of the wonderful and delightful things to know about the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the fact that this kind of thinking is encouraged in this church and in this gospel. The Lord wants every one of us to have our own light and stand upon our own light. He doesn’t want people to follow blindly. He has His prophets tell them, “Don’t listen to just the president of the church. Get down on your knees and pray to find out for yourself.” That’s the only way you can seize upon the truth. That’s the only way you can be objective. And only if you are doing the best you can, can you oppose the adversary.

The adversary would love to have us fall into all kinds of error and the best defense that we have against him is to know whereof we speak, for our own selves, for our own lives. It’s to know that Jesus is the Christ. It’s to know for ourselves on the basis of our own experiments that God can be trusted. We need to know for ourselves that if we rely on the Holy Spirit it is a sure and unerring guide, a rod of iron that leads in the path of righteousness that leads us to the good things of this life, that it leads us to love, it leads us to kindness, it leads us to peace, to comfort, to all the things that we so desperately need in this world. But that comes only if you’ve tried it. That comes only if you know what you’re talking about, only if you are doing some very fine objective thinking in the area of your own religion.

So, can religion be objective? The answer is plain. Religion is an abstraction, a figment of our imagination, like unto “science,” another abstraction. But scientists can be objective if they follow the rules for objectivity. And persons can also be objective about their own religion if they follow the rules of careful thinking. Let us think carefully and we will do well. The results show how carefully we have thought, both in science and religion. We can be objective about our religion.

I bear you my testimony the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true. It works in my life. I am acutely conscious that my unhappiness comes only when I defy the principles of the gospel and that all the good things that I have ever received in my life have come as I have done what is right in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I bear you that testimony in His name. Amen.

The following is an attempt to set forth in an organized fashion and in brief compass the principles by which the Law of Consecration is to be applied to individuals and families according to the Doctrine and Covenants:

1. To love the Lord is to serve him and to keep all of his commandments. (D&C 42:29) This means that we should perfect both the spiritual and the temporal aspects of our lives under his direction.
2. To perfect the spiritual aspects of our lives we must put our whole faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repent of our sins, be baptized for the remission of our sins, receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and endure to the end (which is eternal life.)
3. When a person’s heart and mind have been thus changed through love for Jesus Christ, his new spirituality will give him the intelligence to be wise in temporal matters.
4. A most important part of enduring to the end is to consecrate our physical properties to the poor, which is to do it unto the Lord. This is done by taking the deeds and titles to our property to our Bishop and signing these properties over to the church, finally and legally. (D&C 42:30–31) This is the way we show the Savior that we love him more than we love our physical possessions—the thing the rich young ruler could not do. It is part of coming down into the depths of humility before the Lord, to be as little children before Him.
5. The Bishop will then assign to us properties from those consecrated to the church. We may receive more, the same, or less than we have consecrated, according to the revelation of the Lord of his mind and will to both the Bishop and to ourselves, according to our righteous wants and needs and according to the resources the Bishop has to dispense. (D&C 42:32) Whatever we receive from the Bishop we receive from the Lord as a stewardship. Though we receive legal title to the property, we acknowledge that it belongs to the Lord. It is our responsibility to care for, improve, beautify, and make productive whatever we are given, be it a home, a farm, a business, or an automobile. The purpose for this wealth and production is to bless others under the Savior’s direction.
6. Thereafter we shall make an annual accounting to the Bishop. If we have produced more than our needs, the residue will be given to the Bishop with which he might succor the poor. If we have less than our needs, the Bishop will give to us from other person’s residues. (D&C 42:32)
7. Surplus residues, more than are needed to bless the poor, will be used to purchase land, to build buildings, for building the New Jerusalem, for the gathering of Israel. (D&C 42:34–35)
8. The servants of Christ, stewards unto him, are not to be proud. They are to wear plain garments, and do all things in cleanliness, and to enthrone faithful work unto Christ as the ruling principle of their lives. (D&C 42:40–42)
9. All who belong to the church of the living God are to give and receive in this divine order of consecration. None are exempt; whether they labor in temporal or spiritual concerns, this is the Lord’s own way of perfecting his kingdom. (D&C 70: 9–12)
10. Becoming willingly equal with each other in temporal things as members of the church is the key by which the church will receive further abundant outpouring of the Holy Spirit. (D&C 70:14)
11. Even as now faithful members of the church account for their spiritual stewardship before the Lord’s two witnesses in the obtaining of a temple recommend, under the Law of Consecration we will also account for our temporal stewardships. Those who qualify on both counts are adjudged to be wise stewards and faithful laborers. To be so judged on earth is the blessed preparation to stand before the eternal bar of justice. (D&C 72:3–4)
12. When wise and faithful stewards move from place to place in the church, they will turn over to the Bishop they are leaving the consecrated properties over which they have been stewards in that place. The Bishop will certify that they are indeed wise stewards and faithful laborers. The Bishop in their new location, upon receipt of that certification, will give by consecration local properties to the newly arrived faithful servants. (D&C 72:9–19)
13. Only as we are able to live the full law of the Lord, to live in faithfulness and love both temporally and spiritually, can we be made equal with our Savior and receive exaltation. (D&C 78:3–7)
14. He who enters into this order of consecration and then turns back to selfishness shall be excommunicated (delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption.) (D&C 78:8, 10–12)
15. Through this spiritual and temporal order the righteous of the church will become independent above everything that is not celestial through relying alone upon the merits of Jesus Christ. (D&C 78:13–14)
16. When the members of the church have become independent from the world through their love of the Savior, they, too, will receive the blessings of Adam-ondi-Ahman. (D&C 78:15–22)
17. When all these things are accomplished, even the kingdoms of this world will be able to look at the church and see that it is indeed truly the kingdom of Zion, the kingdom of Christ. (D&C 105:31–32)
18. “Therefore, let us become subject unto his laws.” (D&C 105:32)

A Conservative View of the World

Fundamental to the conservative ideal is a belief in pluralism, which is the honorable coexistence of ideas and systems which are diverse one from another. That is why the article a is used in the title of this article rather than the, for no one speaks for all conservatives.

A second key idea is the importance of the individual person. Each human being is seen as being precious, to be honored, to be encouraged to reach his or her potential. Part of honoring individuality is to reward the person for good things done and to hold the individual responsible for bad things done.

A third foundation idea is that of the importance of morality. There are good things to be done and bad things which may be done. Good things are those acts which a person performs which contribute to the welfare and happiness of the society to which the individual belongs and at the same time ennoble and enhance the character of the person who does them. Selfishness and self-indulgence are seen as the opposition to good.

A fourth key to this conservative approach highlights the importance of the family unit. United in blood, shared language, ideals, affection, and problems, the family is the basic social, educational and economic unit of society. Whatever destroys it, destroys society and human happiness.

A fifth fundamental is the importance of political freedom. Only when free from domination by other human beings can the individual fully develop, can morality flourish, can the family perform its role well, can human beings find lasting happiness.

While the five ideas expressed here are not all of the key notions essential to this conservative view, they are sufficient for illuminating a conservative agenda for the improvement of education.

Item: To improve the quality of education.

Since the development of the individual requires obtaining good education, the quality of educational opportunity is first in importance. Specifics to accomplish this are read at hand.

First, there needs to be a change from emphasis on teaching to emphasis on learning in our society. Learning is a real, measurable, improvable thing, whereas teaching is more ephemeral, difficult to assess, not easily transferred as a skill. Emphasis on learning places more importance on the initiative of the learner, makes the “teacher” a resource for the learner rather than a master. Traditional emphasis on teaching has led to “telling,” the supposition that one the teacher has exposed the correct words on a topic, that the teaching function is complete.

Second, there needs to be a shift from emphasis on “knowledge” learning to skill learning. Were language skills the basis of everyone’s education, it is quite possible that we would release the potential of genius in our society at a hundredfold rate. The boredom engendered by presentation of endless facts and definitions is serious enough, but much worse is the stunting of judgment when the student is shielded from the idea that every assertion is an evaluation of the relationship between evidence and conclusion. Enthusiasm for learning is engendered in creative learning, where skills are mastered in the process of producing ideas and “facts.”

