The Useful Warnings of Moses 5

 

Moses 5 is not a terribly happy chapter. Cain and Abel are born, Cain rebels and becomes Perdition, murder and wickedness spread, and the gospel is preached.

 

I want to point out that one useful thing about this chapter, however, is that it describes some behaviors and reactions that are psychopathic and sociopathic.

 

1)    Rejection of authority. “Cain hearkened not, saying: Who is the Lord that I should know him?” (Moses 5:16)  The only other people in scripture who say “Who is the Lord?” in this dismissive way are Pharaoh in Egypt who is forced to let Israel go out of slavery, and King Noah in the Book of Mormon. The rejection of authority sets the stage for rebellion.

2)    Disregard of rules, commandments, boundaries. Cain knew that the required offering was supposed to be a sheep, but he chose to offer the fruit of the ground instead. (Moses 5:18-29)

3)    Emotional dysregulation. “But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect….And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.” (Moses 5:21)  Cain’s anger at his incorrect offering not receiving divine acceptance is out of all proportion to what happened.

4)    Rejection of correction. In Moses 5:22-26, the Lord goes to the trouble of counseling Cain that if he does good he will be accepted and warns him what will happen if he persists. Here is Cain’s reaction: “Cain was wroth, and listened not any more to the voice of the Lord, neither to Abel, his brother” (Moses 5:26)

5)    Pathological lying. The Lord warns Cain, “For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies” (Moses 5:24).

6)    Power-hunger, grandiosity, and excessive pride. “Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I may murder and get gain. Wherefore Cain was called Master Mahan, and he gloried in his wickedness.” (Moses 5:31)  He thinks he is more powerful than anyone else. He also boasts in what he’s doing, even though it is pretty awful. And not only is he boasting about it, we see he is also lying to himself.

7)    Brutality. “Cain talked with Abel, his brother. And it came to pass that while they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him.” (Moses 5:32)

8)    Callousness and lack of remorse. “And the Lord said unto Cain: Where is Abel, thy brother? And he said: I know not. Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Moses 5:34).  This is as if people are asking Cain where his Abel is because Abel has disappeared, and not only does Cain lie about not knowing, but he doesn’t care.

9)    Manipulatively trying to make a play on others pity after horrible behavior. “And the Lord said… now thou shalt be cursed from the earth… And Cain said unto the Lord: Satan tempted me because of my brother’s flocks. And I was wroth also; for his offering thou didst accept and not mine; my punishment is greater than I can bear.”  (Moses 5:35,36,38) Notice that he’s trying to provoke pity even when he himself showed no pity. He’s trying to manipulate his way out of the consequences of his actions.

 

These characteristics are all part of “Cluster B”  personality disorder traits of psychopathy and sociopathy.  It almost as if the Lord wanted us to notice these characteristics as a pattern of behavior and 1) beware that we do not fall into them, and 2) beware of those we meet who exhibit these traits.

 

Instead cultivate:

1)    Respect for authority

2)    Regard for the commandments and boundaries

3)    Healthy emotional regulation

4)    Ability to accept correction

5)    Love for the truth

6)    Humility and a sense of equality

7)    Tenderness and gentleness

8)    Consideration for others and remorse for wrong-doing or offenses

9)    Ability to take responsibility for our actions

 

Another happier lesson we see from this chapter is that the Lord was still reaching out to Cain to try to help him, by trying to correct him after a wrong offering and trying to bring him to a sense of accountability for his actions after the murder of Abel with the question, “What hast thou done?” He’s also trying to show Cain he’d been lied to with Satan’s promise that no one would know what he’d done. He was still trying to reclaim Cain, even after Cain’s heinous act.

We see just how long-suffering and patient the Lord is, and we can trust that if he reached out to Cain, He will surely reach out to us.

Doeg's hostility to the priests

When David is on the run from Saul there is an incident that happens where he goes to the priest for food and the priest gives him the shewbread.  Unfortunately, at the same time, one of Saul’s servants named Doeg was there to see this.  Later, when Saul has a bit of a tantrum among his serants and accuses them of conspiring against him because they can’t help him stop David, Doeg tells Saul that a priest aided David.  Saul calls all the priests, accused them of conspiring against him in aiding David and sentences them all to death.  None of his servants will carry out the sentence except Doeg who tattled on the priest.  What is going on here?

Why is Doeg so ready to betray the priests and kill them? 

Here’s all we know about Doeg at the beginning:

Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the Lord; and his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdmen that belonged to Saul.

Doeg is an Edomite, not an Israelite.  Yet he was at the temple, so it seems that some point he had converted to the worship of Jehovah.  And yet the way he has no scruples about betraying the high priest to Saul and carrying out executions of all the priests implies that this is more than just willingness to handle the dirty jobs, but that there is personal animosity between him and the whole priestly caste. 

He’s also the top herdman in charge of Saul’s flocks. 

We get an extra clue when it says Doeg was “detained before the Lord” at Nob where David had asked aid of the priest.  Does this mean Doeg was detained there by the Lord on purpose to see and betray the priests?  I don’t think so.  I think “detained before the Lord” means that he was detained there by one of the priests for discipline.  Police detain people for questioning or to arrest them.  Students are detained after school for bad behavior, but it is called “detention.”   

All of a sudden we begin to see why Doeg would have been willing to tell Saul the priest was aiding David.  If he were resentful about being disciplined, he would be inclined to use what he knew to get revenge somehow.

