Protection from Evil
In the last few months, I’ve become aware of a half-dozen young people who live at least part of their lives in fear of the power of Satan. Although it would be easy to blame the proliferation of horror novels and movies etc. extant in their world, these young people are not necessarily exposed to such things. Their difficulty in coping with the dark unseen appears to me to be a natural outgrowth of what we absorb about the source and meaning of evil in our culture. Like so many other Christians, much of what we learn as young Mormons convinces us that Satan’s power may be as great as God’s (if we mis-step and give him power over us), and that Satan watches us carefully and seeks our destruction. Satan is the invisible stalker from whom no child (who thinks about it much) feels truly safe – especially at night, when her quiet mind is alone and vulnerable.
Sunday School discussions of Job may underscore the fear of evil for many adults. When Job is read literally and taken as wholly historical, we are left musing that Satan has the power to convince God to deprive us of meaningful blessings, and that our adversities, losses and heartaches have their source in evil plotted against us behind the scenes.
But this is not the best our theology has to offer. I’m convinced that the views of evil noted above create an internal crisis of powerlessness which prevents us from exercising spiritual rights and privileges made free gifts by the teachings of Joseph Smith.
In the August 1998 issue of Sunstone, Kathleen Flake tackled Evil’s Origins and Evil’s End in the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis. Her discussion of the story of Adam, Eve, and Cain is exciting [and I’m tempted to get distracted and tell all about that]. But her last point is the one I want to leap at: The city of Enoch was a “community that experienced the end of evil.”
[A]ll nations feared [Zion] greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him. . . . [And] so great was the fear of the enemies of the people of God, that they fled and stood afar off. . . . but the Lord came and dwelt with his people. (Moses 7:13-16)
It is not likely that Enoch’s people were perfect in all things, but they apparently understood something about evil which we may not fully grasp. According to Flake’s careful review of Joseph Smith’s Genesis, evil is that which seeks to destroy the power of others in order to augment its own power. Practically speaking, this definition of evil would include blatant destructions for personal gain such as murder, stealing, adultery, and bearing false witness, but also forms of subtle destructions for personal gain – certain kinds of competition, criticism, even over-reaching parenting or lack of respect for a partner’s point of view. This definition is so much more than “evil as the existence of imperfection or sin.” When we think of evil primarily as the presence of sin, we want to attack it, eliminate it, destroy it, Ironically, the very mode of “attack, eliminate, destroy” may be closer to the exercise of evil than the sin that inspired the attack in the first place.
Flake notes that the “citizens of Zion did not destroy their enemies. They were able to cast evil out of their midst and cause their enemies to flee and stand afar off, even cast them out as God had done Satan.” What excites me is that the Moses verses (above) suggest that by certain spiritual activities within the Zion community itself, those who designed evil against that community were completely unable to penetrate the sphere of peace created within Zion. Underpinned by the definition of evil (bolded in the last paragraph) and the method of Zion’s dealings with her enemies, Flake concludes
[E]vil lies in the opposition among and between us; not in Lehi’s doctrine of the “opposition in” us, which makes us a compound in one, makes us alive. Evil lives in the will to power “over,” not power on “behalf of,” another. Evil will end when we banish it by no longer desiring it and obtain by covenant access to heavenly power to cast it out from among us. (Emphasis added)
Evil (by this definition) can be overcome! In our day, in our time. We are not powerless against it nor do we have to obtain perfection in all things in order to access power over it. Flake further reminds us that Joseph Smith taught
God’s order operates upon the principle of empowering persons on earth with rights to access the powers of heaven (D&C 121:36). We are told many are called to receive these rights, but few are chosen because they do not understand that these earthly rights are inseparable from heavenly held powers. Instead, they aspire to earthly powers by claiming heavenly rights. They seek gain at the expense of the agency of others. (Emphasis added)
I’m convinced that an understanding of the source of evil as the interpersonal opposition we indulge in our minds and hearts would inspire us toward empowerment to cast it out from our midst as happened in Enoch’s city. It can happen individually, in our homes, and in the circles where we have influence. What’s more, I believe we can access the powers of heaven much more freely in this cause than we generally do.