Third, the measure of educational attainment should shift more to competence, away from credit. The common denominator of credit is suffering seat time. Competence, that great threat to poor teaching, is the hallmark of learning, and when skill rather than verbal repetition of prescribed answers is valued, the measurement of educational efficacy is made much easier. Credit for schooling is like our unbacked currency. It has no intrinsic worth, is being progressively devalued, and one day its sham will be so obvious to everyone that this house of house of cards will collapse into regretted history.

Fourth, there needs to be a division of labor. Teaching should not be done by the same person as the one who certifies educational attainment. Everyone who has attended school knows that the best teachers are respecters of persons, that grades and credit are given on differing bases for different persons. Separating out the awarding of competence certification from the facilitation of learning would eliminate a built-in conflict of interest in the teacher who is at the same time advocate, judge and jury over the student, and would align student and teacher as friends fighting the common enemy; which is incompetence.

Fifth, learning needs to be whole, experimental, and multi-dimensional, as opposed to being simply verbal. Skills need to be learned, applied, and evaluated in the life-setting in which they will be used. Large classes and verbal learning would remain only when the application of that learning is to be made in large classes with purely verbal responses. Apprenticeship, internship, cooperative education, laboratory work, and field work need to capture the balance of what we call “higher” education.

Only as the quality of our educational delivery improves do we honor the individual person. Each deserves our best rather than just that which is convenient or traditional.

Item: To improve the quantity of education.

This conservative goal for education is to make as much education available to every human being as he or she desires and is willing to “pay” for. The society in which this goal might be realized would be different from our own. Educational efficiency would need to be increased severalfold. Individuals would need greater confidence that they would not be fed the east wind when they sought instruction. The economic base of the society must be secure enough that every person could support himself or herself in honorable employment and to have a surplus of economic productivity which could be voluntarily applied to further education. It is true that economic requirements are difficult to attain, but would be made easier to realize if individuals cooperate, as in families, so that some earn that others may learn.

One great destroyer of quantity in education is intervention by civil government. When the civil government attempts to foster educational opportunity, the quality and quantity go down compared to what they would be in a free society, for the following reasons:

1. Attention is diverted from quality of education to the service of political (re-election) goals, as in busing.
2. Resources are diverted from individuals and families to inefficient government schools, so that individuals cannot always afford the education they desire. Attempts to provide special scholarships for the poor always discriminate against those who are just above the poverty level, and increase their difficulty in affording education when often they are better prepared to receive it and benefit society than those whom the government singles out for assistance.
3. The government effort in education tends to be a monopoly. The incentive for quality control is diminished, traditional inefficiencies become entrenched, curricula reduce to the lowest common denominator, and test scores continue to drop.
4. Special interest groups who are politically effective but selfish perpetuate inefficiencies in the government schools, such as maintenance of teacher prerogatives of tenure and ever-lighter teaching loads among college faculties.

Were both society and schools basically free, with the initiative for education or non-education resting essentially with individuals and families, there would be less compulsory schooling, more learning, and more life-long learning.

Item: Improving the efficiency of education.

To improve the efficiency of education is to improve the efficiency of learning, not of teaching. If more can be learned with less dedication of resources, we are better off.

One great barrier to efficiency in education is the professionalization of teaching. Teachers come to have a vested interest in teaching, and while many are dedicated and delightful, just as many are obnoxious and obstructive. If the resources presently poured into teaching were poured into the facilitation of learning, we could be far ahead. To wit:

1. Most skill learning can be taught as games, thus increasing the emotional interest involved, which of itself facilitates learning. Games foster cooperation as well as competition, and team victories are even more savory than individual triumph. Certainly the boredom that grows among abler students the further they go in school could be, and sometimes is, greatly assuaged by this device.
2. Most skill learning can be taught as well by students one step ahead of the learners as by professional teachers. Once the skill is learned, understanding of what has been learned can come rapidly, even from those same one-step-ahead students, if they understand. A healthy nobless oblige among students would make this reaching out to help other students both a delight and a guarantor of their own over-learning.
3. Over-learning in every skill is the essence of real learning; not to learn so that one can perform, but so that one is able to perform well under greatly adverse circumstances. Professional teachers usually have little stomach for the kind of teaching that produces over-learning, unless they are yet learning themselves. For everyone, the efficient means to over-learning is to teach, and that teaching can be “fun and games,” in the best sense, for all.
4. The greatest problem facing our educational system is curriculum. That is not where the great effort goes, but that is where the great inefficiency is. The focus on knowledge learning is partly to blame. Classroom knowledge is seldom used close to the time it is learned, and thus has to be reiterated, “drilled” in, ad naseum. Thus there is repetition, overlap, redundancy in the curriculum, and very little lifetime retention. But when skill learning is the focus, the skills are used and honed daily, giving a sense of accomplishment, of power. If one has the skill of knowing how to learn knowledge and how to evaluate proffered ideas as to whether they are true or not, one does not have to be taught all basic truth in a school, for one can find and immediately apply whatever they need to know.
5. There is no need to assume that the student must always remain passive in the formation of curricula. The need of the learner is usually a better guide to a learning sequence than is the prejudice of the teacher. If the learner had at least some initiative to change the course of facilitation by an expert, another great engine of educational efficiency would be unleashed.
6. The greatest power to aid learning is to harness the individual initiative of the student. It is well known that initiative and creativity are seldom treasured in our school system; the reward structure clearly favors obsequious conformity. When students are not treated as cattle to be fattened in a pen, the native gifts of each help each to excel in his or her own way. A system which treats everyone the same and rewards only memory will never be very efficient.

Item: To improve the delivery system.

The principal problem with our delivery system is that it is essentially one system. It needs to become many systems.

1. Individual study should be an option in every field of learning. This would demand a great curricular effort. Thus opportunity for education would be extended to nearly everyone, to all those who are motivated to learn.
2. Family study is another place where a massive curriculum investment would pay great dividends. Parents and children learning together could use otherwise wasted time, and solve many of the families’ problems at the same time by all being members of the same learning team.
3. Private schools should spring up in all directions giving stiff competition to government schools as entrepreneurial ingenuity smothers the bureaucratic inefficiency in a great heap of educational accomplishment. Accreditation problems you say? No bother. They are that quaint remnant of counting credit instead of ability. When we pay for learning we will get learning as we now pay for credit and get lots of it, including no small portion that is undeserved.

In a society where every person of good will is both a teacher and a learner, each individual will be able to attain his own personal delivery system, suited to his own personal needs, desires, abilities, and circumstances. Thus will every person become able to learn everything that is known should one be willing to put himself or herself out as needed.

Item: To make education moral.

Most people are moral in their own eyes. By whose standard should we make education more moral? By the standards of Jesus Christ. E.g.:

1. Let there be a plain espousal of the fundamentals of that social behavior which strengthens the ability to cooperated and to trust. The fundamentals are to be honest, true, chaste, benevolent, to do good for all. These are not simply the preferences of some sect. They are the ineluctable requirements for the solidarity and continuity of social order. Any opinion to the contrary flies in the face of thousands of years of human misery brightened by the few occasions when these standards have obtained. And educational system which does not promote honesty, the keeping of promises, the blessedness of marital fidelity, having a good will towards all men, and doing good to everyone who is one’s neighbor, that society is headed for destruction. The fabric that holds society together is trust; these principles are the basis of trust.
2. There should be no distinctions of rank, no classes of persons among our population. Each person should be esteemed as honorable in his or her own right and noble to all who wish to accord them so. The weighty particular in this matter is the class distinction usually made between professors and students. Honor should go to professors for their service to learners, not for their own success as students, as is the case. Facilitators of learning who truly can help and who truly care about their learners as persons will always be rewarded. The others don’t deserve honor as teachers, but nevertheless deserve honor as persons. There must be a dedication to truth, to wisdom, and to the value of individual judgment that is never compromised by rank of social pressure, especially in educational settings.

Item: To gain a better philosophical base.

We are indeed captives of our own beliefs. None are so captive as those who know not or will not see alternative beliefs. The following are offered as alternatives to what many seem to believe.

