Symbols: (Symbols associated with concept in its variant forms.) wise, wisdom
Base: (language/culture/time frame of inquiry) Gospel/scriptural
Etymology: AS, wis=discerning + dom=judgment
Dictionary definition:
Webster’s Collegiate: “Quality of being wise; ability to judge soundly and deal sagaciously with facts, esp. as they relate to life and conduct; discernment and judgment; discretion; sagacity.”
Oxford English: “Capacity of judging rightly in matters relating to life and conduct; soundness of judgment in the choice of means and ends. …”
5. Examples: (Examples in base on other side.)
’Tis a wise man who knows his own father. Wisdom is justified of her children.
6. Correlations
Genus: Thinking
Levels
Similar: Ethics, morality, coping
Celestial
Perfection: All wise
All wisdom comes from God
Pre-requisite (s)
Comple-ment:
Counter-feit(s)
Terrestrial
Agency
Foolishness
Sophistry, being learned
Living by rules
Concept:
Telestial
Wisdom
Living by impulse
Opposite: Insane
Perdition
Contrary: Stupidity, innocence, unable
Living to use others while feigning good
Necessary Constituents
(table above can scroll side to side)
7. Key questions: (Questions and answers to illuminate the concept. Use other side.)
What is the connection between wisdom and ethics? Ethics is the study of the different approaches to wisdom in the world.
How many kinds of wisdom are there? Nearly as many as there are individuals.
8. Definition: Wisdom is the ability to achieve one’s goal at a tolerable price and never to have to look back and be sorry.
9. Examples: (Positive/negative examples to demonstrate or test concept.)
Examples: The man who built upon a rock. The man who works hard and saves.
Non-examples: The man who built upon sand. The man who is lazy and a spendthrift.
10. Relevance: (The difference this concept should make in my life: heart, mind, strength, might.)
There seem to be many short-run wisdoms, but only one long-term wisdom.
Chauncey R. Riddle Preliminary draft 14 January 1983
Table of Contents
Part I Introduction
Part II Models of the Nature and Action of Gods and Man
Part III Religion
Part IV Education and Communication
Part V The Conversion Model
Part VI The Kingdom of God
Part VII Proselyting
Part VIII Obstacles to Conversion
Part IX Summary
Part I: Introduction
The purpose of this work is to construct a model of the religious conversion of human beings in a frame of thought which arises from the scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is intended that this model should be sufficiently detailed that it will provide many practical hypotheses which are susceptible of empirical validation or refutation. It is here assumed that conversion is a real process in a real world, and that intelligence applied to the process can make a significant difference in the efficacy and efficiency of any proselyting program.
Of necessity, such a model must be built within a context of an understanding of the reality of God, man, nature, and their dynamic interactions, which understanding must be at least as detailed as the model. That is a way of saying that this model must be true in-detail and be based on truth to be valuable. Since truth is primarily the domain of the gods and their prophets, a careful attempt is made here to interpret and construct only in accord with the mind and will of our God. Needless to say, the assertions made here will conflict with the received opinions of the world. But it is hoped that thoughtful Latter-day Saints, servants of Jesus Christ, will read it with interest and profit and perhaps add their own increments of light and truth where it is lacking, that all of us who pray day and night for Zion to come again upon the earth may be one step closer to seeing eye-to-eye.
A final reality important to note in this introduction is that you, the reader, are entering into a personal conversation with me, the writer. This writing is undertaken as a gift of my esteem for you, whoever you are. It is my hope to write truly, but I know that I can only express my heart and my mind. You will read this with your heart and mind and thus, in the process, will judge my heart and mind and my love for you. I have two regrets already. One, that I am sure my model is not final or definitive, for my heart and mind are not yet what they could be. I have learned so much in the last year, and especially in the last month, that while I exult in the goodness of our God, I have a sense of the greater treasures that lie yet beyond the veil. Secondly, I regret that I probably will not learn from you those things which you clearly see which I do not yet see, this because of the difficulties and proprieties of communication. But if you and I serve God so that His purposes prevail, all of our regrets are swallowed in His love.
(Because this is yet a preliminary draft, much of it is written in outline form to expedite (1) exposure of the ideas, and (2) your opportunity to skip over parts which might not interest you.)
Part II: Models of the Nature and Action of Gods and Men
A. A god is:
1. An independent being (self-existing).
2. An intelligent being (makes choices which are not externally controlled).
3. A righteous being (righteousness: acting only for the welfare of others).
4. A holy being (wholly dedicated to the work of righteousness).
5. A possessor of a body (having a personal material nature through which to work).
6. A gendered being (male and female).
7. A social being (dwells with and works with other gods and other intelligent beings).
8. An omniscient being (knows and understands everything, everywhere, past, present and future).
9. An omnipotent being (having power to do anything that can be done).
10. A united being (acts in perfect harmony with every other god).
11. A family being (has a father and a mother).
12. An obedient being (does only that which his father tells him to do).
13. A permanent being (not subject to dissolution, death or retrogression).
B. A God is:
1. A god who is a father to another being.
2. A group of gods who preside over other beings.
C. There are two kinds of gods:
1. Those who have only spirit bodies.
2. Those who have also bodies of flesh and bone (male and female), who beget children.
D. Man is:
1. An independent being (self-existing).
2. An intelligent being (able to make choices which are not externally controlled).
3. A spirit being (begotten in a spirit body by the gods).
4. A physical being (begotten in flesh and bone by the gods)
5. A temporary being (subject to change: death, progression, or retrogression).
6. A being presided over by a God (the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost).
E. The natural man (fallen man) is:
1. A man who knows not or who has rejected his God.
2. Subject to a pretended god (Satan) who:
a. Fills his mind with lies.
b. Entices him to do his or her own will if that choice opposes God’s will.
c. Brings distress and disease upon him.
d. Brings death upon him.
3. Touched by the light of Christ (which guides him to know the best of his options of choice).
F. The first man and woman, Adam and Eve:
1. Were created by God to populate this earth and to work out their own probation.
2. Were created spiritually alive (the sensory organs of their spirit bodies were fully functional to perceive spirit beings).
3. Were placed in a paradisiacal (terrestrial) environment which also contained Satan.
4. Were free agents in one thing: to partake, or not, of the forbidden fruit.
5. They partook of the forbidden fruit, which resulted in their becoming natural, involving:
a. Immediate spiritual death.
b. Change of their environment from a terrestrial to a telestial state.
c. Satan gaining power over them (See E 2, above).
6. Their becoming natural gave them the opportunity to have mortal children, who are all born innocent but also spiritually dead.
7. As God does (sooner or later) for all natural men, He gave Adam and Eve the Gospel of Jesus Christ that they might regain their spiritual life.
8. They accepted and lived the Gospel to the end and were restored to Eternal Life.
G. The essential parts of every man are:
1. His mind, which is part of his spiritual body and which allows him to:
a. Perceive his natural surroundings.
b. Conceive of possible understandings of himself and his surroundings.
c. Conceive of possible objects of desire and possible means by which to attain those desires.
d. Receive falsehoods and misunderstandings from Satan. Receive the light of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
e. Communicate with other men and other beings.
2. His heart, which is part of his spirit body and which allows him to:
a. Entertain the desires and emotions of his own flesh (intensified by Satan).
b. Entertain the directions and emotions of the light of Christ and/or the Holy Spirit (the influence of God).
c. Choose whether to seek the desires of his flesh, or to follow the influence of God.
d. Select a means by which to try to attain a particular choice.
3. His strength, which is the powers of his physical body, including:
a. His muscle power by which to transport and dispose himself and to alter his environment.
b. His brain, which enables him to learn physical skills.
c. His memory, which records all of his feelings, understandings, decisions, and actions.
d. His powers of procreation, by which to beget children.
e. His power of speech and other forms of communication.
4. His might, which includes all of his influence in the world which is past the surface of his physical body, including:
a. His influence on other people through communication.
b. The accumulation of his physical efforts in time and space, the fruit of his skills (wealth).
c. His influence on the physical world, especially including that impact he makes through tools, machines, devices.
d. His influence on the world through supernatural (priesthood) power, be it good or evil.
H. Every man acts in this world in the following pattern:
1. His mind perceives the physical (and sometimes spiritual) environment of his own body and the state and relationship of his body relative to that perceived environment.
2. His mind understands something of the potentials of what he perceives for satisfying his desires (positively and/or negatively).
3. His mind conceives of many courses of action, things he might choose to do in and to his environment.
4. The light of Christ (his conscience), if he still has it, shows him a best goal to seek and one or more good means to that goal for his given environment.
5. The power of Satan tells him to seek what he, the chooser, personally desires rather than to do what he feels is best, and may enlarge to his mind evil goals and means to these goals which he, the chooser, has not hitherto considered.
6. If the chooser chooses what is best (goal and means), he acts as a little child does, simply and delightedly choosing what is obviously good to do. So choosing, the implementation is direct and always a good learning experience even if the means fails to attain the goal.
7. If the chooser chooses to accede to his own personal desires (which choice is abetted and commended by Satan) in opposition to his feeling as to what is best, he will be bothered by going against his conscience. He then may consider the matter further, arguing with his conscience, rationalizing “good” reasons for acceding to his personal desires (the flesh). This continues until his mind is cloudy, cluttered with many reasons and options, so that which is best is no longer plain. At that point, what he personally desires has no real rival, so he proceeds to implement his plan to fulfill his own desire, thinking to himself that it remains the only reasonable thing to do.
8. If enough choices against conscience are made by a person, his conscience becomes seared, and bothers him less. But it almost never gives up completely; its influence remains to remind the person that he is not doing the best he knows. Recognition of that contrariness brings a self-torment, divides the person, to cause him to struggle against himself, and may result in “neurosis”, “psychosis” or “psychosomatic” illness.
9. As a person chooses, repeated choices form habits. Habits make it possible for choice of goals, choice of means, and skills of implementation to be mastered so well that reactions to an environment can become almost instantaneous and without conscious thought. Every habit has been established in connection with choices. “Accountability” is to be old enough and mature enough to have an even opportunity to choose between conscience and the flesh (Satan) in a new area of choice and action.
10. Novel choices cannot be made by habit. Ordinary situations reveal a person’s habits. It is often the case that extraordinary situations allow a person little choice.
Part III: Religion
A. Personal religion. Personal religion is the habits a person has acquired for making and executing choices. A person’s personal religion and his character are identical. The more habits one has, the more even novel situations are reacted to by habitual choice patterns. The four basic areas of habit are:
The habits of mind:
a. The concept patterns with which one perceives and conceives the world, especially one’s concepts of self, man, and God.
b. The understanding one has of the interactions and interrelationships of the things one perceives and conceives to exist.
c. The possible goals one conceives relative to given perceived environments.
d. The possible means to possible goals one conceives relative to given perceived environment.
e. The mental skills one uses in thinking.
2. The habits of heart:
a. The esteem or value and emotions one has relative to things he perceives and conceives.
b. The habit of preferring conscience over the flesh or vice versa in a typical choosing opportunity.
c. The habit pattern one employs to confuse choosing situation when one does not choose to follow conscience.
3. The habits of body:
a. Habits of hygiene, nourishment, posture, sleeping, etc.
b. Habits of speaking, communicating, manners.
c. Habits of pleasure seeking.
d. Work habits.
e. Physical skills mastered.
f. Habits of pain seeking/avoidance/suffering.
4. The patterns of might:
A person’s habits of mind, heart, and body are reflected in the patterns of his might, such as:
a. The happiness of his spouse and children and the order in their lives.
b. The range and character of his friends and cooperators.
c. The treasures which he does or does not lay up.
d. What he does with his surplus.
e. The order or disorder found in his home and personal property.
It is to be emphasized that every choosing, accountable human being has a religion. His own religion, his character is his primary stewardship (dominion) in this life.
B. Institutional Religion. Institutional religions are social organizations (groups of people) which act to influence the personal religion (personal habits) of themselves and/or other persons. There are always four basic elements or devices by which institutional religions attempt to influence individuals:
1. Leadership: Someone must direct the group functions and transmit that religion to the young.
2. Theology: A theology is an understanding of men, society, the universe: all things that exist. Central to every theology is a god. The god in every theology is the greatest good, the final decision-maker, the being most esteemed. A god is necessary in every theology so that there can be an ultimate arbiter of all decisions which must be made (practical decisions; many traditional theological issues are not related to practical decisions, which has tended to devalue theology in many people’s eyes). The name for theology in philosophy is “metaphysics;” in science it is “theory.”
3. Moral prescriptions: Moral directives are the do’s and don’ts for individual personal choice which the institution (the leader of the institution) enjoins upon its members. The moral directives are the “heart” of every religion. Theology is basically the rationale for the do’s and don’ts. If the moral directives change, the theology must change to properly rationalize that change. Institutional religions which fail to affect the conduct of individual members, which fail to gain obedience to the prescribed moral directives, are failures; they die.
4. Ritual: Rituals are the physical and social patterns of action which are constantly repeated to initiate and intensify habit patterns of thought, feeling, and action in the individual adherents of a religion. The staying power of a religion, which enables it to endure from one generation to the next, is in its rituals, not in its theology. The hoped for result of ritual is belief in the theology and conformance to the moral directives of the religion, though sometimes orthodoxy in theology is (unwisely) taken as a token of moral compliance.
C. Types of institutional religion. The three basic types of institutional religions are churches, cultures, and governments. (Every social organization has a religious purpose.) An example of each will be given:
1. Example of a church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
a. Leadership: Our Church is an example of a social organization wherein the presiding authorities attempt to influence the choices of members and non-members by encouraging them to accept particular ritual observances and certain theological views ultimately to help them live godly lives. The older members try to influence the younger members in the same manner to the same end.
b. Theology: The LDS view of God and man (see Part II, above).
c. Moral prescriptions:
1) Of the heart: Love the Lord with all of one’s heart, might, mind, and strength and love one’s neighbor as oneself.
2) Of the mind: Counsel with the Lord in all thy doings and lean not to thine own understanding and He will lead thee in the paths of righteousness.
3) Of strength: Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord.
4) Of might: Thou shalt offer an acceptable offering unto the Lord: tithing, consecration, beneficence.
d. Rituals:
1) Private Rituals (worship):
a) Prayer: Speaking to our God very personally.
b) Scripture study: Seeking out an understanding of the Lord’s law and ways.
c) Meditation: Receiving the whisperings of the Holy Spirit and pondering upon them to achieve understanding and to discern the path of action before us.
d) Beneficence (alms): Searching out the poor (the hands that hang down, the feeble knees) and ministering to them according to the Lord’s instructions.
2) Public rituals (worship):
a) The ordinances of the priesthood.
b) Family prayer, family scripture reading, family home evening, family council.
c) Ward meetings, stake and general conferences.
d) Proselyting.
