Why the Jedi and Sith need the Book of Mormon

Many Latter-day Saints have written about the unique impact the Book of Mormon has on our theology--how it clarifies and simplifies core Biblical principles like faith, repentance, and baptism, and how it resolves many of Christianity's sectarian feuds. I would like to write about how another conflict could be resolved by the book--the endless war between the Jedi and the Sith.

The light and dark Force-users of the Star Wars galaxy are locked in apparently endless conflict. On one hand, the Jedi believe in setting aside their emotions, perfect self-control, and service to society; on the other, the Sith believe in embracing human passion, seeking power, and putting the self above all others.

Likewise, the Book of Mormon contains conflict between good and evil: Nephites versus Lamanites, believers versus unbelievers, freedom fighters versus tyrants. The basic narrative would resonate deeply with any Jedi and many Sith. But more importantly, there are three basic doctrines that have the power to enlighten the Jedi and redeem the Sith. First, evil weakens personal freedom. Second, we are held accountable to a higher power for our choices. Third, passions should be bridled, not rejected or followed blindly.

The entire Sith philosophy is that unbridled passion is freedom:

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.

Through passion, I gain strength.

Through strength, I gain power.

Through power, I gain victory.

Through victory, my chains are broken.

The Force shall free me.

The Book of Mormon explains why this is not the case: 

And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive... down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

Alma 12:11

In other words, there are mysteries that belong only to those whose hearts are softened, and it is these mysteries that lead to freedom. The dark side, in contrast, leads to the "chains of hell," since the dark side of the Force is more addictive than spice. It is very difficult to stop using the dark side. It takes away your freedom.

It is commonly understood by Force-users that those who die become "one with the Force." They do not speak of this in terms of the common Christian concept of judgment, yet the fact remains that all will be held accountable upon their death.

It was appointed unto men that they must die; and after death, they must come to judgment.

Alma 12:27

This piece of knowledge could be invaluable for Jedi persuading people not to turn to the Dark Side. Indeed, in Alma chapter 30, we have a sample of Alma doing exactly that, persuading the followers of Korihor (who did not believe in judgment after death) to turn back to the way of goodness.

Finally, the Book of Mormon resolves the ages-old debate over passion. Many Jedi object to the Order's teaching that passion is forbidden, that marriage is outlawed, but the only philosophical alternative appears to be the Sith teaching that passion should be embraced completely, without hesitation or self-control. The Book of Mormon provides a vocabulary for a middle ground, rooted firmly in the Light:

See that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love.

Alma 38:12

Imagine how much more powerful (and emotionally healthy) the Jedi would be if they understood this one concept! They would raise families--resulting in greater numbers of Jedi--and they would have humanity's most powerful emotion to strengthen their use of the Force. Their love for each other and for the world at large would become legendary, and they would be known for their sincere goodness, instead of their pride. In short, the Book of Mormon would completely transform their culture, and prevent many from falling to the Dark Side because they wanted to have passion, but did not know how to bridle it.

So, if you ever have a chance to visit a galaxy far, far away, take a few copies of the Book of Mormon with you.

Addendum: I didn't mention how the Book of Mormon's central message--the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ--would affect the Jedi, because I wanted this post to be more silly than sacred. Obviously, accepting Jesus would transform the Jedi and redeem the Sith more powerfully than any of the particular doctrines above.

An LDS Psychology Student's Thoughts on Perfectionism

As a Latter-day Saint who has struggled with anxiety (I've been in therapy and tried medication for it, and I stressed myself out enough on my mission that I only served 10 1/2 months before my body started to give out), and as a Psychology student (I'm not a licensed therapist, but I have gone to graduate school in psychology-related fields), I'd like to share my personal study of perfectionism. I'll begin with three talks and one book that really helped me, and then I'll introduce my own thoughts.

First, Cecil O. Samuelson presented a difference between "doing your best" and "perfectionism." If you're really struggling with this issue, his article is indispensable. I still remember discovering his comparison list at the bottom of the above link, and being floored at how precisely I fit his definition of perfectionism. It was quite a dramatic thing for me. (This isn't terribly important, but there is one inaccurate statement in his article: there's no consensus in the psychological community that perfectionism is a "medical condition." You can't be diagnosed with perfectionism, according to accepted criteria. You can be diagnosed with anxiety, which may center around your fears of failure or imperfection.)