1. The important thing about a human life is what one does, not what one knows. Does one relive suffering? Does one share his gifts and abilities? Does one build fine buildings, productive systems, efficient mechanisms? Does one make his environment cleaner, more beautiful, more desirable to others? To be judged as one who knows much, should be relatively worthless except as one helps others with what one knows. The pathetic insistence that knowledge is good for its own sake and that to be a knower makes one better than his fellows has plagued us long enough.
2. Individual persons are free, and furthermore are responsible. They are free inasmuch as they know how to and are able to contribute to the welfare of the people with whom they live. They become good persons when they use that freedom to help their fellow beings without taking any freedom away from those fellow beings. No man needs to go to heaven to find out that we are responsible for our acts. Inasmuch as we are free and do good, we each reap a harvest of self-acceptance and esteem that makes happiness a reality. Every imposition we make on the integrity of any other human being leaves us personally scarred, unable to face ourselves, needing more and more to blame something or someone else for our unhappiness.

Item: To have hope.

Is there reasonable hope for the implementation of this and other unmentioned items on this conservative agenda for education? Yes, for the following reasons.

1. There are many people of good will who see plainly the limitations of the present approach. They, with all genuine conservatives, will preserve, conserve all that is good in the present approach while moving to a new synthesis of insight and power which will lift us to a new educational orbit.
2. There is enough freedom left, in some places, at least, to produce some genuine alternatives to the present system which can and will have measurably superior results. Notwithstanding the difficulty of purifying the context to produce their results and the opposition from entrenched privilege and power base which will automatically be engendered, it will be well worth it.
3. A new generation is rising to whom the present system will appear to be humorously naïve and passe. Presented with a reasonable alternative, they have no vested interest in perpetuating inefficiency, and will move the system forward.
4. Look at how far we have come in the last five hundred years!

S. Grandfather, would you have some time to talk with me before Fast Meeting?

G. Sara, there is nothing I’d rather do than talk with you. What shall we discuss?

S. Tell me about fasting, Grandfather. I know some of the usual things that are said about it, but I want to know what it means to you. I know that you have fasted often.

G. Very well. Let’s begin with those “usual things.” Foundations may be very ordinary, but they are very important. Tell me what fasting is to you, Sara.

S. Fasting is to go without food or water.

G. How is that different than going hungry?

S. Mother has taught us that there are two special things that make fasting. First, we must choose for ourselves not to eat or drink, and second, we should begin and end our fast with prayer. She always reminds us to go say a special prayer before we break our fast.

G. Now tell me why you fast.

S. I mostly fast on Fast Sunday. I do it then because everybody is supposed to.

G. Who is “everybody?”

S. Well, I mean members of the church.

G. Everybody in the church is supposed to fast?

S. I guess I really mean everyone who can. I know that sick people and little children don’t need to fast. I remember that when Mother was expecting, Daddy would caution her not to fast unless it was right. Sometimes she didn’t, but most of the time she did. She said she was so grateful to Heavenly Father and our Savior that she wanted to fast to thank them. I have even seen her fasting when she was nursing. I asked her about that. She laughed and said that she became very thirsty and that sometimes the baby had less milk, but that it was well worth it.

G. You have been taught some very important things about fasting. Are there other times or situations when people should not fast?

S. Yes, I think so. A long time ago Mother wanted an answer to a question she had. She fasted often. She became very weak, and the doctor said she was anemic. Daddy talked with her about it many times, and finally she stopped. Daddy said we should not fast unless the Savior tells us to. He said we are supposed to do what pleases Jesus, and that fasting when the Savior doesn’t tell us to is a waste. He called it a trap. He said Satan could get extra power over us if we go hungry and weaken our bodies when we have not been told to do so by the Holy Spirit. He read to us how the Savior fasted for forty days because he was led out into the wilderness by the Spirit to be with God.

G. That is a true principle, Sara. I too have found that fasting must not only be voluntary, but that it must be right to do it. The only way I know to be sure it is right is to feel the prompting of the Spirit. When we received the news that you were born and that you and your Mother were both alright, I was prompted to fast for joy, for the blessing that our Heavenly Father had seen you and your Mother through a very difficult pregnancy. I rejoiced too, for the faith and the sacrifice of both of your parents. Did you know that your parents greatly desired to have you, Sara?

S. Yes, I feel their love. It has given me a warm feeling all of my life whenever I have thought about being wanted. Sometimes when I fast, I especially thank Heavenly Father for that. But Grandfather, tell me about the things I don’t already know.

G. Such as …

S. What does the word “fast” mean? Is it related to the fast of fast and slow?

G. I think not. I understand the word fast to mean “firm,” as when a ship is made fast to the dock or as when something is glued, it holds fast. We also speak of a color being fast, meaning that it won’t wash out.

S. That sounds as if “fast” means “attached.”

G. Yes, that’s a fair synonym.

S. But I don’t see how that applies to the fast when we don’t eat.

G. Let’s try and analogy. Suppose you wish to take a walk and do so. What are you then doing?

S. I guess you mean I would be walking.

G. Correct! Now let us suppose you wish to become firmly attached to the Savior. Since he is not here, we cannot hold him fast as Mary sought to do in the garden. What does he send to us in his place?

S. He sends the Holy Spirit to be with us until he comes.

G. Right. Now can you think of a way you could hold fast to the Holy Spirit?

S. No, I can’t. Isn’t that why spirits are called spirits? Because we can’t touch them?

G. That’s one reason. But there are other ways to be firmly attached to a spirit other than touching.

S. Grandfather, are you serious?

G. Yes, my dear. I’m trying to help you to think some new thoughts. Do you remember the tree of life vision which father Lehi and his son Nephi shared?

S. Yes. I especially remember the mists of darkness and the building where everyone was pointing fingers at the righteous.

G. What did those mists of darkness represent?

S. I think they were like the temptations of Satan.

G. And how did the righteous keep from wandering away from the path that led to the tree?

S. They had to hold to the iron rod. Aren’t we a long way from fasting now?

G. We are getting very close. What should one do to not lose the iron rod?

S. Hold onto it.

G. How should you hold onto it?

S. Hold it fast—do you mean that fasting is holding fast?

G. That’s where we have been going. Remember you said that taking a walk involves walking? So to hold fast to the iron rod involves …

S. … fasting, Grandfather. I’ve never heard the word used like that before.

G. You may not again soon, either. But sometimes to shed light on something we need to try new lights. Now do you remember what the iron rod stands for?

S. Yes. I always remember because we sing the song so much: “The iron rod is the word of God.”

G. What is the word of God?

S. The scriptures?

G. In a manner of speaking, yes. But let us be more particular. As we open the Book of Mormon and look at a page, what do you see?

S. I see a lot of words from I Nephi, chapter one.

G. Are they the words of God?

S. Certainly. I know the Book of Mormon is true!

G. Now look at this Spanish edition. We will turn to the same chapter. Now what do you see?

S. I see Spanish words.

G. Are these the word of God?

S. Yes, they must be. It is the same book.

G. But they look quite different. How can they be the same book?

S. Grandfather, the words are different, but the meaning is the same. That’s why it is the same book.

G. Now Sara, think carefully before you answer. Which is the word of God: The English words, the Spanish words, or the meaning they both have?

S. I think it would have to be the meaning.

G. And how does one learn the meaning of any scripture, in any language?

S. By praying to receive the Holy Ghost so that we can understand what God meant us to understand.

G. Can you think of a scripture that supports that idea?

S. Yes. Peter said that scripture is not to be interpreted privately, but by the same spirit by which it was given, the Holy Spirit.

G. What then is the true meaning of the iron rod?

S. It is still the word of God. But I see now that it is the message and not the symbols.

G. And again, how do we get the message?

S. From the Holy Spirit. I see. It is the whisperings of the spirit which are the iron rod.

G. How then does one hold fast to them?

S. By listening carefully and by remembering what we are told.

G. And one more thing.

S. To do what we are told to do?

G. To listen to the Holy Spirit, to believe, to remember, to obey—these are the things that please God. These are what faith in Jesus Christ consists of, for the Holy Spirit brings us the words of Christ.

S. Now please put it all together for me, Grandfather, to see if I really understand.

G. Fasting is in part abstaining from food and drink that we might better hear, believe, remember and obey the words of Christ. This is how we can stay in that narrow way that leads to eternal life.

S. Yes. I think I understand that now. Let me say it in other words. Fasting is the process of becoming firm and fast in the word of God?

G. That is correct.

S. But why is abstaining from eating and drinking so helpful?

G. Because, as Paul says, the flesh wars against the spirit. Satan works on us through our mortal tabernacles. He tempts us to eat, to drink, to sleep, in ways and times and places that are not good for us. The more he can get us to give in to the desires of our bodies, the more control he has over us and the more evil he can get us to do.