But if he wanted revenge on Ahimelech the priest, Saul took it much further, requiring all the priests at Nob to come, not just Ahimelech.  Saul sentenced all the priests to death, and when none of his other servants would execute them, Doeg did.

Doeg’s act would be the equivalent of a person sitting outside the bishop’s office for a disciplinary meeting, watching the bishop give a falsely accused fugitive sacrament bread for a sack lunch and then deciding to get revenge for the discipline give him by getting the bishop in trouble.  Then imagine that not only the bishop is summoned, but also the high priests, the elders, the priests, the teachers, and deacons, and all of them are sentenced unjustly to be executed and are shot by the person who had been disciplined by the bishop.  That’s pretty shocking.

It essentially puts Saul and Doeg beyond the pale.

One of the things we can learn from this is how anger and revenge get out of hand really fast.  Doeg may have only had beef against Ahimelech, but his revenge affected all the priests in the city.  It also led him to commit atrocities against innocent men.   It is a textbook illustration of the principle that the worst enemies of the righteous are the disaffected dissenters, those who have had the same instruction and who have fallen away.

Another thing we can see from this is how Saul’s hatred and pursuit of David affects his judgment.  If he thinks nothing of trying to get rid of a man who has done nothing against him and who has actually helped, no one is safe.  Goodness is no defense against Saul, and holy people can’t expect justice either.  Hence, he easily condemns Ahimelech and all the priests to death.   The long term effect of this is that eventually each person is going to have to choose whether to countenance Saul’s tyranny or live a fugitive life with David.   I think this is why people begin to join David. 

About the only happy thing from this story was that Saul’s servants were commanded to kill the priests and they refused.  (Yaay!) That was certainly good, but if only they could have gone further and defended the priests from Doeg.   This suggests that it isn’t enough to refrain from attacking the church leaders ourselves at others’ instigation; we have to defend them too.

The Narrow Skillset of the Lamanites, Enos 1:20

-->

And I bear record that the people of Nephi did seek diligently to restore the Lamanites unto the true faith in God. But our labors were vain; their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us. (Enos 1:20)

When I was looking at this verse it stood out to me how narrow the Lamanite skillset really was, spiritually, socially, and economically. 

Their hatred was fixed – They didn’t know how to forgive, and they were prejudiced, so they couldn’t listen to those who could teach them the principles that would help them learn how.

They were led by their evil nature – This would make them pretty impulsive and unable to resist temptation.  They would not have the discipline to do much more than what it would take to survive.

Wild, ferocious, and bloodthirsty – They didn’t know how to solve problems peacefully.  They probably overreacted a lot and were at the mercy of their passions and emotions.

Full of idolatry – God (or the Great Spirit) was not at the top of their priority list, and they were also superstitious.  Superstition is exacerbated by a limited understanding or misunderstanding of cause and effect.

Full of… filthiness – They didn’t know how to keep themselves or their environment clean.  (If they moved around a lot to follow game, they probably thought there was no point.)

Feeding upon beasts of prey – It is possible they thought strength would come from eating predators.  (There are people today who still believe this; hence the underground trade of processed portions of large mammalian anatomy for their supposed health effects.) It is also possible that the Lamanites didn’t have the skill or patience for raising flocks and herds, so they had to hunt all the time.

Dwelling in tents – If game was always on the move, they had to move after it, meaning they wouldn’t be able to learn to build more permanent buildings.  There is also no point in developing more than the most essential and mobile tools or collecting supplies if you have to carry it along.

Wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven – It seems they didn’t have much knowledge about how to clothe themselves, other than with skins, so maybe they’d figured out the leather tanning process.  But to clothe themselves with something besides skins, they would have to learn to find and raise fiber-producing plants and/or fiber-producing animals.  This would require patience and application, not to mention learning fiber-processing techniques and weaving skills.

their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax – They were good at making weapons and using them—bows and cimeters.  (The ax is a little more ambiguous; they could use it as a building tool or as a killing tool.)  These were the tools the Lamanites understood, tools of destruction and death.  Shooting, cutting, and chopping.

many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat – Cooking wasn’t a strong point.  It is hard to pin down the exact reasons for this because there are a number of factors that could be at work.  It could be they were generally so hungry when they found game that they didn’t want to take the time to cook it before eating.  It could be that it was just a continuation of the ancestral methods of concealing one’s presence by not using fire (see 1 Nephi 17:12). It may be that they didn’t want to bother finding and raising good-to-eat plants because it would take too much time and tie them down to a place where game would become scarce.  It is also possible that they didn’t know how to preserve their meat to store it for later.  

I have to wonder if the Lamanite skill deficiencies were part of what prevented them from converting.  If they joined the Nephite religion, they would have to leave behind these destroying skills and learn radically new ones.  The law of Moses prohibited eating beasts of prey and certain other animals, so their diet would be limited to a certain class of animals instead of anything they could find.  And in the time between giving up old skills and learning new ones, how would they live?  The transition stage would be very difficult.  We see in the case of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis that it can be done, but conversions of this sort are made more difficult than ones in which one doesn’t have to give up one’s livelihood to convert.

How can this help us today?  For parents, it may help to think about what skills one’s children needs to become independent and question the building of skills that are less important.  Skill in video games may be special in a son’s peer group, but ultimately it won’t help him provide for a future family.  Programming skills, however, will help him. 

