Sometimes when I read the Come Follow Me lessons, I wonder how the lessons for that specific week are so coordinated with what’s happening in the world around us. It’s like it was orchestrated to be read that very week, even though we’re just going chronologically. How can these things we read about in scripture be so utterly relevant to current events? How is it that the things that we read, written so long ago can accurately represent the struggles that we face in our modern day? Mark Twain is attributed to have said that “History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes.” Will we resolve the struggles and justifications within ourselves? What is the solution to these conflicts we see all around us? Is there any solution?
The struggles that humans and society face are the same throughout history. Human nature is the same. Although we tend to think that we’ve evolved past certain issues, every generation has to grapple with the same struggles and seek to overcome them. What are these issues that persistently plague us and what is the solution? We’ll discuss that as we review the reading.
The Anatomy of Peace is an excellent book that details this age old struggle so well. What is the root cause of conflict in the world? This book describes it as a process. When we do things against our conscience, we seek justification for what we’ve done, and by extension we begin to dehumanize others, which dehumanizes ourselves. When we start to see others as objects and deprive others of their humanity, we perpetuate conflict within and without ourselves. “So if we are going to find lasting solutions to difficult conflicts or external wars we find ourselves in, we first need to find our way out of the internal wars that are poisoning our thoughts, feelings, and attitudes toward others. If we can't put an end to the violence within us, there is no hope for putting an end to the violence without.”
The primary struggle in the life of every human across all eras of time is precisely that. Will we value and see others as worthy human beings? Will we stop dehumanizing others? Christ taught us to love one another, to have empathy for others. To follow Christ means to mourn with those that mourn, comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to bear one another’s burdens that they may be light. Few of us would argue that these aren’t the very goals that we have.
How do we do this? How can we help resolve inner and outer wars? How do we bring more light and hope into a dark world? Alma 31:5 states, “. . . the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them. . .” It is super cliche to say that love conquers all, but that’s the solution. Both secular and religious sources teach us this. God is love. Love one another. Love thy neighbor as thyself. When we love ourselves and others, we have peace. The way to promote love and peace is to exemplify it. We have to promote, magnify, and amplify the things we want more of in the world. When we have love we have empathy, in sharp contrast to hate and discord.
The reading begins pointing out the importance of leaders because of their influence on the people. We want and need good leaders, because they influence the people and show us what to emulate. The reading talks about the importance of unity, and the injustice, immorality, and crime that can result from an unrighteous leader’s influence. We all are leaders. While some of us may have higher platforms, we all have influence. Are we exemplifying the change and behaviors we want to perpetuate? Are we giving the world more of what we want to see in it? Are we blaming others?
The reading goes on to say that usually the majority of people want what is right, but it’s common for “the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right.” The scriptures tell us we should recognize this and make our laws according to the will of the majority of the people. It’s interesting how much the political system is described in these chapters. There are checks and balances established in their judicial system, with a lower system of courts and a higher system that they could appeal to.
Alma said, “And now I desire that this inequality should be no more in this land, especially among this my people; but I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike…” The people saw the merit in this, and “became exceedingly anxious that every man should have an equal chance throughout all the land; yea, and every man expressed a willingness to answer for his own sins.” The people in Alma’s society wanted to be personally responsible for whatever they did. They wanted equal application of the law.
Their form of government was pretty well described throughout the reading. They chose to implement judges instead of a king. They wanted laws that would be followed and enforced according to the will of the majority of people, not according to a minority or a powerful ruler. They had the death penalty. People who murdered were “condemned to die, according to the law.” They were punished for lying, but they couldn’t be punished for their beliefs. Some people “pretended to preach according to their belief; and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief.” They had laws against stealing, robbing, and murdering.
I see the merit in this society. It seems like regardless of political or religious belief, we should all be able to agree on some basics like this. Don’t rob, steal, lie, murder, etc. What I find interesting is their allegiance to free speech and free thought. They were allowed to live and believe what they wanted according to the parameters set by their society, but there was a free discourse of ideas. What concerns me about our current society is the intolerance of ideas. We must allow and vigorously maintain the discourse of ideas contrary to ours. The freedom to disagree and to be offended is paramount.