S. Is that why the word of wisdom is so important?

G. Indeed. The word of wisdom gives us a chance to declare obedience to the Savior through the spirit, or we can choose to relax into the arms of Satan by yielding to social pressures and body desires.

S. So we abstain that we might be more sensitive to the Holy Spirit and to make it easier to obey?

G. True. It is very difficult to receive and to discern the Holy Spirit in administering to the sick when one has a full stomach. When we fast, the spirit seems to come much more readily, and in greater power. The Savior once chided his disciples for not being able to cast out devils. He told them that “this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” (Matt 17:21)

S. I think I have experienced some of the same thing in partaking of the sacrament. I know that it is a real joy to partake when fasting. But I have felt sometimes that the Holy Spirit is offended when I partake just after having eaten a big Sunday meal. The result just isn’t the same.

G. That is good discernment on your part, Sara. I believe that we need to be sensitive to the Spirit at all times. Then we will often receive instruction as to what and how much to eat or drink, when to retire, when to rise in the morning, when to work, when to pray, when to play. I remember several times when I felt I should not eat breakfast, and then not eat lunch,—then to receive a call late in the afternoon to administer to someone. What a joy it was to be spiritually thus prepared to give a blessing.

S. Grandfather, you mentioned that abstinence is only part of fasting. What else is part of this idea of being firm in the way of the Lord?

G. There are three precious passages of scripture which enlarge the idea of fasting to my mind, Sara. Would you turn first to Matthew 6:16–18 and read it aloud.

S. “Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.”

What do you make of that, Grandfather?

G. At one time men “disfigured their faces” or donned sackcloth and ashes to call public attention to the fact that they were fasting. This gave them sort of a “public piety,” which was its own reward. I see the Savior’s statement as an indication that fasting is something to be done quietly, as it were in secret. If something is to show, let it be the good works that come from the increased spirituality and humility of true fasting.

S. This is the “let your light so shine …” idea?

G. Yes. If our fasting produces greater righteousness in us, then men will take hope in the cause of righteousness in this world, and will be thus encouraged to glorify God. True fasting in secret helps the cause of Christ in the earth, whereas the false fasting for show calls attention only to ourselves.

S. Are there other things that clearly separate true fasting from wrong fasting?

G. One simple test is to see what a person does when he breaks his fast. If he then gorges himself with food or deliberately breaks the commandments in any other way, he shows that his fasting was not very spiritual; he mostly just went hungry.

S. Doesn’t that happen to most people? A true fast must be a very difficult thing.

G. I understand why it is so hard because I have “just gone hungry” many times. It is the “natural” thing to do. The more we can learn to be spiritual and obedient, the more we will be like the Savior, and the less we will give in to the flesh and be “natural.” Servants of the Savior are supposed to be different from people who do not know him.

S. What is another test of true fasting?

G. Another test is found in the second precious scripture I want us to go over. Would you please read Isaiah 58:3–7.

S. “Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and thou seest not? Wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge? Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours. Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high. Is it such a fast that I have chosen? A day for a man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? Wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord? Is not this the fast that I have chosen? To loose the bands of wickedness, to unto the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hid not thyself from thine own flesh?”

G. Like the first test, this one we can best use on ourselves. The question is, why do we fast? Do we fast to solve our own problems, to gain the success we desire, to make money, to take advantage of someone? The Lord plainly says that the fast he wishes us to undertake is to do his will, his pleasure. He wants us to feed the poor, to comfort the bereaved, and to free souls from wicked powers.

S. What does it mean when it says, “and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?”

G. You have heard the saying, “Charity starts at home.” Those of our own flesh are our own family members. Righteousness would have us be much with our family, teaching and sharing the gospel, ministering to their needs. I believe that the special spirituality many mothers have is because they do not hide themselves from their own flesh. Instead of leaving home to work or socialize, they spend most of their time at home creating a haven of love, warmth and order.

S. I’m thankful that Mother has done that. I haven’t always appreciated the sacrifices she has made to be a full-time mother.

G. Can you see that this kind of righteousness, this kind of obedience to the Savior is part and parcel of fasting?

S. I see that fasting is to become firm and strong in obedience to the Savior, and that going hungry to get help to break the commandments is kind of like a bad joke.

G. It isn’t a bit funny. Let’s turn now to the third scripture. This one is Doctrine and Covenants 59:7–14. Would you please?

S. “Thou shalt thank the Lord thy God in all things. Thou shalt offer a sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in righteousness, even that of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day; For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High; Nevertheless thy vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times; But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord. And on this day thou shalt do none other thing, only let thy food be prepared with singleness of heart that they fasting may be perfect, or, in other words, that thy joy may be full. Verily, this is fasting and prayer, or in other words, rejoicing and prayer.”

G. This passage tells me that fasting is perfect, or complete, only when it includes joy and rejoicing. We know that wickedness never was happiness. We also know that it is keeping the commandments of the Savior that leads to happiness.

S. So if we engage in a true fast, we abstain in secret and this brings us closer to the Holy Spirit; then being close to the Spirit helps us to obey the Savior, which brings joy in righteousness into our lives. Is that a correct picture?

G. This is the true fast in a nutshell, as I understand it, Sara. When men do this, enduring to the end, they become as the righteous angels, about whom Moroni says:

For behold, they are subject unto him [Christ], to minister according to the word of his command, showing themselves unto them of strong faith and a firm mind in every form of godliness. (Moroni 7:30)

S. Grandfather, I think that our Heavenly Father has given us a beautiful and plain path to follow.

G. And if we follow, “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath entered into the heart of man” the rich blessings and opportunities of those who trust in our Savior and stay themselves upon him. We get a glimpse of this in the Isaiah passage. Would you read verses 8 through 12?

S. “Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the Lord shall be thy rearward. Then shalt thou call, and the Lord shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity; And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday: And the Lord shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not. And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.” (Isaiah 58:8–12)

S: Thank you, grandfather, for opening my eyes to the greatness and beauty and power of fasting.

6 March 1975

Dear Church Member:

Thanks for your letter; it was good to hear that things are going well with you. You said you wonder about persecution. May I give you my thinking on that topic? First, some background.

I believe that the first and foremost thing for us to remember is that our beloved Master is in charge. In him we live and move and have our being. But he also controls the course of the heavens, the forces and events of nature, the course of nations, and the life of every human being. He grants each of us on this earth enough agency to show our true nature, but never enough to destroy his own purposes. Because men have agency, there is evil. But that evil always has bounds. Two passages from Paul delight my soul as they drive this point home: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God. …” (Romans 8:28). “For I am persecuted that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38–39).

The acknowledgment that the Savior’s work is only to bless and that his hand is in all things is the foundation of faith in Christ. When this eternal perspective is surely planted in our souls by the ministrations of the Holy Spirit, we can have that hope, born of faith, which “maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which maketh them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works. …” (Ether 12:4). We all need that security. Persecution brings insecurity to those who are weak and ungrounded. But the faithful can look on persecution with equanimity, knowing that their security is spiritual. No persecution can rob them of anything essential.

That, of course, raises the question as to what is essential. I count as essential the opportunity to be obedient to my Savior, to have the covenants and the priesthood, to have my dear wife and our wonderful children in eternity. I count as non-essential my job, my reputation, my home, my farm, my health, my life. Now don’t mistake me. I enjoy and desire all of those things. But if I ever had to choose between my enjoyment of them in this world and partaking of the Savior’s love through the Spirit, I would not hesitate. The Lord has so blessed me and answered my prayers that I trust his promise of the blessings of the next world as being far greater than any temporary enjoyment of this world.

I can hear you say, “Brave words. What about deeds?” I know that it is what one does under stress that really counts. But I also know I can’t guarantee anything about the future. As I look at my friends who have thrown in the towel and have given over to Satan, I can only say, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” My hope is in that grace, God being willing, I will meet the tests. All I am sure of is that this moment I have a burning desire to do all that the Savior would have me do. I hunger to bring souls unto him, that they may share my joy in the sweetness of the companionship of his Spirit and in the opportunity to bless others.

But on to persecution!