When kids leave home we don’t want them stuck with a “Lamanite” skill set.  We want them to have a “Nephite” skill set, which we can extrapolate as the opposite of Enos’s words about the Lamanites:

·      unprejudiced and loving

·      led by the Holy Ghost

·      gentle, compassionate, peace-loving

·      Acquainted with God and obedient to the commandments

·      Skilled at cleaning themselves and their environment

·      Able to cook and feed themselves with healthy food

·      Settled in one place

·      Well-clothed (skilled at sewing and/or clothes shopping)

·      Skilled in the use of productive tools

Of course there are additional skills that are helpful in the modern world:

·      Budgeting and saving

·      Auto-mechanics

·      Typing

·      Computer literacy

·      Household repairs

And the cool thing is that unlike 10 years ago, there now exists a plethora of ways to educate oneself in how to do these things using instructions and videos one finds on the internet.  In the past, one had to find a teacher or a class to learn these things or simply muddle along on one’s own by experimenting.  For instance, even though I didn’t know anything about how to fix my refrigerator’s icemaker, I found videos about it online that taught me different things I could try to diagnose the problem and how to know when to replace it.  I also found videos showing how to replace it.  Parents can use this to help their kids learn marketable skills.  If a teen can show on his resume a list of things he’s fixed or built, that will make him or her a more attractive job candidate.

Hyrum Smith’s insight for enduring martyrdom

I’ve been studying D&C 135 about the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, in preparation for teaching about it in a seminary class, and one thing I found myself wondering about was the significance of the verses that Hyrum Smith found and marked by dog-earing his Book of Mormon. John Taylor, who wrote this announcement, seemed to attach great significance to it:

...The same morning, after Hyrum had made ready to go—shall it be said to the slaughter? yes, for so it was—he read the following paragraph, near the close of the twelfth chapter of Ether, in the Book of Mormon, and turned down the leaf upon it:
5 And it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord that he would give unto the Gentiles grace, that they might have charity. And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee, thou hast been faithful; wherefore thy garments shall be made clean. And because thou hast seen thy weakness, thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father. And now I … bid farewell unto the Gentiles; yea, and also unto my brethren whom I love, until we shall meet before the judgment-seat of Christ, where all men shall know that my garments are not spotted with your blood. The testators are now dead, and their testament is in force. (D&C 135:4-5)

At first all I could see was that statement at the very end, which Hyrum would have identified with strongly, knowing he would die soon—“And now I…bid farewell unto the Gentiles; yea, and also unto my brethren whom I love, until we shall meet before the judgment-seat of Christ, where all men shall know that my garments are not spotted with your blood.” I didn’t understand why John Taylor included the first part of it too. Why mention the prayer for Gentiles’ charity? Why the mention of seeing one’s own weakness and being made strong? In what way were they weak?

Then, I started thinking about what Joseph & Hyrum may have been most worried about as they gave themselves up, feeling as they did that they were going to their deaths. If I had been in their place, I know I would have these kinds of thoughts going through my mind: How will it happen? Will they make me suffer for a long time or will they give me a quick merciful death? If they make me suffer for a long time, will I be able to bear it and not betray my testimony? I suppose if I were them I would be praying really hard for the Lord to soften the hearts of my enemies so that they’d give me a quick merciful death instead of a long, drawn-out painful death.

Then I read back through the words from the Book of Mormon that Hyrum found and I realized that those words were a perfect answer to those concerns that Joseph & Hyrum both must have had.

I prayed unto the Lord that he would give unto the Gentiles grace, that they might have charity. – This was certainly Hyrum and Joseph’s prayer. They would pray to be murdered in the kindest way possible. (Wouldn’t you?)
If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee…-- This is a startling thing. Why doesn’t it matter to Joseph or Hyrum if other people are charitable to them or not?

thou hast been faithful; wherefore thy garments shall be made clean – What mattered was staying faithful so that they could stay clean. So it seems that being faithful and clean matters more than having people be nice to us.

And because thou hast seen thy weakness, thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father. – The weakness that Hyrum seems to have recognized in himself was his fear of suffering and fear of being murdered. In this line of scripture, he must have derived great comfort. His recognition of his own weakness allowed the Lord to make him strong (through grace, or enabling power) enough that he could bear it, even to the point of death, when he would sit down in the mansions of the Father.

This then, is the great principle that we can apply in our lives—if we are faithful, we will be made clean, and then if we acknowledge our weakness at the prospect of suffering for our beliefs and our testimonies, the Lord will give us strength to endure whatever comes from others’ lack of charity toward us, even if it means we suffer death. Thus, even if others don’t show charity to us, we can be strengthened to bear it faithfully.

I find this very empowering. I have occasionally wondered if I could be faithful if I had to give my life for the truth. I really don’t like pain. Learning this has given me more confidence that Heavenly Father would get me through whatever I happen to face.

Note: Sorry about the lack of graphics on my blog. My graphics are linked to from Photobucket and it seems Photobucket is doing maintenance on their systems.