Note: It is plain that the strength of the LDS religion lies in the private rituals, for unless they are faithfully executed all else will be empty forms.
2. Example of a culture-type institutional religion: New York City Judaism.
(A culture is distinct from a church in that the culture has a widely dispersed, almost accidental leadership, whereas a church has a centralized hierarchy.)
a. Leadership: Basic leadership in cultural Judaism is provided by the mothers who instill in the young the fundamental values and habits of the religion. (The rule: a person is Jewish if his mother was Jewish.)
b. Theology:
1) No belief in the God of the Old Testament; human “intellect” has become god.
2) Veneration of Einstein, Freud and Marx.
3) Science as the key to knowledge.
4) Success in becoming intellectual, cultured and wealthy greatly valued.
5) Value placed in blood line.
c. Moral prescriptions:
1) Intellectual contribution to society is the greatest good.
2) Marry within the culture and blood.
3) Within the culture, share money, cooperate, but no usury.
4) Make lots of money, spend carefully.
5) Frankness, courage, persistence, aggressiveness, and problem solving are highly valued.
6) Lie if necessary.
7) Chastity less valued once a person leaves home, divorce looked down upon.
d. Ritual:
1) Private rituals:
a) Study (do well in school).
b) Think (figure out how to get what you want).
2) Public rituals:
a) Family discussion: setting of goals and values.
b) Bar Mitzvah (cash given by friends to a boy upon coming of age).
c) Weddings (very social occasions; expensive presents and cash given).
d) Hebrew school (special language training sets people apart).
3. Example of a Government institutional religion:
[Note: All governments tend to have an “established” religion because no government can endure which does not rest upon a common cultural tradition (religion). This is because not all matters can be legislated and there must be some cultural commonality for the success of matters which are legislated. The established religion in the United States of America originally was the Protestant cultural religion; that nation’s established religion today is the cultural religion of Humanism. This change was wrought in the main by gaining control of the school system (making it “public”) and then requiring compulsory attendance at the lower levels.]
Example of a government religion: Soviet Russia.
a. Leadership: The leadership in practical matters is provided by members of the Communist Party (which is a church within the government), who hold the principle offices in the government. Leadership in theoretical matters is provided by the university professors (the universities are another church within the government).
b. Theology (straight Humanism):
1) The leader of the government is the god. The intelligentsia are his priesthood.
2) There is no supernatural.
3) Science is the means to all knowledge; technology is the means to all accomplishment.
4) Man evolved from lower forms of life.
5) The group is more important than the individual.
c. Moral prescriptions:
1) Loyalty to the government (the collective) is the greatest good.
2) Traditional religions, especially churches, are to be stamped out.
3) Traditional “church” morality has no meaning. Lying, stealing, fornication are legitimate means by which to achieve the government’s goals.
d. Ritual:
1) Private rituals
a) Study of Communist theory.
b) Hard work to achieve the government’s goals.
2) Public rituals
a) Mass indoctrination (all media, schools, cultural events).
b) Parades featuring military power, giant pictures of leaders.
c) Graduation from universities and schools as an ordination to the approved state priesthood.
Part IV: Education and Communication
A. Education
1. Education is the process of acquiring a religion.
a. Acquiring habits of heart: Values
b. Acquiring habits of mind: Beliefs, thinking
c. Acquiring habits of body: Strength, skills
2. There is no education which does not involve values, beliefs, thinking patterns, and skills.
3. In all education the educator is communicating his values, beliefs, and thinking patterns to the young.
4. Therefore, there is no such thing as secular education. All education is religious education.
B. Communication
1. Communication is the process whereby one person influences the feelings, beliefs, and thinking patterns of another person.
2. Every person has a religion. A person’s religion is always the basis and is usually the substance of any communication he sends or receives (interpretations he makes).
3. Therefore, all communication is religious communication. There are no such things as objectivity, unbiasedness, neutrality, or pure information.
4. All educational processes are communication.
5. Communication is the basic public ritual of every institutional religion.
C. Schools
1. All schools are forms of institutional religion wherein either a cultural religion or the personal religions of the instructors are communicated to and enjoined upon the students by the teachers.
2. Ordinarily, schools are the second most powerful form of institutional ritual (the family communications are first, peer communication and media vie for third/fourth).
3. To control the religion of a people, those in power find it most effective to:
a. Destroy family communication as much as possible.
b. Have mandatory attendance at controlled schools.
c. Control the media communications.
d. Disallow non-government meetings.
The factor hardest for governments or other institutions to control is peer communication.
D. Training
1. Training is education which maximizes teacher control and minimizes student initiative in the acquisition of habits of mind, heart, and body.
2. Emphasis on training in education tends to destroy creativity unless there is a studied rewarding of student initiative.
3. Repressive religions (persons, churches, cultures, and governments) tend to emphasize training in education and tend to reward creativity negatively.
4. Repressive religions survive only as long as they have physical power superior to all rivals, for only then can they control the training of the young.
5. The most enduring institutional religions in free situations are the ones which successfully foster private (personal) ritual. This fostering is achieved only through training (public ritual).
Examples of institutional religions which have endured in politically free or adverse situations are Buddhism and Judaism.
Part V: The Conversion Model
A. Definition of Conversion. Conversion is the process wherein an individual person breaches his own present habit patterns by choosing to believe, feel, say, and do things differently than he previously has done, repeating those new choices until they are firmly established as new habit patterns. Another way of saying this is that the person by deliberate effort has reformed his own character. This change can be an improvement (to become more like our God), a degradation (to become more like Satan) or simply an exchange (one good or bad habit replaced by another good or bad habit).
1. Strength of character is the number and strength of one’s habits. A person of strong habits is said to do what he does “very religiously.” A person of strong character tends to shape his own environment (for good or evil), whereas a person of weak character (few and weak habits) tends to be controlled by his environment.
2. The counterfeit of conversion is conformity. Conformity is the acquiring and manifesting of outward habits of strength and might (body and stewardship) which are not the result of changes of mind and of heart. Conformity is resistive response to strong environmental pressure and thus will endure only as long as the environmental pressure is maintained. Conversion and conformity are easily distinguished if one can observe a person in a situation where that person feels free to do anything he desires to do with no human penalty attached. The Savior has told us to judge men by their fruits.
3. Persons most susceptible to environmental pressures are little children. Children naturally and easily acquire the habits of their parents. As they learn language they also learn values (how their parents feel about things), a theology (what the parents believe about the universe), habits of body (how they walk, talk, sit, dress, etc.), and patterns of might (order, disorder, etc.). When evil parents fix falsehood, bad emotional patterns, bad body and might patterns on their children, these are the “chains of hell.” Though Satan cannot tempt little children directly, he can impose the shackles of evil character on them very efficiently through evil parents.
Example: Parents who say “I will not impose religion upon my children. When they are of age they may choose for themselves.” are actually imposing their own personal religion, their feelings, ideas, words, and action patterns on their own children. They are teaching their children to dislike churches and to like iconoclasm, among other things.
4. Training is a means of gaining conformity in adults. It is effective to the degree which rewards and punishments are great and swift. In little children, training usually is accepted in mind and heart as well as body, since there are no previous habits of mind and heart to cause resistance.
B. Causation in conversion. Since true conversion must always be self-conversion of mind and heart, what causes conversion? The cause can never, by definition, be a factor of the person’s external environment. Crucial to this model is the following understanding:
1. The cause of conversion is always the uncovering of a latent desire within the heart of an individual. The desire has been latent because the individual did not previously understand that a certain option even existed, or, because he previously did not think it possible or wise to choose that option even though it was known and desired.
2. The occasion of conversion is always a new understanding of the world wherein a person perceives (learns of) a new option for choice and a means to implement that choice or simply a new and possible means to implement a choice previously desired.
Example: It always troubled the heart of Person X when a little child of his group was exposed to the elements to die; but he could not resist because this was the long established practice of his culture and was supported by seemingly incontrovertible reasoning. But upon hearing the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, he found new strength for his feeling that exposing children was wrong because he now had a new source of ideas, comfort, and revelation from God through the Holy Ghost, to help him to know how to implement a change within his own stewardship.
Note: The net result of this aspect of the model is that converts are discovered, never made. The process of uncovering latent hope and desire is to bring to people new options for believing, feeling, speaking, and acting.
C. Stages of conversion. Assuming the natural man as the reference stage, we may postulate both positive and negative changes from that level. The levels are arbitrary, for the range of conversion in life is a continuum, the increments of which are discernible changes of habit in mind, heart and strength and might. Change of mind may lag while changes of heart and strength progress, for instance. But the positing of typical stages can be convenient guide posts just as mile markers note the accumulation of many increments of distance on a highway.
1. The natural man is taken to be a person who alternates almost randomly between doing what he knows is best and what he personally desires to do. He exhibits benevolence or malice alternately.
2. Stages of positive conversion. These are the result of choices to yield to the divine influence in one’s life which enable one to respond to become more like God. Each one of these stages is a measuring point of the divine spiritual continuum which begins with the light of Christ, develops into the gift of the Holy Ghost and culminates in the open vision of the seer.
a. Conversion to morality. Change of the mind to accept the witness of one’s own conscience and thus to recognize that there is a right and a wrong discernable in most situations. That change must be accompanied by a change of the heart to prize the right, therefore to desire it and choose it consistently. This is taken to be the most important of all conversion steps for it is the instrumentality by which each succeeding positive step is taken. The necessary requisite for this change is to be honest in heart.
b. Conversion to social responsibility. Change of the mind to recognize the existence of God and the importance of acting to honor God and other men. Change of the heart to choose responsible action consistently is the prerequisite for this new level, which is to keep the standards of the Ten Commandments.
c. Conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ (of Latter-day Saints, in this dispensation). Change of the mind to recognize the authority of God in the priesthood authority of the Church. Change of the heart to prize and identify with the Church. Change of the body to keep the word of wisdom and become a participant in Church meetings and functions. To keep the Ten Commandments is the prerequisite to change to this stage of conversion.
d. Conversion to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Change of the mind to understand the Gospel pattern of faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost and endurance to the end as the pattern for making every decision in life. Change of the heart to rely alone upon the merits of Christ. Change of the body to give strength only to those causes which are good. This stage is marked by the adoption and daily practice of the private rituals (prayer, scripture study, meditation, beneficence) of the Savior’s religion. Conversion to the Church is prerequisite to conversion to the Gospel.
e. Conversion to godliness. The mind has changed to a rather complete understanding of the ways of God and of one’s own stewardship before him. The heart has changed to become pure, to have no selfish prizing of any kind. The body has changed to reflect the countenance and actions of the Savior because it has been renewed. The might has changed to become a little celestial kingdom.
3. Stages of negative conversion. These steps lead one from the state of the natural man to become more like Satan.
a. Conversion to immorality (selfishness). Changes from the vacillating of the natural man to a studied rejection of one’s conscience and all that is good (hardening of one’s heart) in favor of consistent choosing of one’s own personal desires.
b. Conversion to depravity. Change of mind and heart to study out means to take deliberate advantage of other people to fulfill one’s own personal desires.
c. Conversion to secret combinations. Change of strength and might to make league with other depraved and immoral persons to form social organizations to increase one’s own might in satisfying personal desires.
d. Conversion to Satanic priesthood. Change of mind to foster direct contact with Satan. Change of heart to do whatever evil thing Satan suggests. Receiving of strength and might from Satan, both natural and supernatural, to build an evil dominion.
e. Conversion to perdition. This final stage can be taken only by one who has previously been converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and who then deliberately rejects all that is divine as to heart, might, mind and strength. Such an one delivers himself knowingly and totally to become like Satan.
D. Conversion of the mind. To convert one’s own mind is to change one’s beliefs and one’s thinking processes (skills and practices in imagining real and imaginary structures and events). The following items are the important parameters of conversion of the mind.
1. One’s concept of himself is critical: Who he is, where he came from, what his potentials are, what he can and cannot change about himself and his environment; these are the most important concepts of the mind.
2. One’s concepts of other people is the important context factor relative to one’s concept of self.
3. The most important “other” person is one’s god (one’s greatest good). Everyone has one: his god is the person he finally defers to in making crucial decisions. This may be himself, another living human being, the true and living God, or Satan (there are no other possibilities, for a person’s god must communicate with him, answer his questions, to function as his god).
4. The understanding one has of the status, nature, and functioning of plants, animals, the earth, and the cosmos, is important.
5. The thinking habits of conceptualizing, separating reality from fantasy, categorizing, predicting, planning, creating, etc., are each an integral part of each person’s character and the habits that control them are subject to his own will.
6. The care and deliberateness with which a person perceives, conceives, and establishes his arrays of options for action is a matter of chosen habit (the manner of use of his thinking skills).
The following table suggests possible changes in the mind of man as he passes through the different stages of conversion:
Table- Chauncey Riddle – Changes in the mind of a person as they go through conversion – 14 Jan 1983
E. Conversion of the heart: To convert one’s heart is to change what one prizes (one’s treasure). That change will result in change of what one chooses both as to ends and the means to those ends. The following items are important parameters of prizing and choosing.
1. The basic prizing is how one feels about the relative worth of one’s own feelings as to what he wishes to do (the desires of his own flesh supported by Satan’s encouragement) as opposed to his feelings as to what is right to do, what he ought to do in that situation (the influence of the light of Christ/the Holy Ghost as manifest in his own conscience).
2. Next is the prizing one does of other persons around him, as to whether he feels they are holy or not (actually or potentially); beings whom he should respect or not; beings whom he could (should) use as means for his own ends, or not.
3. The prizing of material objects and functions, possessing and using plants, animals, the earth, and the artifacts of man.
4. As the correct prizings take their place, feelings of pure love (charity), can and will grow in the heart both for God and for all of His creatures.
The following table suggests possible changes in the heart of man as he passes through the different stages of conversion:
Table- Chauncey Riddle – Changes in the heart of a person as they go through conversion – 14 Jan 1983
F. Conversion of the physical body (strength). The body can be converted only as the mind and the heart are converted and control it. Important parameters of conversion of the body are:.
1. Change of habits of hygiene (especially cleanliness); eating habits, dress and grooming habits, sleeping habits, etc.
2. Change of habits such as to the ability to focus attention, to do sustained mental and physical labor.
3. Change of skill development in physical skills (walking, talking, foreign languages, athletic skills, work skills).
4. Change of physical strength and endurance.
The following table suggests possible changes in the strength (body actions) of man as he passes through the different stages of conversion:
Table- Chauncey Riddle – Changes in the strength of a person as they go through conversion – 14 Jan 1983
G. Conversion of might. If a person’s (stewardship) dominion includes other persons, animals, plants, etc., he is responsible to train them. As a righteous steward he will train them in the skills necessary to become servants of the Lord (good communication skills, reverence, obedience, industry, cleanliness, etc.) and will encourage them to present their own hearts and minds to the Lord as a living sacrifice, that the Lord might then write His law in their minds and in their hearts. As a brother and son, he will exemplify in these stewardships all he teaches and will attempt to emulate the Savior in every way.
