Family, Home, and Social Sciences Quotes
General
Laura Bar
Barksdale, Laura. "Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: On Breaking with the Educational Establishment by Emphasizing Morality and Values." Proceedings of the Laying the Foundations Symposium(Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1991), pp. 31-34.
Our participation in the educational establishment leads even our LDS community, at times, to rely more on our knowledge of social science and on the theories and psychological constructs than on our own understanding of the teachings of the scriptures. That is a tragedy. (p. 32)
. . .
The solution is not to divide spiritual understanding and secular learning into separate fields with separate foundations. In integrating them, however, we must be aware of the danger of seeking to integrate the scriptures into our social science theories. To force our religious understandings into our academic molds necessarily distorts what we can understand about our own spirituality. What we need . . . is an understanding of our knowledge that includes the ethical and moral foundations. (p. 32)
. . .
We must actively seek to bring our knowledge to coincide with scriptural teachings. This includes our involvement in a very difficult conversation to rework our understanding of morality as well as our refusal to read ourselves, our academics, or our culture into our scriptures. Instead, we must allow ourselves to be read by our scriptures. Rather than seeking to discover truth, we must understand and trust that truth is seeking us and be actively welcoming that truth. Rather than trying to know in order to manipulate or control, we must seek to know as we are known. For only now have we been challenged by what is most real in all the universe--one whose personal voice and truth is related but not reducible to our own, one who knows us even as we come to know him. (p. 34)
Genevieve DeHoyos and Arturo DeHoyos
DeHoyos, Genevieve, and Arturo DeHoyos. "The Search for Virtus et Veritas through an Inspired Scientific Method." BYU Studies 27(4), Fall 1987, pp. 39-53.
The idea of developing academic excellence on the basis of both virtusand veritas--virtue and truth--though not entirely a new idea, would probably present a challenge to most institutions of higher learning in the modern world. Many in the scientific community of today are proud to claim that their science is free of values. The paradigms of science, they insist, must be the very essence of objectivity. Thus, academic secularism, an orientation that excludes moral considerations in the search for truth, has become a standard in modern intellectual centers.
There are those, however, for whom academic excellence is not really possible unless morality and truth become the purpose of and incentive for all intellectual achievement. In recent years, for example, we have seen the establishment of (or the pressure to establish) non-LDS religious sessions in several scientific and professional association meetings around the country. Some scholars even go so far as to suggest that all scientific research, at least in the Western world, should take into consideration our Judeo-Christian tradition.
In this article we attempt to show that, because all paradigms are based on assumptions (which, by definition, reflect individual values and therefore some degree of subjectivity), the scientific method does not totally eliminate all subjectivity, and simply to deny this subjective component is not a proper solution. A better solution would be to acknowledge assumptions explicitly, select them carefully, and understand their complementary function in all the processes of all scientific method. (p. 39)
Neal A. Maxwell
Maxwell, Neal A. "Some Thoughts on the Gospel and the Behavioral Sciences." BYU Studies 16(4), Summer 1976, pp. 589-602.
When we start building the proper and needed bridges, God will help us--individually and collectively. It will not surprise me in the least if some of the insights and methodologies of able, orthodox, LDS behavioral scientists will exert an increasing gravitational pull on some of our thoughtful nonmember colleagues in the years ahead. Perhaps there will even be the academic equivalent of what Isaiah foresaw, and thoughtful souls will say in various ways, "Come ye, let us go up" to the Lord's house of learning to be taught and shown his ways (see Isaiah 2:3). If we are not ashamed of Jesus Christ and his teachings, he will not be ashamed of us. (p. 590)
. . .
When we seek to communicate . . . with those in the world of scholarship, we must speak to them and communicate with them "after the manner of their language" (see D&C 1:24). We can, as many LDS behavioral scientists have done, develop our skills in that "tongue" without coming to prefer it and without losing the mother tongue of faith. (p. 590)
. . .
The hard sayings of the scriptures are . . . in fact just that. . . . The ways of God are not the ways of the world. Just because sometimes behavior is changed gradually is no reason to obscure the ideal. Since Jesus spoke of the wrongness of mental adultery, are we free to sanction salacious imagery in therapy? There are real risks if we appear to sanction, even tacitly, something less than what is required. There are some ditches we cannot jump in two jumps. We must jump all the way across to the other side or not at all.
It should not matter to us that we may be misunderstood by the world in this respect. Remember the taunt flung at Jesus as he was on the cross: he could save others, but could he not save himself? Naivete often stares at reality without seeing it! (p. 595)
A. Don Sorenson
Sorenson, A. Don. "Social Science and Religious Beliefs." Dialogue11(3), Autumn 1978, pp. 54-64.
In this century the controversy between science and religion has shifted from natural science to social science. The conflict is less heated because religion is culturally less important now than it used to be. Still the controversy is real enough and, in at least one way, more deadly for religion because religion itself has become the subject of scientific investigation. Sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists have probed the depths of man's unconscious, dissected the strange beliefs of tribal societies and examined the religious survivors of a secularized world in search of naturalistic explanations of religious phenomena with the result that the validity of religious beliefs themselves seems undermined. (p. 54
Anthropology
Hugh W. Nibley
Nibley, Hugh W. "Archaeology and Our Religion" and "Patriarchy and Matriarchy." In The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 1: Old Testament And Related Studies. (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1986).
Economics
Leonard J. Arrington
Arrington, Leonard J. Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ., 1958).
Arrington, Leonard J. "Religion and Economics in Mormon History." BYU Studies 3, Spring-Summer 1961, pp. 15-33.
A number of students of Mormonism, particularly those who are non-Mormon, have found the most startling aspect of Mormonism to be, not the practice of plural marriage, not the belief in a highly personal God, not even the restoration of biblical Christianity or the Book of Mormon or the belief that Joseph Smith received visitations from Heavenly Beings, but the exaltation of economics and economic welfare into an important, if not indispensable, element of religious salvation. Scholars like Weber and Schmoller in Germany, Bousquet in France, Katherine Coman and Frederick Jackson Turner in the United States, have found the essence of Mormonism--or at least the essential contribution of Mormonism--to be in the elevation of economics into the sphere of religion and spirituality. (p. 15)
. . .
Of the one hundred and twelve revelations [in the Doctrine and Covenants] eighty-eight dealt partly or entirely with matters that were economic in nature. Out of 9,614 printed lines of the Prophet's revelations, 2,618 lines, by actual count, treated "definitely and directly of economic matters." (p. 16)
. . .
Mormon economic history, whether in the early years of combatting hostile humanity, or in the later years of combatting hostile nature, has been more or less an attempt to implement certain specific ideals. And because the Mormons believed that they had been divinely instructed to institute these ideals as a part of the restoration of the Christian Gospel, they have sought to achieve the ideals as a mater of religious salvation.
These historic Mormon economic ideals can be summarized, for convenience, under four headings: (1) Ecclesiastical promotion of economic growth and development, or what the Mormons called "building the Kingdom of God"; (2) ecclesiastical sponsorship of economic independence or group economic self-sufficiency; (3) the attainment of these goals through organized group activity and cooperation; and (4) the search for programs to achieve and maintain economic equality. (pp. 20-21)
Arrington, Leonard J. "Economic History Of The Church." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
From their beginnings Latter-day Saints have regarded economic welfare as an indispensable part of religion. An 1830 revelation received by Joseph Smith stated, "Verily I say unto you, that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal" (D&C 29:34-35). Accepted as part of the revealed word of God, this principle implied that every aspect of life had to do with spirituality and things eternal. For President Brigham Young, who led the Church in the West for thirty years, this revelation meant that "in the mind of God there is no such a thing as dividing spiritual from temporal, or temporal from spiritual; for they are one in the Lord" (JD 11:18).
We cannot talk about spiritual things without connecting with them temporal things, neither can we talk about temporal things without connecting spiritual things with them. . . . We, as Latter-day Saints, really expect, look for and we will not be satisfied with anything short of being governed and controlled by the word of the Lord in all of our acts, both spiritual and temporal. If we do not live for this, we do not live to be one with Christ [JD 10:329].
. . .
These experiences, and the social, intellectual, and religious origins of the Church, led to the development of a set of economic ideals and institutions that became a more or less permanent aspect of Latter-day Saint belief and practice, and made the LDS community a unique group in frontier America. The intimate association of religion with economic activity produced a planning and community concern that made possible a more just and permanent society than existed elsewhere in the West. These early LDS economic goals can be summarized under four headings: (1) ecclesiastical promotion of economic growth and development, often called "building the Kingdom of God"; (2) ecclesiastical sponsorship of group economic independence and self-sufficiency; (3) cooperation and organized group activity for attaining these goals; and (4) achievement and maintenance of economic equality.
Hugh W. Nibley
Nibley, Hugh W. Approaching Zion (The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 9). (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1989).
Family Sciences
Reed H. Bradford
Bradford, Reed H. "Teachings About the Family." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
The basic unit of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the family: "The home is the basis of a righteous life, and no other instrumentality can take its place nor fulfill its essential functions" (McKay, Preface). Within the family, people experience most of life's greatest joys and greatest sorrows. The family relationships of every person on earth are of cardinal importance, and of all the social organizations created for human beings, only the family is intended to continue into the next life.