The word “persecution” itself means to pursue. Thus persecution is pursuit to do harm. Its opposite I to bless, to help. Its contrary is to live and let live. Though this subject does not readily yield itself to neat subdivision, some broad types are obvious. We could mention physical, social and intellectual persecution.

Last Sunday I saw again the film, “And Should We Die.” That brought vividly to mind the importance of being spiritually ready for physical persecution. Raphael Para and his companion were ready to meet death for their testimony, senseless and fortuitous though the circumstances might have been. President Bentley was able to lead the people of the colonies in their narrow escape through fasting and prayer. But, while we all hope to escape, we know not all will. Raphael and his companion had to join the Prophet Joseph, his brother Hyrum, Parley P. Pratt, the Savior, John the Baptist, Abinadi, Abel, and countless others in the death of deliberate persecution. Looking at the burning and bombing and the hate murders of our own time, it seems likely that some of us and perhaps many of the rising generation must face death for our Master. Whether we, as individuals, will face it or not is not the point. I think the point is, we must be ready to do so.

Now if each of us had several days to decide whether or not to die for the Savior, most of us would do well. But is not the real test what we would do under immediate attack? I remember the words of Joseph F. Smith at the campfire in California when challenged by horsemen intent on killing Mormons. I hope I can always reply in his spirit: “Yes sir, I am a Mormon, true blue, through and through.” Many of us might not mind dying gloriously, with much fanfare and publicity. But to die for chastity when accosted on a freeway? To die for honesty in a prison camp? To die for belief in God at the hands of a mob? If our testimony means enough to us that we prepare each morning either to live for the Savior or to die for him that day, we will always be prepared.

But perhaps we will not be murdered; just robbed, looted, burned, driven. Kirtland, Independence, Far West, Nauvoo, should always be in our minds. Those persecutions are our heritage. We must again be ready should they need to become our legacy. The Lectures on Faith make it clear where we must stand: “An actual knowledge to any person, that the course of life which he pursues is according to the will of God, is essentially necessary to enable him to have that confidence in God without which no person can obtain eternal life. It was this that enabled the ancient saints to endure all their afflictions and persecutions, and to take joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing (not believing merely), that they had a more enduring substance. Having the assurance that they were pursuing a course which was agreeable to the will of God, they were enabled to take, not only the spoiling of their goods, and the wasting of their substance, joyfully, but also to suffer death in its most horrid forms; knowing (not merely believing) that when this earthy house of their tabernacle was dissolved, they had a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” (Lecture Sixth, 2–3). Only that faith nurtured in the privacy of peace will weather the turmoil of trial.

When I think of social persecution, two classic examples come to mind. One is the story of the Welch family, beautifully told in the article entitled “Persecution: 1924” in the Ensign of January 1975. That remarkable father led his family ten miles to church over mountain and dale, through rain and mud when that was necessary. And when confrontation was the right thing to do, he had the courage to do it.

Persecution for his family was the hammer and anvil by which they all acquired the temper which makes saints out of faint hearts and well-wishers.

The other example is connected with the controversy over the laws of the Utah Territory and federal law two centuries ago. I honor the memory of George Reynolds, who, loyal to both his people and to his government, stood trial and suffered imprisonment so that the laws could be clarified. This man, secretary to four First Presidencies, General Authority, legislator, businessman, and editor, willingly absorbed the attack of the enemies of the Church so that others might not need to suffer in that way, To cap it off, he used his time in prison to produce our concordance to the Book of Mormon. Perhaps you know the brief account of his life and sufferings found in the foreword of that work.

Recent commendation of the Church and some of its members is a pleasant change for our peculiar people. The changed climate has helped us to bear testimony, to gain the ear of some who otherwise would not have heard. While we rejoice in that change, we must remember that it is not universal. Throughout the world there is as yet ostracism, discrimination, defamation and harassment. What a challenge both to be humble under praise and steady under persecution, not really knowing which will come next! Our path is to be constant, in season and out of season, bearing our witness as the Holy Spirit directs, come what may. When I think of the “come what may,” I am comforted by the saying of Elder Boyd K. Packer: “The truth doesn’t make enemies. It uncovers them.” We are sent to perform a task which includes the uncovering of the enemies along with the joy of finding the lost sheep of our Master. If we fear His enemies, we are not likely to find His sheep.

Bad as physical and social persecution can be, I think that intellectual persecution is the most devastating. The former are by nature opposition from outside, and as such they serve actually to strengthen the Church. But the intellectual attack also works within the Church. It divides and dilutes us when it comes from members. Let me give you two examples of ideas for which we are persecuted at various times and places.

The first example is personal revelation. To me, personal revelation is one of the great glories of the Restoration, especially in the promise that “every man might speak in the name of God, the Lord, even the Savior of the world.” (D&C 1:20) Personal revelation makes ever man and woman a prophet or prophetess, to know the voice of the Lord and to bear witness of him, not needing to depend upon the arm of flesh. Oh how personal revelation pulls down intellectual tyranny, priestcraft, and private interpretation of scripture! How it assuages the confused mind, the aching heart, the yearning soul! How it clothes with a mantle of charity, the pure love of Christ!

Forgive me. I know I do not need to sing the praises of personal communication with the Savior to you. But I can’t help being excited when I ponder all the blessings which come to mankind by it. Perhaps its strength is the very reason why it becomes a focus for persecution.

I once heard a professor of mine boast that he had broken more priests, rabbis and Bible readers than anyone else in the business. With that boast he warned any who wished to continue to believe in revelation to depart. I stayed. Then he lowered the boom and went through all of the reasons why belief in revelation was irrational. He showed how the people who claimed revelation were inconsistent, both within their own individual writings and among themselves. He pointed out the great abuses that religion had wrought in the world, from inquisitions to caste systems, to human sacrifice. He mocked the Bible, pointing out what he took to be obvious internal contradictions. Then he went on to show how everything good in human progress had consisted in rejection of religious beliefs in favor of scientific, empirical evidence.

Well. I was devastated by that onslaught. There I was, a graduate student, well-schooled in LDS theology, happily a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all of my life, a defender of the faith and successful sufferer of physical and social persecution –but devastated. He had made me realize that I did not have a personal testimony of revelation. All I had was an intellectual awareness of what others said about our religion. That realization shook me, for I fully realized that I might be wrong.

During the next few weeks, I went through an experience for which I can think of only one word which fully represents it: hell. I was assailed by doubt, by fear, by loneliness. I began to wonder if I were sane. Through this time I kept two promises I had made to myself: I would continue to attend church and continue to read ten pages of scripture each night. But those two things also became an agony to me. And I prayed. Oh how I prayed to know for myself if there were such a thing as personal revelation.

Then—thanks be to our good Master—it came. I began to feel something special in my breast. I began to recognize certain ideas that appeared in my mind as being different from my own thoughts. These new ideas told me how to interpret passages of scripture, how to understand things formerly incomprehensible to me, even to know the future. But I could tell the difference. Here was the iron rod. I had hold of it. The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ really was and is true!

Since then I have had stumblings. I have been burned, and through these negative experiences I have learned two things: without Him I am nothing, and I must be ever careful not to be confused as to who it is that is speaking to me.

Now a full quarter-century has passed. That slender thread of personal revelation has brought me to everything I now hold dear. It has brought me a flood of knowledge and understanding—and a glimpse of how far I have yet to go. I now know that there is power in the priesthood of this Church, and that the Lord Jesus Christ is indeed the head of this Church. Now as I see the Church touching the lives of others, my heart overflows with gratitude to the Lord for this pearl of great price which each of us can have. My greatest sorrow, except for my own sins, is that some persons who I know cannot seem to get a testimony. But I have hope for them. Looking back I know that I must have had personal revelation before that trial. The problem was that I had not become acute at recognizing it.

So personal revelation becomes a great watershed, in the Church and out. Those who have it are drawn into a unity of faith in Christ. Many of those who don’t have it think those who have it are deluded or demented. I suspect that some fear that it might really exist—so they persecute those who teach and proclaim its reality. They don’t want it for fear they might have to give up some sin. And they don’t want anyone else to have it because that too convicts them of sin.

So we are persecuted for personal revelation in a world that prides itself on “hard” evidence, and on the strength of consensus. As a philosopher of human knowledge, I can only shake my head. For I know and can prove that there is no such thing as evidence apart from a matrix of presuppositions, that objectivity is at best a consensus, and that consensus is often but a public relations job. Every scientific system begins with un\proved postulates. Every person founds his life on articles of faith. But what a blessing to be able to ground our faith upon a rock—on personal revelation from our Savior.