The reading goes on to discuss the struggles within the church, with people getting angry and leaving, asking for their names to be taken off the records. It says that “many withdrew themselves from among them.” It talks about it being hard on the people of the church who stayed. All of the people worked to support themselves, and they believed that their leaders should work to support themselves as well and not live off the labor of others. They donated voluntarily to assist those in need, the poor, the sick, and the afflicted. They were prosperous as they were generous.
There came a time when people wanted to “deprive [the people] of their rights and privileges of the church.” Their rights to believe and worship according to their own conscience were threatened. They dealt with this by assembling “themselves together throughout all the land, every man according to his mind” and they had “dispute and wonderful contentions one with another.” At first I couldn’t figure out why it called it wonderful contentions, but I think that it’s because they had really great arguments and discussions detailing the merits of the freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
I think people get hung up on the freedom of religion phrase. Freedom of religion isn’t about religion. It’s about belief. Freedom of religion as a principle protects an individual’s right to their belief system whether you’re religious or adamantly not. When you phrase it like that, I think few would disagree that that’s something we need. No one wants any one else trying to police their thoughts and minds. As long as people adhere to the rules that have been established by the majority of people, why should any of us care what the belief systems of others are?
If we believe our belief system to be superior (which we all should or it shouldn't be our system) we shouldn’t mind if our children, ourselves, or others are exposed to other systems of belief. Why would the free discussion of ideas or beliefs be restricted? If ours is superior, it should stand well on it’s own against other systems, shouldn’t it? Why would we be afraid of opposing ideas unless we doubt the superiority of our own system? You wouldn't change your system unless you found something better, right? So the worst that could happen is we find a better system to adopt? Do we doubt people’s intelligence to choose for themselves? Who gets to decide which belief systems are better? What if it’s your belief system that’s under attack? This is why we can’t seek to police or suppress any ideas or beliefs.
I strongly believe in the free discourse of ideas and believe that this is the best tool in combating the problems and conflicts that we find around us. The people in the reading felt the same way. “ . . . They did assemble themselves together to cast in their voices concerning the matter; and they were laid before the judges.” Political problems and violence arose when part of the people wanted to replace the current system with their own king. They went to war against one another. The whole Book of Mormon talks about this. It’s a sad story of the destructive cycle of a people, laid out over many generations that we can take a bird’s eye look at and understand.
These stories of the conflict are the same. They weren’t new stories then, and they aren’t new stories now. Throughout history and time we repeat the same struggles of greed and power. Repeated throughout history and time are the same struggles of greed and power. In the midst of that chaos and war, after the people had extreme afflictions, “every soul had cause to mourn.” As the conflict solidifies it becomes more clear that this is the age old struggle of good vs. evil. It isn’t an age old conflict of race vs. race, or political party vs. political party, or government vs. the people.
It’s a story about right vs. wrong. It’s a story about “great inequality among the people, [with] some lifting themselves up with their pride, despising others, turning their backs upon the needy and the naked and those who were hungry, and those who were athirst, and those who were sick and afflicted. Now this was a great cause for lamentations among the people, while others were abasing themselves, succoring those who stood in need of their succor, such as imparting their substance to the poor and the needy, feeding the hungry, and suffering all manner of afflictions . . .”
The age old struggle is one of greed or generosity, hate or love, indifference vs. compassion, and anger vs. empathy. Ironically, it appears to suggest in the reading that one big problem was that the people of the church were prideful and greedy for wealth. This example of “wickedness of the church was a great stumbling-block to those who did not belong to the church. . .” Ouch. The hypocrisy of the members of the church was one of the biggest obstacles for people who were looking for something better, for truth, for solutions.
Other humans are not our enemies. We’re merely grappling with the age old battle of morality of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil. I read about The Greatest Generation, the people who lived during the Great Depression and World War II, wondering what they had done to deserve that title. They were thus described because they personally sacrificed to do what was right, even when it was hard, inconvenient, and sometimes deadly. After the conflict of WWII, the whole world set aside their differences in the spirit of peace and compromise.
It is arrogant of us to think that we’ve somehow transcended the battle of the ages because of our modernity or technological advancement. If the default of human nature is greed and power, why would we assume that we would be victorious over it just because our predecessors fought the good fight and won? None of these conflicts are new. The true battle is for the heart of the people, and the weapon that will win them is empathy and love. Until we recognize what the true conflict is, we can never effectively battle it.
No comments:
Post a Comment