FAMILIES ON EARTH ARE AN EXTENSION OF THE FAMILY OF GOD. According to the LDS concept of the family, every person is a child of heavenly parents as well as mortal parents. Each individual was created spiritually and physically in the image of God and Christ (Moses 2:27; 3:5). The First Presidency has declared, "All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity" (MFP 4:203). Everyone, before coming to this earth, lived with Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, and each was loved and taught by them as a member of their eternal family (see Premortal Life). Birth unites the spirit with a physical body so that together they can "receive a fulness of joy" (D&C 93:33; cf. 2 Ne. 2:25).
MARRIAGE IS ORDAINED OF GOD. "Whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man" (D&C 49:15). The marriage sanctioned by God provides men and women with the opportunity to fulfill their divine potentials. "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:11). Husbands and wives are unique in some ways and free to develop their eternal gifts, yet as coequals in the sight of their heavenly parents they are one in the divine goals they pursue, in their devotion to eternal principles and ordinances, in their obedience to the Lord, and in their divine love for each other. When a man and woman who have been sealed together in a temple are united spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and physically, taking full responsibility for nurturing each other, they are truly married. Together they strive to emulate the prototype of the heavenly home from which they came. The Church teaches them to complement, support, and enrich one another.
THE FAMILY CAN BECOME AN ETERNAL UNIT. Worthy members can be sealed by the power of the priesthood in holy temples for time and eternity either in or after marriage. At the time of their temple sealing, both husband and wife enter "an order of the priesthood [called] the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (D&C 131:1-4). Without worthiness and authority, a marriage cannot endure eternally and is "of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead" (D&C 132:7). If a husband and wife are faithful to their temple marriage, they will continue as co-creators in God's Celestial Kingdom through the eternities. They will administer the affairs of their family in unity with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Regarding members of the Church not born into such homes or not married in this life through no fault of their own, President Spencer W. Kimball taught that those "who would have responded if they had [had] an appropriate opportunity--will receive all those blessings in the world to come" (Kimball, p. 295).
THE POWER TO CREATE LIFE IS A GIFT FROM GOD. Because the procreative powers come from God, sexual purity is spiritual and mental, as well as physical and emotional (see Sexuality). Jesus said, "Whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart. Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart" (3 Ne. 12:28-29). Chastity is sacred (cf. Jacob 2:28).
PROCREATION IS A COMMANDMENT OF GOD. Through the sexual experience, husbands and wives enrich their marriage and create physical bodies for spirits to come to earth to achieve divine purposes. Latter-day Saints strive to create a home life dedicated to fulfilling these purposes. It is both a joy and a responsibility for parents to bring heavenly spirits into this world. Adam and Eve were commanded to "be fruitful, and multiply" (Gen. 1:22). Latter-day revelation has given the same instructions. Church members are taught not to postpone or refuse to have children for selfish or materialistic reasons. On questions such as how many children a couple will have, the spacing of children, and birth control, Latter-day Saints are instructed to use their agency, selecting a course as husband and wife in accordance with divine principles and seeking confirmation from the Holy Spirit.
PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. "Inasmuch as parents have children . . . that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost . . . the sin be upon the heads of the parents. . . . And they shall also teach their children to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord" (D&C 68:25, 28). Parents are admonished to be examples to their children, realizing that their children are also their spirit brothers and sisters.
AN ENVIRONMENT OF LOVE IS NECESSARY FOR REARING CHILDREN. The spirit of a righteous home is love. The Lord said, "Thou shalt live together in love" (D&C 42:45)--love of heavenly parents, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost; of husband and wife; and of parents for children, children for parents, and siblings for each other.
MAKING ONE'S HOME A PLACE OF PEACE AND JOY TAKES EFFORT. The effort that goes into making a peaceful home requires consistent planning, prayer, and cooperation. The Church encourages families to hold weekly family home evenings, in which all members of the family study eternal gospel principles and ordinances and do things together that bring them joy. Two Church Presidents have stated, "The most important of the Lord's work [you] will ever do will be the work you do within the walls of your own homes" (Lee, p. 7), and "No other success can compensate for failure in the home" (McKay, p. iii).
WORTHY FAMILY MEMBERS LOOK FORWARD WITH FAITH AND HOPE TO ETERNAL FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS. Earthly families and with ancestors and descendants expect to live again as extended families with loved ones who have died. They become those "who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name, . . . and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true" (D&C 76:51, 53).
THE RIGHTEOUS ARE BLESSED. All righteous individuals, who maintain personal worthiness, love, and faithfulness, are promised the riches of eternity, which include the eventual blessings of being sealed to other family members who also qualify for celestial blessings
Bruce C. Hafen
Hafen, Bruce C. "These Bonds Are Our Liberation." Brigham Young Magazine, February 1993, pp. 29-33, 59.
If one truly expects to bear any burden and pay any price to the limits of one's capacity, then Father Flanagan's description is accurate: 'He ain't heavy--he's my brother.' Familistic ties may require considerable personal sacrifice, even to the point of seeming at times to be 'a frightful slavery'; however, experience demonstrates that relationships of this kind can yield the most productive and even liberating sense of personal meaning, fulfillment, and security. (p. 33)
. . .
Spouses and children who aspire to relationships of belonging learn and grow in surprising ways. As the Catholic writer Michael Novak put it, 'These bonds are my liberation. They force me to be a different sort of human being, in a way in which I want and need to be forced.' A mother I know discovered liberation after spending an intense evening trying to help a child who loudly rejected her efforts. She simply made up her mind that leaving him--literally or figuratively--was not an option, no matter how long it took to solve the child's problem. When the long night was over, she made this significant observation: 'I didn't know I had it in me.' She discovered within herself a reservoir of patience and endurance she never would have found without a nearly irrevocable commitment that grew from a sense of belonging. 'Belong' is for thick and thin, and this was one of the thin times.
From such immovable loyalty to another person, we learn how to love, and we learn what Elder Neal A. Maxwell calls 'obedience to the unenforceable.' In that sense, our bonds are our liberation. Until being 'forced' by such voluntary commitments, we may never tap into the reservoirs of strength and compassion we carry within ourselves. That loss irreparably damages society, just as it weakens our own intimate relationships and our personal character. As our collective sense of belonging wanes, we are less motivated to dig deeply enough to draw upon our subsurface human powers. Thus, convinced that our growing sense of individual isolation is the emotional version of some global greenhouse effect that is beyond our control, our culture could die of psychic thirst--even, ironically, as we ignorantly sit atop undiscovered personal reservoirs that hold the living water of human compassion. (p. 59)
Alan J. Hawkins, David C. Dollahite, and Clifford J. Rhoades
Hawkins, Alan J., David C. Dollahite, and Clifford J. Rhoades. "Turning the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children: Nurturing the Next Generation."
BYU Studies
33(2), 1993, pp. 273-291.
Although there are powerful forces trying to destroy connections between family members, the Spirit of Elijah in the last days is influencing Latter-day Saints and others to help build stronger, more intimate relationships between fathers and their children; promote a greater sense of community in which we are concerned about our neighbors' children as well as our own; improve the status and well-being of children; and preserve a healthier natural environment for future generations. (p. 275)
. . .
Encouraging signs that many fathers are responding to the Spirit of Elijah and turning their hearts to the children include the following: (1) a small but growing number of fathers are becoming more involved in the daily care and nurturing of their children, (2) the status of children is improving, and (3) people are showing greater concern for the natural environment that will be passed on to future generations. (p. 281)
Tim B. Heaton
Heaton, Tim B. "Four C's of the Mormon Family: Chastity, Conjugality, Children, and Chauvinism." In The Religion and Family Connection: Social Science Perspectives, ed. Darwin L. Thomas. (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1988), pp. 107-24.
The thesis of this paper is that, despite being influenced by broader social forces, the Mormon family remains distinctive in many ways; that distinctive elements are integrated into a family system; and that this family system will continue to influence individual organizational behavior in Mormondom for years to come. The first section documents four areas of contemporary Mormon family distinctiveness [chastity, conjugality, children, and chauvinism]. The second discusses the interrelatedness of these areas as they form the basis for a family system by considering the theological, demographic, and social bases for these aspects of the family system. The third section speculates about the future of this family system. (pp. 107-108)
Jeffrey R. Holland
Holland, Jeffrey R. "Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments." In On Earth as it is in Heaven (Salt Lake: Deseret Book, 1989), pp. 182-197.
Sexual union is also, in its own profound way, a very real sacrament of the highest order, a union not only of a man and a woman but very much the union of that man and woman with God. Indeed, if our definition of sacrament is that act of claiming and sharing and exercising God's own inestimable power, then I know of virtually no other divine privilege so routinely given to us all--women or men, ordained or unordained, Latter-day Saint or non-Latter-day Saint--than the miraculous and majestic power of transmitting life, the unspeakable, unfathomable, unbroken power of procreation. There are those special moments in your lives when the other, more formal ordinances of the gospel--the sacraments, if you will--allow you to feel the grace and grandeur of God's power. Many are one-time experiences (such as our own confirmation or our own marriage), and some are repeatable (such as administering to the sick or doing ordinance work for others in the temple). But I know of nothing so earth-shatteringly powerful and yet so universally and unstintingly given to us as the God-given power available in every one of us from our early teen years on to create a human body, that wonder of all wonders, a genetically and spiritually unique being never seen before in the history of the world and never to be duplicated again in all the ages of eternity--a child, your child--with eyes and ears and fingers and toes and a future of unspeakable grandeur.
