Regarding Tests of Loyalty

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

My wife will be back in a few minutes, so I thought I’d check in really quickly. 😳

I agree with most of your comment, wayfarer, but I thought the last paragraph was really unfair:

Quote:

“The Cheney(bush) administration sought to justify their acts of terror through redefining the definition of torture. Who did they turn to? Jay Scott Bybee, a TBM, who obeyed with exactness, regardless of the logic.”

They turned to one of their top legal analysts, who happened to be LDS. His religion had nothing to do with the assignment. It was given to him because of his professional position. Period. It’s not like they said, “I know. Mr. Bybee is blindly obedient, and it’s because he’s Mormon. Let’s get him to write it, since he has no conscience and therefore won’t object.” I’m pretty sure it was more…. It happens all the time in law – and it’s nearly always framed as “what’s our best legal argument for doing XYZ”.

I get the disdain for what he wrote, but to blame it on his “TBM-ness” is over-the-top, imo, and simply unfair to him.

let’s leave aside the politics so this doesn’t go there.

a loyalty test, as was the case with abraham and isaac, specifically requires the person tested to turn off some aspect of his or her moral compass to prove loyalty. killing isaac would be a patently immoral act — and no matter how you justify it, it develops the ability to justify wrongdoing in the name of rightdoing.

i knew elder bybee in his mission: one of the very finest. wonderful person, through and through. ram rod straight and obedient to the max. Kyle Sampson is also a wonderful person, fine bishop i dealt with in a specific area. people who understand loyalty, obedience, and hierarchy. both were required and trusted to turn off some aspect of their moral compass to achieve a political end required by their leadership. they obeyed without question. i know the situations intimately–there were alternatives, but they chose to obey the wishes of their leadership because they had no choice, and got to their positions by demonstrating, over and over, that their loyalty dominated their choices–they passed tests of loyalty. this loyalty is very powerful–it allows an administration to get work done effeciently and without questions that slow the power down.

loyalty to hierarchy has another name in the gospel: it is called Faith in the Priesthood. the ability af the presiding high priest (“hierarch” in greek) to command and receive in return exact and immediate obedience without thinking (“when the brethren speak, the thinking has been done”), then worlds without number are created. Powerful stuff.

tests of that loyalty are important to train the mind to execute faithfully and immediately. military training is all about that kind of training. all aspects of the test are important, and the outcome is the ability to operate effectively given the conditions of the test. if the test involves fear (the best kind of test, imo), then the trainee learns to operate fearlessly. if the test is about secrecy, then the trainee learns how to keep secrets. if the test involves illogic, then the trainee learns to operate illogically. if the test involves amoral action, as was the case with abraham and isaac, then the trainee learns to operate and justify amorality.

in the military, intelligence, and political fields, the ability to operate fearlessly, secretly, illogically, and amorally without question is a powerful capability. in my opinion, obviously different than yours, bybee and sampson were used by an amoral system that leveraged their training to the max. i do not fault them, but i observe that a person trained on morality or ahinsa (nonviolence) above loyalty would have acted differently.

so to the point: i object to tests of loyalty that reinforce amoral or illogical thinking, as was the case with abraham and isaac. this type of training is perilous and wrong.

[Anonymous]

WF — how do you view Nephi’s slaying of Laban? Do you think Nephi did the right thing in slaying Laban even though it clearly violated his conscience (he shrunk from it)? The analogy is a bit different that Abraham and Isaac, as I don’t believe this was necessarily a practically pointless test for Nephi — there was a purpose behind it (to get the brass plates). But don’t you think that God with his matchless power might have been able to engineer a better solution that allowed Nephi to maintain his moral balance AND achieve the goal? Did Nephi do the right thing by making himself among those classes of people known as murderers in order to get the brass plates?

For example, God spared the Israelites from having to shed any blood to gain their freedom, taking upon this role Himself when He freed them from the grasp of Rameses…

I also want to add that one priesthood leader, I believe it was an early Bishop in my life, told me that if a priesthood leader tells me to do something, and it proves to be wrong, I still get the blessings. Now, he didn’t define “wrong” — whether he meant simply a bad piece of advice, or something morally wrong, but I think that kind of thinking is terribly bad, like you.