It makes sense to me that this view of evil, both its source and our access to power over it, would generate hope – both in our young people and in ourselves.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:26 am
By: Lisa Hansen
In the last few months, I’ve become aware of a half-dozen young people who live at least part of their lives in fear of the power of Satan.
I respond:
Why should this surprise you? Isn’t the power of “The Adversary” a pretty consistent theme in LDS sermons? When young people are constantly bombarded with warnings to avoid all kinds of things from R-rated movies to tattoos and internet chat rooms, because they are “satanic”, it seems perfectly logical to me that many would live “in fear of the power of Satan.”
September 12th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Very interesting, Lisa.
M. Scott Pecks’ ideas about evil might interest you:
“Strangely enough, evil people are often destructive because they are attempting to destroy evil. The problem is that they misplace the locus of the evil. Instead of destroying others they should be destroying the sickness within themselves.”
(Hmm, interesting commentary on how the Devil is presented in many sermons: we’re always defending ourselves against an outside influence, or fighting Satan. Do we scapegoat Satan?)
“The words “image”, “appearance” and “outwardly” are crucial to understanding the morality of ‘the evil’. While they lack any motivation to be good, they intensely desire to appear good.”
(Huh, sounds like me about 7 years ago before I gave up all hope of salvation.)
“They are men and women of obviously strong will, determined to have their own way. There is a remarkable power in the manner in which they attempt to control others.”
(And, ironically, these are the very people we like to have lead us. People with firm ideas and the energy and conviction to carry them out. Philosophers are rarely kings, and when they are, how good at their jobs are they? Perhaps the people of Enoch learned how to cohere as a society without power centers. Because once there’s power, the evil will rise up to take it.)
September 12th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Well, now you done gone and whet my appetite, Lisa. But I don’t have that issue hanging around at the moment. I want to know how Flake thinks the people of Enoch kept the wicked at bay?
How, how, how?
And then, did they get bored?
September 12th, 2006 at 11:06 am
The session on teenagers and sex and how to best communicate on that topic that Stephen’s essay framed at this year’s symposium might be fun for someone interested in this topic to check out. It is session #173: Afraid of the Dark: Toward Healthy Communication with Teenagers about Sex. $4 to download. I’m not sure how to link directly to it, but it can be found from the Sunstone website if you click on Play or download MP3s, then do a speaker search for Stephen R. Carter. It comes up in the list of sessions he’s done at the symposium.
A FREE download that also addresses this issue is the following session by Jennifer Jones at the 2003 SL Symposium. I remember listening to it shortly after that symposium and thinking it did a nice job of framing the arguments about Satan as the source of all evil. Here is the info:
SL03356, Evil or Ego? The Natural Man, Satan, and the Origins of Sin.
What is Satan? Is there really a devil? Why do we commit sin? As we increase our understanding of the human psyche, traditional teachings regarding Satan’s power, and his ability to influence our behavior, may actually inhibit our emotional and temptation, release selfishness, and overcome evil.
As with above, you can find this from the Sunstone website if you click on Play or download MP3s, then do a speaker search for Jennifer Chandler Jones. It comes up in the list of sessions she’s done at past Sunstone’s.
Sorry for the Sunstone commercial! Now back to your regularly scheduled blogging….
September 12th, 2006 at 11:26 am
I love this statement: When we think of evil primarily as the presence of sin, we want to attack it, eliminate it, destroy it, Ironically, the very mode of “attack, eliminate, destroy” may be closer to the exercise of evil than the sin that inspired the attack in the first place.