Imagine that, if you will. Veritable teenagers--and all of us for many decades thereafter--carrying daily, hourly, minute-to-minute, virtually every waking and sleeping moment of our lives, the power and the chemistry and the eternally transmitted seeds of life to grant someone else her second estate, someone else his next level of development in the divine plan of salvation. I submit to you that no power, priesthood or otherwise, is given by God so universally to so many with virtually no control over its use except self-control. And I submit to you that you will never be more like God at any other time in this life than when you are expressing that particular power. Of all the titles he has chosen for himself, Father is the one he declares, and Creation is his watchword--especially human creation, creation in his image. His glory isn't a mountain, as stunning as mountains are. It isn't in sea or sky or snow or sunrise, as beautiful as they all are. It isn't in art or technology, be that a concerto or computer. No, his glory--and his grief--is in his children. You and I, we are his prized possessions, and we are the earthly evidence, however inadequate, of what he truly is. Human life--that is the greatest of God's powers, the most mysterious and magnificent chemistry of it all--and you and I have been given it, but under the most serious and sacred of restrictions. You and I who can make neither mountain nor moonlight, not one raindrop nor a single rose--yet we have this greater gift in an absolutely unlimited way. And the only control placed on us is self-control--self-control born of respect for the divine sacramental power it is.
Surely God's trust in us to respect this future-forming gift is awesomely staggering. We who may not be able to repair a bicycle nor assemble an average jigsaw puzzle--yet with all our weaknesses and imperfections, we carry this procreative power that makes us very much like God in at least one grand and majestic way. (pp. 194-196)
Neal A. Maxwell
Maxwell, Neal A. "Family Perspectives." BYU 1974-75 Devotional and Fireside Speeches. BYU University Publications, 1975, pp. 30-37.
So many fail to hear the crash of the surf of statistics generated by an abundance of research about the importance of early life and of family influence. There is in the secular world either a failure to generalize from the research or, when generalizations emerge, the generalizations are not acted upon. It is almost as if the secular world condemned itself to act like Sisyphus, who was condemned to roll a huge boulder to the edge of the mountain top only to have it come tumbling back down whereupon the process is repeated endlessly. Indeed, the sincere Sisyphus syndrome is all about us. The eternalism approach of the gospel of Jesus Christ lays great stress, for instance, on the innocence of the newborn and on the importance of helping that individual "streamlet," nearest its source, so it can achieve identity and maintain purity. Secularism, on the other hand, tends to become fascinated with building vast purification plants downstream; but, ironically, secularists have difficulty agreeing on what dirt is--on what is to be filtered out. (p. 32)
. . .
It isn't, of course, simply that the gospel of Jesus Christ contains all the correct principles for human conduct, but it is also the way in which these principles are interwoven with each other. Secularism so often seizes upon a single true principle and elevates it above all others. This act of isolation does not make the principle seized upon any less true, but to isolate any principle is to make it monastic. How many today live within the prison of just one principle? Elevating any correct principle to the plane of a religion is poor policy; just as one person makes a poor church, one principle makes a poor religion. Principles can become "prodigal" as well as people and can be estranged in a "a far country" and be "spent" with little to show.
Most every secular cause about which I know anything at all usually focuses on a single principle or concern, but it is an act of isolation, not of correlation. It is the orthodox orchestration of the many principles found in the gospel of Jesus Christ that is necessary for human happiness. One would be amused at the so-called new "moral geometry" with its alien angles, fluid lines, and restless unfixed points, if the human consequences were not so tragic. (p. 35)
Terrance D. Olson
Olson, Terrance D. "Sexuality." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
In LDS life and thought, sexuality consists of attitudes, feelings, and desires that are God-given and central to God's plan for his children, but they are not the central motivating force in human action. Sexual feelings are to be governed by each individual within boundaries the Lord has set. Sexuality is not characterized as a need, or a deprivation that must be satisfied, but as a desire that should be fulfilled only within marriage, with sensitive attention given to the well-being of one's heterosexual marriage partner. As the offspring of God, humans carry the divine Light of Christ, which is the means whereby the appropriate expression of sexual desires can be measured. Depending on whether men and women are true or false to this light, they will be the masters or the victims of sexual feelings. Such desires are to be fulfilled only within legal heterosexual marriage, wherein sexual involvement is to be an expression of unity, compassion, commitment, and love. Mutuality and equality are to be the hallmark of a married couple's physical intimacy.
The purposes of appropriate sexual relations in marriage include the expression and building of joy, unity, love, and oneness. To be "one flesh" is to experience an emotional and spiritual unity. This oneness is as fundamental a purpose of marital relations as is procreation. President Spencer W. Kimball stated:
The union of the sexes, husband and wife (and only husband and wife), was for the principal purpose of bringing children into the world. Sexual experiences were never intended by the Lord to be a mere plaything or merely to satisfy passions and lusts. We know of no directive from the Lord that proper sexual experience between husbands and wives need be limited totally to the procreation of children, but we find much evidence from Adam until now that no provision was ever made by the Lord for indiscriminate sex [1975, p. 4].
Maxine Rowley
Rowley, Maxine. "Home Industries." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
From the earliest days of the Church, home industry, in one form or another, has been advocated among the Latter-day Saints. Included were the more common form of cottage industries and also both light and heavy manufacturing of most of the community's consumable goods. Home industry and manufacturing were to promote thrift and self-sufficiency among the members, to serve as a buffer against possible corrosive influences (greed, materialism, inequality), to provide employment for the poor, and to protect the Saints from persecution or to prepare them for further upheavals and expulsions such as had driven the Saints from state to state.
C. Terry Warner and Terrance D. Olson
Warner, C. Terry and Terrance D. Olson. "Another View of Family Conflict and Family Wholeness." Family Relations, 30, October 1981, pp. 493-503.
We cannot abdicate our own humanity in our study of and assistance to families. An authentic, open, caring relationship with them is a precondition of both understanding and helping them. There can be no dispassionate science of family life nor a detached, quasi-medical treatment of its miseries. Here is one region in which the effective professional is first and last a human being, in every respect one with the people he serves, and in which effective service is only partly a matter of art and even less a matter of science, but predominantly a matter of love.
We do have to pay attention to our experiences; social data are not irrelevant. But they are unreliable unless we make our observations with the totality of ourselves, in community with the families we serve. The idea that we can stand apart from this community, scanning it as if it were a cadaver, responding to it with only the "objective" portions of ourselves and suppressing our full range of human, compassionate responses, and obligations--this is a repudiation of our own humanity, which is our only instrument for understanding and helping others.
History
Arthur Henry King and C. Terry Warner
King, Arthur Henry and C. Terry Warner, "Talent and the Individual's Tradition: History as Art, and Art as Moral Response," in By Study and Also By Faith, Vol. 2 , ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1990), 483-501.
Until recent years, stylistic anonymity among historians for self-promotional purposes masqueraded as "objectivity." But the issue is not an epistemological one about the possibility of telling the past's story . . . The issue is a psychological one about the quality of the historian's motivation. (p. 486)
. . .
To speak with philosophical precision is to adopt a very narrow register of human speech in which much that human beings experience cannot be expressed or described. Why would anyone speak so artificially? Why would anyone be willing to censor his responses as a whole person in deference to narrow philosophical canons of expression? Recent work in the rhetoric of scientific discourse suggests that at least some of the motives are self-assertion and professional legitimacy, and if there are others, we don't know them. (p. 487)
. . .
Believing that a disciplinary method is a mode of knowing rather than a heuristic device for arranging material for specific purposes may not be simply an error. It may be a sin. The historian or philosopher who uses his discipline self-promotionally finds immediate promise of exoneration in the view that the discipline can validate his work independently of his intentions. He clings to the idea that his social purposes are professionally irrelevant. By this means, he provides himself with an alibi if his conscience accuses him of seeking his own interest. How can he be accused of coloring his materials, he insists, when his constant aim is to rid them of coloration? Preoccupation with technique and method fits Plato's definition of sophistry and pinpoints the self-seeking in it: one sends out a highly controlled signal in order to elicit a highly manipulated response. One can sin in scholarship as in anywhere else. It is wrong in writing to do anything but write what is in us to be written. (p. 487, 488)
. . .
Knowing about people is not knowing them; that is, it is not understanding them. One cannot but withdraw from other human beings--and thus render them humanly unreal--if one concentrates on what properties they have, for that construes them as objects. Nietzsche, Heidegger, Buber, Polanyi, and Levinas have all taught us this by numerous cogent insights. When we know a person, we know more than we can tell; and supposing otherwise is a mode of pushing that person away. Understanding people, as opposed to knowing about them, comes in the course of being with them unselfconsciously; it is a residuum of living in sharing, trusting, and caring community with them. Hence to observe people in order to know about them rather than to respond unguardedly to them is to withdraw from the conditions which must obtain if they are to be understood. (p. 488)
. . .
Contrast the self-seeking, depersonalizing writer of history with the guileless one. The former imposes generalizations and theories upon "the data." The latter expresses patterns of selection in his work that go beyond what he can deliberately produce or even completely comprehend. These living patterns of selection taken together are an expression of what he is as one who by historical study has assimilated tradition through his language, in his interaction with his immediate forebears. This tradition then expresses itself in his unselfconscious writing and teaching. And therefore what he produces is right. It is not false to what he transforms. (p. 489)
. . .