The conversion and/or consecration of a person’s might testifies of the conversion of the steward.
The following table suggests possible changes in the might of man as he passes through the different stages of conversion:
Table- Chauncey Riddle – Changes in the might of a person as they go through conversion – 14 Jan 1983
H. Factors that influence conversion. Though all conversion is a matter of deliberate choice, there are factors outside the heart and mind of the person which affect the choice options of the person and are therefore important to the conversion process. These factors operate to open and close options of choice in both good and evil directions.
1. Factors for good in conversion. This sequence is intended to proceed from weakest to strongest. These are factors outside the body of the individual which provide a second witness in addition to that of the divine influence felt internally in one’s conscience. The internal divine influence consists of the light of Christ and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
a. Nature. The order, symmetry, and beauty of nature are revealed to men by the light of Christ, in their conscience. Nature is part of the might of God and bespeaks His hand, mind, and heart. To open one’s mind and heart to recognize the hand of God in all things is one step towards accepting the divine influence of Christ in one’s life.
b. The words and deeds of godly men and women. Men and women who act morally provide an occasion for the conscience of the observer to register approval both of the act and of the spiritual influence which such people radiate at that moment. Acceptance of that approval of one’s conscience strengthens the power of conscience and makes it easier for the observer to follow conscience, to be moral himself.
c. The Holy Scriptures. Reading the scriptures provides an opportunity for the conscience to witness to the individual of the existence and goodness of God and of His way, the way of righteousness. Thus the mind may be better furnished with essential truth about all things and about the options for righteous action. When the scriptures have been altered by man, these truths and options are clouded or confused, causing men to stumble; but even such altered scriptures contain enough good for the influence of God to become stronger in the life of any reader who is converted to morality.
d. The words and deeds of living prophets and prophetesses. These are persons truly representing the true God because they are commissioned by Him and act under His guidance. Their words and deeds provide an exceptional occasion for the conscience of the individual to learn of the nature and ways of God and to feel His spiritual influence.
e. Angelic messengers. These persons are sent by God when a work is to be done that cannot be done by living prophets. Usually angels are sent to bestow instruction or power; but these can be received only by persons who are already converted to following the Lord. In exceptional cases, they are sent to over whelm the mind and heart of a person because he or she has hardened his heart (rejected his conscience) and has not accepted the living prophets (such as did Saul and Alma the Younger).
f. The appearance of God. There is no stronger witness or evidence of the truth or rightness of conscience than a visitation from God Himself. He appears to a man or woman to provide a strong influence to stabilize the mind and heart of a prophet (Moses, Joseph Smith), or to give a condemning witness to the ungodly (the Second Coming).
2. Factors for evil in conversion. This sequence again is intended to proceed from weakest to strongest. These are factors outside the body of the individual which provide a second impetus to evil in addition to the internal selfish desires as aided and intensified by revelation from Satan (which are collectively called the “lusts of the flesh”).
a. The words and deeds of natural men and women. These persons exhibit a vacillation and double-mindedness which strengthens the selfish urge in the beholder as the beholder sees the deeds and feels the spiritual influence of such persons.
b. The words and deeds of depraved and conspiring men and women. The steady, strong evil aura of these persons and the audacity of their evil words and deeds appeal to the fleshly desires of the person, strengthen the impetus to selfishness, and abets the temptation of Satan within individuals who observe them.
c. The writings of natural and depraved men and women. The satanic “scriptures” portray and commend falsehood and evil in an authoritative and forceful manner, an impetus which further abets the inclinations to selfishness and satanic action in the flesh of the observer. (Classic example: pornography.)
d. The words and deeds of the representatives of Satan’s priesthoods. These who practice priestcraft, often feigning righteousness, perpetrate and amplify evil and incite observers to evil in a powerful, pervasive way, enjoining the chains of hell upon all who will listen to them. They act for power, praise, and gain and offer to share power, praise and gain with those who will make league with them.
e. Demonic messengers. Evil spirits who come at the invitation of the living to do the bidding of Satan to furnish gifts and power to perpetuate evil. These cause fear and awe, cowing the will of those who are not strongly committed to following the divine influence, strengthening the selfish in their carnal desires (encouraging them to lift up their heads in wickedness).
f. The appearance of Satan. Apparently a suave gentleman, the master of deceit, the eternal champion of selfishness, lies, and perversion, who comes to use, then to cast off his admirers who have converted themselves to some degree of immorality (e.g., as he did with Korihor).
I. The key to conversion. The simple key to conversion, the change of one’s habits, is what one chooses to do when one has the alternative of heeding one’s conscience (the divine influence), or of heeding one’s selfish desires (the lusts of the flesh as aided and strengthened by Satan). To choose conscience consistently is to build character towards becoming like God. To choose one’s own desires (selfishness) is to build character towards becoming like Satan. The great and powerful truth in this matter is that no one is tempted by Satan or his own flesh except in and through his own desires. Whatever a person allows his heart to prize, he can and will be tempted by it. Whatever we prize or treasure ultimately controls us. The only prizing which will save a person from evil is to prize only the will of God (to have an eye single to the glory of God), which is the only way to give up selfishness. The narrow path to that end is to listen to one’s own conscience. If followed faithfully, every man’s conscience will lead him unfailingly to accept the influence of God in his life, step by step, until he can finally make that final glorious step wherein he not only says but actually does nothing but the Father’s will. Then truly he has reshaped his own character in the image of Jesus Christ. Another name for that reshaping is “repentance.”
J. Apostasy. Apostasy means to stand away from the group. Whenever an individual changes his personal religion to be more and more different from some (any) institutional religion, he is apostatizing from that institution. An individual cannot apostatize from his own personal religion for whatever he does is his religion. An individual can convert himself from one personal religion to another by forming new habits by using his power to prize and choose differently. But no person can ever escape from himself (from his own character, from his own religion).
K. The eternal consequence of conversion to godliness. Our character which is all of our habits of mind (memory), heart (desires), strength (purity) and might (dedication) is all we take with us through the veil of death, for we are our own personal religion. If our character has become godly during our probation, then we may claim in eternity all those special family relationships which have been dear to us in our probation and wherein we have sought permission that they might become eternal. That is done by seeking and receiving the requisite godly ordinances and then sealing these ordinances with the pure love of Christ.
Part VI: The Kingdom of God
The kingdom of God is the earthly dominion of our God. It includes 1) all of nature, 2) all human beings who are either not accountable (his little ones), or who are accountable and have converted themselves at least to the level of morality, 3) the handiwork created by those who are converted to morality (and which is yet in the stewardship of those who are converted to that stage), and 4) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
A. Nature. Nature is clean, orderly, powerful, fruitful, and an ideal habitat for man’s probation. Through it God sends His rain on the just and on the unjust, giving the unjust space for repentance. But there is a difference: Nature obeys those who obey God, but is the master of those who defy God.
B. Human beings.
1. Those not accountable. Over the unborn, the young, the ill, and the demented, those who are accountable as stewards hold a godly power, and for the use of that power they are accountable to God. Evil men use that godly dominion to further their own selfish purposes, either to let live or to kill, to help to heal or to leave alone, whichever furthers their selfish purposes. This is what the scriptures call “offending” God’s little ones; unless there is repentance, such evil men can only dwell with Satan, here and hereafter. Godly men and women take special care for those little ones, shielding, nurturing and protecting them under God’s direction until God makes those little ones accountable or takes them into eternity.
2. Those who are accountable and are converted to morality. Every soul on the earth who is accountable receives a probation. No man is left entirely to Satan except at his own insistence. The power of God (the light of Christ) is with every man to give each the opportunity to turn to the light from darkness, to morality from selfishness. Every soul on earth who honestly abides his own conscience is an ally to and servant of God, thus an ally to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
C. The handiwork of honorable men and women. The human artifacts of the world, on all levels, are neither good nor bad in and of themselves, but are instruments to be used for good or ill by good or evil persons. But there is a difference between the handiwork of a good man and that of an evil man.
1. A good man crafts under the influence of the light of Christ. He therefore produces objects and instruments intended for good purposes (to help mankind) and he works to do well in his art, that his artifact may serve well and serve long in the use for which it is intended. The light of Christ urges him to excellence in both function and structure, substance and appearance. If appropriated by an evil man, the handiwork of the good man usually will serve the evil man better for his evil purposes than will the handiwork of an evil man. (A piano made by a good man will serve an evil man longer and better than one made by an evil man.)
2. An evil man crafts under the influence of the spirit of Satan, which means that he produces things with as little effort as possible, more for appearance than for quality, more for immediacy than for future reliability, and seeks a maximum reward for his effort. (The piano made by an evil man shines but has a poor sounding board, will not stay in tune, nor hold together long, either in the hands of a good or an evil man.) Only when he crafts an instrument of evil does an evil man work with sacrifice, care, and diligence for quality.
3. Anyone who works diligently with heart and mind and body to produce high quality artifacts for the peaceful and honorable uses of mankind serves God and builds the kingdom of God. Such persons may not be moral in some ways, but being moral in any way, such as producing honorable work, is an important step in the right direction. The work of such persons can belong to the kingdom of God even if they themselves are sufficiently immoral in another part of their lives that they do not belong to the kingdom of God.
D. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Though there are good men and women in many other churches who are part of the kingdom of God because they are moral persons, there is but one church organization on the earth at the present time which is part of the kingdom of God. The Church of Jesus Christ is those people who are converted far enough that they can be called “saints” or holy ones because they have wholly dedicated themselves to the work of Christ in the earth. They may not be perfect yet, but they are trying, having entered in at the gate. The gateway to this part of the kingdom is baptism, and anyone who wills not to be baptized when the opportunity is available so wills not to pass an impenetrable barrier to further steps of conversion. The essential aspects of the Church are its priesthood structure, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the ordinances, and church meetings.
1. The priesthood structure. The priesthood is the power and authority to represent God. It’s mission is to open succeeding and appropriate opportunities so that every human being may be able to choose to come unto God, to become as He is. The essential works of the priesthood are to teach, to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to judge the conversion of men, to administer the ordinances, and to organize the Church and conduct its affairs.
a. To teach. Teaching the Restored Gospel and all other truths important to the welfare of mankind is a priesthood function. Many outside the priesthood would pretend to this calling. Teaching is to be done only under the immediate direction of the Holy Spirit as to whom what is taught and when. This teaching takes place in the homes of the Saints, in the meetings of the Church, and in the missionary labors of every servant of God, and anywhere else that the work of God can be pursued.
b. To preach. To preach is to bind a witness, by divine commission, of the true and living God, of the Restored Gospel, and of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, upon those who will not willingly be taught about these things.
c. To judge. Judging is a priesthood function enjoined by God in order that ordinances and callings might be administered only to those persons for whom such could be a step forward. A person who is not converted to morality is not a proper candidate for baptism, though repentance can lift him successively to the stage of being converted to morality and then to social responsibility. After that if he can believe in Jesus Christ and receive a sufficient witness of the divinity of the priesthood authority of the Church, being baptized could take him a step forward. When he is truly converted to the Church, then receiving the offices of the priesthood could be a step forward. When he is truly converted to the Gospel, then receiving the temple ordinances could be a step forward. All these judgments must be made by men, holding the priesthood, but not as men. By the gifts of God they must render God’s judgment in each case.
d. To administer the ordinances. Ordinances are occasions of enlarging the mind, the strength, and the might of those who have godly hearts. As such persons thus gain understanding, health, and power, they may more fully and more ably serve the Lord. If the ordinances are properly administered by god-fearing men and women, and are properly received by the recipient, the recipient is always lifted to new options and opportunities.
e. To organize the Church and to conduct it’s affairs. Appointing officers in the Church organization and the conducting of the meetings and other public matters of the Church are essential in order to continue the instructing and motivating of those who have entered in at the gate. Only those who are already instructed and motivated can instruct and motivate others. If there are too many to be helped and too few helpers, the tree begins to produce strange fruit. If there are many to instruct and motivate but few to be instructed and motivated, those branches produce little fruit. The end of all Church organization activity is to help every person in this world to have increased options for becoming more like God, whatever he presently may be.
2. The Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the information one must believe and accept to be in a position to profit from accepting baptism into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But to believe the Gospel and to live it are two quite different stages of conversion. Those who are converted to the Church are as newborn infants, spiritually, and must be loved, protected, and nourished. The members of the Church and the Holy Spirit provide the love of God, the Church organization and the priesthood provide the protection of God, and the words of God provide the nourishment.
To be converted to the Gospel one must learn to:
a. Feast upon the words of Christ (through the scriptures and the living prophets) until he can rely alone upon the merits of Christ. This is faith indeed.
b. Eliminate every violation or transgression of his conscience (repent of his sins).
c. Keep the promises of the baptismal covenant which means to:
1) Bear the Savior’s name, gratefully and honorably, always.
2) Always remember Him.
3) Keep all of the commandments which He gives them.
d. Accept and live by every word that cometh out of the mouth of God (to have received the Holy Ghost and be hearkening to its influence always).
e. To live fully all one knows, hoping for and praying for further instruction (enduring to the end).
3. The ordinances:
a. Baptism: To allow the recipient to affirm solemn promises to the Lord, thus to obey the commandment.
b. Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost: To confirm the person as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to entitle the recipient to the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit, and to enjoin initial instruction upon the newly-baptized member.
c. Partaking of the sacrament: To renew our covenants and to receive again the Holy Spirit by partaking of the emblems of the Savior’s flesh and blood.
d. Bestowal of the Aaronic priesthood: To empower the recipient to be an authorized teacher of truth, to be able to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to work, judge, and to preside in temporal matters of the kingdom of God.
e. Bestowal of the Priesthood of Melchizedek: To empower the recipient to fill all of the functions of the Aaronic Priesthood; to be able to labor, judge, and preside in the spiritual affairs of the kingdom of God; to receive the mysteries.
f. Temple ordinances: To strengthen the mind and heart of the individual to enable him to succeed in enduring to the end.
g. Other ordinances: To strengthen mind, heart, and body and might and to be able to endure the opposition of this world in serving our God.
4. Church organizations and meetings. The Church is organized into wards, stakes, regions, areas and missions to facilitate administrative matters. The administrative matters focus upon converting the membership to live the Gospel (the perfecting of the Saints), making possible the ordinance work for the dead, and teaching the Gospel to all the world. The purpose of the meetings:
a. Sacrament meeting: To partake of the sacrament and to feast upon the words of Christ.
b. Sunday School/Primary: To provide opportunity for free discussion concerning understanding and living the Gospel.
c. Priesthood/Mutual/Relief Society: To teach the duties and opportunities of priesthood service and to organize the work of administering to the poor (poor in spirit, in knowledge, in health, in wealth, etc.).
d. Conferences: To check the spiritual harmony of family, ward, stake, and general authorities with each other.
