Denying Your Faith

[Anonymous]

I was recently asked the question: “If you were told that if you did not deny your faith, you would be tortured, would you deny your faith?” I thought about it and asked some clarifying questions. There are certainly some facets of traditional positions on LDS faith that I would quickly deny to avoid even the slightest discomfort. I suppose he did ask if I would deny “my” faith which is extremely subjective. I was then specifically asked if I would deny Christ to avoid torture. I said no, probably not, but after the hypothetical torture began who knows? The follow up question was if I would deny Christ if it meant others would be spared torture. This was an easier question. Yes, I would. In concordance with President Kimball’s interpretation (and I’m sure he’s not the first) I believe Peter was commanded “thou shalt deny me thrice.” He risked his life cutting​ a man’s ear off defending the name he would deny hours later. It doesn’t seem to add up. So my question is, how do we reconcile this interpretation with “whosoever will deny me before men, him will I also deny before my father”? Are there situations where denying Christ is preferred by God even in our unapostolic lives?

[Anonymous]

A more general way to phrase this question is “When is it right to hide in the closet, and when is it right to come out?” Although the phrases “in the closet” and “coming out” are usually used in context of the LGBT community, the general ideas work whenever you’re talking about hiding a part of who you are verses living authentically.

In general, it’s much healthier to be able to be open about yourself, your beliefs, etc. For LGBT people, staying closeted can lead to Dissociative Identity Disorder (separating experiences and desires from identity – living a double-life outside of conscious awareness), depression, self-hatred, drug abuse, etc. Obviously with the general, non-queer concept of being closeted, you don’t get exactly the same problems, but the same principle applies. It’s bad for self-esteem and puts you at higher risk of depression. This may not be quite what Christ means by “whosoever will deny me before men, him will I also deny before my father”, but there’s the common thread of hiding things that are important to you leading to bad consequences.

However, like you said, there are times where it’s better to be closeted: when your or someone else’s safety is on the line. If you’re gay, dependent on your parents, and coming out puts you at risk of being kicked out onto the streets, don’t come out. Of course the negative consequences of being in the closet are still there, so you should be trying to get to the point where you can come out, but it isn’t right at that time. I see the religious closet in the same way. Weigh the pros and cons. Token heroics don’t make sense if you can find a way to actually make a difference.

[Anonymous]

First off, I think it’s impossible to know what we’ll do in a particular circumstance until we’re actually in the situation.

To your point about Peter denying Christ, I know others who believe the statement from Christ about denying him was a command rather than a prediction. I can go either way, I do think it’s plausible that it was a command. I also think the command could have been to deny Jesus the person as opposed to Jesus the Christ. Peter’s actual denial statements seem to offer some support for that theory.

Quote:

So my question is, how do we reconcile this interpretation with “whosoever will deny me before men, him will I also deny before my father”? Are there situations where denying Christ is preferred by God even in our unapostolic lives?

Good question. We can’t know every situation that we will be confronted with, but if we believe Christ we believe he understands. It is therefore possible that there could be circumstances under which denying Christ (or denying Jesus the person) might be preferable to the alternative.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi, I agree that we can’t know how we would respond to hypothetical situations. Very little is certain in real life. Nothing is certain in the hypothetical. I also agree in that I believe Christ would understand if we chose to verbally deny Him to avoid severe consequence. After all, He is much more concerned with our hearts than our lips. But what about the martyrs whom we glorify? This question brings us to a seemingly timeless question of religion. How much is enough? Where is the line between consecration and lunacy? When is it appropriate to sell all of your belongings to feed the starving and when is it insane? Is it ever insane?

[Anonymous]

People tend to want simple, black-and-white answers – to be “commanded in all things”. In reality, we all live in the middle somewhere if our lives our healthy to any degree.

I will not deny my faith (my personal faith), and I will not make sweeping denials of my communal faith – unless circumstances are such that I believe it is a greater good to do so. I don’t see that as wishy-washy or weak; I actually see it as requiring more strength and dedication, since it forces me to consider the question constantly. I understand completely and agree with the advice to decide in advance how you will react to certain situations, since that does make it easier to do the right thing in difficult situations. I simply believe there are exceptions to every rule, so I have to keep open the possibility that a particular situation might cause me to act differently than my pre-decided default.

Of course, it helps that I do not want or like simple, black-and-white, all-encompassing answers.