A dire prophecy fulfilled

While Joseph Smith was in Liberty Jail, the saints were driven from Missouri under harsh conditions. We talk a lot about the three revelations—D&C 121,122, and 123—that Joseph Smith received, in particular about how they comfort us in our afflictions. One thing that we don’t hear much about at all is the prophecy in D&C 121 about the Lord’s judgments upon the saints’ persecutors. It has very strong statements in it:

11 And they who do charge thee with transgression, their hope shall be blasted, and their prospects shall melt away as the hoar frost melteth before the burning rays of the rising sun;
12 And also that God hath set his hand and seal to change the times and seasons, and to blind their minds, that they may not understand his marvelous workings; that he may prove them also and take them in their own craftiness;
13 Also because their hearts are corrupted, and the things which they are willing to bring upon others, and love to have others suffer, may come upon themselves to the very uttermost;
14 That they may be disappointed also, and their hopes may be cut off;
15 And not many years hence, that they and their posterity shall be swept from under heaven, saith God, that not one of them is left to stand by the wall.
16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.
17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.
18 And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death—
19 Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house.
20 Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despised by those that flattered them.
21 They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation.
22 It had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in the depth of the sea.
23 Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell.
24 Behold, mine eyes see and know all their works, and I have in reserve a swift judgment in the season thereof, for them all;
25 For there is a time appointed for every man, according as his works shall be. (D&C 121:11-25)

Every time I ran across these verses in my reading, I would wonder how they were fulfilled. So I did some research.

While the Prophet Joseph Smith was being held in Liberty Jail, a man offered the Prophet’s lawyer, Alexander Doniphan, a tract of land in Jackson County in payment of a debt. When the man left, the Prophet told Mr. Doniphan:

“I advise you not to take Jackson county land in payment of the debt. God’s wrath hangs over Jackson county. God’s people have been ruthlessly driven from it, and you will live to see the day when it will be visited by fire and sword. The Lord of Hosts will sweep it with the besom of destruction. The fields and farms and houses will be destroyed, and only the chimneys will be left to mark the desolation” (in B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 1:538).

Alexander Doniphan later remarked that he was reminded of this prophecy when Jackson County was devastated during the Civil War. (Doctrine & Covenants Seminary Teacher’s Manual)

Because the saints’ grievances were not redressed, those in Missouri who perpetrated the persecution were not brought to justice. Because they were not brought to justice, mobbing, plunder, persecution, and murder continued to be the favorite method of solving conflict. They resorted to intimidation and mobbing to try to influence elections in Kansas, which brought about the bleeding Kansas war just before the Civil war. (Find out about what happened during Bleeding Kansas and you'll see that was just business as usual for Missouri.) They resorted to mobbing and plunder during the Civil war in guerrilla groups, ostensibly for the Confederacy, but under no military control. Remember the Haun’s Mill massacre? It led to worse. A number of guerrilla bands combined together in 1863 to attack a town called Lawrence in Kansas and they killed 134 men and wounded at least 20 others. In response to that, Union General Ewing issued Order No 11, which commanded that residents of four western Missouri counties (one of which was Jackson county) leave their homes and the area, unless they could prove their loyalty to the Union. Even those who could prove loyalty had to move near military outposts. As the Missourians left those counties, the Union troops burned, looted, destroyed property and murdered men at will, against orders, taking revenge, in their view, for all the destruction the guerrillas had caused. The four counties became a devastated "no-man's-land", with only charred chimneys and burnt stubble showing where homes and thriving communities had once stood.

In this way the prophecy was fulfilled that the things which the Missourians were willing to bring upon others would come upon them to the very uttermost. Their houses and barns indeed perished. Joseph Smith’s prophecy to Alexander Doniphan was also fulfilled.

To read more about the circumstances of Order No. 11, you can read
“General Order No. 11 (1863),” Wikipedia
"Order No. 11 and the Civil War on the Border," Albert Castel

Abraham Lincoln, president of the United States during the Civil War, wrote:

“Whereas when our own beloved country, once, by the blessing of God, united, prosperous, and happy, is now afflicted with faction and civil war, it is peculiarly fit for us to recognize the hand of God in this terrible visitation, and in sorrowful remembrance of our own faults and crimes as a nation and as individuals, to humble ourselves before him and to pray for his mercy—to pray that we may be spared further punishment, though most justly deserved” (“Proclamation of a National Fast Day, Aug. 12, 1861,” in The Speeches of Abraham Lincoln [1908], 339–40, as quoted by Doctrine & Covenants Seminary Teacher’s Manual).

Other parts of Joseph Smith’s prophecy were fulfilled as well, through the instrumentality of Missouri’s financial affairs. The book Financial Fraud and Guerrilla Violence in Missouri’s Civil War, 1861-1865 by Mark W. Geiger is a highly insightful account of how financial fraud contributed to the extraordinary levels of guerrilla violence in Missouri during and after the Civil War and led to Missouri acquiring the reputation of being “the robber state.” The downfall of Missouri’s planter elite is clearly described. The following is my summary of what his book describes.

Right around 1857, the Missouri legislature decided to revamp their banking laws to make it easier to get credit and do business and trade. (At that time, each bank had its own currency it could only be used in the region near that bank. So a traveler who wanted to do business in a faraway place, had to exchange currencies multiple times on their journey and each time, they had to pay a fee for it.)

The Missouri legislature made some very good banking laws that required the banks to have a lot of specie reserves and have a lot of investment before they could do business. This made them very stable. However, Missouri lawmakers also wanted to protect slavery, so they deliberately prevented any but pro-slavery people from starting a bank. Savings banks existed, but they were very small and only the pro-slavery state banks could print currency. (Through the rest of this summary, all mention of banks refer to state banks.)