In his article "Perfection Pending," Elder Russell M. Nelson explained the difference between mortal perfection and eternal perfection. We can become perfect at some things in this life, but even Jesus never described himself as "perfect" until after his resurrection. This article is also an essential read. A favorite quote: "When comparing one’s personal performance with the supreme standard of the Lord’s expectation, the reality of imperfection can at times be depressing. My heart goes out to conscientious Saints who, because of their shortcomings, allow feelings of depression to rob them of happiness in life. We all need to remember: men are that they might have joy—not guilt trips!"

The next article, Elder Dallin H. Oaks's "Good, Better, Best," is especially close to my heart, since he gave it while I was a missionary. It's an important principle that I apply to many facets of my life, and it can help tone down perfectionistic anxiety. Just realizing that you didn't make the best choice, but you still made a good choice, can lessen your panic. I wrote a more detailed article about my personal experiences with this a few months after I came home.

A prominent LDS psychotherapist named Wendy Ulrich wrote a book called Weakness Is Not Sin, which explains something very profound. Sin is disobeying God. All other failures are less important to him, and may even be success in his eyes. You didn't get your project done on time? You disappointed a friend? You forgot about one of your goals? That's too bad, but it's not necessarily a sin. Somehow... I made it into adulthood without realizing this. Now, it's a big part of how I deal with failures. First, I ask myself, did I fail God? Or not? Do I need to repent, or just try to do better next time? She did a wonderful job with this book. It's a short read, too.

After reading Elder Nelson's Perfection Pending, and hearing him repeat those insights at a mission fireside, I still felt something missing. I thought and prayed about it, and I came to the following conclusion: there is a difference between perfect obedience and true perfection. I believe that we should never go to the opposite extreme from perfectionism and justify our sins to any degree by saying, "Well, nobody's perfect." (That phrase is a fairly healthy way to respond to weakness, but not to sin.) Instead, we should immediately ask for forgiveness, because perfect obedience is possible in this life. In fact, there are special promises in the Book of Mormon of peace and prosperity to those who "keep the commandments of God." I suspect that those scriptures aren't talking about being mostly obedient, but being 100% obedient, and developing perfectly obedient habits is the work of a lifetime. Find me a scripture that says otherwise. 1 Nephi 3:7 actually confirms that perfect obedience is possible, because of...

The enabling power of grace! This is touched on in the famous works The Infinite Atonement by Tad Callister and The Continuous Atonement by Brad Wilcox, and the apostle Paul never seems to stop talking about it. My first real understanding that Jesus helps us keep the commandments at an internal, psychological level came through a book called Willpower Is Not Enough, and I now make praying for grace part of every self-improvement goal I set, and every repentance process I go through. Without grace, we are nothing. See also: the entire scriptures. For me, perfectionism includes the temptation to be so prideful as to wish that I weren't dependent on the Atonement of Jesus Christ. (Never gonna happen--even perfectly obedient people need the Atonement.)

However, while we take hold of that enabling power, we still have to deal with today's shortcomings somehow. King Benjamin spoke of "retaining a remission of your sins from day to day" (Mosiah 4:26), and the Lord told Alma the Elder, "Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me" (Mosiah 26:30). As long as we are moving forward, God's forgiveness can come today, not after we are perfected. We can have the peace of knowing we are on the right path. This is a sacred topic, and a personal one, yet it is reflected in the sacramental prayers: we covenant that we are willing to keep all the commandments, but we don't claim that we actually do. We do always remember our Savior; we repent when we sin, and we try to do better when we fail.

Various psychologists have divided perfectionism into several dimensions: good and bad, self-focused and other-focused. Good ("adaptive") perfectionism means high standards, challenging goals, and pushing yourself. Bad ("maladaptive") perfectionism means obsessing over failure, being dissatisfied with your performance no matter what, and unrealistic goals. (See also President Samuelson's article at the top of this post.) Self-oriented perfectionism is a strong concern with your own perfection; other-oriented perfectionism is a strong concern with others' perfection. Other-oriented perfectionism involves being judgy and unkind. If you do it, stop it.