Let us further contrast generalization and wisdom. Generalizations are generally valid for general purposes; they are not valid for specific purposes. We may induce a generalization from a number of specifics, but when we have done so we find that it does not completely apply to any of them. Perhaps in natural science it could (or could it?), but historically it will not. Any generalization to be valid has to be, not a generalization inductively arrived at over many instances, but one arising totally from a total specific situation.
This is where the word "wisdom" comes in: We read history in order to gain the great historian's wisdom. In him we encounter a unique historical situation alive in a living, interfusing and blending individual, the historian. And we discover in the nature of that unique totality something of the nature of all other unique totalities--something which cannot be expressed in any list of generalizations, however lengthy . . . social scientists should not ignore the fact that literature has given them far more subtle exemplars of human behavior than they themselves describe. (p. 490)
. . .
These three things happen together if they happen at all: the author is self-forgetful, the historical situation is captured in its uniqueness, and--we have not mentioned this yet--it serves as an inexhaustible fund for moral lessons. Yet it is not didactic in any ordinary sense of that term. Only a history that in the first instance tried to abstract out the moral content of a past situation would in the second instance be compelled to try to reimpose it in the form of cautionary conclusions.
A situation captured in its uniqueness has moral relevance because it is a whole situation like our own situation. We are free to see it in any of indefinitely many ways, including those most instructive for us. But when the historical situation is subsumed under a generalization, it is seen in just one way, and we can easily exclude ourselves from it. Many similarities between that situation and our circumstance are artificially suppressed. (p. 492)
. . .
The climax is not set out in detail and the moral point is not put in a proposition: it could not be. We cannot even say that the story shows the moral point, i.e., the punishment for adultery and murder. That is too cut and dried and limited a characterization, for the punishment does not "fit the crime": the crime's consequences are its punishment--to be an adulterer is the punishment for adultery. Instead, the history's moral point pulsates throughout the whole of it, as through a parable, and cannot be abstracted from it. (p. 493)
. . .
It is remarkable that only as we become more individual, rather than less, can we live in community with one another. And conversely: Only as we live in and through one another in our individual uniqueness . . . is it possible for us to partake of each other's strengths and be individually richer for it. Otherwise, our relation to one another is manipulative: we treat ourselves and each other as replicable--indeed, as artifacts which in our social interaction with one another we ourselves are continuously producing. (494)
. . .
By trying to conform ourselves to a replicable model of what an historian should be we block our own creativity. How? Taking thought for the morrow means substituting an imagined tomorrow for the one that is really going to be there. And as we do not know the one that is really going to be there we prepare ourselves for a number of hypothetical tomorrows that will never come. We do this instead of being ready, by merely being ourselves, for any tomorrow that will come. When we wake up in the morning, we don't readily pick up the thread of the day that awaits us, for we have determined in advance where it will be and therefore we do not see where it really is. Alas for Benjamin Franklin, planning his day at 5:00 a.m., how he will manipulate various Philadelphians! He must compulsively and obsessively try to extrude many threads, to manipulate many clues to the labyrinth in order to convince himself that he is on the right track. And Franklin's kind of planning for the future is simply the mirror image of the self-serving historian's planning for the past. The generalizations the historian has convinced himself are the right guidelines for interpreting history preclude him from discovering new patterns in the history he encounters; he is only able to gather more details. (495, 496)
Boyd K. Packer
Packer, Boyd K. "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect." BYU Studies, 21(3), 1981, pp. 259-278.
It is an easy thing for a man with extensive academic training to measure the Church using the principles he has been taught in his professional training as his standard. In my mind it ought to be the other way around. A member of the Church ought always, particularly if he is pursuing extensive academic studies, to judge the professions of man against the revealed word of the Lord. (p. 259)
. . .
You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now. (p. 262)
. . .
In an effort to be objective, impartial, and scholarly, a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary. . . . In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it. It is the war between good and evil, and we are belligerents defending the good. We are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have made covenants to do it. (p. 267)
. . .
Those who have carefully purged their work of any religious faith in the name of academic freedom or so-called honesty ought not expect to be accommodated in their researches or to be paid by the church to do it. (p. 269)
. . .
Do not yield your faith in payment for an advanced degree or for the recognition and acclaim of the world. Do not turn away from the Lord nor from his church nor from his servants. You are needed--oh, how you are needed! (p. 275)
Political Science
Gary C. Bryner
Bryner, Gary C. "Political Teachings." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
Concerning the general duties of government and citizen, latter-day scriptures and the prophets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach that governments should protect freedoms and provide for the public interest and that citizens should honor and uphold laws and governments. LDS theology endorses aspects of both individualism and communitarianism, and harmonizes these conflicting ideas by teaching that community members can share and promote ideals and principles but should never use force to achieve such conditions. Church leaders encourage members to be participants in public affairs even as they emphasize the separation of the management of church and state. The Church rarely gives official counsel to its members regarding political issues. As with other religions, various opinions exist among Latter-day Saints as to how political teachings and principles should be applied.
Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants is a useful starting point for examining the major beliefs of members of the LDS Church concerning politics and government. In an 1835 meeting to discuss plans for publishing the Doctrine and Covenants, Church leaders prepared a declaration to the world concerning "earthly governments and law." Some members of the Church had been accused of being opposed to law and order, and were subsequently victimized by mobbings and violence. The declaration provided guidelines for the Saints in rebutting the charges of their enemies. Penned by Oliver Cowdery, with the possible participation of W. W. Phelps, this is one of the few sections of the Doctrine and Covenants not given by revelation to Joseph Smith.
Two central themes run throughout this section and related passages. First, the duty of government is to provide for the public interest in general and to protect freedom of conscience and religious belief in particular. Governments "were instituted of God for the benefit of man." Laws are to be enacted "for the good and safety of society" and to "secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life." Government officials are to make laws that are "best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience" (D&C 134:1-2, 5). The separation of church and state is imperative: it is not "just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges" (D&C 134:9). Governments do not have the right "to interfere in prescribing rules of worship, to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion." They "should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul." Governments have an affirmative duty to protect citizens "in the free exercise of their religious belief," but they do not have the right to "deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions," as long as such citizens do not promote sedition (D&C 134:4-7).
Second, the duty of citizens is to honor and sustain laws and governments. All people are "bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights." Governments are responsible "for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty"; citizens are to "step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment" (D&C 134:5-6, 8).
Donald Q. Cannon
Cannon, Donald Q. "Church and State." In Robert L. Millet and Larry E. Dahl (Eds.) Insights into the Doctrine & Covenants: The Capstone of Our Religion. (Salt Lake: Bookcraft, 1989).
In the course of this essay some important political principles contained in the Doctrine and Covenants will be identified and discussed.
Responsibilities of Government
- Governments are accountable to God.
- Governments were instituted "for the benefit of man."
- The United States Constitution was inspired by God.
- Governments must protect the agency of man.
- Governments have an obligation to guarantee freedom of religion.
- Separation of Church and State is essential.
- "When the wicked rule the people mourn."
Responsibilities of Citizens
- Citizens should obey the laws of the land.
- Citizens should uphold the constitutional laws of the land.
- Citizens should be actively involved in government
- We should seek honest, wise men.
- Citizens should renounce war and proclaim peace.
- Church members are justified in defending themselves.
- Sedition and rebellion are unbecoming.
Mark W. Cannon
Cannon, Mark W. "Civic Duties." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
Latter-day Saint teachings emphasize many aspects of civic duty, including responsible self-government; an informed, public-spirited citizenry; and obedience to law. LDS scriptures and leaders also encourage activity in organizations that build and maintain community life, making oneself available for public and military service, and avoidance of government Welfare dependency. LDS teaching stresses education and a healthy lifestyle, both of which contribute to a strong citizenry (see Word of Wisdom).
In September 1968 the First Presidency urged members "to do their civic duty and to assume their responsibilities as individual citizens in seeking solutions to the problems which beset our cities and communities" (see Proclamations of First Presidency). Members are obligated to respect governmental authority. The twelfth Article of Faith states, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." This commitment to good citizenship is further elucidated in scripture: "We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected" (D&C 134:5).
LDS emphasis on civic duty stems from Christian commitment to community service and individual freedom. The Constitution of the united states, which also promotes these values, was established by God through "wise men" for the "protection of all flesh" (D&C 101:77-80). Latter-day Saints are to strive to elect "honest" and "wise" leaders who will support constitutional freedoms, particularly freedom of religion (D&C 98:10). The Christian tradition of civic virtue that underlay the American founding has been documented by LDS scholars (Vetterli and Bryner). Latter-day Saints tend to take seriously their responsibility to participate in the political process. Since World War II, Utah has been the state with the highest percentage of eligible voters who do in fact vote in presidential elections (72 percent). Latter-day Saints are also strongly encouraged to be patriotic and share in the responsibility of defending their homelands through military service, if necessary, wherever they might live ("First Presidency Statement," Church News, May 24, 1969, p. 12).
Ray C. Hillam and David M. Andrews
Hillam, Ray C. and David M. Andrews. "Mormons and Foreign Policy." BYU Studies 25(1), Winter 1985, pp. 57-73.