I tend to agree that expecting people to act illogically, without first giving logical rationale for the apparently illogical behavior, is not showing a lot of respect for the testee — it treats them like an automoton to be ordered around at will, in spite of their conscience. Earlier Ray quoted the scripture “my ways are not your ways, and my thoughts are not your thoughts” which has often been used as justification for God making decisions that seem wrong to us — taking our logic out of the equation. I have never liked this, because it seems to give God, or even inspired priesthood leaders a license to do whatever they want without giving rationale or accountability. And in my experiences in the Church, I have found this feature — authority and control without accountability comes to the fore regularly, particularly when the Church or a local leader has made an error.

[Anonymous]

I’m sitting at home, sick, so what am I doing? Blogging. 😆

I agree totally with your last comment, wayfarer. I mean that. I agree completely. I’m also on record as saying I would not do something that is contrary to my convictions just because someone in a leadership role told me to do so. I’ve refused to do so enough times in my life that I believe I have some street cred in saying that.

My only point was that Brother Bybee didn’t write that legal argument because he was Mormon. He wrote it because of who he became moving up the ladder in his profession – and, probably, influenced by his natural personality. There are many, many Mormons (even “TBMs”) who wouldn’t have written it, largely because there are many, many Mormons who wouldn’t have climbed that ladder and who have different personalities.

Yes, there is a strong “follow the Prophet” meme in the LDS Church, but there also is a strong “seek personal revelation” meme, as well. Yes, there is an “accept whatever calling is offered” attitude, but there also is the reality that many members turn down callings. In theory it isn’t supposed to happen (in some people’s view), but in reality it happens all the time – and when it does happen there’s nothing a leader can do about it (except stop extending callings to someone, I guess). Again, in practical terms, how much of a punishment / incentive is that for someone who doesn’t want to serve in a calling? That is very different than in Brother Bybee’s situation, and, while I hope and believe I would have refused, I have to separate his professional decision from his church membership.

So, where does that leave me with regard to “tests of loyalty”?

1) I have no problem with the existence of such tests. They are part and parcel of life. They are fundamental to the Gospel we have recorded in ALL of our canonized scriptures, including, perhaps even most obviously and radically, in the NT Gospels. Furthermore, if we want to participate in any organization, and especially if we want to have any leadership role in any organization, there is an important aspect of “proved loyalty” that is inevitable. It’s unavoidable, and I have no problem whatsoever with it.

2) I have a MAJOR problem with such tests if they ask me to set aside my conscience and go against my convictions. I will “flunk” that test gladly.

I think you and I agree on this one – I just didn’t like tying Brother Bybee’s action so exclusively to his religion – and even more exclusively to his philosophical position within that religion. Yes, it’s a problem in the Church – but that’s because being human is a problem in the Church, and this issue is central to our existence as humans, imo.

[Anonymous]

SD, I see the story of Nephi and Laban as Nephi’s justification for his action. Period.

Honestly, if Nephi was committed to getting the plates and not getting his family killed in the process, that might have been his only option. He’d tried everything else, and he’d been robbed and threatened with death or imprisonment. Now, here he was, following his instincts / promptings / whatever, and there was Laban – so drunk he was passed out. Nephi had two choices:

1) Do what he did without killing Laban.

Possible, but very risky. When Laban woke up naked, returned to his home and discovered the plates gone, he would know exactly what had happened – no doubts whatsoever. He would have raised a force to pursue Nephi and his family, almost surely found them, and wiped them out. With Nephi’s family having only a day or less lead time, that is the logical outcome.

I think that is vital to consider, especially when trying to understand why he killed Laban.

2) Kill Laban – and do it by chopping off his head.

Laban was a drunk. This probably wasn’t a rare occurrence, meaning when his body was discovered and identified most people would probably say, “It finally happened. I told him he’d be sorry at some point.” There is a good chance nobody would associate this death with Nephi and his family, since a man like that had to have had enemies – and taking Zoram with them easily could have shifted the focus of the investigation onto him. Even if Nephi and his brothers were considered, it wouldn’t be the immediate assumption – and I really think it probably didn’t cross anyone’s minds, given all the other possibilities.

Also, by chopping off Laban’s head (and, presumably, by hiding it away from the body), the identification process would take longer – perhaps much longer. That would give Nephi’s family more time to make their escape, thus greatly increasing the likelihood that they actually would escape – even if they were pursued eventually.

3) Iow, I see Nephi’s actions as his logical conclusions in the moment.