The weakest form of persuasion is fear-based. Next on the list is reward-base. Next is duty-based. And greatest is love-based. Mormonism uses all of these forms of persuasion to prod its members to perform duties or conform to certain behaviors. Having been a Sunday School teacher for the past six years, more often than not it seeems the lesson manual focused more on fear-based and reward-based forms of persuasion: Keep this commandment because if you don’t this bad thing will happen to you; or, Keep that commandment because if you do, you will earn your mansion in heaven. (For example, one recent lesson contained a quote from a prominent GA that said he noticed that when a boy and girl break the law of chastity, the love they previously had for each other slowly turns into hate.) I feel our religion is strongest when it focuses on love-based persuasion: “As I have loved you, love one another.”
I’d be happy if we “cast out” all references to Satan in our theology, and greatly re-defined the meaning of “sin” and “evil”. As you (and Flake) said: [E]vil lies in the opposition among and between us; not in Lehi’s doctrine of the “opposition in” us. I’m happy to call the harm we cause others “evil,” but it is self-defeating to say that Satan somehow influenced something “IN” us which caused us to harm others.
I’ve discovered throughout my life that many of the things I was taught to fear weren’t so scary after all. One by one, I’ve opened up doors marked “fear” and discovered not a dark, thorny path filled with ominous shadows, but a bright, sunny path, where the prospect of continuing knowledge and understanding unfold into the distance beneath white, fluffy clouds.
September 12th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
I have to admit, Matt, that I’m not willing to go with you yet on this statement.
“The weakest form of persuasion is fear-based. ”
Maybe I don’t quite understand what you’re saying. But it seems to me that fear-based persuasion is one of the more powerful forms. It certainly dominates American foreign policy, and it’s been used extensively to make the American people uphold the neo-conservative movement.
What all that jargon means is, we’re scared spitless of Osama bin Laden popping out of our closet. We’ find out about new ways to bomb a plane every time we turn around. We’re never sure who has nuclearn arms, and who wants to use them and who wants to use them on us. And I’m not sure I trust our government to do much beyond doing everything in their power to maintain their power.
As, The Power of Nightmares, a strange documentary I recent watched, posits, “In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares. The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.”
The idea of the documentary is that, in the 1960’s conservative politicians were trying to find a way to regain what they saw as an eroding citizenry. They wanted to spark patriotism in America again. So, using an age old tactic from Plato, they created a grand myth. It set America up as a great, God-chosen nation that was out to fight evil. And they created evil-doers everywhere. Right now, this mindset runs American politics. The mindset of fear.
Because when you have fear, you’re in survival mode. You’re just trying to keep your head above water. Satan lurks in every shadow. But at least you’re right. And when that’s the only thing you have to hold onto, you hold on tight.
Tell me about these more powerful persuasion tactics, and how they integrate with Flake’s idea of evil as interpersonal conflict.
September 12th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
This is a wonderfully thoughtful post. Taken together, your citation of Section 121 and Stephen’s citation of M. Scott Peck reveals a startling reality since we are told that such is the nature of “almost all men.” Perhaps this impulse is the genesis of Orson F. Whitney’s statement that “obedience is heaven’s first law.” (Gospel Themes: A treatise on Salient Features of Mormonism). An idea possibly first advanced by George Q. Cannon, it has been so often repeated from the pulpit as to become something of a Mormon mantra. According to Section 121, it is in our nature to adopt this pharisaical ideal rather than that proposed by Jesus in response to the lawyer’s question as to the greatest of the commandments. This is a brutal truth few members are willing to examine. The war in heaven has indeed been transplanted to this earth, but as you have so eloquently demonstrated, the war is not between the children of God and the minions of Satan. The war rages within our own hearts.
I am filing the entire thread away for the next time I am asked to speak in Sacrament Meeting. To preach what you have written here, if we are free to preach it, should serve to transform us as a people.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Stephen,
Good questions. The first thing you need to know about me is that most of my theories or beliefs are held together like a house of cards. I can barely make them fly in my Sunday School class; I’d expect the SunstoneBlog community could topple most of them to the ground with nary a huff or a puff.
Having said that, let me clarify what I said in #5…
By saying fear-based motivation was the “weakest form of persuasion”, I did not mean to suggest it wasn’t effective or powerful. It IS effective and powerful for all of the reasons you suggest. It is probably more sure-fire than any of the other forms of motivation I suggest.