The Church also fulfills many social needs for members. But the social aspect is incidental: the essential purpose is to prepare every member to go forth to do the works of righteousness (beneficence in particular).
5. Conclusion: The function of every aspect of the kingdom of God on the earth is to witness to every human being of the goodness of God and to invite each receiver of that witness to convert himself into the image of God.
Part VII: Proselyting
A. Our commission. We are instructed to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth, to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. In our day all must hear the Gospel to be prepared for the great (for the righteous) and dreadful (for the wicked) day of the Second Coming of the Lord. As in the days of Noah, every soul who willnot hearken to His voice will be cut off. The world today ripens in iniquity, even as it did in the days of Noah, which process sharpens the contrast between the way of God and the way of Satan, making this a most exciting and fruitful time in which to live and to bear witness.
B. Our witness. We hope to bear witness in every honorable manner possible. The following are our principal opportunities:
1. Our individual personal witness opportunities:
a. To communicate only the truth with our mouths and our writing, in order to touch minds.
b. To radiate the warmth of the Holy Spirit, to touch hearts.
c. To dress, groom, and comport our bodies honorably to show the strength of the Lord.
d. To care for our property, beautify our homes, honor our contracts, and lift up the poor, to show the Lord’s might.
2. Our family witness opportunities:
a. To demonstrate love and fidelity between husband and wife.
b. To demonstrate that children are an heritage of the Lord by hoping for and raising, where possible, large families of loved and well-trained children.
c. To show responsibility as good neighbors, making people glad they live near us.
d. To promote the causes of morality, social responsibility, and righteousness wherever possible and as appropriate in community, business, cultural, educational and civic affairs.
3. Our institutional witness as a church:
a. We satisfy minds by having a “complete” theology which squares with the Bible and offers a greatly expanded horizon of understanding.
b. We offer a corrected version of the Bible, a second ancient witness of Christ, a testament of Father Abraham, and modern and current revelation, all of which is self-consistent, all of which bears witness of God and of his ways.
c. We offer living prophets who teach us the Restored Gospel and who offer specific guidance on many practical problems of our time. They give the general guidance which, if followed, would eventuate in the solution to every human problem.
d. We satisfy body needs by taking care of our own in disasters and extending such aid to many others.
e. We deploy our might to achieve a financially sound and strong base for the operations of the Church, one which practices principles of restraint, responsibility, and conservation. This witness serves as a model for every person, family and institution everywhere.
f. We beautify our buildings and grounds so that all who see or visit are uplifted.
4. Our cultural witness as a people (ideals as much as reality, as yet, for this is our weakest area of witness):
a. We prize education, hard work, and problem solving.
b. We prize art, creativity, and excellence in all skills.
c. We prize everything which is virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy.
d. We prize freedom, representative government, individual responsibility, economic self-sufficiency.
e. We prize integrity, modesty, chastity, benevolence, and peace.
C. The essentials of accepting the witness. There are certain steps which must take place for anyone outside the Church to become a member of the Church, and have this change be a positive experience in his or her life. The following steps are taken to be essential in receiving the witness that God lives, that the Restored Gospel is true and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church upon the earth at the present time.
1. His or her attention must be attracted in some honorable way.
2. He or she must pay attention. A witness is always received in time and space. The space must be small enough and the time long enough that two things can happen. There must be:
a. Receiving enough information (the truth about Gospel religious matters) that the recipient can understand the message and out of that message conceive a significant experiment which he or she could perform in a short time with the resources which are available. This experiment will vary according to the present habits, standards, and beliefs of the recipient. Some principal initial possibilities are:
1) To pray about the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel (for one who already lives by prayer).
2) To read the Book of Mormon and pray about it (for one who already cherishes reading the Bible).
3) To have the opportunity to ask theological questions and to pray about the answers (for one who is troubled about death, evil in the world, etc., and who prizes clear and consistent answers to such questions).
4) To search the scriptures and pray about the First Vision of the Prophet Joseph (for one who is already religious but believes that the heavens are closed).
5) To associate with and test the spirit of those who say they have already received and accepted this witness.
Whatever is the crucial test of other important matters in life for that (unique) individual is the test which should be employed initially by that person. This because that is the methodology he or she already trusts. But whatever else is done, he or she must pray about the matter also, for there can be no conversion without prayer. Only personal revelation is rock foundation evidence, a sufficient test; all other tests leave one upon the sand, even though they may be helpful.
b. Receiving a manifestation of the warmth and love of God through the presence of the Holy Spirit. In the end, intellectual matters and tests do not convert; they serve the necessary and important service of getting a person to have enough time with and experience of feeling the Holy Spirit to decide to prize or to reject it. The essence of every conversion to righteousness is prizing of the Spirit of God. The purpose of insisting upon private personal prayer is that the recipient must discover that the Holy Spirit is not unique to the source where first encountered (the missionaries, the message, the meeting, the scriptures), but can be gained also on one’s knees in one’s own closet.
3. He or she must personally perform this experiment which has been conceived. No matter how well-conceived the theory of the experiment might be or how delightful the warmth of the Holy Spirit have been to the recipient, he or she cannot be profited if there is no investment and no further benefit. Each must go and do that thing which they conceive, including praying. If the experiment is performed as conceived, there will always be an immediate consequence.
4. They must evaluate the result of that personal experiment. The results of the experiment are either positive or negative.
The following table shows the basic possibilities:
The possible results of an experiment with interpretation and consequence
Whatever the result, the recipient uses his or her agency to pursue light and truth or to reject light and truth.
5. He or she must conceive, execute, and evaluate a second experiment under the influence of the Holy Spirit, guided by the missionaries or not. The person must heed the guidance of the Lord to do the thing that is plainly best to do next. If they perform the second experiment faithfully and like the result, they are on track to conversion of themselves to be more like God.
6. At some point after a finite number of experiments, the recipient must acknowledge the influence of the Holy Spirit to be the voice of God to them. Then the weak faith of the experiment turns to strong faith as he or she hears further instruction, believes it is of God, and diligently obeys in the name of Jesus Christ. Now he or she is on the rock and can and will go as far in the conversion process as is desired, even unto becoming gods themselves.
D. The essentials of proselyting. The steps of proselyting are simply the complements of those which the investigator must take to convert himself. The work of the proselyter is to bring the freedom to change to the recipient by opening new options of thinking and feeling. It is almost never necessary or desirable for the missionary to destroy. The new avenues will give the recipient his own power to change his own thinking and feeling as is necessary.
1. The missionary must get the attention of the recipient. The space must be small enough (so that they are close enough) and the time must be long enough for the two essential messages to be communicated. Traditional devices for getting attention are:
a. Tracting
b. Street meetings
c. Tracts
d. Referrals
e. Hall meetings
f. Teaching English etc.
Ingenuity and propriety are the great guides to attention getting.
2. The message must be delivered. While the investigator is paying attention the missionaries must:
a. Communicate enough information that the recipient willbe instructed and can conceive of a meaningful first experiment about the truthfulness and/or efficacy of the Restored Gospel.
b. Communicate enough of the Holy Spirit that the recipient will have tasted the spirit and thereby be able to identify it when it returns during his or her experiment.
3. The recipient must be so convinced of the need to perform the experiment, including praying, that he/she actually does perform it. Nothing else can succeed if this step fails. For greatest success, the experiment must be performed by the investigator in private (not in front of the missionary nor in front of his family or friends).
4. The missionary must encourage a candid evaluation by the investigator of the results of the experiment as soon as possible after it is performed. The result is the cue to the missionary as to whether to continue his proselyting effort with this individual or not.
5. The missionary must assist the investigator to conceive, execute, and evaluate a second experiment if the investigator has not already done so. Usually this second experiment willarise naturally out of further discussion of Gospel principles.
6. When the experiments become faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the person is ready for baptism (previously committed to baptism or not). When faith has taken root in the scriptures, in prayer and in beneficence, the missionaries’ work is done. There are branch presidents, bishops, stake presidents and others in the Church to assist in the perfecting of that faith.
Part VIII: Obstacles to Conversion
A. The world. The world (the kingdom of Satan on the earth, which includes his devotees and their hearts, might, minds, and strength, his governments, his cultures, his church) is not of itself an obstacle to conversion, but rather creates the occasion and opportunity for conversion. That is why we must be in the world (to make converts) but not of it. If we are of (belong to, are converted to) the Lord, He will give us power that the gates of hell (the powers of the kingdom of Satan to take and keep prisoners) will not prevail against us: we will be able to bring the blessings of the Lord, through the priesthood, to Satan’s prisoners. The difficulty in conversion is not the world itself, but it is worldliness in us, as individuals, as we attempt to convert ourselves so that we might represent our God faithfully and well in honoring His priesthood.
B. The world in our minds. The Gospel was restored at the peak strength of the Protestant Worldview in America. The early embers of the Church were firmly based in that tradition and the Restoration in many ways simply built bigger and better things on that foundation. That Protestant World view, which was essentially the foundation used by the founding fathers in the framing of the U. S. Constitution, began its downhill slide from influence in the first half of the 19th Century and has steadily lost ground for 130 years. The LDS Church has emerged as the champion of most of the causes Protestantism once espoused such as the integrity of the U. S. Constitution, hard work, thrift, and self-sufficiency. The demise of Protestantism is being brought by incessant attacks on the two support pillars of Protestantism: the divinity of the Bible (especially the New Testament) and the divinity of the human conscience.
The engines which are battering these pillars down are scholarship and science in the hands of those of the Humanist worldview persuasion. Scholarship has been used (with considerable bias and skill) to destroy the claim that the Bible is an authentic historic document: the Humanist version is that the Bible is a collection of pleasant but sometimes gory myths. (For those founded upon the rock, the Bible still has its integrity and the attacks upon the Bible willeventually be seen to be but the opinions of ungodly men.) Science has been used (with considerable bias and skill) to assert the relativity of conscience to social context: the Humanist prescription is to get rid of conscience wherever and whenever possible, substituting collectivist and rationalist norms. (Again, those founded upon the rock are not swayed by this intellectual dissimulation.)
The rise of Humanism in the United States came as the university system of Europe was imported (the rise of Humanism in Europe was the Renaissance). Today the overwhelming majority of university professors, students and graduates are Humanist in outlook. The Protestant churches have become more and more Humanist, substituting political action as their cause to supplant the old emphasis on personal morality. The Catholic Church has abandoned its Medieval Worldview and now has an essentially Humanist face (the present Pope seems to be holding back the change somewhat). There is a remnant of Protestant strength among the Lutherans, the Methodists, and the Baptists (recently galvanized into the “Moral Majority”) but that waning power cannot last long. The average American youngster does not know who Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are (some Rock group?).
The rise of Humanism in the United States has seen a rise in Humanism within the LDS Church. Before World War II, a solid majority of the people of the Church who took advanced degrees in the Social Sciences and Humanities became at least partly Humanist in their outlook. A turning point came in 1938 with the talk given by President J. Reuben Clark entitled “The Charted Course of the Church in Education.” Since World War II Humanism has not been as powerful an influence on Church members studying for advanced degrees. Since the 1950s, Humanism in the Church has had to go on the defensive side as a resurgence of the Restored Gospel worldview has seen a cessation of the honoring of Humanism in the Church.
The basic problem that all of the above is pertinent to is that faith and intellect have never been fully and successfully yoked together in the Church in this dispensation in very many individuals. Sometimes the artists are more artist than Latter-day Saints; sometimes the educationists, historians, the philosophers, the social scientists, the biologists, and the other natural scientists are likewise afflicted; seemingly least afflicted are the engineers.
A special false idea which plagues our people, educated and uneducated alike, is the “romantic” frame of mind. The romantic notion is that great things can be accomplished with little causes, that one can get something for nothing, or that an insufficient means can bring about a desired result. The fairy tales and cultural traditions of western civilization are shot through with romantic notions which lead to such things as the belief that the public treasury is inexhaustible, that well-being is due to luck, that romantic infatuation without repentance will bring marital bliss etc. Humanism and socialism are both species of the romantic fallacy. One glaring example in the Church is people who think that the temple ordinances will “save” them, make them perfect in the next life, without the necessity of their own painstaking and deliberate repentance to rid their own minds, hearts and flesh of every ungodly habit in this life.
When these problems are solved and the “educated” people of the Church begin to serve the Lord with all of their hearts and minds, then the witness the Church bears to the world will greatly increase. Then we will be as far ahead in science as we are in theology. Then it will be much easier to get the attention of the educated people of the world to show them a better way.
C. The world in our hearts. For the first eight years of this dispensation the Lord sought diligently to get the members of His Church to love Him enough that they would trust in His instruction as to how to gain their temporal well-being. With some notable exceptions the members could not convert themselves that far and that fast; most preferred to gain temporal security by relying on their old stand-by; every-man-for-himself. So the Lord withdrew the active implementation of the law of consecration. A later notable attempt in the West to begin active implementation of consecration had some remarkable and hopeful successes, but each experiment ended in failure and we returned to every-man-for-himself. Hearts and minds failed as the influence of the world welled up among us.
The Depression of the 1930s saw another attempt to get the members to love the Lord with the beginning of the Church Welfare Plan. Augmented by later increased emphasis on fast offering, there is now more caring than there previously appeared to be. The Church has become a model for the world not of real caring for the poor but of a-step-in-the-right-direction of caring for the poor. It is still mostly every-man-for-himself in the Church.
The rival way, the way of the world to care for the poor, is socialism, which is the political and economic arm of Humanism. Socialism is winning hands down in the world because the moral base which made the every-man-for-himself system have a great deal of brotherly kindness has eroded and virtually disappeared with the demise of the Protestant worldview and its (Humanist despised) work ethic.
The step-in-the-right-direction of the Church is good, but it does not bear full witness to the world of the pure love of Christ. In fact, it does not solve the whole problem even in the Church. But should the faithful members of this Church ever unitedly implore the Lord that His full kingdom truly be implemented, because of their love for Him, the full implementation of the law of consecration would bear a witness that would set the world on its ear. That would plainly show socialism for what it is: feeble human theory captured in every practical example for another species of tyranny. But the world will never see a full alternative to tyranny until Latter-day Saints so love the Lord that they implement His full plan. Then the world will have witness indeed, for that would put us as far ahead of the world in economics and politics (and thus, in heart) as we are in theology. Then, too, we would enjoy the abundance of the gifts of the spirit, which would further increase our dissimilarity from the world.