At the very beginning of the Civil War, when states were deciding to secede from the Union, Missouri’s elite slave-holders wanted to secede. But a majority of the voters in the state voted NOT to secede. The governor tried to arrange secretly for the state government to borrow money to buy weapons so they could join and fight for the Confederacy, but the legislature opposed it when the plan was made public. So, all the pro-slavery and Confederate sympathizers who ran Missouri’s banks began to make lots of short-term loans to their families and extended families and friends using bank money so that they could buy weapons and ammunition. The pro-slavery bankers were also worried that the United States government would take over the Missouri banks and take away all the money, so they thought making lots of loans would be a way to prevent that and keep the money out of Union reach. They also thought that the war would be very short and the confederate side would win. Also, the Confederacy promised to help pay back any loans if the people couldn’t repay it themselves. They borrowed lots of the bank money themselves and they cosigned loans for others to borrow lots of money too. This was all VERY DISHONEST. Most of these loans were made in the spring and summer of 1861. They were scheduled to be repaid at the end of the year.

By the end of 1861, though, many of those loans were not repaid. Also, the banks had loaned so much money away that they were broke. The banks were also in debt to each other and couldn’t repay each other. There was no government bailout and the confederate government couldn’t help.

By late 1862, Union forces were able to get rid of most of the pro-slavery bankers and replace them with Union-sympathizing bankers. The only way the new Union bankers could fix the banks was by collecting on all the bad debts by taking to court all the people who had borrowed money and hadn’t repaid. So they did.

The debt collection efforts took years, but it also set off a chain reaction of bankruptcies. Each loan had a number of people who cosigned it and who were all liable for repaying any shortfall. Those debtors often took out multiple loans. And there was no orderly way to prioritize who would get repaid first, so if one person was taken to court over a debt, then all his other creditors would file suit too to try to keep from being the last one repaid with nothing. Then all the people (family and friends) who cosigned the loan with them had to go to court too, and all the other creditors of those people would file suit against them and it would spread from family to family to family like wildfire.

These Confederate debtors got no sympathy in the Missouri courts, since the Union had also gotten rid of Confederate judges and appointed Union judges. Union forces had implemented a loyalty oath for government office and only people who had taken a loyalty oath to the Union could vote, so Confederate sympathizers were effectively disenfranchised. The press was also censored. And no legislative bills for debt relief were passed. The banks gradually collected on the debts by seizing debtors’ property and selling it, and when it was all over, most of the defendants had no property left. (123 lawsuits of this kind occurred in Jackson County.)

History has noted that guerrilla warfare was worse in Missouri than any other Confederate state, but it so happens that there is just enough evidence to suggest that a number of young men who came from indebted elite families became guerrillas out of bitterness at their loss and lack of prospects and out of desire to avenge their families.

Also, in comparing between different Confederate states, it was found that those wealthy citizens of Missouri were much more downwardly mobile (i.e. they lost social status) than wealthy citizens in other Confederate states. In other states, the plantation system survived the war, but in Missouri, the large properties were sold off and bought up by immigrants from other states because so few Missourians had extra money.

The above is my less-nuanced summary of some of the main points in Geiger’s book. In reading it, it became perfectly obvious to me that this was also fulfillment of Joseph Smith’s prophecy. The elite Missourians were blinded. They were taken in their own financial craftiness when the times and seasons and reins of power shifted. Then their hopes were blasted, their prospects melted away (as they lost their property), they were disappointed, they were despised by those who used to flatter them (they sunk to lower levels of society and were no longer admired as elites and leaders or they left).

I am not sharing this information with the intent of raising feelings of schadenfreude, but rather to show that the word of the Lord to Joseph Smith was fulfilled in this instance just as it was in the better-known instance of his Civil War prophecy.

Symbolism in Revelation: the Mark of the Beast and the Locusts of War

The Mark of the Beast

I suppose everyone has to take his or her turn trying to interpret the imagery of Revelation, particularly the mark of the beast.  People like to point to RFID chips and implantable chips as examples of the mark of the beast.  I think there is a much simpler way to read it.

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
  17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (Revelation 13:16-17)

I think body-part symbolism is being used here.

• Hands = work  (Hands are used for manual labor)
• Forehead = thoughts

When people receive the mark of the beast, I think it means the way they work and the way they think has been corrupted, so that in everything they do or think, it is obvious (as if they were marked) that they are motivated by unrighteous desires.  When too many people do business using unrighteous methods, it becomes very difficult to do business any other way.  The ones with the money say, “It’s my way or the highway.”   Those who don’t want to be corrupted are automatically marginalized. 

The Locusts of War from Revelations 9:1-10

Now we’re going to go to a completely different chapter and look at some verses that usually have stumped people.  Many people like to try to match the strange imagery up with modern methods of warfare, but I’m going try to try to stick with simple spiritual symbols that teach spiritual truths.

1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

a star fall from heaven = Satan fell from heaven
key of the bottomless pit = authority to command all hell

  2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

smoke from the bottomless pit = temptations  (Think of the mists of darkness from Lehi’s dream)
smoke darkening the sun and the air = obscuring the source of light (the Lord), making it feel like a dark, stormy world

  3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

Locusts = devouring and destroying multitudes (armies/mobs/crowds/ organizations/groups) that seem unstoppable in the aggregate because of their numbers
locusts from the smoke = devouring and destroying multitudes formed because of great temptations 
given power as scorpions have power = power to sting (persecute, torment)

4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

 locusts commanded to not hurt the grass, any green things, trees… If we wanted to find a literal interpretation, we might say that these multitudes are ultra-worried about preserving the environment.  But this doesn’t have spiritual universality, so I reject this interpretation.   A spiritual interpretation is that these multitudes do not hurt those sealed in their foreheads (those who are spiritually alive like a green tree or green grass).