I promise to be more brief on the next idea. We are also persecuted for our belief in uniqueness, for the idea that there is but one true church, one true priesthood, one narrow path to salvation, one chosen people, one fountain for all righteousness. Many people of my acquaintance are willing to see good in the Church, especially as a social system. But for us to claim that no one but members of our Church can become celestial raises hackles. That does not fit the permissive, egalitarian, ecumenical age we live in. It is taken as a sign of snobbery, of racism, of hypocrisy, of almost anything bad. One of the reasons my soul so hungers and yearns to see the establishment of Zion is so that we won’t have to say anything about uniqueness then. We will just be content to be unique. How unique would it be to get a least half the Church members to be of one heart and one mind, to dwell in righteousness, and have no poor person among them. I think that we would then see the fulfillment of that promise and challenge: “That the kingdoms of this world may be constrained to acknowledge that the kingdom of God is in very deed the kingdom of God and of his Christ.” (D&C 105:32)

Meanwhile, we are subject to persecution for our claim to be the true Church, and are dismissed with others who make the same claim. Is it possible that we deserve persecution on this point? If we claim to be the one true church and are not significantly better, perhaps we have earned trouble. Oh for Zion!

Three more observations on persecution and I will stop these ramblings lest I wear you out. (My egotism presumes you are yet with me.)

The first concerns the story of Stephen in Acts 6 and 7. I reread it recently and was forcefully impressed with an idea. Stephen has always come across to me as a good man, well-suited to minister to widow’s need, “full of the Holy Ghost,” a powerful servant of Christ. But it has always struck me that he spoke to the Sanhedrin rather forthrightly, surely provocatively. His speech would hardly win any Dale Carnegie awards. I have wondered: Did he have a martyr complex? Was he trying to die?

My feeling now is that he enjoyed life as much as you or I, and was doubtless very happy because of the good he was able to do for others. But he had a mission to perform. For some reason the Sanhedrin needed another witness of the great tragedy in which they were principals. The promised Messiah had come and had fulfilled all things while some of those who desired to be His servants carefully engineered His death. This was a tragic flaw, a damming fate, indeed. His own people largely rejected Him as would no other nation or people –or planet. Could Stephen have supposed that he could convert them when the Savior himself had failed to do so?

But Stephen was true to his mission. He bore testimony of Christ and of their sin. The flood of anger and hate that carried him outside of the walls to die, stone by stone, was the necessary consequence of his commission. He sealed his testimony (and probably their reward) with his blood. The moral I draw from this story is that we should not be needlessly offensive in this world. We should never seek to be persecuted. But we should seek to fulfill our personal missions, wending our way among the hate and persecutions that will come, but never trying to offend. But should our commission call us to an unsavory task where we cannot help but offend, then we should bear the task off manfully, with great humility, and with a firm grasp on the iron rod. I honor Stephen in his great example.

My second thought relates to Saul, afterwards known as Paul, also of Acts. Saul persecuted the Saints with great zeal and ability. Then the Lord’s mercy allowed him to repent and to become Paul. Then he was persecuted by the Jews and others, even as he had persecuted. I think all of us should see ourselves in this story. We should ask ourselves: “Am I yet Saul or am I now Paul? Am I still persecuting the Saints and the Savior or have I repented of my sins to serve and suffer for the Lord Jesus Christ? Do I persecute others in my zeal to do God a favor (as if He needed my hate or scorn to further His cause), or do I humbly and patiently “submit to all things that my God seeth fit to inflict upon me, even as a child doth submit to his father.”

One final point: As we look at the “big picture” of things, I see persecution taking a special significance. All of us who have become accountable have sinned. Having sinned we justly merit retribution from the world. We cannot claim that being persecuted is wholly unwarranted. But there is One whose life and perfection has swallowed up our debt for sin. In His atonement, our Savior paid the debt of justice for every human sin that had been or would be committed. Having paid that debt, all sin focuses on him. When any of us sin we are persecuting Christ, for we are adding to his burden of suffering for sin.

The work of our Savior is to bless everyone and everything. We who are not omniscient know not how to bless perfectly, as He does. But as we act on our Savior’s instructions, He guides us through his priesthood and the Holy Spirit in the blessing of others. Our wiling obedience to Him constitutes faith in Jesus Christ. But when we do not bless, we hurt, either by commission or omission. Thus all sinning is really persecution. It is persecution both of the person or persons we do not bless, and it is persecution of the great and good God of this earth, Jesus Christ. It helps me to have perspective to see that murder, adultery, lying, hypocrisy, anger, hate, stealing, etc., are all persecution of Christ. I sorrow for all who are hurt by sin. But I all grieve for our Master, who, I believe, feels every sin more keenly than any of us do when we are sinned against. Every war, every riot, every pillage, all raping, all priestcraft, all sinning, are personal attacks on the Savior. I imagine His grief when we set guilty murderers free, despising the lives of those whom they have murdered, then legally condemning to death millions of innocent unborn (and some born) babies.

Knowing all this doesn’t make me perfect. I wish it did. But it does make me ache to stop sinning. If I could only stop, every last whit, then I would no longer be persecuting my loved ones and my Savior. The real point is that I am a persecutor. Any persecution inflicted upon me does not begin to compare in importance with fact that I, until I fully repent, am pursuing others to do them harm. I know that it is possible to stop sinning, but only through the laws and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Lavina, you have been kind to wade through all of this, I inflict this on you only in the hope that our souls will so hunger after Him who we love that we will make every sacrifice necessary to become as He is. That is the greatest thing we can do about persecution. “Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation; for, from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through this medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth’s sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do His will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not, nor will seek His face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.” (Lectures on Faith, Lecture Sixth: 7)

THE NEW TESTAMENT CONFERENCE February 27, 1960
Dr. Chauncey C. Riddle

As one assesses the achievements of mankind he cannot help but marvel at three elements of our century which are historically unique. The first is the practical power of scientific knowledge which has become the sine qua non of both national prestige and survival in both military and economic competition. Secondly, one sees the contagious spread of semi-democratic government, bringing the opportunities and responsibilities of political autonomy to peoples who have lived under despotic power at least since the beginnings of recorded history. Thirdly, the technology of transportation and communication has forced upon all the awareness that the welfare of each people is vitally interconnected with the welfare of other peoples.

Certain age-old constants also persist in this modern world to keep us somewhat painfully aware of continuity with the past. Technology is yet, as ever, used to coerce and enslave the lives of men. Science has brought no amelioration of tyranny, but has rather increased the power of the tyrant over the oppressed. Twentieth century nationalism and semi-democracy reveal and repeat what the Greeks well knew, that democracy becomes a precarious balance of selfish interests which progressively deteriorates as individuals seek to further their own interests at the expense of others.

Transportation and communication in our day retrench the power of the few to control the minds and lives of many. The main difference is that far fewer now control many more. Though we may be glad for the improvements of the 20^th century, optimism is quite misplaced in the midst of the life-and-death struggle for survival and freedom.

Amidst the strange contrasts and despair of our age there stands one ideal which is as untarnished as it is untried. This ideal is the standard set by one Jesus of Nazareth as found in the New Testament, and more particularly in the synoptic gospels. This ideal has been lived by very few people. I wish to emphasize that Western civilization, though being nominally Christian, has never seen a truly Christian nation. It is my thesis that only as men recognize and accept the true Christian ideal, as found in the Gospels, have we any right to hope for real happiness and peace either in this world or the next.

Let us turn to an examination of the message of the synoptic gospels. These gospels may be conveniently divided into two kinds of subject matter—historical and didactic. That is to say, we receive from them information about Jesus and information from Jesus. Let us first consider the historical phase. The writers of the synoptic gospels are historically concerned with one main objective, to present to us the evidence which they had of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. They recount to us carefully the visitation of angels and the annunciation; the divine conception of a worthy daughter of Judah; the fulfilling of scripture in Christ’s birth and life; the testimony and preparation of the acknowledged prophet, John the Baptist; the miracles of healing, the control of nature, the commanding of devils, the understanding and prescience which witnessed unto Jesus’ supernatural power; the perfection of His life in enduring temptations, derision, unfaithfulness and thoughtlessness of associates; His torture and death; the kindness and mercy which He extended to all who would receive; the justice of his cleansing of the temple and accusation of the Jews; the exactness of His knowledge of the law and all that the prophets had spoken; the humility, deference and reverence which he showed before His Father; the clarity and authoritativeness of His teachings; the terribleness of the suffering of the Atonement; the nobility that He showed so plainly on the cross; and the joyful reality of the resurrection of the Savior and His triumph over all of His and our enemies.