Another malaise of heart which affects our people is worldly feelings about feelings. The world would have everyone believe that we humans are not responsible for what we feel, but are passive objects worked upon by environmental forces that control our moods, values, etc. They tell us that human beings are not free agents and that either God or one’s psychiatrist will have to step in to save one. The LDS perversity along this line is to feel put-upon by Church authorities, to justify anger in “righteous” causes, to justify lust for another and adultery when one’s spouse is not perfect, to be envious of the wealthy, to despise the poor to be forever unsatisfied with one’s lot. All of these sins are manifestations of yielding one’s heart to Satan, even though one may be an active member of the Church. The Lord would have us forgive all men, that the sin of any other person would never become either a mental self-justification for sin nor an emotional occasion for feeling sorry for oneself. The mark of love for God is gratitude, for everything, and fear of nothing. But because we do not forgive and do not love God as we should, the world has great purchase upon us.
D. The world in our strength and in our might. While the leadership of the Church has directed us to be distinctive in our dress and grooming it has never directed us to be drastically different. The missionary look is our standard, but adherence to the standard suffers. Not every member believes in “every member a missionary.”
As a Church we are somewhat distinctive as to our standard of the Word of Wisdom. Adherence to the standard seems to improve with each added generation in families in the Church. The standard is minimal (for the weakest of the Saints), but higher standards fall on hard times because some members want to become the voice of the Lord in announcing higher standards (their own version for everyone). Withal, there remains a serious Word of Wisdom problem among Church members which dilutes our witness of the Lord to the world.
For all of our problems with the Word of Wisdom area, the Church appears to have greater distinctive difference from the world in that area than it does in the most important area of strength, that of chastity. One of the sorrowful burdens of being a judge in Israel is to come to know the enormity of this problem. Our witness falters when our statistics on divorce, abortion, non-temple marriage, and childbirth out of wedlock are reviewed by the world. To be better than most is not really good enough to bear a valid witness of love of the true and living God.
These matters of our strength—dress and grooming, Word of Wisdom, chastity—are parallel to our problems of might. Our problems of might are avarice (we are the swindle capital), slovenliness (some of these barns and fences Brigham Young wanted painted still are not), ostentation (mansions now, not when heaven comes), mediocrity (it’s the thought that counts), procrastination (who needs a garden?), etc. These problems of strength and might which dilute and defeat our witness are symptoms, not causes. When our hearts and minds become pure, these symptoms will disappear. Apparently the Lord expects that half of the Church will become pure. Then that half will bear an unimpeachable witness; to the world that will touch every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.
E. Conclusion. Not only can we have too many chiefs and not enough Indians, we can also have too many Indians and not enough chiefs. It is possible that the success of the missionary program of the Church could actually set the Church back in the future because we might not have enough leadership in the Church which is converted to more than the Church to draw the new converts up to the higher stages of conversion by their love. Attention to every stage of conversion simultaneously might help. At any rate, the Church will do better if the worldliness among us is reduced by further self-conversion through following the authorities of the Church as they lead us step-by-step toward our goal. Heaven is our home, and we must create that heaven here, and (hopefully) now, through the opportunity of self-conversion using the power of God which is among us.
Part IX: Summary
Conversion is a change of habits. It begins in an honest heart which admits that the Spirit of God has prompted it to change, to repent. The mind must begin to understand the way of the Lord. The heart must choose the way of the Lord. The body must act in the way of the Lord. These changes of heart, mind and strength will result in visible changes in the stewardship (dominion, might) of every converted person.
But conversion is not a one-time thing. It is an uphill battle, proceeding in small daily steps each of which must be taken by the deliberate choice of a free agent. There is no “great help” upward. To change from the natural man to become like God is to repent (to change, to convert each step) as the Lord shows us how, line upon line, grace upon grace, until we receive a fulness. There is as much conversion that needs to take place within the Church as there is outside the Church as each person goes to his God and implores Him for permission and direction to take one more step each day. Anyone can begin to repent (to educate, to improve himself) anywhere, at any time, simply by beginning to be fully faithful to what he himself knows is right (by hearkening to his own conscience).
Potential additions to this study.
1. An explanation of the Medieval, Protestant, Humanist, and Restored Gospel worldviews as referred to in Part VIII.
2. A description of the social class structure of the Church and how it helps and impedes the work of conversion in and to the Church.
3. A description of LDS culture, differentiating which parts are Gospel-oriented and which are not.
4. Pattern of institutional religions in addition to the ones given.
5. A section on practical suggestions for proselyting work to reach special populations such as:
Humanists
Artists
Intellectuals
Lower class
Etc.
6. A description of empirical studies which could be conducted to verify and clarify aspects of the conversion process.
Chauncey C. Riddle, professor of philosophy at BYU, currently serves as dean of the Brigham Young University Graduate School.
Dr. Riddle joined the BYU faculty in 1953. previous to his appointment as dean, he served as chairman of the Department of Graduate Studies in Religious Education, He was named Professor of the Year in 1962, and in 1967 he received the Karl G. Maeser Award for Teaching Excellence.
A native of Salt lake City, he received his Bachelor of Science degree from BYU in 1947, the Master of Arts degree from Columbia University in 1951, and the Doctor of Philosophy degree from Columbia University in 1958.
A devoted Church worker, Dr. Riddle presently serves as a member of the Sharon Stake High Council; he is a former bishop of three wards.
When one approaches such an opportunity as this, it’s a temptation to want to give a grand bombast. But perhaps more realistically, a few simple observations and conclusions which I have come to in my life and experience would be what I would like to leave with you today.
First of all, I would like to make a remark or two about education. This is the business in which we are all principally engaged. I think it important to know that education is a do-it-yourself program. Education is not something that someone else can give to you. In my own experience I think one of the great things which has happened to me was suddenly to realize that if I was ever to know anything for sure and to be very good at it, I would have to assume the responsibility for that myself. I couldn’t leave it up to any professor or any schedule or curriculum or university but would have to seize upon it and do something about it.
Another thing that I came to (and unfortunately rather lately) is the realization that in education the most important thing is not acquiring facts and ideas, but it is acquiring the tools whereby to create and judge facts and ideas. In other words, tools are really the essence of a genuine education. And I mean by tools, first of all a mastery of one’s mother tongue. This is, of course, the absolute indispensable; unfortunately, it is not particularly prized in our society today. I think that is one reason for much of the fuzzy thinking we see going on.
Next I would put foreign languages. Of all the languages I have studied, l find that the Latin that I took in high school has been by far the most pervasively valuable. Next to that I would put my little smattering of Greek, and then German and French. I found that the better I know these tools, the more I am able to use them. We hear people say once in a while “Well, I studied languages for my Ph.D. and have never used them since.” I think that most unfortunate. I think people must be hiding from opportunities when they say that; because opportunities abound and to be able to use language tools is a great benefit.
But after all is said and done about education and tools, I take the standpoint that whatever a man says then, having used his tools and having thought about the world and about his discipline and about life, must be taken as his testimony — his reaction to the world. I wish somehow we could drop the indicative mood from the English language. To be very blunt about it, I think that that indicative mood is presumptive of the powers and prerogatives of deity. If somehow we could speak in the subjunctive we would be much more humble and much more careful as to what we say. If we would say, “It seems to me” or “If it were such and such,” then I think we would be speaking more honestly, relative to our own knowledge. When any man speaks, even in the field of his expertise, he is sharing his conviction. It would be very unlikely that he is really describing the universe the way it is. He may be approximating the way it is, but to take any man’s word as final on any topic at any time and any place, I think is disastrous for an educated person. I think a person should take what a learned man says as something worth listening to, but not to be believed. He should not believe anything until he has come to a conviction of it through his own investigation and resources.
Well now, on to philosophy. Having spent a few years in philosophy, I have discovered that at any one point in time my ideas are not the same as at other points in past history. I would like to share with you some of my conclusions. I don’t suppose I will believe all of these next year. And so don’t you believe any of them. But I hope you find some stimulus for your own thought in what I have to say about philosophy, because the things that I say have come to me in a rather forceful way and I don’t say them lightly. I say them in the subjunctive, “This is as it were,” “This is my frame of reference.”
One of the interesting things about the word “philosophy” is the shift in the meaning of the sophia part. Originally sophia in the Greek meant “practical ability to do something.” In later times as philosophy became a discipline of its own, the sophia came to mean “discourse.” And I suppose this is why philosophy has gained a bad name and the epithet of sophistry has become rather widespread. But I think that the original route is more meaningful.
I take it that the business of philosophy is to prepare a man to do something in his life, not just to talk about it. People who can talk glibly are a dime a dozen in the world, but the people who can solve problems and really accomplish something are rare. I like to think that philosophy really is a preparation for life and for doing rather than just to be able to debate and discourse. Not that debating and discourse are not good in and of themselves but they are surely not enough. A person should achieve what Socrates would call the “examined life”–a life that is structured by thought that is deliberate, that is grounded in something more than fantasy. This is the real business of philosophy. And this always is a personal thing.
Achievement is not a public objective enterprise; it is something that is private. Philosophy ultimately will prepare a person to think through his own mind and ideas and to live a life in accordance with these ideas. Now thinking is a rather specialized enterprise. The idea of thinking scares a lot of people. It’s amazing the trauma that is associated with certain kinds of thinking. Mathematics has acquired a bad name because of the poor way it’s taught most of the time. I notice that in teaching logic, when one gets any- where near the mathematical aspects, blinds come down in people’s minds and fear arises to shut out any further learning. So much fear attaches to all the thinking processes; but it should not. Thinking is a rather simple thing. If studied without fear, it can be mastered rather readily.
There are a few basic thinking processes that one ought to know. One ought to be aware, for instance that though it is good to have a rational structure in our minds, we need to be consistent in what we think and believe that there is no such thing as being a rational person. The old idea of man being a rational animal is one of the great myths. Human beings are not rational, that is to say, out of the deductive reasoning process man does not fashion a life. Reasoning is after the fact in life. Man rationalizes. Man is a rationalizing animal. What happens basically is that people decide what they want to do, and then they think up good reasons for doing it. This is not to demean man to say this; it is just to describe the nature of the way he actually thinks. If you haven’t hitherto known this fact, you might simply contemplate that reasoning depends upon premises. Premises themselves cannot depend upon reasoning. The premises come from non-rational sources; therefore, reasoning itself is based in a non-rational faith. Whatever we assume as premises–the basis of our thought–is the governor of our thought. We can never be rational about that. That is something we simply pull out of thin air in accordance with out desires, our prejudices, our feelings, We need to be very explicit about that fact and not pretend that somehow I am rational and somebody else is not. That’s a bit of hypocrisy; that does not become a learned man.
Another thing to know about language, logic, and thinking is the very peculiar fact that truth or the existence of the universe is always very particular and very specific. But when we think about the universe, we have a very difficult time thinking about the specifics; and therefore, we generalize. Our language consists of class names, and classes are always generalizations. If you will notice when we speak of our language being true, the more general our language is, the more chance it has of being true. The more specific it is, the less chance is has of being true. But then on the other hand, truth itself, the existence of the universe is extremely specific. We have, there- fore, this strange phenomena of people trying to speak truly about the universe in which they must speak most generally to speak most truly, and yet, truth itself is most specific.
Herein lies many of the problems that philosophers get into. For example, suppose that there are no words for red in the English language; only words for the discriminable particular shades of red and every time you mention the color of something, you must use one of these shades. Now there are thousands of discriminable shades (I don’t know how many there are of red). But if you used a particular shade name every time you wanted to mention a particular object in tho universe, you would probably get the wrong one every time because of the difference in light circumstances. You might get one close to it, but you would speak wrongly every time you used a color name. That is why when we wish to speak truly we speak very generally. But truth is specific.
Another important thing to know about language is that our knowledge of the world is based largely on induction. Induction is always guesswork. We have a very wonderful, complicated system of statistics that we study in the world. Statistics is the attempt to make induction good instead of bad. But the interesting thing about it is that no matter how skillful we are about our deductions and our statistics, it all comes back to the fact that we are jumping from the part to the whole. We are guessing. There is no way of certifying this guess by induction. You hear talk about probability in statistics. Probability is merely a second-order induction. It’s an induction on inductions which is guesswork upon guesswork. While we can do better guessing rather than poor guessing, it’s still guesswork. We need to remember that when we describe the world, by making general conclusions about the world, we are guessing. And therefore we must always be ready to admit a fault in our generalizations.
Going on to epistemology. Epistemology is basic. Probably the most fundamental thing to know about any human being is why he believes what he believes. If you can find out where he gets his premises, what the source of his evidence is, you’ve got an understanding of that person. And there are some important things to know about epistemology. It’s important to know for one thing that wherever a man gets his evidence or his premises about the world, he must have preconceptions. Descartes tried desperately to eliminate all pre-conceptions from his mind and get back to his fundamentals. His is a classic case. But it is impossible. He had to assume something. He assumed that he had thought. He didn’t mention the other premise that he assumed, namely that thinking things exist, which enabled him to conclude that he existed. But nevertheless, you have to start with some premises. It is so important to realize that the premises that we adopt always control our inquiry. There is no such thing as starting off with a blank slate in this world, of pretending to be “objective.” We always start with premises, with preconceptions; these control inquiry.
It is important to note that there is no such thing as being strictly empirical. We like to think sometimes that we’re going to the world and being hard and cold about the facts that are there, but we aren’t. There’s no such thing as a hard, cold fact. They don’t exist in the universe. The things we call hard, cold facts are very carefully marshaled bits of evidence which are fully interpreted in the light of prejudices and preconceptions. Hard, cold facts have a way of changing and flipping. It just doesn’t pay to be dogmatic and say “Let’s just go to the evidence.” The evidence frequently is a matter of rationalization. We must pick and choose evidence in this world. It’s impossible to take all of it; and as we begin to pick and choose, we’re not going to the evidence, we’re going to our evidence. And our evidence almost always is what we want to believe. That doesn’t make us very happy, perhaps, but nevertheless, if that’s the way it is we’d better face the nature of the beast.
The world we live in then, the world we think we know, the world we describe when we speak of it as accurately as we can, is a world of construct. It’s a world of imagination something that exists within our minds. There is probably a universe out there somewhere, but the world we live in is within our own skulls. It’s a function of our own imagination. We create it. We invent it. We live in it. We fashion it. Sometimes we’re willing to take account of the things out in the world to change our construct. But all of us have the problem that we cannot afford to believe what our senses tell us. You see our senses are not objective. They are very perspectival. They do not give us the universe as it really is. When you look at railroad tracks and see them converge in the distance your mind must reassure you that they do not actually converge. You cannot afford to believe the way it looks. We must know that the real universe is somehow different from the way it appears. But on the other hand, is what we construct it to be in our minds the truth of the Universe? With proper humility we have to say no. Each of us constructs a universe and then lives in that hoping that somehow there is a sufficient correspondence between our constructed universe and that which actually exists.