General Omar Bradley once said of contemporary Americans, "We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount." In a "world of nuclear giants and ethical infants," he continued, "we know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living." His concern over our society's infatuation with the instruments of death rather than the conditions for peace is paralleled in the teachings of President Spencer W. Kimball. Addressing members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Kimball remarked sadly, "we are a warlike people" and warned against our tendency to turn to the false gods of armaments "for protection and deliverance." He lamented that members of the Church "are easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord."
President Kimball's statement, the scriptures, and the history of the restored Church suggest the importance of foreign affairs to the Church and its members. . . . This paper presents some introductory thoughts on several themes involving the Church and foreign polity, particularly (though not exclusively) U.S. foreign polity. (p. 57)
Gordon B. Hinckley
Hinckley, Gordon B. "Remarks by President Gordon B. Hinckley." Address given at the Provo Community Centennial Service, August 4, 1996.
There has been going on in this nation for a good while a process which I call, "secularizing America." It is of this that I wish to say a few words this evening because I feel so strongly about it and because I feel we are paying a terrible price because of it. . . .
I believe that one of the root causes of the terrible social illnesses that are running rampant among us is the almost total secularizing of our public attitudes. People who carry in their hearts a strong conviction concerning the living reality of the Almighty and of accountability to Him for what we do with our lives and our society, are far less likely to become enmeshed in those problems which inevitably weaken our society. Let me briefly mention some of those problems.
The Congress and the President have recently enacted and signed new legislation concerning welfare. Hopefully, substantial good will come of it. But only a new set of rules to deal with an old problem is unlikely to produce a cure. There must be a change of attitude, the taking on of a sense of accountability for one's actions. We are shutting the doors of our homes against the God of the universe. Divine law has become a meaningless phrase. What was once so commonly spoken of as sin is now referred to only as poor judgment. Transgression has been replaced by misbehavior.
Clayton W. Kimball
Kimball, W. Clayton. "Political Culture." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
Contrary to some popular characterizations, Latter-day Saints do not all think or vote alike on political matters and do not share a distinctive political subculture. American Latter-day Saints tend to be slightly more pragmatic, less cynical, more optimistic, and less alienated than the average American citizen, but only in minor variations from the broad national political culture. The earliest Latter-day Saints were Americans before they became Latter-day Saints. If Latter-day Saints as a group were markedly less or more optimistic or less or more cynical than the average U.S. citizen, that might indicate the presence of a distinctive political subculture, but there is no evidence for this.
. . .
There is no detectable pattern or set of political behaviors common to Latter-day Saints. Appearances of a unique LDS political homogeneity disappear when regional and national trends are taken into account. No institutional or doctrinal mechanism exists for passing on a political culture, especially in light of the high percentage of converts. The growing international character of the Church and its membership will no doubt produce even greater political heterogeneity among Latter-day Saints in the future.
David B. Magleby
Magleby, David B. "Contemporary American Politics." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
Latter-day Saints are an integral part of the politics of the intermountain West of the United States. They play important roles in U.S. politics and government, and members have held high positions in all three branches of the federal government and in many state and local governments. The Church encourages its members throughout the world to be involved in government and civic affairs (see Civic Duties). Official Church statements on such matters as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and the MX missile have been important in the politics of these issues.
On most issues and in most elections, the Church has remained neutral, admonishing its members to study the issues and vote according to their conscience. A member of the First Presidency said in 1951:
The Church, while reserving the right to advocate principles of good government underlying equity, justice, and liberty, the political integrity of officials, and the active participation of its members, and the fulfillment of their obligations in civic affairs, exercises no constraint on the freedom of individuals to make their own choices and affiliations. . . . Any man who makes representation to the contrary does so without authority and justification in fact [Richards, p. 878].
. . .
The Church has been most visible politically in discussion of moral issues. In 1976, after years of silence on political issues, the Church issued a statement opposing the ERA: "We recognize men and women as equally important before the Lord, but with differences biologically, emotionally, and in other ways. ERA, we believe, does not recognize these differences. There are better means for giving women, and men, the rights they deserve" ("First Presidency Issues Statement Opposing Equal Rights Amendment," Ensign 6 [Dec. 1976]:79). This formal institutional opposition sparked significant local organizing by private Church members acting on their own accord against the amendment in Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, and Virginia. Not all Church members opposed the amendment. Some had spoken publicly in support of the amendment before the Church position was announced.
During the early 1980s the Church took a position on the MX missile controversy. Many Church leaders had long been critical of war and armaments. But others were in favor of preparations for defense. Thus, elected officials could find Church authorities either favoring or opposing defense spending, new weapons systems, and foreign military activities. Utah representatives in Washington tend to promote defense spending, and Utah has a large defense industry.
In 1981, Church President Spencer W. Kimball and his counselors issued a strongly worded letter opposing the deployment of the MX missile in the desert of western Utah and neighboring eastern Nevada. The statement criticized not only the MX missile but also the form of warfare it exemplified: "With the most serious concern over the pressing moral question of possible nuclear conflict, we plead with our national leaders to marshal the genius of the nation to find viable alternatives which will secure at an earlier date and with fewer hazards the protection from possible enemy aggression, which is our common concern" ("First Presidency Statement on Basing of MX Missile," Ensign 11 [June 1981]:76).
The Church has also opposed legalized gambling, including state-run lotteries ("Church Opposes Government-Sponsored Gambling," Ensign 16 [Nov. 1986]:104-105), and has made moral arguments against liberalizing access to alcoholic beverages.
President David O. McKay
Letter from President David O. McKay to Ernest L. Wilkinson and the BYU Faculty
I cannot help but think that there is a direct relationship between the present evil trends which I have above indicated, and the very marked tendency of the people of our country to pass on to the state the responsibility for their moral and economic welfare. This trend to a welfare state in which people look to and worship government more than their God, is certain to sap the individual ambitions and moral fiber of our youth unless they are warned and rewarned of the consequences. History, of course, is replete with the downfall of nations who, instead of assuming their own responsibility for their religious and economic welfare, mistakenly attempted to shift their individual responsibility to the government.
I am aware that a university has the responsibility of acquainting its students with the theories and doctrines which are prevalent in various disciplines, but I hope that no one on the faculty of Brigham Young University will advocate positions which cannot be harmonized with the views of every prophet of the Church, from the Prophet Joseph Smith on down, concerning our belief that we should be strong and self-reliant individuals, not dependent upon the largess or benefactions of government. None of the doctrines of our Church gives any sanction to the concept of a socialistic state.
It is part of our "Mormon" theology that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired; that our Republic came into existence through wise men raised up for that very purpose. We believe it is the duty of the members of the Church to see that this Republic is not subverted either by any sudden or constant erosion of those principles which gave this Nation its birth.
In these days when there is a special trend among certain groups, including members of faculties of universities, to challenge the principles upon which our country has been founded and the philosophy of our Founding Fathers, I hope that Brigham Young University will stand as a bulwark in support of the principles of government as vouchsafed to us by our Constitutional Fathers.
Hugh Nibley
Nibley, Hugh. "Beyond Politics." BYU Studies 15(1), Autumn 1974, pp. 3-28.
Politics, as practiced on earth, belongs to the ways of men; it is the essential activity of the city--the city of man, not the City of God. As used by the Greek writers, the polis is "the community of body of citizens," that is, a body of citizens not taking orders from anyone else. Politeia is "a well-ordered government, a commonwealth." Politics, ta politika, is concern for the social order, things done civilly or courteously, "the weal of the state." In practice the emphasis has been on civility. Thus, in modern Greek, civilization is politismos, a civilized person is politismenos, etc. Even at a superficial view, if it is not God's way, it is still not all bad, and we can understand why God approves of men engaging in politics, and even encourages the Saints, at times, to participate. (p. 4)
. . .
The moral is clear: the children of God can work well with the men of the world, and bestow great blessings by their services--but there comes a time when one must draw the line and make a choice between the two governments. Such a choice was forced on the Mormons very early, and a very hard choice it was, but they did not flinch before it. "We will go along with you as far as we can; but where we can't we won't;" and no hard feelings. (p. 5)
Robert C. Oaks
Oaks, Robert C. "Military and The Church." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
Although the Church is opposed to war and recognizes that going to war is a very poor alternative in resolving conflicts, tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints have served their countries' armed forces, sometimes even fighting in opposing forces, especially in World War II. The Church considers being loyal citizens to be a duty of its members, irrespective of nationality. Responding to a call for military service is one appropriate manner of fulfilling this duty of citizenship. Latter-day Saints who choose military careers have no restrictions on either their fellowship or their callings in the Church. While any member is free to object to military service because of conscience, Church membership in and of itself is not a justification, and Church leaders have discouraged conscientious objection in every conflict of the twentieth century.
The moral question for Church members is much more one of the spirit than of the uniform. It echoes John the Baptist's counsel to soldiers to avoid violence and extortion, and to be content with their wages (Luke 3:14). The Book of Mormon repeatedly counsels soldiers to abhor the shedding of blood (Alma 44:1-7; 48:14-16, 23; Morm. 4:11-12). However, it also contains principles as to when war may be justified. Concerning the action of the Nephites when they were attacked by the Lamanites, the record states:
Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.
And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.
And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion [Alma 43:45-47].