In all these things the writers of the synoptic gospels show us that this man Jesus was not only a man as we are, but that he was also a God, our God. They show us that Jesus was not only a human being, but that he was a perfect human being. They show us that he was not only a great teacher, but that he was “one having authority” and that his teachings are true. Their separate witnesses to these things are binding upon all who read those words. All men are free to discard the gospels as fable and fantasy, but they are not ever again free from the testimony borne by those writers that the Son of God lived and died for us, and that the responsibility of the divine message he taught is incumbent upon us. I hope it does not seem to you that I labor this point of the witness to the divinity of Jesus unduly. We live in an age of skepticism, of doubt and private interpretation of all things. It is today fashionable to reject the historicity of the Bible in deference to pseudo-scientific fictions which attempt to construct a naturalistic account of the origin of those records. Adoption of such a naturalistic point of view indeed wins for us the commendation and acclaim of worldly men who cannot countenance the divine nature of Christ because it makes them inferior to Him and derogates the synthesizing powers of the human mind in favor of divine revelation. If we fear only the possibility of being accepted unto so-called learned men, indeed we had best bow to their conspiracy for humanizing and fictionalizing Jesus. But if we fear God, we know that the opinions of men are but frost on a dark morning, which melts into oblivion before the penetrating rays of the sun of divine power and spiritual insight.

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and all who would bear his name had best accept him as divine or not pretend allegiance to him at all. For if they do not accept him as divine through the witness and guidance of the spirit, what they do accept is not him but their own rationally concocted and carefully purged notion of what they want him to be. I take, then, the point that the first and foremost message of the gospels is a witness to the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Let us turn now to the message that the Savior gave to the world, which message becomes the more important because of the authority of him who delivered the message. The message itself may be usefully dichotomized into 1) the standard or righteousness prescribed by the Savior, and 2) the ways of making our lives accord with that standard of righteousness.

The standard of righteousness set by the Savior is stated simply and directly in the Sermon on the Mount, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48) In other words, men are to shun and eschew any degree of unrighteousness, including even the very appearance of evil, that they might truly be the children of their Father in Heaven. While obvious limitations of physical imperfection and intellectual blindness hamper all men during this life, the point of the Savior is clear. Moral perfection, which consists in complete obedience to the directions of God, in other words, complete repentance, is a possible attainment during this state of mortality for all who receive the gospel and its saving ordinances in this life. Furthermore, no life less than this standard is acceptable unto God for those who wish to obtain the celestial kingdom.

This standard of perfection does not mean that he who sins is lost forever. It simply means that all of us—who are all sinners—must repent and bring our conduct to the level wherein we cease sinning completely. Sin consists of disobedience to the commandments of God. Perfection consists, then, of perfect or complete obedience to God, and that perfection is entirely available to men who are yet in the state of mortality. There are those who assert that perfection is an unapproachable ideal, impossible to any human being. Indeed, those who say such speak correctly in one sense. It is indeed impossible for any unaided human being to become perfect. The natural man is an enemy to God and has been since the Fall of Adam, and will be forever unless he yields to the enticing of the Holy Spirit and puts off the natural man and becomes a saint through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Fallen men have not the ability nor the knowledge to become perfect in and of themselves, but the grand and glorious message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that there is a power of God unto perfection. Through yielding ourselves to the guidance of the Holy Ghost, to be led in all things, we can know in all circumstances and problems what we should and can do to avoid sin and live as our Father in Heaven desires that we should. When we come to that point we need no longer sin, and if we don’t sin, we can then be forgiven of any and all past errors through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

The rich young man came to Jesus and asked him what to do to obtain eternal life. The Savior gave to him the basic standards of righteousness inherent in the Law of Moses. When the young man replied that all those things he had kept from his youth up, the Savior replied, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” (Matthew 19:21) Note two things: first, the Savior gave the opportunity to this already quite good young man to go toward perfection, then and there. Secondly, the more important of the two requirements for his perfection was to come follow Him. Come with me and I will lead you to perfection, the Savior essentially said. “But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.” (Matthew 19:22) Though nigh unto perfection, he denied the final steps. Perhaps he consoled himself in later life with the false platitude, “Well, it is impossible for any human being to become perfect, anyway.”

What the Savior told the rich young man accentuates the relationship of the standards of the Law of Moses to the message of perfection which the Savior restored. Moses, too, knew the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and sought diligently to instruct the children of Israel in the ways of celestial salvation. But they would not have perfection, preferring a yoke less grievous to be borne. Thereupon the Lord, through Moses, prescribed for them a moral standard much less demanding but accompanied by ceremonial requirements of much greater demand upon time and substance. The multitude of sacrifices was intended as a schoolmaster to show them that the Ten Commandments satisfied only a partial righteousness, and that only through the Atonement of Christ and living the higher law could they receive the celestial kingdom. But most of Israel lost the point of what Moses gave them, and it was necessary for the Savior to emphasize emphatically to the Jews, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:20)

The Savior clearly contrasted the old righteousness with perfection.

      Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill: … But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: … (Matthew 5:21–22)

      Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

      But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:27–28)

      It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

      But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:31–32)

      Again we have heard that it hath been said by the of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, … But I say unto you, Swear not at all, …

      But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Matthew 5:33–34, 37)

      Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

      But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39)

      Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

      Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:43–44, 48)

The Savior in these passages is in no way belittling or disowning the standards of righteousness of the Law of Moses. Indeed they are prerequisites for living the higher law. A man cannot have a clean mind if he commits adultery, as he cannot love his enemy if he cannot love his neighbors and friends. But having obtained that foundation, it is necessary for those who wish to return to the presence of their Father in Heaven, to go on unto perfection. That this is impractical by worldly standards is obvious. The Savior himself observed that the children of this world are wiser in their generation that the children of light. But the children of light have different goals and standards than those of the world. The children of light seek to become as their Savior, that in no thing should they ever hurt or harm any of our Father’s children.

A more abstract manner of contrasting the Law with the gospel is to regard the contrast of law and principle. A law is a standard of action which prescribes how a person should act in a situation explicitly defined by the law or its interpreters. A system of such laws consists essentially of proscriptions concerning things which persons of the society must not do or the way in which they must do certain things in order to avoid penalty. Avoidance of penalty then becomes the reason for obeying the law in most systems of social justice. The complementary but generally unstated notion that automatically accompanies such a system of law is that any act which is not proscribed by law is automatically lawful. The human tendency is then to consider all things which are lawful, either given by the law or not mentioned by the law, as being good. But it will be immediately recognized that this is strictly a second-rate good. If the system of laws is both comprehensive and up to date, it will preserve certain goods to society. But every human system of law has been found to have lacunae, legislators not being able to foresee all the ways of doing evil, and not being able to legislate against all variations which they do foresee. Historically, laws have been the solution to certain gross abuse. Wrongs recognized by a non-legal standard are made legally wrong and thereby to some degree controllable in civil society. But much suffering is usually needed to make the need felt. We lose many horses before all the barn doors get shut. Worse yet, the good intentions of the legislator often miscarry, and law becomes a weapon of “just” injustice upon segments of its citizenry.

The sum, then, of the good of law is that it encourages a minimal righteousness by force, as the adulterer or idolator among the children of Israel was stoned to death. The evil of law is that satisfying the law becomes confused with the standard of true good which guided the original creation of those laws.

In contrast then with a minimal level of righteousness under a system of law, we have a maximal orientation under the aegis of principle. Principles are as laws, guides for action, but they are general. They cover all cases without exception. They do not serve to correct specific social abuse, but rather clearly to delineate abuse and to lift the aspirations of man to ultimate righteousness. The motivation for living by a principle is not extrinsic as with law; it does not depend upon punishment. For he who lives by principle lives so far above the standard demanded by law that that demand is not than satisfied. Rather is he who lives by principle is motivated by the desire to do the truly right thing, that which will bring only happiness and success to himself and to all others whom his actions affect. This is to say further that the principles of the gospel are not arbitrary. They are not the fiat of an omnipotent demon. Rather are they the plan of happiness as taught by One who Himself mastered happiness. He who lives by principle, by the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, does so because of his own desire to obtain the fruits of the principle, out of a positive attraction to do good rather than from a repulsion from fear or pain.

