Bad Boys
Posted by C Jones on April 12th, 2006
Do Americans love Bad Boys? I don’t mean the stumbling drug-dealers featured in cop shows, but from James Dean to Bill Clinton, and every rock or rap star in between, all the way to the Detroit Pistons, we seem to love our bad boys.
What does this say about us? Does everyone have a rebellious streak of some kind? Is being a rebel a good thing or a bad thing?
America is a country founded on rebellion and revolution. So being a rebel can be a good thing sometimes, right? But what is our attraction to those who thrive on breaking the rules? Do we admire their courage, or do we envy their seeming freedom from responsibility?
I know that I have some rebellious tendencies in some aspects of my life. For example (without publicly confessing to my more substantial missteps) I occasionally skip meetings that I don’t expect to be productive. I drink Pepsi. I bring treats to Primary every week contrary to the official guidelines. As a member of the church, do these seemingly small acts of rebellion harmlessly show me to be a unique individual, or are they things to be completely and submissively rooted out?
Is obedience a good in and of itself, or is it a means to an end? In other words, should I stop bringing treats to Primary because it says so in the handbook and so it must be the right thing to do? Or is it better for me to submit, even while I still think it is a dumb rule, because the the act of submitting my own will to that of another (he that receiveth my servants receiveth me) is good?
Jesus Christ submitted to the Father’s will in everything. He did what the Father would have him do, he said the words the Father’s would have him speak.
And now Abinadi said unto them:
I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down
among the children of men,
and shall redeem his people.
Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain,
the flesh becoming subject even unto death,
the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
And thus God breaketh the bands of death,
having gained the victory over death;
giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—
Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy;
being filled with compassion towards the children of men;
standing betwixt them and justice;
having broken the bands of death,
taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions,
having redeemed them,
and satisfied the demands of justice.
Mosiah 15
This week as we contemplate the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ in our behalf, it might be appropriate to consider what we are willing to sacrifice, why we should, and to whom we are willing to submit.
Not that I’m ignoring the rest of your post but do you know if that block on treats in Primary only covers food or does it extend to stickers and other goodies?
Comment # 1 left by Proud Daugther of Eve on April 12th, 2006
is it better for me to submit, even while I still think it is a dumb rule, because the act of submitting my own will to that of another (he that receiveth my servants receiveth me) is good?
C:
This is a very appropriate and good question! I think this issue strikes at the heart of our current existence, i.e. we are here to be “tested” to see what we will do under the pressures of mortality. Submission in the face of what may seem to be totally illogical is what each of us will eventually be required to do - that is if we desire exaltation.
Abraham is the perfect prototype. The Lord has said the following: they must needs be…tried, even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son. To Abraham, it must have been a completely absurd proposition the Lord was making: sacrifice his only son through whom would be fulfilled the promise God had already made to Abraham? That’s absurd!
So, even though you “still think it is a dumb rule”, my view is you must abide by it whether it is dumb or not - if you desire to be changed in the manner necessary to become like Him. Of course, the candy rule is a lesser example, but the truth still applies.
Concerning the larger issue, one of my favorite quotes comes from the back cover of one of my favorite biographies (it’s Hafen’s book about Elder Maxwell):
If we are serious about our discipleship, Jesus will eventually request each of us to do those very things which are most difficult for us to do. (Neal A. Maxwell, A Time to Choose [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1972], 46.) (bold mine)
Again, nice post.
Comment # 2 left by Wade on April 12th, 2006
Thinking further about Abraham, the command from God must have been even more absurd and difficult for Abraham considering Abraham barely escaped being sacrificed by the wicked priests in Ur when he was younger. He must have been repulsed by, and terrified of, human sacrifice; yet he was willing to kill his birthright son through whom the blessings would be fulfilled.
Tough standard to live up to eh?
Comment # 3 left by Wade on April 12th, 2006
PDOE- I believe that we aren’t supposed to make charts with stickers for things like rewarding attendance or saying prayers, but I really don’t know about giving them out as goodies instead of giving treats.
Maybe somebody with a current handbook could fill us in.
Comment # 4 left by C Jones on April 12th, 2006
So, even though you “still think it is a dumb rule”, my view is you must abide by it whether it is dumb or not - if you desire to be changed in the manner necessary to become like Him. Of course, the candy rule is a lesser example, but the truth still applies.
Wade- I was afraid of that! The process that I go through in my mind to justify giving treats in Primary is the same process that I use to justify every other more serious disobedient act that I commit.
Comment # 5 left by C Jones on April 12th, 2006
C:
Very nice.