[Anonymous]

I tend to lean toward: “it would be better to deny Christ in words than actions.”

[Anonymous]

TheBiologist wrote:

If you were told that if you did not deny your faith, you would be tortured, would you deny your faith?

I wonder what people are really communicating when they ask that sort of question. Is it an attempt to find out what tribe someone belongs to? Is it an attempt to measure a fellow tribe member’s commitment level to the tribe? In this case I find the motives behind the question to be more interesting than the answer someone might give.

Allow me to borrow from Douglas Adams.

Quote:

“Alright,” said Ford. “How would you react if I said that I’m not from Guildford after all, but from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse?”

Arthur shrugged in a so-so sort of way. “I don’t know,” he said, taking a pull of beer. “Why — do you think it’s the sort of thing you’re likely to say?”

How would you react if I said that I’d torture you if you did not deny your faith, would you deny your faith?

I don’t know. Are you going to torture me if I deny my faith?

– – –

I can’t believe I’m dusting this quote off again but here’s another point to consider:

Joseph Smith wrote:

I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm yet deals justice to his neighbors and mercifully deals his substance to the poor, than the long, smooth-faced hypocrite.

To me the answer to the question is immaterial, it’s more about how you live your life. What would the would-be torturer appreciate more, a person that did not deny Christ but did evil or a person that denied Christ but did good? Would the answer be different for different would-be torturers?

Then there’s the question that I assume would eat at the would-be torturer. Did they only say they denied Christ out of coercion or do they really deny Christ?

This also goes back to the motives of the person asking the question. Deny Brahma or be tortured. Deny Buddha or be tortured. Deny the Great Spirit or be tortured. At its roots, does it all go back to the same thing? I’m committed to live a good life. Or I’m committed to my tribe. Or whatever.

Would I deny my faith to avoid torture? Hell, I’ve denied my faith many times during my lifetime and I hope to deny it many more times to come. I don’t have the same faith I had when I was 10 years old. Do I deny the faith of my 10 year old self? I could ask similar questions of my faith in my 20s, 30s, 40s. Faith evolves… and I’ve found that shedding skin isn’t always a comfortable process… so I guess that means I “deny” my faith and get tortured. Best of both worlds!

I’m reminded of how the church has changed the words to The Battle Hymn of the Republic (not people’s favorite, I know) from “As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free!” to “As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free!” We like to think of displaying our commitment levels in terms of death and suffering instead of in terms of life and experiencing joy. It’s a shame.

TheBiologist wrote:

So my question is, how do we reconcile this interpretation with “whosoever will deny me before men, him will I also deny before my father”?

Jesus wasn’t perfect.

Plus I kinda feel like a guy that doesn’t want people drinking tea because of tea’s harmful effects on our bodies would be cool if we denied him to avoid having our bodies beat to a pulp. I could be wrong. Nah, I’m likely wrong. Life has shown me that I never get these things right.

[Anonymous]

TheBiologist wrote:

“If you were told that if you did not deny your faith, you would be tortured, would you deny your faith?”

No, i would not deny my faith.

The Biologist wrote:

“my” faith which is extremely subjective.

…I was thinking the same thing.

I’ve had similar discussions like this…such as…”would you pull a handcart in the Martin Handcart company, suffering starvation and risk of freezing to death, to keep your faith?”

I seem to think I would, and is usually what I respond with. Perhaps it depends on the purpose of the discussion and intent of what is being asked, and who I’m talking with. I mean, there is no wrong answer, it is just an exercise in the hypothetical…so…the answer would be whatever fits best for conveying meaning in that context. The discussion is what is important (or unimportant, depending on how you value it).

Sometimes…those are gruesome hypotheticals to think about. Eeek! 😯

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Plus I kinda feel like a guy that doesn’t want people drinking tea because of tea’s harmful effects on our bodies would be cool if we denied him to avoid having our bodies beat to a pulp. I could be wrong. Nah, I’m likely wrong. Life has shown me that I never get these things right.

Haha…I had to read that line 2 or 3 times to catch up to your thought process (I’m slow)…but ya…that is another part of this that is kinda interesting…if your faith is that God (or Christ) is a logical and rational being…then…wouldn’t you kinda think he would “be cool if we denied him” over some huge drastic outcome that could be avoided?