The standards of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are the standards of happiness. Men who truly seek good will not seek just to avoid the traps of the law, but will seek fully to exploit the possibilities of happiness in thorough and continuous application of true principles in their lives. Men who live by principle need little human government for they seek the welfare of all others in governing themselves. Men who live by law must have policemen, lawyers, judges and legislators, desperately trying to close the gaps in a morally devolving society. True morality is, then, related to principles rather than law, even if the laws are good laws, as were the Law of Moses.

Thus we are brought in our discussion to the second point which the Savior taught. Having set for us the goal of perfection, he then delineated the principles of perfection. When asked which is the greatest commandment, the Savior replied, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matthew 22:37–39)

Moses had told the people that they should not have any other gods before Jehovah. The law was that they should not have anything to do with any other gods, but how far a cry is this from loving the true and living God with all one’s might, mind and strength! To honor and sustain God is surely different from acknowledging him. Yet can he demand our love? He can demand that we do not falsify the record by substituting false gods in his stead. But love cannot be coerced. There is no penalty for not living by the principle except the loss of the blessing. Penalty pertains primarily to law, but opportunity for the greatest blessings attaches to principles.

Thus it is that there are three degrees of worthiness. Those who cannot live by the basic laws of God are punished for their transgressions and receive the least of all the eternal rewards, telestial. Those who abide the basic law but will not seek out and live by the principles or higher laws neither suffer nor gain the highest, though their eternal kingdom is superior to those who cannot keep the basic or terrestrial laws. But those who seek out and live by the principles of the gospel are then adjudged by God to be worthy, and they gain the greatest of eternal blessings, eternal life, celestial.

But if men would be perfect, how can the first principle of loving the Lord become a reality in their lives? The Savior answered this by the words, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15) Those who love the Lord will exercise faith, which is willing and devoted obedience to his commandment. That is why the Savior told the rich young man, “Come and follow me.” Having mastered the Law of Moses he was in a position to join the faithful band who did follow Christ, who had forsaken all in order that they might receive the personal guidance of the Savior in the perfecting of their individual lives, to be with him, to watch him, to hear him, to serve him, to wait upon him. What a priceless opportunity to be with God and to learn to love him with all one’s ability! But the rich young man, apparently motivated more by the fear of poverty than by the love of righteousness, forsook that opportunity. Indeed the love of righteousness is the key to the celestial kingdom, for those who truly love righteousness will truly love God, who is the very epitome of that righteousness. And it pleased God to bless those who love him for his righteousness with direction and power, leading them from grace to grace, from principle to principle, from one level of righteousness to another, until he leads them unto perfection.

But the disciples of the Savior soon discovered that having talked with the Lord was not enough. Out of his sight the devils resisted them, and they found themselves as Peter, weak in doing good. Knowing this weakness, the Lord had from the beginning provided a messenger, the Holy Ghost, through whom He could be with each of His disciples wherever they were and whatever their righteous mission. Thus He promised the multitudes, “Blessed are the poor in spirit [who come unto me]: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:3) (3 Nephi 12:3)

The Lord is kindly disposed to those who do not have the Holy Ghost, and if they will but seek him, the Lord, they shall be blessed and made rich in spirit. Righteousness can then be theirs, and if they follow the Savior through the words of the spirit, they will receive the celestial kingdom. Again the Lord says, “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled [with the Holy Ghost]. (Matthew 5:6)

The first principle of the gospel then, is, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, or, in other words, obedience to the words of the Savior as they are given to us by the Holy Ghost; or, to love the Lord with all our heart, might, mind and strength. Knowing this first principle, then it becomes the key to all others. “But, seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Matthew 6:33)

Thus the message of the synoptic gospels is essentially this: Jesus, the anointed one, lived a perfect life and died for our sins. If we truly hunger and thirst after his righteousness and desire to be perfect, we shall receive the power of God, the Holy Spirit, so to become. Every statement, every teaching, every parable in the gospels is a glimpse of these grand truths.

The world has many problems, and the future does not look bright. But bright indeed is the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. All who are heavy-laden can come unto Him and find rest, for his yoke is light and easy to be borne. Would that those that profess to know the gospel as it has been truly restored, might seize upon this message and live it, to bring again Zion upon the earth, to be a light that so shines unto all men that they might be constrained to acknowledge that the kingdom of Zion is in very deed the Kingdom of our God and His Christ.

How to live the Restored Gospel without falling on your face.

The reason we need to come to Christ is because we keep falling on our face. Until he rescues us from ourselves, we will continue to fall on our face (to sin), and we cannot stop it. So when we fall on our face we need to struggle to our knees and acknowledge before heaven and earth that we need the help of Jesus Christ. We avail ourselves of that help by doing four things: (All that follows assumes that we know that the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is true.)

1. We need to stop sinning. We can examine ourselves to admit what we know already: we are sinning and then stop it. We must stop every sin we know about and replace each sinning with positive, righteous acts.
2. We need to partake of the New and Everlasting Covenant. We can be baptized, receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, receive our temple endowments, be sealed in the temple in the covenant of eternal marriage.
3. We need to take upon ourselves the harness of the priesthood in serving faithfully and valiantly in the Kingdom of Christ. We can get behind the presiding officers over us in the church, pray for them, sustain them with our faith and prayers, fully fulfill any calling they extend to us to serve in the kingdom, and especially to do all of those voluntary, quiet labors of Christian service which being a neighbor to needy people can bring.
4. We need to persevere in the path of righteousness until we have done all that we can do through faith in Christ to be righteous, then to implore the Savior that he will purify our hearts, to give us that greatest gift of charity. For we are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ, but only after all we can do to perfect ourselves by the means he has already given us. By doing all we can first, we demonstrate that we really do want what he has to give and that we are willing to make any sacrifice necessary to do our part. Then he will make us pure. Then we will no longer have any desire to sin. Until we receive charity, that pure heart, we will continue to sin. Thus until we persevere to that end, we are as nothing.

We do not do these things, these four steps, in serial order, one at a time. We work on each of them constantly, every day, and the more we do of one, the greater our capability becomes to do the others.

What is the secret to doing these things fully and faithfully, to endure to the end? The secret is simple: to perfect each day. We can study out in our minds a plan for each day, then live as intelligently as we are able within our plan. Some elements should be in every plan:

1. Personal prayer upon arising, upon retiring, and all during the day.
2. Family prayer night and morning.
3. Daily scripture study, privately and as a family.
4. Planning each day’s work with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
5. Executing the work of each day in the spirit of love and pure knowledge.
6. Constancy in scanning the horizon for souls who may be in need of our help.
7. Building our lives around the three great works of the latter days: missionary work, perfecting the Saints (establishing Zion), and redeeming the dead.

1 Peter 1:13–16: Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Fathers: Your task as a father and head of your family is to lead all of your family back to Christ.

To come to Christ is to learn to love Him with all of our heart, might, mind and strength.

With the following particulars:

Heart: Be and teach everyone in your family to be honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and to do good to all men through faith in Christ.

Might: Use all the influence and power you have and encourage your family to build the kingdom of God on the earth (the LDS Church) and to establish Zion (the society run by Christ’s pure love unfeigned where all persons are of one heart, one mind, dwell in righteousness and will not allow anyone in their group to be poor). Meanwhile, see that everyone in your family has good nourishment, clothing, shelter and physical safety.

Mind: Believe in Christ and teach everyone in your family to full trust in Jesus Christ and to come to know that God hears and answers prayers, that we will all stand before him to be judged of our works done in this mortality, and that we will spend the rest of eternity after the resurrection doing that which we finally chose to be found doing in mortality, be it good or evil.

Strength: To honor the physical tabernacle loaned to us by Christ for this mortality, and to use it to protect all women, the weak, the ill and infirm, the aged, and to give that great gift of mortal life to all the spirits God chooses to send to mortality through your lineage, to be born in the New and Everlasting Covenant.

And never, ever, be selfish.