As I have transitioned from bad perfectionism to very high (but realistic) expectations for myself, I have found something interesting: when I fail, I can't just fail. I have to take some time to mourn my lost goals. As a perfectionist, I give my heart to my goals, and failing at a big goal feels exactly like a bad breakup. Is something wrong with me? Or with my old goal? Will I ever succeed at anything? Do I still know who I am? Why did this happen? etc. And if I rebound onto a new goal too quickly, I can't really commit. I'm still living in my last failure. Sometime writing my feelings out helps; lots of psychologists recommend a feelings journal to work through things like this.

Anyway, good luck. May the Force Be With You. This is not a perfect ending to a blog post, and I accept that. *takes a deep, calming breath*

Joshua and his TARDIS

(Originally published on our private family blog.)

Since he was old enough to say, "Please," Joshua's been asking to watch Doctor Who. Over the past two weeks, he's taken to acting out the show with vaguely police-box-shaped objects. We've laughed at him pretending an empty Pop Tarts box or container of baby powder is the TARDIS. He likes to hold it up to our window AC unit--apparently the cold air is the time vortex--and make noises he associated with the show, like screaming, pretending the TARDIS is crashing, and saying, "Doctor, wait!"

Today, we reached new heights.

During a visit to Barnes and Noble, we saw a display of Doctor Who collectibles. T-Shirts, sonic screwdrivers, replicas of the TARDIS, the works. Joshua ran up to them, excited, and started saying "Doctor Who!" over and over. He found a soft, toddler-friendly TARDIS and played with it for a while, until we tried to distract him by taking him across the store to the children's book section. He turned around several times and asked for Doctor Who, but we persevered.

Finally, we got to the enormous selection of children's books, with bright colors, toys, and everything a toddler would want.

Joshua immediately booked it in the opposite direction, doing his best to retrace our steps back to the Doctor Who display. We tried to distract him with a book from another TV show he loves, Dinosaur Train; he even has its theme song memorized. But after about 13 seconds, he ran off again--"Doctor Who!" A globe managed to hold his attention for another 20 seconds.

He led us around the store for about ten minutes, searching desperately for the display, and we continued to hope he would forget about it. The depth of his feelings soon surpassed his vocabulary, so he pulled out a word I'd never heard him use before: favorite. "Where is Doctor Who? It's my favorite. Doctor Who? Where are you?"

Finally, he made it to his best guess of where the display should be, maybe twenty feet from where it really was. He ran around in circles for several minutes, calling out for Doctor Who and saying it was his favorite. We took pity on him and led him to the display.

"Doctor Who!" In his excitement, he used another new word: "Perfect!"

He played by the display for another five or ten minutes before the adults got bored. We decided that two new words and staying focused on one thing for 15 minutes was pretty impressive for a two-year-old, and we bought him the soft TARDIS toy.

He hasn't spent more than five minutes without it since.

Fact Check: Republican Party Platform and LDS Teachings

Mark Paredes's attack on the Democratic party has been widely criticized, primarily because he uses his position as a Bishop to imply that Mormons who belong to the Democrat party are not temple worthy, by beginning with the temple recommend question that asks whether the church member belongs to any organization that contradicts Church teachings.

Mark points out that the Democrat platform is opposed to the Church on abortion and same-sex marriage. He then writes, "While the 2012 Republican platform is almost unreadable, at least it does not contain statements that directly contradict LDS teachings." My purpose here is to show that his statement is factually incorrect: the Republican party platform has plenty of statements that contradict the Church's teachings.

The easiest example is immigration. Page 25 of the 2012 Republican Party Platform opposes any amnesty for illegal immigrants, and page 26 calls for "tough penalties," implicitly emphasizing deportation, where the Church statement says, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God. The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."

Another example, ironically, is abortion. Page 33 of the Republican Party Platform states simply, "We stand firmly against it." The platform makes no distinction between abortions after rape or incest, abortions when the child is unlikely to survive, and abortions when the mother is unlikely to survive. Yet The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cites all of these cases as possible examples where abortion may be acceptable. Even Mitt Romney, the Republicans' 2012 presidential nominee and a Latter-day Saint, did not support his own party's platform on the issue.

While not a direct contradiction, it is also worth noting that the Republicans' anti-discrimination statement on page 9 omits any mention of sexual orientation, where the Church has come out in support of sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws for employment and housing. Once again, the Church is more moderate--and more focused on pertinent issues--that the Republican party. In fact, this is one of the Democrats' most poignant criticisms of Republicans: that they fight for traditional marriage, but not for anti-discrimination laws in other areas of life.