I feel there are things which are necessary for us to do, from a salvation and doctrinal standpoint, and other things whichare simply administrative in their nature.
There is a quote from BH Roberts in ‘Comprehensive Histroy of the Church’ in the notes in chapter 13 that gives some interesting thoughts on the difference between salvation doctrine, and administrative policies. I view candy for primary kids as an administrative policy and not a slavation type thing.
That being said, we can comply with these policies and perhaps voice our opinions to local leaders. Policies change. Handbooks change.
I don’t have time right now, but I may post the BH Roberts quote and some more thoughts later.
Comment # 6 left by Eric on April 12th, 2006
Eric:
The difference between administrative policy and saving doctrine is a very interesting topic for me! I’ve actually posted something akin to the issue at the beginning of BoJ. There was some debate over at T&S about policies versus doctrines. It’s something I’ve given some thought to. I’d be very interested in your view and in that B.H. Roberts quote - I’ve got the DHC at home, I’ll be looking it up tonight.
My post is available here. Let me know what you think.
Comment # 7 left by Wade on April 12th, 2006
C:
Just to clarify, my comment was not meant to convey any measure of self-righteousness; heaven knows I rationalize many thoughts and behaviors because I refuse to comply with something. This is true of me whether it is “policy” or “doctrine”, and frankly I’m not sure that it makes a difference in the long run.
Abraham could have argued til he was blue in the face about the command not to murder and how the request to sacrifice Isaac should only be viewed as a current “policy” to be implemented because it was contrary to precedent. Yet, he didn’t because his nature was to be submissive. I think that’s key.
Comment # 8 left by Wade on April 12th, 2006
Eric- I would also like to see that BH Roberts quote if you have time to share it. The doctrine vs. policy issue is interesting. Does it let me off the hook, or just make it easier for me to justify myself?
I think your comment is a good illustration of how we should treat others. You show mercy, you don’t judge, and you give reasons why you choose not to judge. I think this is what our response to the bad behavior of another person should usually be.
Wade-
“my comment was not meant to convey any measure of self-righteousness”
Not at all- I like what you are saying here. If I am truly trying to be more Christlike, my response to the bad behavior of another should be merciful, but I’m thinking that my response to my own bad behavior should be less about justifying it and more about figuring out if my lack of submission is impairing my ability to keep my covenant to be obedient.
Comment # 9 left by C Jones on April 12th, 2006
I like how you’ve pointed out that the issue is our response to our own behavior.
President McKay said meditation and introspection are the most profitable forms of worship. (In Conference Report, Apr. 1946, 113.) It makes sense that introspection is most profitable when viewed in light of what you’re saying here about the need for examining our reasons for submission or rejection.
Comment # 10 left by Wade on April 12th, 2006
There is some examples of breaking commandments if the spirit leads you to do it. But you better be sure. Abraham ’sacrificing’ Isaac would be against the commandments, but because the spirit/Lord directed it, it was counted as righteousness. Nephi killing Laban - technically I would say against the commandments, but since the spirit directed it, it counts as righteousness. Polygamy may be the same thing, normally a sin, but when God commands it becomes righteousness.
So, if you give your primary kids candy because the spirit really leads you to, then it counts as righteousness. If it is for some other reason, then you are still on the hook. What does the spirit say? Usually the spirit leading us to what would normally be disobedience is pretty rare.
OK. BH Roberts. This is kinda long, see if I can get the basics out. This is an explanation of the failed Canada trip. Joseph Smith said that he had received a revelation to send a group to Canada to sell the copyright for the Book of Mormon in Canada, so that the money could be used to publish the book in the United States. The effort failed. Joseph was quoted by only David Whitmer as saying something like, ‘Some revelations come from God, some from man, and some from the Devil’. Whether Joseph actually said this is in dispute. BH Robert explains:
‘The answer is that absolute certainty, except as to fundamental things, the great things that concern man’s salvation, may not be expected. Here indeed, that is, in things fundamental, we have a right to expect the solid rock, not shifting sands, and God gives us that certainty. But in matters that do not involve fundamentals, in matters that involve only questions of administation and policy, the way in which God’s servants go about doing things; in all such matters we may expect more or less uncertainty, even errors; manifestations of unwisdom, growing out of human limitations……What mere automatons men would become if they found truth machine-made, of cast iron stiffness, and limited, that is to say, finite, instead of being as we now find it, infinite and elusive….’ (Comprehesive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, vol. 1, notes on chapter 13)
There you go.
Comment # 11 left by Eric on April 12th, 2006
C:
As far as the bad boys being loved or admired. This seems almost exclusively in the realm of entertainment, with only a small number of exceptions. Are there any examples in the scriptures of ‘rebels’ being heros? Off the top I can’t think of any. There are the sons of Mosiah who turned around, Paul also.