Now that which actually exists of course is the domain of metaphysics. And this is again crucial to our thinking–to the way we live our lives. But our metaphysics depends upon our epistemology. How we get our answers deter-mines what we believe about the universe. You hear a lot of noise in metaphysics about idealism and materialism. Many people in the world claim to be materialists–the Marxists for instance, and many of our humanist friends claim to be materialists–their world is material and they base their ideas on evidence; objective evidence about the physical world. The problem with that is that when you examine so-called materialists, when you go into their thinking and ask them what the metaphysical basis of the world really is, you find that what they are telling you is a platonic ideal. I personally have never met a philosopher who claimed he was a materialist who wasn’t an idealist. In other words, the material world he claims to believe in is actually an ideal.
My test for telling whether a person is a genuine materialist or not is simply to ask him if he knows what the universe is. If he says, “No,” he has a chance of being a materialist. I say that simply, because you see, we are so constructed as human beings that our consciousness is within our bodies. We don’t see out through our bodies. What we see is apparently something that is cast on some kind of a screen on the back of our brain. We don’t see in our eyes. We don’t touch in our fingers. We don’t hear in our ears. All these sensations take place in the back of the head; therefore, we never see the world.
We never have any direct contact with that part of the reality of the universe. The “outside world” is a function of the sensory mechanisms of this body plus our imagination. For instance, we don’t visually observe a third dimension in any way, and yet you think you see one, don’t you, as you look at me. You think you see depth. But that’s something that is pure imagination. There is no vision about depth at all, because the eye is a two dimensional surface. It doesn’t project depth at all. There are cues to depth, but the eye projects only two dimensions; and therefore, when we think of the third, it’s strictly imagination. Would that we could know how much more of the universe we think that we directly perceive is also imagination. You see this is one of the tricks of life to figure out how much you’re imagining and how comes through sense. We’ll probably never find out. The one thing we do know is that we don’t see the universe directly; and therefore anybody who pretends to know the truth of the universe is not a materialist. He is assuming that his ideas are the universe, and therefore he is an idealist.
One of the problems in metaphysics is the question concerning how many kinds of things there are in the universe. The popular conception today is monism, the supposition that there is only one basic kind of substance in the universe. I personally find monism to be a rather terrible philosophy, terrible simply because of its many unhappy consequences. People who are monists go around decrying and belaboring the fact that they can’t find any meaningful freedom in the universe. The peculiar thing is that you believe in a monism, if you believe there is only one kind of substance and one kind of law operating in the universe, you cannot have a meaningful concept of freedom. Determinism must govern all pervasively and effectively. That’s a real fatalism. And that’s what people are trapped into if they are consistent monists.
So people who are born and bred in our modern society believing in the scientific approach they’re given to the universe almost always are monists. And it’s not surprising that they grow up believing in monism. In jurisprudence it is thus commonly held that people don’t really have any agency; and therefore, there’s no point in punishing a criminal. You see, what traps them, what keeps them from being free is their preconceptions–their metaphysics. I find that a dualism, or better 3ùet, a pluralism is a better way to conceive the universe. I can’t find any basis for genuine freedom for human beings short of at least three basic kinds of things in the universe. So I’m a pluralist. And using this system of thought, I can make some very meaningful distinctions. The monist might say to me, “But of course that’s your presumption.” Then I simply say back to him, “But monism is only your presumption.” There is no possible way to demonstrate either monism or pluralism. A person believes what he believes about metaphysics simply because he wants to. And the sooner we all find that out and acknowledge it, perhaps we will stop burning people at the stake for their beliefs. I find this a terrible thing to think that human beings could be so ignorant of their own knowledge processes that they would think to take another man’s life because he doesn’t believe like they do. And yet, you see, the inquisition is not dead. We have a social inquisition that goes on in very much the same way in our society today, if you would care to search it out, which has an exact parallel to the inquisition of the sixteenth century.
Going on to ethics. Usually when people talk about ethics they talk about various kinds of goods and so forth. I’d like to just jump over all of that and point out a few things that I think are crucial and fundamental. First of all, when people talk about what good for man really is, they usually make the mistake of assuming that all men are identical. This is a metaphysical assumption. It goes along with monism. But I find it impossible to believe that every human being that I know is cast in exactly the same mold and that ultimately the only differences are differences of particularity of environment. I just can’t find that to be a meaningful way of thinking about human beings. To me, I find that “the good,” that pleases a man, is something quite personal. I don’t believe there is an absolute good in the universe. I think it’s entirely relative and personal to the individual involved. We can’t say what is good for someone else. It is up to every individual to find for himself what is good for himself. I think that one of the great obligations of being an intelligent creature is to cut through all the acculturation we receive in our education and our environment and find out for ourselves what we really like.
But then at the same time I think we need to recognize that good and right are two very different creatures. Usually they are not distinguished. Most philosophers confuse them. The scriptures usually do not differentiate them, but they are two separate questions. I take it that when we have freedom we can do what seemeth to us good, so to speak. But that doesn’t mean we’re right in doing it. I take right to be what we ought to do. It’s a truism that every man will do what is good to him. Ultimately, when he becomes free, he will choose that which pleases him most. You don’t have to worry people doing what’s good, everybody does that. Everybody does his own good. But you see, the real question in ethics is what is right. What “ought” a man to do. Is there any “ought”? I think there is an “ought.” And I think the “ought” is supplied within us. I think the “ought” comes when a person says, “What is my concern in this universe?” If my concern is only my personal pleasure then the only “ought” that I can muster is the “ought” of pleasure.
But on the other hand if I see a genuine concern for other people I take it this is the basic meaning of the word “right”. Right is a social thing. And that the social relations that should govern us so that we can all find our own good or our own happiness is what makes the “right.” This is an objective thing. I think this is absolute. I think it is something that a person must wrestle with if he wishes to have any concern for others, he must come to grips with the fact that when he starts trying to help someone else that is not a subjective thing. He must do what actually helps that other person, And that becomes objective, that becomes universal, that becomes absolute.
So I think that we cannot hide behind the fact that good is relative and pretend that all things are relative. They are not, some are relative and some are absolute.
Going on to religion, I define religion as the way a person orders his life. In the latin relago. It is analogous that every man has a religion. And the religion is simply the pattern by which he lives. Not every man has a church, but every man has a religion. I find it paradoxical that I can hardly find anybody whose professed religion is the same as his actual religion. Most people tell you they believe in one thing and they’ll do quite another. It’s like Chrysler Corporation got into this box a few years ago they went and asked everyone what they would like if they had the ideal car. So people described the ideal car, it was an economy vehicle, no trim on it just the absolute transportation. So they produced it, nobody bought it, because what people really wanted was a plush car with the trim. And that’s what they bought. You see, we are very much that way about religion. We think we believe one thing, we go to great pains to give certain theological answers, but then go out and act entirely as if those answers didn’t exist. As I say, the rarest thing I know among human beings is a being whose professed religion and his actual religion are the same thing. I take it that is one thing philosophy can help a person to achieve. To help him think through what he is doing in connection with what he says and thinks he believes to see if they are all consistent. But that’s a rare bird.
Consistent with this is the idea that every man has a god. The word god is a contraction of the word good. A person’s god is simply his good. There is something in every person’s life which is a greatest good to him. And that’s his god. Again I find it amazing to see how few people who claim that Jesus Christ is their god actually have him as their good. It seldom happens. I think there are a lot of people who would like to. But you see, that’s what I guess the business of repentance is. It’s getting our mind shaped around to where we are consistent. Where we don’t say one thing and profess another.
The word `repentance’ in the Greek is metanoya which means “change your mind.” I find it very enlightening to construe repentance that way. Getting our thinking straightened out is probably the biggest challenge we have in this life. And to think consistently; to get our religion, our god, our goods all lined up and going the same direction; that’s a great achievement.
One problem in the religion that always bothers people is the problem of evil. And I find that I have a conclusion on that subject which not very many people share. My conclusion is with Liebnitz: that this is the best of all possible worlds. I wish we had time to go into this into some detail, because I think that this, when you understand it, becomes a delightful concept. I mean to say by that the universe as we know it, the world we live in today, is the best is could possibly be. Now knowing what you know of the world. I think you’ll find that hard to swallow. I hope you won’t swallow it, of course. But I think you’ll find it hard even to understand that a rational creature could say such. Or a rationalizing creature, pardon me. But nevertheless, I find this to be a deliberate conclusion. To put it very briefly, I happen to believe in a God who is all powerful, and who is good, and who has this world completely in control. If there were any way it could be better, I am convinced he would change it to be that. And since he doesn’t, since he has ordained it to be the way it is, I am convinced that this world is the best of all possible worlds for us. Now I think it will have to change, the world changes from moment to moment in accordance with your actions and my actions. But I think that from moment to moment, especially when you and I do what we know we ought to do, the world continues to be from moment to moment what it ought to be. It is the perfect place for what it is designed to be. Namely, a place to try men’s souls. To purify them, to prepare them. And I find that I cannot fault the Lord in any way, he has done a marvelous job in constructing this world. I am not very happy with many of the things that are going on in it, but nevertheless as I stop and contemplate it philosophically, I have to acknowledge these things that I see happening (and I say this both out of the particulars of my own suffering and the suffering I see others engaged in) I have to admit that God is good. He is achieving marvelous things with all this evil and this suffering that is going on in the world.
A word about science. The basic problem that most people are concerned about in connection with science is the conflict between science and religion. Many people will say there is no conflict, I find myself that there is a vast difference between science and at least LDS religion. I sure there are some religions that are indistinguishable from science. But between LDS religions and science I find a vast difference. However the conflict arises only when one insists upon making science a religion. It’s quite possible to do that. But I don’t find it necessary to make science our religion to be a scientist or to be scientific. We can be perfectly scientific without giving it our ultimate allegiance. Without making “it” that chimerical, mythical “it” (there is really no such thing as science, you know) that is merely an idea in our minds. There are lots of particulars in the world that we catch under this rubric, but there is no such thing as the rubric itself. When a person makes science his god, or his good, I think somehow he is in spiritually trouble (obviously) but intellectual trouble as well. Because he may not be aware what science really is as an enterprise. But that’s where the conflict comes.
A person must declare his allegiance; he must give his allegiance in our church either to the gospel, or to something else. And I find many in our church who give their allegiance to science. And then for them there does become a very definite conflict, they cannot stomach many of the things that go on in the church. Which is the beginning of their departure.
I find there is little true science around. Science is the business, I take it, of reorganizing concepts of the world in order to think of the world more effectively and more economically. Technology, on the other hand, is taking concepts which have been thus formulated and adjusting the world in accordance with them. As I look at science books, I find almost no science in them. They’re almost 100 percent technology. I believe that is one reason why America has never excelled in science. We excel in technology because we teach technology. European institutions do a much better job of teaching scientific thinking; and that’s why most of the great discoveries have come out of European institutions.
Dipping into politics for just a moment; I have a bad time in politics because every time I listen to liberals, I know I’m not one of them. Every time I listen to conservatives, I know I’m not one of them, And both of them think I’m the other. Those labels don’t mean an awful lot. To be very blunt about it and frank with you my own political persuasion is that I’m a revolutionary. I am utterly disgusted with this world the way it is. And I am bound and determined to do something about it. The force of my life and strength is to be spent in changing it. But I’m a little different from most revolutionaries. The battleground for my revolution is within my own breast. I find it a terrible species of temerity for people to launch revolutions to try to force other men to conform to their ideas when they haven’t got themselves straightened out. For some reason I can’t find any sympathy with people who want to go out and burn and shout and force other people. I think that’s a very non- intelligent kind of revolution. I think that if I will put my own heart and mind in shape, then perhaps I can be an asset to this universe. Until then, I’d better stick to home and get the work done. If I ever should become an asset to this universe, then I think I could through persuasion show other people and maybe help them, not by any force, but simply by persuasion, a way that we could better our society and circumstances. To me that is the true revolution.
To go back to what I said about good and right, I think you can do good using force, but never what’s right. Right is always a thing that needs freedom and persuasion. The integrity of the individual must be preserved, or right cannot be involved. And those who would force good upon the world ultimately are simply denying the integrity of the individual.
I think you probably observe in all that I have said that though I have been talking about philosophy, my thoughts have never been far from the gospel. I would find it personally a terrible travesty to have it any other way because I happen to know the gospel is true. For me. I can’t claim it to be true for anyone else, but I know it’s true for me. I know that as my thinking gets better and better, speaking of it in relation to its internal consistency, speaking of it in relation to the evidence I have from the world, that the more my thinking grows and gets better the more it approximates the gospel. What I know from the scriptures and from listening to the brethren. My own propensities force me to bring everything I think professionally in terms with what I know in the gospel. I cannot have two pockets. They must be consistent. My life must be a whole. And so of necessity I continually compare my own thinking and philosophy with what I learn in the gospel, and I find the two complement each other beautifully. They enhance one another. But I must be careful to put one as ultimate, namely that the things of the gospel are ultimate.
Now, one of the problems that bothers a lot of the people in the Church is the fact that we don’t have unity on what we believe. I find this not too disturbing. I can get along very well with a man who disagrees with me as long as he will work beside me in the kingdom, I find it important that we disagree simply for the reason that I know that I haven’t arrived yet and I don’t think he has arrived yet. If we can’t disagree and change our minds, neither of us will come to the truth eventually. The ability to err is also the ability to repent. I’m grateful for the fact that the brethren give us a lot of latitude in this Church to think false doctrine. Where they are strict is on what we do and I think that is just the way it ought to be. If we work together in the Church, if we ever get the priesthood harness on, I think we will come more and more to a unity of the faith. We will come to see eye to eye. I think there will come a day when people will believe exactly the same. That’s the day they become Christ-like. They will have the same opinions on politics and food and recreation. This doesn’t mean they will lose their individuality completely, but they will come to see eye to eye on all things. And I hold this as a great and wonderful goal. But in the meantime, I’m not at all disturbed that we don’t have that. The unity that I think we ought to be concerned about is the unity of our action and support of the brethren in moving forward the work of the kingdom.
Well, as I come to conclude now, I suppose that something I have said has been disagreeable to you. I hope so, because that means you have been thinking for yourself. You could not have had all the experiences I have had in my life, and therefore if you come to my conclusions it’s perhaps unfortunate. You ought to come to the conclusions that your life brings you to. I hope that we will deal with each other in ways that pay more attention to what we do rather than what we say. What a man does is really the measure of what he believes and thinks, not what he says. I hope we all will do good things. I hope we will put our minds and lives in order, some of us think we are so great, let’s see what we can do with it. What kind of happiness we can bring into this world through the struggle that we have to purify and correct ourselves.