Interesting that ordinary locusts go straight for the green things.  These locusts specifically avoid green things.  (They only hurt those who aren’t sealed in their foreheads.  They go for the spiritually dead.)  (This nugget suggested by http://bible.org/seriespage/all-hell-breaks-loose-revelation-91-21)*

  5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

locusts with scorpion power = multitudes that sting (persecute and torment)
locusts not permitted to kill, only sting = multitudes not permitted to kill, only persecute

  6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
  7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.

locusts shaped like horses prepared to battle = fierce multitudes prepared to fight.  They work through horses, meaning things that serve them by increasing their abilities.
crowns = ruling powers
head= thoughts
locusts with crowns like gold on their head = multitudes that think they have power over everything, think they are the best (pride)
locusts with the faces of men = multitudes led by individual leaders

  8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

faces of men with hair like women =  shame  (“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” (1 Corinthians 11:14))  (This is the best I can do for now.  Your suggestions are welcome.)
Teeth like lions = very violent way of talking, very mean

  9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.

Breastplates like iron = very hardhearted
Sound = rumors or warnings
Wings = power.  Lots of times in the scriptures, wings are used to suggest heavenly powers.  (“And the sound of the cherubims’ wings was heard even to the outer court, as the voice of the Almighty God when he speaketh.” (Ezekiel 10:5) “I will bear him up as on eagles’ wings” (D&C 124:18)  Yet in this case, I think the wings are not necessarily representative of heavenly powers.  Think hellish powers instead.
Sound of wings = rumors of power 
Sound of wings like sound of chariots of many horses running to battle = they make everyone think that they are very powerful and about to come and completely destroy them with superior force and technology

  10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months. (Revelation 9:1-10)

Tails = followers.  (Just like a tail follows an animal, people follow a leader)
Tails like scorpions = followers that sting (persecute) and poison? (embitter against the truth)
Stinging tails with power to hurt men five months = persecution that hurts for a long time and takes a while to heal from

Now lets go on to another section of the same chapter..  Revelations 9:17-19

17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.

Horses = a domesticated animal/tool that can be useful for service in peace or in war.  They magnify a man’s speed, power, and height.   In this scripture horses have been trained for war.
Breastplates = the condition of their hearts.  Their hearts are guarded by a thick shell.
Breastplates of fire = angry (and destructive) hearts
Jacinth = a red-orange gem  (possibly communicating qualities of attractive sparkly-ness, but still rock hard; the color may further highlight anger)
Breastplates of jacinth = hard-hearted, angry
Brimstone = sulpher (stinky like rotten eggs)  torment (Brimstone is always paired with fire to refer to eternal torment.)
Breastplates of brimstone = tormented hearts
breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone  = angry, hard-hearted, tormented hearts
heads of the horses = ?? Hmmm.  This one threw me for a loop for a little bit.  If heads represented thoughts and horses were domesticated animals or tools, I wondered, how can tools of men think?  Then I realized that a modern equivalent could be the computer, which helps men generate ideas and solutions.   Computer programs simulate, allowing planning, designing, and other thought-oriented tasks.  Computers, like horses, augment men’s power to do things.  They can be used for peace or war. 
Lions = an animal naturally violent, fierce, predatory
Heads of horses like heads of lions = domesticated tools trained to serve for violence, ferocity, and predation

  18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.

out of their mouths = words
fire = anger, persecution
smoke = temptation
brimstone = sulpher, stinky-like-rotten-eggs torment
third part of men killed by fire, smoke, brimstone = many died spiritually

19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt. (Revelation 9:17-19)

Power in their mouth = power from strong words
Power in their tails = power because of how many people follow them
Tails like serpents = followers who tempt like Satan (serpent in the Garden of Eden)
Tails had heads = followers have their own evil ideas as well

Conclusion

This is the best interpretation I can give of these verses now.  I have tried to stay true to simplicity of spiritual meaning.   The large view that we get of these verses is much the same as that seen by Nephi:

• multitudes fighting and tormenting each other because of their wickedness and susceptibility to temptation,
• multitudes using their tools to prey on each other,
• multitudes persecuting one another, tempting one another, and causing many to die spiritually.

The word of hope from these verses is that if we keep ourselves as green trees (spiritually alive) (sealed with name of God in our foreheads) we will stay safe.

*The webpage I cited as a source now does not exist. However, to claim ownership of the idea would still be dishonest, therefore, I have left defunct address up as a memorial to the original source.

The Joseph Smith Translation Clarifies Our Accountability for Human and Animal Life

In the story of Noah in Genesis, there are some significant principles clarified in the Joseph Smith Translation about our accountability for life on this planet. Be ready to look for the forms of life and the stages of life that are covered.

First here’s the King James Version:

4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. (Genesis 9:4-7)

There’s a footnote for verse 4 that points to a Joseph Smith Translation Genesis 9:10-14 in the Appendix.