Another direct contradiction is the Republicans' declaration, "We are the party of peace through strength" (pg. 39). This is followed by several pages of reasoning for expanding our military capabilities; the party platform, along with most Republicans' personal statements, is filled with the rhetoric of military power and conquering our enemies. But in 1976, President Spencer W. Kimball said:

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53.) We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chr. 20), and when Elisha’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2 Kgs. 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, “And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” (2 Kgs. 6:17.)

First Presidency Message, June 1976

The Church does not support disbanding our military or any such extreme measure. Instead, they unequivocally oppose the sort of military devotion that Republicans proudly espouse. President Kimball went so far as to call it idolatry.

So, yes, the Democrats have issues where the oppose the Church, but so do Republicans. If we were to apply Mark Paredes's final judgment of Harry Reid to staunch Latter-day Saint Republicans, we would conclude that they cannot be men or women of "serious religious faith," that they are an "embarrassment." However, I try to follow Cariadoc's Law: "Do not ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or error."

If you believe that your political party is entirely in line with the gospel of Jesus Christ, or if you believe that your political leaders are more enlightened than the seers who stand at the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then I believe you are simply mistaken. I invite you to exercise your faith, continue to learn through prayer and study, and become someone better.

NOTE: This is not intended to be an in-depth analysis of the entire Republican Platform, which has many other good and bad ideas in it, and I do not claim that one party is more or less in line with LDS teachings than the other. There are scholars who have studied this in much more depth than I have. As for myself, I am a moderate conservative and a registered Republican, so in my last temple recommend interview, I freely admitted that I belonged to an organization that contradicts Church teachings. My fairly liberal bishop agreed with me, but he still gave me a temple recommend.

Economic Class and the American Dream

Upper Class: Lives on the work of others, through investments, ownership of land and corporations, or even slavery.

Upper-Middle Class: Controls their own means of production (like an author, or a small business owner), with enough extra money for savings, education, and charitable donations.

Middle Class: Able to survive without help through their own work, with enough extra money for investments, savings, education, entrepreneurship, and charitable donations.

Lower-Middle Class: Able to survive without help through their own work, but unable to save up or invest in entrepreneurship or education; unable to give to charity.

Lower Class: Unable to survive without help.

Slave Class: Treated as property.

Sometimes people talk about the "American Dream" being someone from the lower classes who rises to the upper class. That's not my dream. My dream is for every American to be in the middle class, and to have the opportunity to rise to the upper-middle class, if that's what they want to do. I think the upper class, lower-middle class, lower class, and slave class will not exist in Zion.

Chastity Does Not Equal Consent

Dear Matt Walsh,

On June 11th, you made a big mistake: you claimed that we can only end rape culture through chastity.

That is horrifying.

Don't get me wrong; I am a huge fan of chastity. Sex is precious, and sacred, and holy, which is why I waited until marriage to have sex, and why I hope others will do the same. Your blog has many uplifting insights into chastity and marriage.

So why am I horrified, you ask? Because chastity is always a choice of two people. It is consensual. Rape, by contrast, is always a choice of one person. There is an inherent contradiction in equating the two.

There is an inevitable implication when you make this logical error. It is that the girl--the victim of rape, the one who usually feels most responsible for sexual sin--will blame herself for being raped. She will think that she needs to dress more modestly to fix rape culture, when modest clothes are not necessarily safer. (I'm told that the safest clothes are the hardest ones to get off the girl's body, regardless of how provocative they are. Tight-fitting short shorts are much safer than sweat pants.)

Obviously, this wasn't your intent. Your intent was to promote chastity--a noble goal, as I've acknowledged.

But it's time for all of us to cease equating chastity with consent, sexual sanctity with sexual agency. They are related but separate issues, and we must teach both to our children. Otherwise, we risk blaming the victims of sexual abuse.

Let me be clear. I understand that you were not trying to blame the victims of rape. You said that rape is a problem, and that chastity is the only solution. Keep in mind that victims of rape are prone to blame themselves already, hence my reaction. If you do not purge this implication completely from your logic, you have not purged rape culture completely from yourself.

Thank you for listening, and may your blog inspire.
Michael Reed Davison