Finally, I come down to this point. The only thing that I am sure about in this world that I can really anchor my thought and mind and hope to is Jesus Christ. I know his voice as he speaks to me through the Spirit. And I find that to be most precious. And I would encourage everyone who has a hope in any of the things that the gospel promises to try to come unto the Savior and to live knowing something of his Spirit. That is living. The Spirit is sweet, I don’t know about you, bu I can taste it. It tastes sweet and it is most delightful. I know of nothing more satisfying than to know that I am in accord with him who speaks to me through the Spirit. I’ve never seen him. I hope someday that my faith can be pure enough that I can. But I know that he is good, he is light, he is truth, because of the progress that he has enabled me to make.
And one further thing that I have come to see so clearly in my own life. Namely, that sanity and righteousness are identical and that sin and insanity are identical. I’m not talking about people with organic disturbances that can’t think, but I’m talking about those of us who can think. I’m convinced that when we sin knowingly it is simply because we cannot accept the truth. We are insane. It’s no mistake that Satan is the Father of lies and that the Savior is the truth. He is the truth and the light. He is clarity. He is reality. Satan is an inconsistent deceiver.
In all these things I would simply like to leave you with my testimony. I know the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. I am most grateful for that. And I’m grateful for the chance to associate with you and to say these few words. And I bear my testimony in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
Chauncey C. Riddle Campus Education Week Lectures 12 June 1968
Note: This is the version that Chauncey Riddle handed out in his BYU class.
The basis of establishing Zion is the perfecting of the souls of individuals. As individuals accept the gospel and live it, they become sanctified, which is to say, they are forgiven of their sins, or they are made holy, pure, and spotless. The two basic characteristics of such a person, I would take it, are:
(1) the fact that a person who comes to this state finds that prayer is his greatest asset and resource in his life. He lives by prayer, because through prayer, he gains the strength and help he needs to govern and direct his life according to the will of the Lord;
(2) this person is blessed by the abundance of the spirit of the Lord that is manifest in the gifts of the spirit.
Now there are many spirits and there are people who pray and get the wrong spirit. But as a person takes the time and the opportunity to make sure that he is following the right spirit this will not be a problem.
One of the important ways that we can know that we are not on the track, or have the wrong spirit, is that there is such a thing on the earth as priesthood. When we square in our views, our revelations, with the priesthood authority over us, then we have a right to believe that we are on the right track. Experience will bear this out.
But when a person finds himself going contrary to those who preside over him because of supposed revelation and he insists on believing it is from the Lord, he will go on to his sorrow to discover it is not so, because this is one of the plain, appointed checks the Lord has given that people need not be misled by the wiles of the adversary.
Once a person has understood the basis of the gospel, and has decided to embark on a life of service to the Lord Jesus Christ, a life of righteousness—that is to say, if a person has entered into a strait gate—then they must go along that narrow way and endure to the end. I believe the next big challenge they must face in their lives is to learn to live in the order of the priesthood. Now this is an almost overwhelming challenge. I say almost overwhelming because when we contemplate the greatness of this challenge, it begins to be overwhelming as we understand the importance and magnitude of the task.
We might approach the notion of learning to live in the priesthood order through the doctrine of stewardship.
Stewardship is being given a responsibility by someone where we do not have ownership or right to absolute dominion in our own right, but where we receive it as a charge from someone else who does. It is the nature of our existence that we are stewards. For instance, we do not own the bodies we inhabit. They are not ours. We did not create them; they were created by God and given to us as a stewardship, as a charge. We have been loaned them for the purpose of executing the will of the owner. Nevertheless, it is given unto us to have agency to defy the owner if we will. But, if that is the case, we must reap the consequences of that defiance.
We are given our minds as stewardships. The mind we have is a mind somewhat like the mind of God, except that it is very small, infantile, compared to the adult. Nevertheless, we have intelligence given to us that we can think and act and create and move and accomplish; and also destroy, hurt do evil things according to our own will. But we are given specific instructions by our Maker as to how to use this mind—what to take into it, what to believe, on what basis we should make our decisions.
The talents we might have, whatever they might be, the money we have, the property we might have—everything which the world counts as being in our discretionary power is really not ours. It is only a stewardship from the Lord.
Many people of this world, of course, do not believe in this stewardship, nor accept it. When a person is baptized as a member of this Church, however, this is one thing that they accomplish. They accept the Lord as the owner and governor of all things, and acknowledge themselves as stewards. They take upon themselves the name of Christ, not willing to be known simply as themselves. The important name they bear henceforth is not their own name but the name of their Master, Jesus Christ. They promise that henceforth they will not do their own will, but do His will to keep all of the commandments which He gives unto them. They promise from henceforth that they will not neglect this stewardship, but will remember the Master always, that they might receive His instruction constantly, and be faithful and wise stewards in executing their charge.
Doctrine and Covenants, Section 104, elaborates on this idea. Beginning with verse 11, the Lord says:
It is wisdom in me; therefore, a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall organize yourselves and appoint every man his stewardship; That every man may give an account unto me of the stewardship which is appointed unto him, (DC 104:11–12.)
This, of course, is a very necessary and important part of having been given a stewardship; namely, that we may be called at any moment to account for the stewardship. If we have been doing faithfully and well according to the instructions given by the Master, there will be no regrets. If we have been slothful, if we have procrastinated obedience to the commandments, or if we have been doing our own will instead, then there is considerable reason to fear the presence of the Master.
The scriptures commend to us that if we keep the commandments of the gospel, our confidence shall wax strong in the presence of the Lord, which is simply another way of saying we will be delighted to see Him come at any time to receive accounting of our stewardship. But if we are not ready to give an account of our stewardship, if we cannot say, “Lord, I have faithfully fulfilled Thy will in all things,” it simply means we have not yet fully applied the gospel in our lives.
One of the tests, then, as to whether the gospel is our way of life is if we are ready to account to our Master at any time. Each day is sufficient to its own problems and if we live each day as the Lord would have us do, there would never be a moment of any day when we would not be ready to make that accounting.
For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures. I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine. And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.
And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine, [All things,in heaven and in earth.]
But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low. [Not by force, but by the doctrine of stewardship,]
For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.
We keep hearing about the fact that there is a terrible famine imminent, that the world is about to be overpopulated, or perhaps is now. But these statements are all made by people who know not God. If we understand the nature and the work of God, He has plenty to spare for each of His children. The only reason there ever has been famine on the earth or difficulty or trouble for the children of God is the fact that they have rejected their Maker. They have not been willing to account to Him who is the owner and master of all things. They have not been willing to be stewards. Had they been willing there would have been abundance for all.
Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment, (DC 104:13–18, Italics added.)
Now this particular section relates specifically to the law of consecration practiced in the Church in the early days, but the general principle of stewardship is also there. Let’s read on a little bit in the last part of this section, beginning with verse 54:
And again, a commandment I give unto you concerning your stewardship which I have appointed unto you, Behold all these properties are mine, or else your faith is vain [if there is anything we think we own that does not belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, that simply means that we do not have faith in Him, that He is not our Master, we have not really made the covenant with Him], and ye are found hypocrites, and the covenants which ye have made unto me are broken; And if the properties are mine, then ye are stewards; otherwise ye are not stewards, But, verily I say unto you, I have appointed unto you to be stewards over mine house, even stewards indeed, (DC 104:54–57, Italics added,)
There are some wonderful things about a stewardship. One of the greatest blessings of being a steward for Christ is that we are responsible only for our stewardship. We are not responsible for things that lie outside the boundaries. For instance, supposing we think of our stewardship as a plot of ground. We are not responsible for what goes on anywhere in the world except within the limits of that plot which the Lord has designated as our stewardship. If we are faithful in that stewardship, the Lord might give us a supervisory stewardship not only over our plot but over some of our neighbor’s and their plots, too. And then it will be our great opportunity to be in the chain that blesses these stewards; that is to say, to help them be good stewards in their own area, but we never have to worry about anything except exactly that which the Lord has designated as the boundary of our responsibility. It is not necessary for us to go off dashing throughout the world solving all the world’s problems. We can’t do it anyway. But we can solve the problems of our own stewardship.
Satan, of course, is active in this situation, trying to get people to neglect the matters of their own stewardships and to try to go about solving the problems of other people’s stewardships. By that means he can thoroughly mess up the world. Sometimes we have difficulty getting revelation for our own stewardship, but almost always we think we see clearly what our neighbor should do about his stewardship. But it is important to pause. If we don’t see clearly what we ought to do about our own problem, that will be because we lack the spirit of the Lord, right? And if we lack the spirit of the Lord for our own stewardship, would the Lord ever give us revelation for our neighbor’s stewardship? Obviously not. So if we think we see clearly how to solve our neighbor’s problems and we can’t solve our own, who is telling us how to solve our neighbor’s problems? It obviously is Satan. And he delights to do this. So he goes around fouling up the lines of stewardship changing the markers so that people don’t know where they belong. And so they get out of bounds.
There is a very classic example of this that has influenced people’s thinking and is one of the most misinterpreted circumstances in scripture; this relates to the story of Cain. Cain killed Abel and then the Lord came to Cain and said, “Where is Abel, thy brother?” Cain retorted. “How should I know? Am I my brother’s keeper?” Ordinarily the correct answer to Cain’s question is what? No. The plain answer is that Cain was never given to be Abel’s keeper. A brother is never a keeper. But nevertheless, by taking Abel’s life, Cain had stepped out of his stewardship and had usurped the stewardship of God Himself. He arrogated to himself to be Abel’s keeper. So it is quite appropriate the Lord should come and ask Cain, where Abel was, because Cain had taken it upon himself to become Abel’s keeper, but wrongfully. Cain tried to get out of it by pleading innocence and ignorance of the situation by going back to the standard law that he was not Abel’s keeper. Then the Lord, of course, reminded him that He knew all things by saying, “Thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.” And then Cain started to make lame excuses as to why he had usurped this stewardship.
But you see, it is an interesting thing that Satan has been able to take this little story and ever since then most Christians, most people who read the Bible, have thought they ought to be their brother’s keeper when it was never given it to be that way. Possibly by this little technique more damage has been done in the world than by any other device, because people take this story and say, “Well, I need to be my brother’s keeper,” so they go out of their stewardship and over to their brother’s yard and start fixing up his problems—not by the revelation of God, but by the revelation of Satan.
Every tyrant since the world began has simply been his brother’s keeper. He has been solving problems for his brother that his brother couldn’t solve for himself. If you look in the history books, almost every ruler who has taken great power to himself has done it under the guise of blessing his brothers, whom (he thought) knew not how to take care of themselves. He who had some special gift or insight and was going to bless them and take care of them because they were not wise enough. And 1968 is no different from the time of Stalin or the time of Caesar, or going back to the first tyrant, who was Cain.
You see, it is the same story ever since the beginning of stepping out of the stewardship and trying to solve problems and fix things. If humanity could learn this one lesson, it would go a great way toward solving the problems of humanity. If every man would learn to worry about his own problems and not try to mess up someone else’s life and stewardship, it would greatly free humanity. But apparently we haven’t learned that yet. And so throughout the world we have a continuing series of attempts on the part of people who think they know best how to enlighten the minds of others and to “save” them.
What is a “keeper”? If you lived in a zoo and you had a keeper, what would you have? Somebody who fed you, who closed the gates on you and opened the gates when he wanted to. He would be your master. A keeper is a master. He is the one who calls the shots, who gives the orders, who says what goes on. It was never given in this world that any man should be his brother’s master. Now it is given to some to be masters. But brothers are supposed to treat brothers as brothers and not as masters. A proper relationship of brother to brother is to live together and bear one another’s burdens, which is what Alma says: When my brother suffers, I should go suffer with him. When he rejoices, I should rejoice with him. (Mosiah 18:8–9.)
But I am not to tell him what to do. I am not to instruct him or to chastise him or tell him where to get off. There will be people who will be sent to do that. And they will be masters or keepers. But they will have a specifically appointed stewardship to do that given by the Lord Himself. But it was never appointed that any brother should go around pointing out his brother’s faults to him.
If your brother has a problem, do you go talk to him about it and try to tell him what to do? That is exactly the temptation I am talking about! If the Lord won’t give you revelation for your stewardship, will He for someone else’s stewardship? Now suppose yougo to a friend of yours and say, “I have a problem. Will you help me with this?” What are you doing in that circumstance? You are letting that person be your keeper, temporarily.You are yielding to them a stewardship to counsel you, and in that circumstance, if they are wise they might be able to help you a great deal. If someone asks you for help, then, indeed, it might be perfectly appropriate for you to help. But suppose they don’t ask? Would you, then—nevertheless—give your counsel? If you did, you see, you would be overstepping the bounds of your stewardship.
Who are keepers? Fathers and mothers are keepers. Bishops, stake presidents, general authorities—they are keepers. They have specifically appointed responsibilities and authority over the people over whom they preside. But they cannot get outside that stewardship and do any good! If a stake president goes from one stake into another stake and tries to preside, he does nothing but create havoc!
This is how the Lord orders his kingdom. This is one of the reasons I am talking about this subject. We need to learn the order of priesthood. And until we learn the order of priesthood and learn to live in it—both up and down the line—to honor those who are above us, to respect the stewardship we have below us and faithfully execute our duties, we cannot be Zion. It is not enough for us to be a good person by ourselves. We have to learn to live together in an harmonious arrangement, but the only way that the arrangements can be harmonious is if it is a God-ordered arrangement. This is the purpose of priesthood and stewardship; that everybody will know what his lines of authority are and what his area of responsibility is. Then we don’t get all messed up by doing things that are not appropriate. The Lord’s kingdom is a kingdom of order, and this is the order that we are talking about.
I suppose that much unhappiness and misery has come out of the problem of stewardship between husband and wife with people who are trying to live the gospel as with any other one things. And so I would like to make some suggestions on this which I hope will be helpful in living this relationship.
Basically, there are three stewardship relationships that we have to any human being in the world. For any human being we are either their father or their mother, we are their brother or their sister, or we are their son or their daughter. These are the basic interpersonal relationships that exist between people. Can you think of any relationship that does not fit one of those three?
Now the question: which one of these relationships is the husband-wife relationship? Is it a brother-sister relationship? The answer is no. It never was and never will be intended to be a brother-sister relationship. What relationship is it? It is a father-daughter relationship. All that I am saying is that it is a father-daughter relationship in that the husband presides over the wife and the wife does not preside over the husband. The husband’s stewardship includes the wife, but the wife’s stewardship does not include the husband. Therefore it is a father-daughter relationship in the priesthood.
Because this stewardship relationship is not understood, a great deal of difficulty arises when people try to relate to each other. If people would listen when they take their temple covenants, they would perhaps understand more. But many do not listen and therefore they do not understand how this relationship works.