In today’s society…it kinda seems like…”just deny it or say whatever you need to in order to avoid a drastic outcome. Be smart about it, God understands”. Or perhaps the argument is something like…a spy caught and tortured that reveals secrets is not a traitor…it would be better if he was strong to hold out, but I mean…you can’t blame the guy if he was going to be tortured or his family tortured in front of him. Right?

And if we think that way…wouldn’t an ultimate supreme being of the universe be totally ok with “you denied me, but under those circumstances…I understand.” ??? Doesn’t that make rational sense? I mean…why is he so pre-occupied with us not denying him under any circumstance whatsoever? Is that really that important to him?

Yet…we have the bible and the crucifixion, and the tortures, and the Book of Mormon and Alma and Amulek watching women and children burned.

Quote:

Alma 60:

13 For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked; therefore ye need not suppose that the righteous are lost because they are slain; but behold, they do enter into the rest of the Lord their God.

There are many teachings we get that seem to make God a god of curious judgments…who needs the suffering to have a case against wicked people. The teachings don’t seem to justify “intent of your heart” is good enough. You have to suffer for the righteous cause. And on the flip side, intentions to do evil aren’t enough to pass judgment on the wicked…they have to show their wicked acts so God can see they mean it.

It doesn’t seem to make sense to me.

Unless people are just using these stories to try to make suffering and torture have a purpose in their minds, regardless of God judging your heart and intentions. Which brings us back to hypotheticals, and brings me back to answering the best way based on what we’re talking about and who I’m talking to and what story is being presented.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I’ve had similar discussions like this…such as…”would you pull a handcart in the Martin Handcart company, suffering starvation and risk of freezing to death, to keep your faith?”

I’m hung up on the mechanism of action, here. “Pull this handcart or I’ll read you the gospel topics essays,” maybe?

[Anonymous]

Reuben wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

I’ve had similar discussions like this…such as…”would you pull a handcart in the Martin Handcart company, suffering starvation and risk of freezing to death, to keep your faith?”

I’m hung up on the mechanism of action, here. “Pull this handcart or I’ll read you the gospel topics essays,” maybe?

pull this handcart or….you’ll never have salvation. maybe?

or maybe it was “Pull this handcart or deal with the neighbors” ???

[Anonymous]

To the whole handcart/crossing the plains idea I have also wondered if I lived at that time what I would have done. The remnant that remained in Missouri survived and I like how their theology has evolved for the most part. I rather think that I would have crossed the plains but may not have been all in if I survived to get there (and Brother Brigham would have sent me to a far off settlement and I would have been fine with that).

[Anonymous]

I’m fairly certain I would have gone to cross the plains, and died along the way, and not kept a journal, and no one would have known me or cared. That’s probably the most likely.

[Anonymous]

I am not the sort of person that would resist. I watch movies about inspiring people that gave everything for their cause.

In Flash of Genius Robert Kearns pretty much lost his family (wife left, children estranged) in his drive for vindication. When it finally came it seemed to me a pyrrhic victory.

More on point, Sir/Saint Thomas More was opposed to the protestant reformation. He was against leaving the catholic church and making king Henry the supreme leader of the Church of England. He was convicted of treason and beheaded. We Mormons tend to favor the reformers that laid the groundwork for the restoration. What about this individual so full of integrity and convictions that he died rather than consent to a departure from the catholic church? Does God recognize his sacrifice – even if it was contrary to “the divine plan.”?

So yeah, when we talk of torture or freezing babies along the frozen plains I am much more pragmatic in personality.

I get that some/many people are not like me and take great meaning in seeing a higher purpose and grander scheme beyond this earth life. That is good and I am glad for them. I am just not a “stay the course come hell or high water” type of person. That is where I find value.

[Anonymous]

With how I feel about our religion now, I’d be happy to deny much of it in favor of personal comfort, living a happy life without the torture. Happiness is the object and design of our existence, how does simply saying you don’t believe it, even when you do, equate to misery if it spares you of pain, disability, and death? I other words, how does affirming the faith, thus incurring pain and perhaps disability garner happiness? Particularly when everyone will eventually know you were forced into it?

Remember the war in Iraq? The Iraqi’s took American soldiers and then made them condemn the aggression against Iraq on television. I don’t think anyone blamed those soldiers for “denying the nation” in those circumstances. They knew the soldiers were forced into it.

But if they asked me to rape someone, or do harm to someone else, on threat of personal torture if I did not comply, I would probably subject myself to the torture and live with the consequences.

[Author]

Posts