Marion G. Romney
Romney, Marion G. "The Political Thought of President Clark." BYU Studies 13(3), Spring 1973, pp. 245-254.
The central concern in all of President Clark's political thinking was the maintenance of a government and laws which would protect the right of every man to "act in doctrine and principle . . . according to the moral agency which [God has] given him" (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77-78). His consistency and his effectiveness resulted from the fact that he always tested his thinking and conformed to the precepts of the Common Law, the Constitution of the United States, and the scriptures--all three of which he believed to be divinely inspired and historically vindicated. (p. 246)
Stan A. Taylor
Taylor, Stan A. "Power in Washington: Congress Versus the White House." BYU Studies 14(1), Autumn 1973, pp. 3-28.
I feel it is appropriate to testify that, as a social scientist, I find that every social problem which I analyze has as its root, at some place, to one degree or another, the failure of man to abide by the teachings of our Lord. I have come to feel that, at least in my own field and especially among Mormon scholars, one ignores sacred teachings at the peril of making his scholarship sterile and superficial. (p. 3)
. . .
I have taught or lectured at four other schools and was never free to show how insightful the Holy Scriptures could be. After enjoying this freedom for three years here, I now find it difficult to conceive how I would explore fully the role of government, for example, without benefits of the 134th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants. (p. 4)
. . .
Government is a very precious commodity, yet we treat it very lightly. We have erroneously assumed in America that religion and ethics were inextricably intertwined and that since we could not teach religion in the public schools, we therefore could not teach ethics. Perhaps we need to reassess that assumption and work towards the development of courses on social and political ethics for all levels of education. We have taught in our public schools what is "right" and "left" in American politics, but not what is right and wrong. To teach accountable citizenship at all levels of education may be more important in the long run, then teaching specific skills. Any skill, whether carpentry, nuclear physics, or administration, is merely a tool which can be used for good or evil, to build or to destroy. What good is a mandate without virtue or the right to vote without wisdom? (pp. 15, 28.)
Ezra Taft Benson
Benson, Ezra Taft. "The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner." BYU 1986-87 Devotional and Fireside Speeches, BYU University Publications, 1987, pp. 37-44.
I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed his stamp of approval on the Constitution of this land. I testify that the God of heaven sent some of his choicest spirits to lay the foundation of this government, and he has sent other choice spirits--even you who hear my words this day--to preserve it.
We, the blessed beneficiaries, face difficult days in this beloved land, "a land which is choice above all other lands" (Ether 2:10). It may also cost us blood before we are through. It is my conviction, however, that when the Lord comes, the Stars and Stripes will be floating on the breeze over this people. May it be so, and may God give us the faith and the courage exhibited by those patriots who pledged their lives and fortunes that we might be free, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. (p. 44)
Ralph C. Hancock
Hancock, Ralph C. "Constitution Of The United States Of America." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
While LDS scripture reinforces the traditional Christian duty of "respect and deference" to civil laws and governments in general as "instituted of God for the benefit of man" (D&C 134:1, 6), Latter-day Saints attach special significance to the Constitution of the United States of America. They believe that the Lord "established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom [he] raised up unto this very purpose" (D&C 101:80). The Prophet Joseph Smith once described himself as "the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth" (HC 6:56-57). All of his successors as President of the Church have reaffirmed the doctrine of an inspired Constitution. This consistent endorsement is notable, for basic LDS teachings are far removed from the premises of American liberalism, and largely as a result of these differences, Latter-day Saints suffered considerable persecution before achieving an accommodation with mainstream America.
. . .
LDS leaders have taught that the Constitution is not to be considered perfect and complete in every detail (as evidenced most clearly by its accommodation with slavery, contrary to modern scripture; e.g., D&C 101:79) but as subject to development and adaptation. It was part of the wisdom of the founders to forbear from attempting to decide too much; they therefore provided constitutional means for constitutional amendment. President Brigham Young explained that the Constitution "is a progressive--a gradual work"; the founders "laid the foundation, and it was for after generations to rear the superstructure upon it" (JD 7:13-15).
. . .
The scriptural reference to "just and holy principles" appears to locate these fundamentals in certain "rights." Section 98 of the Doctrine and Covenants recommends friendship to constitutional law based on the harmony between freedom under its law and freedom under God (D&C 98:6, 8). Similarly, revelation links human "rights" with the opportunity to "act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment" (D&C 101:78). In this way, the reverence of Latter-day Saints for the Constitution is anchored in the fundamental doctrine of free agency, or the idea that God makes possible people's progress toward eternal life in part by exposing them to the consequences, good or bad, of their choices.
Martin B. Hickman
Hickman, Martin B. "J. Reuben Clark, Jr.: The Constitution and The Great Fundamentals." BYU Studies 13(3), Spring 1973, pp. 255-272.
President Clark's writings, lectures, and sermons on the Constitution contain, when taken as a whole, a careful, precise, and full statement of the historical, philosophical, and scriptural basis of his convictions. He thus welded cogent analytical arguments for fundamental constitutional principles to the spiritual insights provided by the scriptures. Both elements are important to his constitutional thought; each might stand readily alone, but they are mutually reinforced by the skillful and eloquent statement President Clark gives them. (pp. 255-256)
Rex E. Lee
Lee, Rex E. "The Constitution and the Restoration." BYU 1990-91 Devotional and Fireside Speeches. BYU University Publications, 1991, pp. 61-70.
I want to talk to you about a very important relationship that exists between, on the one hand, our lives, our practices, and our beliefs as participants in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and, on the other, the Constitution of the United States. . . . the Restoration and the Constitution trace their beginnings almost to the same point in time, and over the intervening two centuries have grown and flourished side by side. (p. 61)
Lee, Rex E. "Constitutional Law." In Daniel H. Ludlow (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
As a people, the Latter-day Saints are committed to sustaining constitutional government as the best instrument for maintaining peace, individual freedom, and community life in modern society. This commitment is reinforced by their scriptures, which affirm that constitutional law "supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before [the Lord]" (D&C 98:5). The scripture cited further explains that not only has God made people free by giving them agency, but "the law also maketh you free" (verse 8). Furthermore, any standard other than constitutional law "cometh of evil" (verse 10). This principle applies not only in the United States of America, but wherever Latter-day Saints might live throughout the world. However, Latter-day Saints everywhere believe also "in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (A of F 12).
Latter-day Saints have both contributed to, and benefited from, laws and American constitutional law. The Constitution of the United States of America made the restoration of the gospel possible because it limits governmental power, protects individual rights, and sets a moral tone tolerating controversial religious views and rights of expression and assembly. LDS belief in the divine origin of the Constitution contributes to respect for the document.
. . .
As a group, Latter-day Saints in the United States are deeply patriotic. They sustained the Constitution even when, in times of severe persecution, some of its protections were denied them. Partly because of the Church's history and partly because of their unique understanding of the nation's origins, most Latter-day Saints in the United States accept the responsibility to study and understand their Constitution as being rooted not only in patriotism but in religion as well. The devotion of the Church and its leaders to the Constitution can be traced to early times. Doctrine and Covenants 134, "A Declaration of Belief Regarding Governments and Laws," adopted by unanimous vote at a general assembly of the Church held at Kirtland, Ohio, on August 17, 1835, is a vigorous statement on the importance of preserving individual rights, particularly those relating to religious and other expressive freedoms. As expressed by one Church President, Latter-day Saints "have a tremendous obligation to be good citizens, to uphold the Constitution of this land, to adhere to its basic concepts" (Benson, pp. 615-16; see also Politics: Political Teachings).
R. Collin Mangrum
Mangrum, R. Collin. "Mormonism, Philosophical Liberalism, and the Constitution." BYU Studies 27(3), Summer 1987, pp. 119-137.
Liberalism is a word charged with emotional meaning. For many Mormons, the word serves as a pejorative epithet symbolizing ungodliness. This mischaracterization, however, confuses the relative roles served by "world-maintaining," as compared with "world-creating," normative universes. The Constitution deserves the fidelity of Mormons because as a world-maintaining nomos it protects the world-creating nomos of the gospel of Jesus Christ. (pp. 119-120)
Dallin H. Oaks
Oaks, Dallin H. "The Divinely Inspired Constitution." Address given at America's Freedom Festival Religious Service. Provo, Utah, July 5, 1987.
To summarize, I see divine inspiration in these four great fundamentals of our Constitution:
(1) the separation of powers in the three branches of government; (2) the division of powers between the states and the federal government (3) the Bill of Rights; and (4) the principle of popular sovereignty;
Finally, there is divine inspiration in the fundamental underlying premise of our whole constitutional order: (5) the rule of law and not of men.
Noel B. Reynolds
Reynolds, Noel B. "The Doctrine Of An Inspired Constitution." BYU Studies 16(3), Spring 1976, pp. 315-339.
Eighteenth and nineteenth century Americans very commonly assumed that the guiding hand of God was largely responsible for the founding of their new nation, that God had "called forth certain hardy souls from the old and privilege-ridden nations," and that he "had carried these precious few to a new world and presented them and their descendants with an environment ideally suited to the development of a free society." Although this Puritan view "had its classic expression during the Revolution and constitutional period, . . .[it] has appeared repeatedly in the course of American history."