Assuming he was the type of visionary person he describes in his record, I also see him justifying his actions in religious terms – and attributing his thought process to inspiration. (It might have been. I’m not going there. There is no way for me to know, so I’m sticking purely to a logical analysis.) I have a bit of a problem justifying murder to get the plates, but so did Nephi, based on his own words. Therefore, in order to follow through with his plan to obtain the plates, he had to construct an argument that was legal (verse 11 says it really wasn’t murder), philosophical (verse 13 makes it a “humane” decision to sacrifice one person for the good of a larger group) and religious (verses 14-17 solidify it as keeping the commandment of God). (It’s also important, I think, to remember that the account probably was written LONG after the fact, after Nephi had decades to hone his reasoning. I’m not saying it would have been intentional, but we all know that such memories get shaped over time.)

I can’t reject the legal argument, if I remove myself from our modern outlook and put myself in his shoes in that culture; the philosophical argument was solidly part of his culture, and we even use it now in times of warfare (or, for example, in the case of an abortion to save the life of the mother, who, by living, can “save” her family in very practical terms – or when we excommunicate someone who truly is stirring up active and virulent apostasy within the Church, like someone who is trying to recruit for a polygamous sect among a congregation); the command aspect is the most “iffy”, imo – especially since he personally didn’t receive the command but was trusting that his father had received it from God. That final aspect is what I think fits the Abraham and Isaac situation the most closely.

When I read 1 Nephi 4, I see someone who had an objective in mind and had to figure out how to justify accomplishing that objective in a way that he had never considered previously. Iow, he didn’t go into the excursion to get the plates thinking he might have to kill someone. The thought probably never crossed his mind. Faced suddenly with the realization that, if he REALLY was serious about getting the plates, the best course of action was going to be killing Laban, he took the time to construct a legal, philosophical and religious argument for doing so.

In that sense, if God really did want them to have the plates, Nephi did what he thought he had to do to get them – and, while I believe he might have “failed the test” in a very real way (by not considering other approaches that might have had the same result), he only had a minute or two to decide. I might not like what he did, but I have a hard time condemning him for a quick decision in a time of great stress from the luxury of almost forty years of reading his account.

Finally, in reading the rest of his account, I think that decision haunted him all his life, despite his justification for it – and I think that might be the greatest lesson we can take from it.

[Anonymous]

bridget_night wrote:

How many lds members are like the followers of David Koresh, or Jeff Warren’s?

Hey Bridget. Recently a GOP legislator said that Paul Joseph Goebbels (the Nazi propaganda minister) would have been jealous of the US Democratic Parties PR spin machine. He claims (after a bunch of groups cried foul) that he was just using Goebbels from the perspective of a talented propagandist that would appreciate the masterful job the Democrats are doing. Whatever this politician’s intentions were, Goebbels’ name brings the image of evil to mind much more strongly than “talented propagandist”. The same could be said for Davis Koresh and Warren Jeffs.

Perhaps this question would be less controversial as, “How many LDS members are like those who followed Sampson Avard (founder of the Danites) and John D. Lee (prominent role in MMM).

But in all of these circumstances (Avard, Lee, Koresh, and Jeffs) there was a sense of persecution, small subculture groups on the fringes of society, heightened group think, and also an impending millennium.

wayfarer wrote:

tests of that loyalty are important to train the mind to execute faithfully and immediately. Military training is all about that kind of training.

The military has a sense of persecution of a sort. There is no time for questioning as questioning may get people killed.

I think that if you are asking how many modern LDS would join secret bands of avenging marauders to burn down the towns of the enemy (Avard), or kill a group of pioneers/tourists that may represent enemy spies (Lee), or give our daughters in polyandrous marriages to our spiritual leader (Koresh and Jeffs), or leave our current spouses to be reassigned a new spouse by the spiritual leader (Koresh and Jeffs), or even just sell everything you own to relocate to a new area (multiple examples) – I think the answer would be very few.

In saying this I don’t think that we are necessarily better than they or that we have “evolved.” I just think that our situations are different:

1) We belong to a comparatively large group. While we are still a subculture, we are no longer small nor necessarily on the fringes of society. One could argue that we have gone mainstream.

2) We are not exactly being persecuted.

3) (Especially as you depart from the Utah corridor, but even there) Members have frequent and prolonged contact to “outsiders” and this serves to blunt the group think.

4) Have I mentioned how much I love President Packer’s recent statement on the millennium? “Sometimes you might be tempted to think as I did from time to time in my youth: “The way things are going, the world’s going to be over with. The end of the world is going to come before I get to where I should be.” Not so! You can look forward to doing it right—getting married, having a family, seeing your children and grandchildren, maybe even great-grandchildren.” A belief in an imminent and impending millennium often provides context to suspend normal rules of conduct.