Oh, and Detroit’s bad boy pistons. It is my feeling that outside of Detroit these guys were hated. It seems the Lakers/Celtics of the 80’s were much more respected and admired.
Comment # 12 left by Eric on April 12th, 2006
I agree that there is a difference between what is right and wrong depending on the circumstance. I fully accept situational ethics as gospel truth. In fact, Joseph taught it thusly:
“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.
God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill;’ at another time He said, ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted.” (TPJS p.255-256)
My problem is simply this: I think one begins to walk on very shifty ground when [s]he begins to make determinations of what is right and wrong AFTER the Lord through his servants has clearly indicated what is right or wrong under certain circumstance.
The candy in primary example is actually a very good hypothetical, because it seems so silly. The Lord doesn’t dictate our every move because we are told to be anxiously enganged in good causes without being commanded in all things. Thus, if there are certain “policies” (or whatever you want to call them) that actually have been handed down through the brethren (and correct me if I’m wrong about only the brethren having authority to make official church policy), it’s not advisable to go awry from them.
Does this make sense - or at least can you see where I’m coming from?
Comment # 13 left by Wade on April 12th, 2006
Totally agree Wade. That is why I would try to do everything properly unless I felt lead by the spirit otherwise. I might expect this to happen only a few times in ones life in most cases.
I have a personal experience with this when I was an EQP once, and really only relates to not doing something a stake president instructed. Perhaps another post for another time.
Comment # 14 left by Eric on April 12th, 2006
is it better for me to submit, even while I still think it is a dumb rule, because the act of submitting my own will to that of another (he that receiveth my servants receiveth me) is good?
I have recently been thinking of this dilemma in a different light. For me the key seems to be a willingness to obey God. I am trying to look at it as a lesson to be learned from being able to submit my will to that of God’s will. An example that comes to mind is from a story told by Truman G. Madsen in his Presidents of the Church lecture series. I will paraphrase and try to get the gist of the story right.
He told a story of when the Prophet Joseph Smith was chastising Brigham Young from the pulpit in front of a large audience. Truman indicates that the things for which Brigham was being chastised for were not necessarily things that Brigham was guilty of doing. Truman expresses how Brigham could have reacted angrily and told the Prophet Joseph that these things were not true, or that they should discuss it in private. But instead, according to Truman, Brigham stood up and look and Joseph and said, “What would the Lord have me do?†Then the Prophet said, “You have passed Brother Brigham, you have passed.â€
Truman indicated that this was a test that would have been hard to pass, but that it showed Brigham’s willingness to be meek. He even compared it somewhat to Abraham’s test. I think even though the candy issue should not to blown out of proportion, it is the developing of meekness that is important.
Now you have to decide how that should apply in each situation. (if that makes sense?)
Comment # 15 left by brent on April 14th, 2006
Brent- Thanks for the reminder of that Madsen story. So that raises another question in my mind. Is this kind of submission in the BY story and also Abraham’s experience (seemingly illogical submission, or submission in seemingly small things) actually an advanced kind of submission? Does a higher level of discipleship require an escalating submission?
Comment # 16 left by C Jones on April 14th, 2006
Eric- That is a great quote from BH Roberts, thanks. I think you and Wade have made very useful points here.
BTW- I was just kidding about the Pistons, they really are the team that America loves to hate. I personally prefer the nice guys like LeBron, and Dwayne Wade…
Comment # 17 left by C Jones on April 14th, 2006
Does a higher level of discipleship require an escalating submission?
Yes! I think this is what Elder Maxwell was getting at when he said “If we are serious about our discipleship, Jesus will eventually request each of us to do those very things which are most difficult for us to do. (Neal A. Maxwell, A Time to Choose [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1972], 46.)
I stress the word eventually here. This seems to indicate some sort of progression in our ability to be submissive. Doesn’t it?
Comment # 18 left by Wade on April 14th, 2006
Does a higher level of discipleship require an escalating submission?
c jones -
I would echo Wade’s sentiment. I think that eventually you will be asked to sacrifice those things “most†precious to you. Hence, Abraham’s only and long awaited son, possibly the thing that Abraham valued most. I think about the first great commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.†Matt. 22:37-38 I think it is interesting that this is first and then all other people are covered in the second commandment of love thy neighbor.
In other words, God must come first in our lives. I think it is indeed a progression that we need to aspire to and work towards. This way it is not necessarily a matter of “policies†vs. “commandments.â€
Comment # 19 left by brent on April 14th, 2006