Any time we have a father or mother relationship with someone, that is, if we preside over them in the authority of the priest hood, our priesthood responsibility is to be instruments in the hands of the Lord to administer His blessings to them. This means to help them to develop as strong, righteous individuals. Whatever it takes to help them develop and grow as strong, righteous individuals—that is the responsibility of one who presides in the priesthood. It is not to dominate, it is not to govern in the usual sense!’ but it is to be a resource of information, of strength, of power, of courage. Whatever is needed that the person cannot furnish himself, he should be able to go to the person over him and get because that person has gone to the Lord and has received. If he cannot get it from that person than he will have to go higher.
God is not slack. God is good, and therefore we all know that we will get what we need if we go higher. But, you see, the people in between will lose their blessings if they don’t give us what we need. And therefore, each of us works at our salvation in part by learning to be a good steward and to be an administrator of good things.
When the Lord comes in the second coming and He finds His steward giving meat in due season, He has found a wise and faithful steward. What does that mean? It simply means this steward is measuring out the blessings of the Lord and giving those in his stewardship what they need when they need it as they need it. That’s the due season—so they can grow, so that they can be nourished spiritually, physically, socially—whatever it takes.
Now the power of God is sufficient for all the needs of human beings, and if we would live under the order of God we would need nothing but the government of God for the perfection of our souls. It would suffice for every need that we have.
The role of the husband, then, is to be a reservoir of God’s goodness, a source of everything that she would need that she cannot herself supply to fulfill her stewardship.
What is her stewardship? Her stewardship is to be a reservoir of God’s goodness, a source, a help, to bless her children. It is the role of the wife to bring children into this world, to bear the souls of men, and to teach them and nurture them. And whatever she needs that she cannot supply herself she should go to her husband to get it. If her children are sick and she cannot heal them with herbs or whatever knowledge and power she has, she should go to her husband and ask of him that his priesthood might be invoked to heal these children. If she needs knowledge as to how to handle them in difficult psychological circumstances, she has the right to go to him and seek counsel as to what she ought to do.
He can fulfill his role only if he is a man of God, only if he is on good enough terms with the Lord so that he, in turn, can go to the Lord and say, “Lord, please tell me what to tell my wife.” Or if he can go to the Lord and say, “Lord, I need power to give this blessing.” If he is a righteous man, the Lord is not slack. He will give the power and the blessing will be delivered, and the mother will be satisfied that her stewardship, then, is in good order. Likewise, the children have a right to go to their mother and to their father to receive the blessings they need. It seems that before we can perfect ourselves in these relationships we must become so strong in the power of the Lord in righteousness that we will never need anything from anybody beneath us in our stewardship. If we have need of something, we always go up the line to get the need fulfilled.
Now let me be specific. When a man becomes what he ought to be as a man of God, he will never need the support of his wife. This doesn’t mean he wouldn’t enjoy it if he had it. But if she chooses not to support him, not to comfort him, not to sustain him, he needs to be able to get along without it. He has to be that strong. It can be a great blessing to him to have that comfort, but he must not need it. The Lord is in that relationship to us. The Lord cannot afford to need you and me. If He did, then we would be boss. We would be lord, if He needed us. Now He is grateful when we are obedient, and when we do the work we are supposed to do we build His kingdom. But He does not need us. If we choose to go on our way and defy Him, He can get along quite nicely without us. He may not have as much glory; He may not be as happy. But He will never have to come begging to us something. He is not in that position.
Similarly, we need to be in that position in the priesthood authority—to delight in receiving support from the meek but never needing it. Again, have you seen others who so desperately needed their children that they will give their children whatever their children want and thereby destroy their children? But if the mother does not need those children, if the mother is secure enough in her relationship with her husband, and on up the line with the Lord, that she doesn’t need the children, then she is in the position to do the very best job with the children that is possible. If the children defy her, she doesn’t have to get on her knees and plead with them to do something. Then she deals from a position of strength. She can deal with them and bless them and discipline them in a way she never could if she had to have their help or their support.
A servant of God is this way in relation to food, for instance. If I need food, then I am not a servant of Christ. If I can get along without food, if I am willing to starve to death, if necessary, then I can be a servant of Christ, but not until then. Because if I need food and I have to have it, then whoever controls my food controls me. And I am not a servant of Christ. I am a servant of whoever controls my food.
Food is a small thing. If I am a servant of Christ, I could care less if I should die tomorrow. What a great blessing and relief that would be. There is nothing in this world that I can afford to need as a servant of Christ except to obey my Lord. And He will see to it that I always have power to do that. There is no one in this universe that can stop me from doing that except Him, and He won’t. Therefore, I need not fear. I will be able to fill my mission and do what I need to do. And if it is my calling to die tomorrow because nobody would give me food anymore, that’s fine. I must not mind.
The same with any other need. We cannot afford to need anything that comes from beneath us in our stewardship. Now, that is pretty strong medicine, I know. But I hope you will, as I said, be sympathetic: in taking it, and you will try to understand what I am saying, because I honestly believe what I am saying is right. On the other hand, you can’t afford to believe me. You have to find out for yourself whether it is right or not.
There were times in the Prophet’s life [Joseph Smith] when he didn’t get the support of his wife. And yet that didn’t stop him from fulfilling his mission. If it had stopped him from fulfilling his mission, he would not have been a servant of Christ. It is that simple.
How can we gain the strength to do this? First of all we must obtain the foundation for being servants of Christ. We have to be servants of Christ: we have to be responsive to Him in the spirit. Then, one of the gifts of the spirit that we will receive is the gift of love. And if these relationships are worked out and perfected in a pure, self-sacrificing, long-suffering love—the pure charity that Paul talks about—it will work. If you try to work this on a hardnosed, puritanistic, business-like arrangement, it will never work. It has to be done in love.
The pure love that I am talking about is strictly a gift of the spirit. Nobody has it naturally. There are some people who are very kind and loving, but their love is not pure until they become servants of Christ and receive that pure gift.
What would you do when somebody over you in authority is not a very good steward? Suppose they are abusing their stewardship. This becomes a real test; this becomes a trial. And I have a very simple formula as to what to do about it. This again is a little drastic: so I hope you will bear with me.
Let me use an analogy. Suppose you had some books that were very valuable to you. You had them in a ten cent box and the box was falling apart. What would you do? You would replace the box wouldn’t you so that you could take care of the books? Suppose that the box was just filled with excelsior—and you didn’t care whether you had the excelsior or not—what would you do? Would you replace the box? Probably not. You would probably let it stay as it is.
All right, now let’s try a different level. Suppose there was a ward where there was a bishop and the bishop was doing a very poor job. He wasn’t a servant of the Lord; he was just riding high and mighty in his authority and power exercising unrighteous dominion. But, suppose the people of the ward were very faithful people and they tried to follow his leadership. What do you suppose the Lord would do to that bishop? He would replace him. On the other hand suppose that the people under the same bishop were slothful and didn’t care what the bishop said; they didn’t do what the bishop said anyway. What would the Lord do about that bishop? Probably nothing. Do you see why?
If you have a bishop you think is wrong, what is the best thing you can do to help that bishop? The best thing you can do is to support him. Do everything he says to do as faithfully as you can. Now, when you do that, if you and the other members of the ward became faithful to that bishop and honored him in his priesthood something powerful would happen to that bishop. Do you have any idea what it would be? The Lord would begin to work upon that bishop, and he would harrow up the soul of that man until he either got in line or He (the Lord) would get rid of him. That is the way it works. But remember there are limits. No person has to follow any bishop to hell. It is within the stewardship of each ward member to be able to inquire of the Lord to find out how and how far to follow that bishop.
But if the people aren’t doing what you say, as the bishop you just go on bumbling along—you, and the people, all the same. It doesn’t then matter, does it?
What is your conscience? It is the spirit of the Lord. I was told by my bishop once to stand at the door of the church and physically throw out a certain person if that person came. That was hard for me to take. But I prayed about it and I got confirmation. Yes, that is what I ought to do. Fortunately, the person didn’t show up.
I have been in that circumstance at least a dozen times, where there was something very important that I was told to do by the presiding authority over me that I didn’t think was right. In every case, when I have gone to the Lord, the Lord has said to do it. Now, I admit, there might be a circumstance where He might say don’t do it. But, if that ever came I would immediately check with the authority over the person speaking to me to find out if I was out of line or if the one I was questioning was out of line. I never yet have been told to go against an authority in the Church, although I have surely wondered sometimes. But as I have sought the will of the Lord the always has been to support that man.
So I believe if a wife has a husband and she doesn’t think he is a very good servant of the Lord, the best thing she can do is to go to the Lord. The Lord will probably say for her to obey him as if he were perfect. That is pretty strong medicine. But that is her stewardship. And if she does that, the Lord is going to get busy on him. The Lord will begin to work on him. The Lord has marvelous ways to bring husbands around. But if the wife isn’t paying any attention to the husband anyway, and the husband isn’t very faithful, and the wife wants the husband to get faithful so that she will have some point in being faithful, it probably will never come to pass.
All of this, of course, pertains to people married in the temple. I am not talking about any other circumstance, because unless people are married in the temple they have no stewardship in marriage. That is to say, their marriage is not appointed of God and is not, strictly speaking in the eyes of the Lord, a marriage.
No woman has to follow any man to hell. You see, the crux of the matter is this. When a girl accepts a man as her husband, she must be willing to accept him as the lord. Now, if she doesn’t think enough of him, if he isn’t that good, she hadn’t better marry him. If he isn’t that grown up yet that he is a servant of God and able to speak for the Lord to her and to be the source of blessing that she needs to fill her role as a wife and mother, she is jumping off the cliff to marry him. If young people would get married right, you see, most of this problem would be eliminated.
Supposing they are already married and she didn’t know this before she got married. Then, what does she do? The solution, generally, is to honor the covenant that has been made, and to serve as righteously and as faithfully, as sweetly and as humbly, as is possible.
If the point comes where the Lord tells her that she ought to depart from him, she can go to her bishop, and if that is right, he will get the same counsel. And there again she is going to those who have stewardship over the matter.
When she gets married in the first place, she ought to counsel with those who have stewardship over her, namely her father and mother. And if a girl has a righteous father and mother and can counsel with them and be assured, both through the spirit of the Lord and through her parents, that she is marrying a man of God who will lead her to exaltation, blessed is she. But I am afraid some marriages aren’t made that way.
How long should a wife endure an unhappy marriage? As long as the Lord directs her to stay with him. She ought to stay with him and be as faithful to him as she can be. Her own salvation rests not on what he does but on how faithful she is in fulfilling her stewardship.
As I have watched couples recently in the Church, I find that one of the biggest problems that active LDS couples are having is that the wife doesn’t think the husband is very righteous and therefore she won’t do what he says. This is the source of endless misery and grief. I believe that as long as the wife is bound by the temple covenant she will do the very best thing by the Lord and by righteousness to obey her husband faithfully. This may be difficult. But, nevertheless, this is the kind of trial and faithfulness in stewardship by which we show that we are worthy of exaltation. If a woman can serve faithfully under an evil man, she surely has demonstrated she can serve faithfully under a righteous man, and some day she will be given a righteous man to be her head and her guide if her husband rejects the opportunity. But I have seen marvelous transformations in brethren when their wives have been faithful. The brethren have seen that there is really some point in being a servant of the Lord, because they have responsibility. When their wife does everything they say, they get a little bit scared lest they tell their wife the wrong thing to do. And being a little bit scared, they get on their knees and ask the Lord, and then they try to become righteous, then mighty and powerful. When their wives come to them for blessings in the priesthood they get shaken up a little bit. So they repent of their sins and try to be righteous. It is marvelous what can happen.
Lehi got a little out of line in the Book of Mormon, and he began to rear up against the Lord for the terrible afflictions they were having. So what did Nephi do? He went to Lehi and asked that he act as the father. He said, “Father, tell me where to go that we might have food?”
Lehi was in no shape to get revelation at all because he had been railing against the Lord, but he had to humble himself and pray to the Lord. He received revelation and he told Nephi where to go and Nephi went and got the meat and they were saved.
Now this is a marvelous principle; the principle of obedience in stewardship. If we can learn to live it, it is one of the great keys in the establishment of Zion.
When a young man marries, his stewardship relationship to his father doesn’t change one bit. When a young lady marries, her stewardship relationship changes drastically. That is to say, she passes from the stewardship of her father to the stewardship of her husband. And that is why there should be agreement by all parties concerned in the stewardship—by the Church, by the father and mother, by the groom, and, of course, on the part of the girl, herself—that this transfer is all right.
The more I learn about marriage the more I see the importance of knowing what we are getting into. Only through perfecting ourselves in these stewardship relationships in marriage can we ever have a faint hope for exaltation. Exaltation is the perfection of the marriage relationship.
We are to become one with Christ—not two, but one. But Christ is the head. We are the hands and the feet. We take our direction from him. We are members of His body. In exactly the same sense as that relationship, the husband and the wife must be one—the husband the head and the wife the body, as it were—but they should function in perfect harmony and unity and love to accomplish the purposes of the family.
Now the purpose of the family is the begetting and rearing of children unto the Lord. If the parents are together, if they are completely united in that particular goal, then they will be greatly blessed by the Lord in executing that task, and they can act as one.
There are also stewardships in political matters. If we have political stewardship, then we become bound as servants of Christ to do His will in that stewardship. President McKay has instructed us as Latter-day Saints to do what we could do to get the principles of Section 121 operative in every stewardship in the world, not just the Church stewardships but the civil stewardships as well. The point is not to operate on the basis of force, but on the basis of persuasion and kindness and love.
When many people get a stewardship, they assume unrighteous dominion; they forget that the powers of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven. The power of heaven through which the power of the priesthood becomes operative is the Holy Ghost, and when any man becomes unrighteous or any woman becomes unrighteous and exercises unrighteous dominion and if they seek to cover their sins and gratify their pride and their vain ambitions, the spirit of the Lord is grieved. And when it is withdrawn from them, amen to their priesthood. They have lost their priesthood and authority. They might be able to get it back, but in anything they do without it, they are exercising unrighteous dominion, they are outside their stewardship, which is another very important thing we want to remember. We can act as stewards only under the direction of the Lord. If we try to do this by ourselves, through our own wisdom, we are simply serving the adversary, which is to say, we have broken the lines of stewardship.
In conclusion, let me simply say, will you please not take anything I have said as the final word. I am here to throw out suggestions to you, but I hope you will find the suggestions worthy of thought and prayer. I hope you will find them valuable in the sense of correct understanding of the relationship the Lord would have us come into.
I bear you my testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And I feel with all my soul the importance and necessity of our making these relationships right in the spirit of the Lord, in the power of the pure love of Christ. And I bear you this testimony in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.