By “weakest”, I’m referring to the effect it has on the heart of the “Motivatee” (and the “Motivator”, for that matter), the power to transform/improve/uplift/change the Motivatee. For example:
Fear: Do your Home Teaching because if you don’t you’ll go to the Telestial Kingdom.
Reward: Do your Home Teaching because if you do, you’ll go to the Celestial Kingdom.
Duty: Do your Home Teaching because your are a good, responsible Mormon Priesthood holder.
Love:Do your Home Teaching because you love the family and love the feeling you get by helping with their spiritual and temporal needs.
What one derives (i.e. knowledge, blessings), or one’s return on investment, from Home Teaching increases as one moves up the motivation chain.
For the Motivator (think CEO, World Leader, Basketball Coach, Prophet, God, Father or Mother), more honest commitment is gained by those you are trying to lead as one moves up the chain of motivation. I’m thinking of the commitment Bobby Knight gets from his basketball players vs. John Wooden. Hitler vs. MLK.
Which soldier would you rather have:
Fear: I’ll serve my country because if I don’t I’ll go to jail, be severely beaten, or killed.
Reward: I’ll serve my country because if I do my college will be paid for.
Duty: I’ll serve my country because its the right thing to do, even though I’d rather be somewhere else.
Love: I’ll serve my country because I would give my life to fight for its cause.
The same idea can be applied to a student, or an employee, or a basketball player, or a Church member, or a human being, or a son or daughter…
Obviously, not all motivation can be love-based. I’m going to tell my kid that if he runs in the street he’ll get flattened by a car. We may need fear-based motivation to get the world to acknowledge and do something about global warming.
So yeah, I agree with Plato, but these “grand myths” are susceptible to abuse. Who was the leader who said he’d rather his son come home from a mission in a body bag than come home because he’d committed the sin of unchastity, or something like that?
September 12th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Good thoughts, Matt.
I’m interested in how these theories can be put into practice effectively though (or if they even can). Because, you’re right, I’d rather be surrounded by MLK followers than Hitler followers. But it seems to me that most of the time fear-based motivation is in control, and that fear-based motivation can quite frequently bulldoze love-based motivation.
I tried the love-based motivation thing during the final two months of my mission, and it earned me the hatred of my entire zone. (The whole mission would have hated me if they would have known about me.) Why? Because my numbers looked awful. I was pulling the whole mission down. But I was happier than i had ever been on my mission. I was actually helping people instead of annoying them. But my leaders and colleagues made life hard for me. My age and upcoming departure were the only things that saved me.
What I’m saying is that the love-based approach doesn’t seem to work on a mass scale. Which is why I’m so interested in how Flake figured the city of Enoch went about it.
September 13th, 2006 at 8:37 am
What if the power to keep evil at bay was a natural consequence of people within that community having eliminated from their own psyches the desire to diminish others for their own gain? What if it was nothing more than that? That’s my thesis. Observation tells me that when two people do this between themselves (eliminate the desire to diminish each other for their own gain), their relationship is impenetrable by third parties. Why is this not true for a larger community? I may be hopelessly idealistic, but my experience thus far, plus something deep inside says to me that when you eliminate the desire to diminish ANY ONE ELSE for your own gain, you have power over evil.
September 14th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Color me impervious. But I don’t quite get it yet.
I can see that if two people didn’t have a desire to have power over one another then someone wouldn’t be able to step in and make one or the other exercise power to the other’s detriment. But how can that stop the third party from exercising unrighteous power over either one of them? Because then, the relationship is between the exerciser of power and another person. It doesn’t involve the two people who have made a committment to each other.
See, a perfectly nice village with people who help each other and live in an egalitarian way are still vulnerable to a roving band of bandits (as we see so heart-wrenchingly portrayed in that classic drama The Three Amigos). It seems to me that the text Flake was looking at was more interested in Enoch’s language being the protector.