So to summarize, I would find it very difficult the theorize how I myself would react if placed in the same position (meaning exact same position, having had the same experiences and understandings as they did up until that point in their lives) let alone how other LDS members might react.

[Anonymous]

On a slightly different take:

Old Timer wrote:

I probably will do whatever I personally believe God is telling me to do – but if it’s illegal or something that goes totally against my deep convictions, I’ll probably need a vision or more to believe it’s coming from God. [snip & splice] Yes, there is a strong “follow the Prophet” meme in the LDS Church, but there also is a strong “seek personal revelation” meme, as well.

I think what Curt is saying is very similar to what I had once written here:

Quote:

I am reminded of an Interfaith Gospel Study Group discussion that had some similarities. The subject was Romans 13:1-7 where it says that the government is ordained of God and you should obey it or face God’s wrath.

I expressed how I would feel more comfortable with the phrase “the authorities that exist are permitted by God” rather than “the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” That did not go over well with the Bible inerrancy crowd 😮 😯

What followed was a pretty good discussion where I did not get burned at the stake.

The meat of it was that if you personally disagree with some government action then you should appeal. This appeal can take many forms but the most productive involve voting, writing congress, starting petition, file a lawsuit, etc. If you get no satisfaction at one level you can usually appeal to the next. Your disagreement however, does not justify you in open rebellion and defiance of law.

That is all well and good for people who live under a democratic government with avenues for appeal, but what about dictatorships and others that oppress the citizenry. Think Nazi Germany!

If there are no avenues of appeal and your conscience goes against the establishment, there remains one last appeal- one that can never be stripped of you. Appeal to God. This is what I think some few Christians did in refused to become accomplices to the holocaust, some of which even lost their lives in helping their Jewish brothers and sisters.

So to bring it full circle…

If your priesthood leader (or anyone else) instructs you to do something that goes against the whisperings of the Holy Ghost and the Light of Christ within you, Appeal!

And if that fails… Go with the Light of Christ!

In the event that personal revelation confirms the instruction of the priesthood leader, a choice will still need to be made. But at that point whatever the individual decides (even if it is to go along with the group), it can no longer be classified as “blind obedience.” It was a very personal and possibly soul wrenching decision.

And Curt … Your street cred is always good with me… but on the street we refer to you as Big Pappa D!

[Anonymous]

But when I hear of Nephi’s “test” — [if it was one] — a quotation from Spencer W. Kimball comes to mind from the Miracle of Forgiveness. He mentions that although a person can be forgiven, someone guilty of “hienous sin” can’t serve as a Bishop or Stake President. So, how can Nephi become a Prophet after being guilty of murder — assuming he was acting on the basis of his own juddgment and conscience as Ray suggests?

[Anonymous]

He was the family leader at that point, so he could be whatever he wanted to be. As the saying goes, “It’s good to be king.” :shh:

Also, there was no church, so he didn’t have to worry about the standards to be called as a Bishop. Prophets did all sorts of things back in the day that Bishops can’t do now. :silent:

[Anonymous]

I am bumping up this post due to its inclusion of an extensive discussion about Nephi killing Laban – and because I said I would in another current post.

[Anonymous]

Since this thread has been made available in the queue, I want to ask a question.

I find it interesting to interpret the test as one that Abraham has failed. But what I don’t get is this. If Abraham failed the test, then why did the Lord bless Abraham with the Abrahamic Covenant afterwards? Could someone help me understand how the blessings that flowed from the Abraham/Isaac experience came to be if you believe Abraham failed the test?

[Anonymous]

Did Adam and Eve pass or fail their test?

Was what happened as a result a blessing or a curse?

We’re all sinners, failing a test of sorts, yet we have been blessed with the atonement.

Another take…

If Abraham was good enough to pass the test, why would he need a blessing? The blessing could have been to make up for Abraham’s shortcomings.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Did Adam and Eve pass or fail their test?

Was what happened as a result a blessing or a curse?

We’re all sinners, failing a test of sorts, yet we have been blessed with the atonement.

Another take…

If Abraham was good enough to pass the test, why would he need a blessing? The blessing could have been to make up for Abraham’s shortcomings.

My understanding is that Abraham was given the test. He was about to follow through and sacrifice his only son. God intervened by providing a goat for the sacrifice. Then, God congratulated Abraham and gave him the blessing of descendents as numerous as the sands of the sea and many other blessings.