The echoes of this providential view of America's origins sounded down thorough the nineteenth century and were even heard in the writings of notable historians. But in the twentieth century, both professional historians and Americans generally have been overtaken by secularization. As our contemporaries look back on the events of those formative years, they fail to discern the guiding hand of God. They satisfy themselves with the sophisticated assurance that the providential views of our ancestors were either rhetoric or mythology. In the twentieth century, we Mormons find ourselves almost alone in our belief that God did play a fundamental role in the founding of our nation, and that the American Constitution was inspired by him. (p. 315)
. . .
The commitment of these Church leaders to the view that God was integrally involved in the formulation of the Constitution is unequivocal. Yet this may seem problematic for those Latter-day Saints who have grown up with the "demythologizing" accounts of explaining the Constitution primarily as a political compromise between competing economic interests. Because of the pervasive influence of these secular views in modern histories and textbooks, most Americans may not realize that over the last decades the major arguments of the old progressivist school have been significantly qualified by careful researchers.
The historical facts are in every way compatible with the teaching that the Constitution was inspired by God. The question of inspiration should not focus exclusively on a few men in Independence Hall in the hot summer of 1787, but also on the gathering together of a people with beliefs conducive to forming a new, free republic. Inspiration can also operate in a diffused manner in the struggle of faithful men to find long-range solutions to real problems, as is illustrated by many developments in Church practice. A confirmation of this kind of inspiration in the Constitution can be found in the recognition that the central principles of rule of law, which the drafters built into the Constitution, are essentially identical to those "just and holy principles" which, according to the scripture, justify the Constitution in the eyes of the Lord. (pp. 316-317)
Psychology
Allen E. Bergin
Bergin, Allen E. "Bringing the Restoration to the Academic World: Clinical Psychology as a Test Case." BYU Studies 19(4), Summer 1979, pp. 449-473.
I believe in bringing the Restoration to the academic world by infusing scholarly work with values, revelation, and inspired methods of inquiry that derive from the gospel. If this can be done rigorously and successfully, the results could be revolutionary. President Oaks, in his lecture to the faculty entitled "A House of Faith" (1977), presented an inspired vision of the harmony among the University, the temple, and the Missionary Training Center. I believe that vision supports the goal which I have in mind in this lecture. As the divine purposes underlying these three great institutions are harnessed into a coherent search for and dissemination of truth, incomparable modes of scholarship and education can result; but first it must be understood that the principle of revelation is as fundamental to the University as it is to the gospel itself. (p. 449)
. . .
My own survey of the scriptures reveals two themes basic to personality theory. The first theme woven throughout the scriptures is identity. The second theme pertains to relationships between identities. I will focus here mainly on a theory of relationships as it derives from the scriptures.
A correct understanding of both identity and relationships is fundamental to any theory of personality or psychotherapy, and that understanding has to begin with our knowledge of God the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
This I believe to be the correct beginning of all gospel-based scholarship, whether it be arts or sciences. I say this with confidence because of personal experience and because Joseph Smith said it: "The first principle of truth and of the Gospel is to know for a certainty the character of God." Note that he said "truth," not just doctrinal truth but apparently all truth. I do not have time to expand upon this concept, but a knowledge of and faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost influences all other knowledge. The world does not understand this, but it is exactly why those who possess the restored gospel will necessarily excel in the world in all forms of knowledge, if and when they apply the methods outlined by the Lord. (p. 459)
. . .
Let me briefly compare an orthodox theistic value structure with the dominant clinical, humanistic structures by listing some of the important contrasts. I will not list the regions of overlap and agreement, but only the crucial differences. Parenthetically, I might mention that at a symposium just a few weeks ago I presented these contrasts to an audience in San Francisco of approximately 500 psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and psychiatric nurses. Here are the contrasts:
1. Theistic
Humility, dependency, submission, obedience. God is supreme.
1. Clinical Humanistic
Self-aggrandizement, independence, anti-external authority. Man is supreme.
2. Theistic
Identity is eternal and divine. Relationship with God defines self-worth and self-identity.
2. Clinical Humanistic
Identity is ephemeral and mortal. Relationships with others define self-worth.
3. Theistic
Self-control in terms of absolute values. Strict morality. Moral purity.
3. Clinical Humanistic
Self-expression in terms of relativism. Flexible morality. Situation ethics.
4. Theistic
Love and affection at the core of the relationship system. Nurturance, service, and sacrifice of self. Self-transcendence.
4. Clinical Humanistic
Self at the core. Self-actualization central and personal needs paramount.
5. Theistic
Eternal marriage. Fidelity and loyalty. Emphasis on procreation and family life.
5. Clinical Humanistic
Open marriage or no marriage. Emphasis on self-satisfaction and sex without responsibility.
6. Theistic
Responsibility for our own sins and pathologies. Accept guilt. Suffering, repentance, and contrition are keys to change. Restitution for sins and errors is required. Forgive others who cause distress.
6. Clinical Humanistic
Others responsible for problems and changes. Reject guilt. Apology for sins and errors. Relieve suffering instead of experiencing it fully. Make others pay. Blame others.
7. Theistic
Weaknesses are a blessing, motivate change, keep us humble and close to God.
7. Clinical Humanistic
Weaknesses are disorders or afflictions.
8. Theistic
Knowledge by faith and effort. Meaning and purpose derived from spiritual insight.
8. Clinical Humanistic
Knowledge by self-effort alone. Meaning and purpose from reason and intellect.
9. Theistic
Intellectual knowledge inseparable from the emotional and spiritual. Ecology of knowledge.
9. Clinical Humanistic
Intellectual knowledge for itself. Isolates the mind from life. One-dimensional intellects. (p. 462)
. . .
You can see how our value structure leads to entirely different goals for therapy and means for achieving those goals than do other value structures. One set is consistent with eternal life and the other is not. While the good aspects of humanism can be incorporated into a comprehensive gospel framework, the philosophies behind the common clinical therapies are largely unacceptable and must be challenged by us through publications, lectures, and practices. (p. 464)
. . .
It is an amazing thing simply to think about any subject in the university in terms of the scriptures. Just sit with the scriptures and think about history, think about physics, think about art, think about language. I know many of you have done that. If we would then take the personal ideas that arise and try them out in empirical tests and spiritual tests, we could go a long way. (p. 466)
. . .
I have been astonished over and over again to address secular audiences with some fear inside that I would be rejected or possibly even physically assaulted because of my strict moral views only to find that people from diverse backgrounds will rally to our standard and that even our critics will resonate to a clear, open articulation of the truth. While there have been a few Korihors and Zeezroms in each audience who have heckled, the spirit of the majority has, in every case, subdued them.
I have talked to them straight about the existence of God, the influence of the spirit of God upon the individual, the importance of revelation, love, morality, and the example of Christ.
Some of these experiences, as the one in San Francisco, have been very powerful. In some cases, the reaction has been a little austere and constrained; but I've found an interesting thing. If you know your field and have established your competency, you can say outlandish or radical things and people will listen reasonably respectfully.
One of the most wonderful things that happened to me I would like to convey briefly. It was at the University of Washington, just one year ago. It was my first opportunity to speak to a standard psychology department of people with diverse backgrounds--a large department with about sixty faculty members. I was tentative and fearful about it. There was a packed audience, and it seemed as though there was a kind of magnetism in the atmosphere. I was drawn to them and they were drawn to me. We felt very close. I stayed for about an hour afterwards and then, unscheduled, they had me come back for three more hours the next morning. Before I left Seattle a small group of professors came one at a time and said: "I want to come to BYU and work with you people." And one of them hugged me and said: "Thank God there is somebody who will stand up for Christ." That same person, a clinical psychologist, said: "I will never, ever teach clinical psychology the same again." There is much more that could be said, but all I know is that the personal encounters like that have changed me as a person. I can't go back. I am a radical in the eyes of some people, but I really don't care. They will have to react to it and get on our side or the other side.
It may be presumptuous of me to say this can be done in every field, but I believe it. I have sat with the catalog and thought about various fields such as history, law, business, medicine, music, education, physics. There seem to be numerous conceptual anomalies and often moral deficiencies in many fields. Though I am an amateur in them, it seems to me that most subject areas need the conservative radicalism and reform we can provide, if we will only believe in ourselves. (pp. 470-471)
Burton C. Kelly
Kelly, Burton C. "'Let All . . . Anger . . . Be Put Away From You . . . ' or the Case Against Anger." AMCAP Journal, February 1979, pp. 6-13.
Most people usually do not assume responsibility for their anger. Instead, what we typically hear is, "You made me angry." "They made me upset, " etc. I trust it is evident that these types of statements are not true. No one else can "make" you angry. We have to make ourselves angry. What others say and do is, yes, a part of the equation, but without our contribution to the equation, anger cannot arise nor exist. This can be a very threatening conception of anger, and yet it is also very freeing, for as long as we do determine our own emotional responses, we are free to change and to control them. If other people or events were, in fact, responsible for our emotional responses, then we would not have the freedom nor ability to change them--unless we could control other people and events, which is much more challenging and usually impossible Thus, principle 1 in the case against anger is, we are ultimately responsible for our own anger. (p. 8)
Kelly, Burton C. "Scriptural Insights into Human Behavior and the Facilitation of Behavior Change." AMCAP Journal, July 1980, pp. 19-25.