I can see how Flake’s theory can work if one isn’t interested in keeping one’s possessions or one’s life. If you are completely fulfilled in your relationship with God and need nothing else, then no one can touch what it most important to you. Maybe that’s what the city of Enoch is a metaphor for: the idea that you have to remove yourself from this world in order to not have any problems with it.
See, in real life, when you live with a bunch of other people, like in the city of Enoch, well, you have to be interested in more things than God. Sewer system maintenance for example. So it seems like a society would have a hard time being impenetrable by enemies since it relies on physical products.
I’m not trying to be contrary here. I love to think about utopian ideas. I’m just trying to see how this one would work.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:40 am
“evil is that which seeks to destroy the power of others in order to augment its own power.”
This, to me, is a beautiful statment. I do not understand why this definition of evil is not taught in primary. Essentially, evil then robs us of our humanity. When another person takes away our power to make decisions, we can no longer extend, because our power to do so has been usurped by another for their own gain, which robs us of our chance to live.
It’s interesting to see how much the LDS talk about Satan. Why? They refer to him and talk about his work almost as much as they talk about God and Jesus. Could it be in some way that they deeply respect Satan? They, perhaps subconsciously, admire his strength, his courage, and his own individuality in creating the reality he wants to through his own extension, even against the greatest being, God. Perhaps the same way that a young lady finds strength in the rebelious teenager.
At the same time, I don’t think ‘good’ can exist without ‘evil’. There must be something beyond both of these values, because alone they can’t exist. What binds these two together? Perhaps that is what we should be focusing on, and not simply the interconnected dynamic of one value and its opposite.
September 29th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Stephen,
Dontcha just hate it when you’re in the middle of an after-dinner conversation, and suddenly, your conversation partner up and lleaves the table? My apologies. I’ve been wanting to pick up the gentle challenge of your gauntlet for two weeks.
You ask the question that puzzles the best military minds of the planet. “But how can [any two people] stop [a] third party from exercising unrighteous powerover either one of them?”
The idea that interplay BETWEEN two people has much to do with their protection from any third parties doesn’t always play well logically, I know. The political history of earth suggests that those who have well-developed senses of love and fair-play are often the most vulnerable to bullies of the 1st grade or of the Machiavellian empire -type.
Yet when we of a certain age saw Luke Skywalker confronting the greatest evil form behind all evil and wrestling within himself an instinct to destroy it, we felt the power of the moment when he overcame the desire to destroy — to exercise unrighteous dominion. We knew instinctively that he had reached a new level of being able to protect his own people. That wasn’t logical either. And, speaking of blatant morals from fictional movies, we always know when the thieves start arguing among themselves, they’re done for, they’ve made themselves meat for the wolves waiting at their doors.
And when Abinadi stood before King Noah and prophesied that what was done to Abinadi would be done to Noah, we recognize the same illogical power at play. The unrighteous dominion exercised by Noah was somehow directly related to the power of third parties over him AND his people.
While the scriptures appear to make plain that iniquity and pride are the reason the Lord’s people are brought into bondage (OT, BofM), my point is that the source of that iniquity and pride are the same evil motivation: the desire to destroy the power of others in order to increase one’s own. Vulnerability and bondage to third parties come from this evil, not just from failing to read 30 minutes of scripture a day or sheaving corn on the Sabbath.
I know it’s tempting to bite on something about Enoch’s language as being the linchpin of the shield of protection. Moses 7:13 does seem to tease that direction. But it strikes me as entirely possible that the language of Enoch simply removed all references to destroying the power of others for selfish gain. Consider our own language: metaphors of competition and destruction pepper our everyday benign expressions — listen to 10:20 p.m. sports “beat, crush, run over” listen to politics, the playground, the workplace, our homes, our churches. (I’m skipping over what should be the funnest part here, illustration). What if Enoch’s language simply reflected in every, every expression, that no type of destruction for the purpose of increasing another’s power was excused?
Hope the after-dinner mints on this topic aren’t too stale to invite you to join me back at the table of good conversation, Stephen.