So Abraham didn’t NEED a blessing, he was GIVEN additional blessings for his apparent loyalty in carrying out God’s will. If you accept the interpretation that God tested Abraham’s loyalty, and Abraham passed, it makes sense that God would then reward Abraham with the Abrahamic Covenant. If you accept the interpretation that Abraham failed the test, then it makes no sense that God would follow up with the Abrahamic covenent and reap blessings on Abraham for failing a test. We don’t reward failure to pass tests, we reward the passing of tests.

The fact that God bestowed a big blessing on Abraham for being willing to sacrifice his Son seems to make the interetation that Abraham failed the test a non-starter. Perhaps Curt can clarify how the failed test interpretation and the subsequent blessing of Abraham with benefits of the Abrahamic Covenant can co-exist.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

So Abraham didn’t NEED a blessing, he was GIVEN additional blessings for his apparent loyalty in carrying out God’s will. If you accept the interpretation that God tested Abraham’s loyalty, and Abraham passed, it makes sense that God would then reward Abraham with the Abrahamic Covenant. If you accept the interpretation that Abraham failed the test, then it makes no sense that God would follow up with the Abrahamic covenent and reap blessings on Abraham for failing a test. We don’t reward failure to pass tests, we reward the passing of tests.

The fact that God bestowed a big blessing on Abraham for being willing to sacrifice his Son seems to make the interetation that Abraham failed the test a non-starter. Perhaps Old-Timer can clarify how the failed test interpretation and the subsequent blessing of Abraham with benefits of the Abrahamic Covenant can co-exist.

Like most things, I don’t think it’s quite so black and white. It’s quite possible the story has been altered and things didn’t happen the way they are depicted in the story. It is possible that Abraham could have “regressed” to some local traditions of the day (human sacrifice) and was about to participate in that ritual when God stopped him. Or perhaps God didn’t stop him, perhaps he came to his senses and realized what a stupid idea it was. Maybe none of it happened and Abraham (the only primary source) made it all up or someone else made it all up. With the ambiguity of most scripture I don’t think we can take the story at face value. How do we even know there is a covenant?

As to blessings/obedience/sin, if sinners weren’t ever given blessings no one would ever get blessings. Joseph Smith had many faults – but was still blessed in many ways, including being a prophet.

[Anonymous]

You are correct that this is traditionally presented as a test of loyalty. I understand that God knows everything and does not need to test our loyalty. He can see what is in our heart. But the narrative is what it is and has been for at least the last 1000 years.

DarkJedi wrote:

Like most things, I don’t think it’s quite so black and white. It’s quite possible the story has been altered and things didn’t happen the way they are depicted in the story. It is possible that Abraham could have “regressed” to some local traditions of the day (human sacrifice) and was about to participate in that ritual when God stopped him. Or perhaps God didn’t stop him, perhaps he came to his senses and realized what a stupid idea it was. Maybe none of it happened and Abraham (the only primary source) made it all up or someone else made it all up. With the ambiguity of most scripture I don’t think we can take the story at face value. How do we even know there is a covenant?

I look at the story of Jacob (Abraham’s grandson) and how he and his mother decided to trick his father into giving him the birthright over his brother Esau. That story is full of moral ambiguities, and that’s the version that Jacob and his descendants went with. How would the story be different from the side of Esau and his family?

For me personally I desire to remain LDS. There are certain aspects of LDS interpretation that do not sit well with me. If I were to take it as an “all or nothing” “Take it or leave it” proposition then I would likely leave it behind. It has been helpful to me to give myself the freedom to reframe and reinterpret those things I disagree with. This allows me to create a version of Mormonism in my mind which I can support. This is a perfect example. I do not believe that God would ask his servant to murder his son. Period. End of Story. The beauty of it is that I do not have to. I can change the narrative to fit my conscience.

This will not sit well with some people. They take the approach that it is all true or none of it is. Therefore, they need it to all be true. I see this as a shaky position to be in (if anything is proven false, their whole world collapses). They tend to maintain that position with what might be called mental gymnastics. I do not begrudge them holding their position. I did the same once.

It is ok. We all build our assumptive worlds. My assumptive world is not quite reality. Neither is yours or anyone else’s. That is ok.

[Anonymous]

I agree, Roy. The only way I’ve been able to “reconcile” and stay a member is through my recognition it’s not all or nothing a there are many paradoxes and “ands” as opposed to “or.” This also fits with another current thread, but paraphrasing Steinbeck, now that I don’t have to be perfect I can be good.

[Author]

Posts