Despite the assertions of some who have stated that the scriptures are not designed to answer social and psychological questions but rather to teach doctrine and moral principles, I submit that the scriptures serve as a meaningful foundation for all helping relationships. (p. 19)
Rationale for Using the Scriptures in Helping Relationships
- They teach pure and correct principles. (p. 19)
- [They] contain the truths to prevent and correct the bases of psychogenic psychopathology. (p. 19)
- [They] offer fundamental insights into each of the three basic elements of counseling relationships: (1) identification of the problem(s); (2) determination of the desired outcome(s); (3) a behavior change process. (p. 19)
- With active Latter-day Saints having an abiding faith in the scriptures, [using the scriptures] helps them to have the necessary confidence in us and the methods we use that enables us to be of help to them.
I believe that the words of Christ (from the scriptures, the prophets, and personal revelation) do tell us all things that we should know (Cf. 2 Ne. 32:3). . . . As Nephi stated . . . in order to know these things, we must "feast upon the words of Christ," not just "nibble upon them occasionally" as Elder Neal A. Maxwell has stated. I conclude as I began with the response of Peter to the Savior in answer to the Savior's query if the Twelve would also go away. "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the son of the living God." That is my testimony to you, my brothers and sisters, that the Savior has the words of eternal life and emotional well-being in this life and that Jesus is truly the Christ, the Son of the living god. May He bless each of us to be his worthy helping servants. (p. 25)
Neal A. Maxwell
Maxwell, Neal A. Speech to the Association of Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists. Printed in AMCAP Journal 5:1 (February 1979), pp. 2-5.
The deep problems individuals have can only be solved by learning about "the deep things of God," by confronting the reality of "things as they really are and things as they really will be." Hard though this process may be, painful though it may be, it is the one true course for human happiness here and everlasting joy in the world to come. Whatever we do in our individual lives and through the influence we have on the lives of others must move us and others to come to terms with these ultimate realities. To move in another direction is folly and misery. (p. 5)
. . .
Because you believe in these ultimate things and apply them in appropriate ways to your efforts to help others, doing this will put you at variance with colleagues who have other value systems and other priorities. Latter-day Saint professionals in a variety of fields will come to know what it means to bear "the shame of the world" and yet to despise it. We are given several scriptures concerning this irony of our interface with others, but one will suffice: "Wherefore, we would God that we could persuade all men not to rebel against God, to provoke him to anger, but that all men would believe in Christ, and view his death, and suffer his cross and bear the shame of the world . . ." (Jacob 1:8). (p. 5)
Boyd K. Packer
Packer, Boyd K. "Self-reliance." BYU 1974-75 Devotional and Fireside Speeches. BYU University Publications, 1975, pp. 343-360.
I have become very anxious over the amount of counseling that we seem to need in the Church, and the network of counseling services that we keep building up without once emphasizing the principle of self-reliance as it is understood in the welfare program. There are too many in the Church who seem to be totally dependent, emotionally and spiritually, upon others. They subsist on some kind of emotional welfare. They are unwilling to sustain themselves. They become so dependent that they endlessly need to be shored up, lifted up, endlessly need encouragement, and they contribute little of their own. (p. 347)
. . .
If we lose our emotional and spiritual self-reliance, we can be weakened quite as much, perhaps even more, than when we become dependent materially. On the one hand, we counsel bishops to avoid abuses in the Church welfare program. On the other hand, we seem to dole out counsel and advice without the slightest thought that the member should solve the problem himself or turn to his family. Only when those resources are inadequate should he turn to the Church. (p. 347)
. . .
In the Church, the directive pattern of counseling is at least as respectable and decent and desirable and needed, as the non-directive approach to counseling. Unfortunately, we see very little of it anymore. How sweet and refreshing for a branch president or a bishop or a counselor to say clearly to a student, "This course is right and this course is wrong. Now, you go make the decision." The student ought to know what is right and what is wrong by the quickest method possible, and that may be very directive. There is a crying need for counselors who will say pointedly and plainly, "This is wrong. It's evil. It's bad. It will bring you unhappiness. This course is right. It's good. It's desirable. It will bring you happiness." Then the agency comes when the individual determines for himself whether or not he will follow the right course (pp. 351-352)
Dale F. Pearson
Pearson, Dale F. "A Collaboration of Faith: Spiritual Dimensions of Psychotherapy." Proceedings of the Laying the Foundations Symposium (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1991), pp. 45-50.
The LDS therapist may use a variety of means to begin to activate a healing process in the life of the client. . . . [For example,] Before a formal counseling or therapy appointment, a therapist may offer a vocal or silent prayer to ask for [the] spirit of the Lord in order to be sensitive and receptive to the things that are discussed. The therapist may ask for direction in the questions, comments and suggestions that will be made during this time with the client. The therapist is aware of his or her knowledge and training to assist, but fully acknowledges personal limitations to really change lives. Ultimate or real healing must emanate from within the individual, in partnership with the spirit of the Lord. "If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, that thou mayest know the mysteries and peaceable things--that which bringeth joy, that which bringeth life eternal" (D&C 42:61). (p. 47)
Scott P. Richards
Richards, P. Scott. "The Moral Development of Mormons: Deficient or Different?" Proceedings of the Laying the Foundations Symposium (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1991), pp. 51-54.
Our studies join with others in providing evidence that the bias against traditional religious views prevalent in the psychological profession has crept into some psychological theories and measures. Continuing efforts to detect and provide evidence of such ideological biases will likely be a challenging research task, but may serve to challenge and eventually overcome some of the negative stereotypes currently attributed by psychologists to Mormons and other conservatively religious people. (p. 53)
A. Don Sorenson
Sorensen, A. Don. "The Shotgun Marriage of Psychological Therapy and the Gospel of Repentance." BYU Studies 21 (Summer 1981), pp. 291-30.
What happens to the gospel as a way of life when it becomes the subject of psychological explanation? Certainly, religion has been and continues to be within the explanatory domain of psychological theories that have been and continue to be used to interpret and explain not only religious texts but also religion itself as a feature of society and culture, and the religious beliefs and actions of its adherents. I do not dispute the logical appropriateness of such explanations. But the effects of a psychological explanation on the gospel viewpoint are that the gospel is conceived of, and made intelligible, in the light of the concepts, principles, and generalizations that constitute that particular psychological theory. The danger here is that such concepts, principles, and generalizations are external to the gospel way of life which they are trying to explain. They are external to those concepts and principles which are intrinsic to the gospel and which are used to give an internal account of the life the gospel makes possible. In any such application, different theories refocus and redirect an observer's attention and lead him to look for different things. The function of a theory is to enable one to pick out, as significant, certain elements in a subject of study and to direct a search for order among those elements. Too, some philosophers of science claim that observations are always "theory laden," that what a person observes depends to some extent on the theory he holds. If this be true, and we apply it to psychological explanations of the gospel way of life, then we should expect psychological explanations to refocus and redirect our attention, to lead us to look for things different from those the gospel itself leads us to look for. Life in accord with the gospel becomes, therefore, "laden" with that psychological theory, and psychological explanation does indeed throw a different light on the gospel as a way of life and on the meaning and significance of the gospel message. (pp. 292-293)
Rich N. Williams
Williams, Rich N. "New Wine in New Bottles: Restoration and Radicalism." Proceedings of the Laying the Foundations Symposium (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1991), pp. 39-44.
Against the background of dogmatic exclusivity and facile ecumenicalism, which have alternately waxed and waned in our religious--as well as in our intellectual--history, stands the reality of the Restoration as the pivotal event of modernity. Its reality or falsity must constitute the central religious question of our age. Its implications are as far-reaching as its claims. It is no less true in the modern age, though somewhat less recognized, that questions of religious, metaphysics, epistemology, and science are intricately and inseparably interwoven into our intellectual life and our culture. If we cannot extricate our intellectual pursuits from our religious ones, as I believe we cannot, then the Restoration is as much to be reckoned with in our intellectual as in our religious pursuits. To deny this intellectual impact is to fail to appreciate the Restoration itself. To suggest one perspective on the intellectual impact of the Restoration on psychology, and thus on the larger intellectual tradition, is the task of this paper. (p. 39)
. . .
Here, then, is my own brief sketch of what psychology might begin to look like if it were to be carried out taking the Restoration seriously.
1. We would give up the search for ultimate answers to questions of human nature and action in terms of laws, principles, necessities, and Humean causes. Rather all answers, as all knowledge, would be interpretive and descriptive rather than metaphysical.
2. The separation between the knower and the known, the mind and the world, the objective and the subjective, would dissolve. Knowledge would become meaningful action, intimate relationship, fruit of human involvement, rather than isolation and abstraction.
3. Certainty would be replaced by trust, confidence, and reliance on those who can tell us truth. These tellers of truth are found in our tradition, in our scriptures, and in our midst.
4. Power would not be the goal of knowledge. Rather, the end of knowledge would be virtue, honesty, and obligation to the other.
5. We would no longer see ourselves as fundamentally individual, locked within the confines of metaphysical categories or private minds. We would, rather, understand that we are already all part of one another. Intimacy would be possible because there would be no metaphysical barriers to it.
6. There would be no more conflict between faith and reason. Reason is but a tool for speaking about the world. Faith is a living and animating confidence, not in the metaphysical and rational attributes of God, but rather in his literal physical reality and the fruits of relationship with him. (pp. 43, 44)