10 But, the blood of all flesh which I have given you for meat, shall be shed upon the ground, which taketh life thereof, and the blood ye shall not eat.
11 And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.
12 And whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man.
13 For a commandment I give, that every man’s brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man.
14 And a commandment I give unto you, Be ye fruitful and multiply; bring forth abundantly on the earth, and multiply therein. (JST Genesis 9:10-14)

In the King James version, verse 5 seems to imply that the Lord will hold animals accountable for killing men, but in the JST it clarifies that it is the other way around—the Lord will hold man accountable for the lives of animals and we are given this phrasing: “blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives”. To me this has echoes of D&C 89 admonitions to eat meat sparingly and only use in cold, winter, famine, and excess of hunger. I think this is because Heavenly Father wants animals to enjoy life on earth too and that He hates to see animals be killed only to have their meat wasted.

Next thing we notice is that verses 12 and 13 seem to read in a contradictory way.

12 And whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed;
for man shall not shed the blood of man.
13 For a commandment I give, that every man’s brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man (JST Genesis 9:12-13)

I don’t know about you, but when I read that, I get mental whiplash.

I think that if the order is changed a little bit it becomes somewhat clearer. Here’s the Michaela Stephens ultra-unofficial translation:

For a commandment I give, that every man’s brother shall preserve the life of man, and man shall not shed the blood of man, for in mine own image have I made man;
But inasmuch as men shed blood, whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood inevitably be shed, for whoso liveth by the sword shall die by the sword, that wickedness be punished by the wicked when the fullness of my wrath come.

Okay, so I added some stuff too, but that seemed to make more sense to me based on what we know of the observations of Mormon and John the Revelator:

But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed. (Mormon 4:5)

He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. (Revelation 13:10)

Giving these principles to Noah after the flood adds to their significance. The violence and blood shed by the wicked world before the flood had just been wiped from under heaven and previous to these verses we readers learn that the Lord will never again destroy the wicked by flood. We’re starting all over again, so here are the rules, the Lord says. I’ve fixed it once, and now I expect you to remember to restrain yourselves because I’m going to let things just run their course and let the wicked destroy each other. So save life.

One reason we are given for this commandment is that man is in the image of God. Considered one way, if you and every one else around is in the image of God, murder would be like sacrilege. Considered another way, the reminder of being in the image of God calls to mind man’s divine origin and destiny—we’re in the image of God, so we came from God, and we’re in the image of God so we can become like God. It is almost like an encapsulated version of the plan of salvation.

I find that I personally really like that addition of the phrase “every man’s brother shall preserve the life of man” because it shows how the Lord is focused on the positive—saving life—and that He’s not just a “thou shalt not” Being.

So how do we stop the violence and the massacres (which various scriptures seem to term “the abomination of desolation”)? If we stop it by massacring the killers, are we any better than them? I remember watching the first part of the movie Persepolis and realizing that if you try to stop systemic violence with revolution, when it gains power, the revolutionary movement can’t seem to stop the violence. Once it purges the worst offenders it doesn’t know when to quit and it has to keep finding scapegoats to retain galvanized support—“them against us”—until it has institutionalized its own brand of violence, which invites another revolution… You get the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror, and you get Hutus and Tutsis. And of course we know you also get Coriantumr versus Shiz, and you also get Nephites versus the Lamanites on the Hill Cumorah. The best hope for stopping violence is to bring in the troops, corral the violent, and try them in a court of law for crimes against humanity. (It’s when the violent outnumber those trying to enforce the law that you’re in serious trouble.)

But let’s move on.

The last part of the verses also has this theme of being accountable for life and it seems pretty much the same between the KJV and the JST, but there is one subtle difference. See if you can pick it out.

And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply (King James)

And a commandment I give unto you, Be ye fruitful and multiply (JST)

In the Joseph Smith Translation, the commandment becomes explicit, rather than implicit. I’ve run across some websites that seem to think that the King James version suggests it was not a command but a blessing. The Joseph Smith Translation shows us that it is indeed a commandment. This shows us that not only are we accountable for preserving life once it has started, we are also responsible for bringing new life into the world. (And of course there are right ways and wrong ways to do that…)

In conclusion, we can plainly see from the JST that Heavenly Father really cares about life. He cares about humans (His children) and He cares about animals. He cares about how life starts and He cares about how life ends. I’m glad we have the Joseph Smith Translation to clarify these things for us.

Land disputes

I ran across this story in my study today:

25 And it came to pass that in the commencement of the twenty and fourth year of the reign of the judges, there would also have been peace among the people of Nephi had it not been for a contention which took place among them concerning the land of Lehi, and the land of Morianton, which joined upon the borders of Lehi; both of which were on the borders by the seashore.
26 For behold, the people who possessed the land of Morianton did claim a part of the land of Lehi; therefore there began to be a warm contention between them, insomuch that the people of Morianton took up arms against their brethren, and they were determined by the sword to slay them.
27 But behold, the people who possessed the land of Lehi fled to the camp of Moroni, and appealed unto him for assistance; for behold they were not in the wrong.
28 And it came to pass that when the people of Morianton, who were led by a man whose name was Morianton, found that the people of Lehi had fled to the camp of Moroni, they were exceedingly fearful lest the army of Moroni should come upon them and destroy them.
29 Therefore, Morianton put it into their hearts that they should flee to the land which was northward, which was covered with large bodies of water, and take possession of the land which was northward.
30 And behold, they would have carried this plan into effect, (which would have been a cause to have been lamented) but behold, Morianton being a man of much passion, therefore he was angry with one of his maid servants, and he fell upon her and beat her much.
31 And it came to pass that she fled, and came over to the camp of Moroni, and told Moroni all things concerning the matter, and also concerning their intentions to flee into the land northward.
32 Now behold, the people who were in the land Bountiful, or rather Moroni, feared that they would hearken to the words of Morianton and unite with his people, and thus he would obtain possession of those parts of the land, which would lay a foundation for serious consequences among the people of Nephi, yea, which consequences would lead to the overthrow of their liberty.
33 Therefore Moroni sent an army, with their camp, to head the people of Morianton, to stop their flight into the land northward.
34 And it came to pass that they did not ahead them until they had come to the borders of the land Desolation; and there they did head them, by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east.
35 And it came to pass that the army which was sent by Moroni, which was led by a man whose name was Teancum, did meet the people of Morianton; and so stubborn were the people of Morianton, (being inspired by his wickedness and his flattering words) that a battle commenced between them, in the which Teancum did slay Morianton and defeat his army, and took them prisoners, and returned to the camp of Moroni. And thus ended the twenty and fourth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi.
36 And thus were the people of Morianton brought back. And upon their covenanting to keep the peace they were restored to the land of Morianton, and a union took place between them and the people of Lehi; and they were also restored to their lands. (Alma 50:25-36)

I read it with a lot more interest than I usually have in the past, because I am taking a World Politics class this semester and I just finished a short paper examining Russia’s reasons for invading Georgia (not the Georgia in the United States, the country that is south of Russia). Though the events only half coincide, there are enough similarities to render the comparison interesting. I reproduce my paper below:

In August 2008, Russia invaded Georgia, completing their humanitarian intervention on behalf of South Ossetia.

Examining their justification for this requires some historical background.

Russia’s military action came at the end of a series of events in which tensions between South Ossetia and Georgia were heightened, and tensions between Russia and Georgia were heightened.

In the 1990s, South Ossetia, located between Georgia and Russia, fought to separate itself from Georgia and since then, South Ossetia has had very close ties to Russia. Russia has issued South Ossetians Russian passports to facilitate relations (Abdullaev, 2008; Nichol, 2008, 18) and many South Ossetians use Russian money (Godsadze 2008). This has not prevented Georgia from wanting to reunite South Ossetia back with Georgia.

In 2005, there were two elections in South Ossetia, one in which the South Ossetian separatists claimed 99% of the population was in favor of an independent South Ossetia, and an alternative election that was decided in favor of unification with Georgia. Russia recognized the separatist election, while the U.S. state department and most of the west accepted the alternative election (Nichol, 2008, 3). This has caused a mismatch in views over South Ossetia’s international status.

Tensions rose before the fighting started as Georgia conducted military maneuvers on its borders, and Russia conducted military maneuvers by its borders. Georgia protested Russia’s maneuvers, saying that it was demonstrating a military threat. (Nichol, 2008, 6)

In early August, smatterings of violence between South Ossetia and Georgia resulted in Georgia invading South Ossetia. The South Ossetian president claimed that during the invasion, Georgia perpetrated its third genocide against South Ossetia (Russia Today, 2008, Aug 9). South Ossetians claimed that Georgian soldiers made no distinction between military and civilian targets and that they behaved in a brutal manner toward fleeing civilians (Russia Today, 2008, Sept 7). There are stories of old women crushed by tanks and cars set on fire with occupants still inside. Although the death toll is unknown, South Ossetia claims it is in the thousands. (Russia Today, 2008, Aug 9)

In response to the crowds of distressed South Ossetians fleeing northward, Russia declared that it would repel the Georgian aggression. It invaded South Ossetia, stopped the Georgian forces, pushed them back into Georgia, and continued further into Georgia.

Russia justified its actions by saying that Georgia was committing genocide on South Ossetia and that it was necessary to stop it immediately. Russia already had peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia, but they were overcome; “52 Russian peacekeepers were killed as a result of the Georgian army’s attack. Thirteen are missing and 229 are wounded” (Russia Today, 2008). “In justifying its invasion of Georgia, Russia said it had to defend Ossetians with Russian citizenship who were under siege when Georgia shelled their capital, Tskhinvali, in early August” (Rodriguez, 2008).

Russia’s push far into Georgia can also be seen as an intention to completely subdue the military aggression of Georgia. If Russia merely chased the Georgian army back into Georgia and stopped at the border, the opposing Georgian army would remain a significant threat for South Ossetia to face in the future. Russia proceeded to Georgian military bases and neutralized the threat itself in order to be quite sure that Georgia would no longer threaten South Ossetia. They took over Georgian military bases, replaced Georgian media broadcasts with pro-Russian content (possibly to try to reverse any pro-Georgia propaganda), and took Georgian soldiers prisoners (Rimple, 2008).

Russia’s invasion into Georgia is also an attempt to build a protective margin or buffer around South Ossetia. They put in eight military checkpoints in Georgia and wanted a no-fly zone too (Whalen & Chazen, 2008). Russia consistently sets up buffer zones to prevent outside invasion. Eastern Europe was turned into a Russian buffer zone against the threat they perceived in NATO and the west after World War II (Norton, 2008).

Once Russia occupied Georgia, it also took the unique step of extending diplomatic recognition to South Ossetia, citing humanitarian reasons (Abdullaev, 2008). This was done in order to try to solidify the territorial integrity of South Ossetia, even as many other nations decried this recognition as a violation of the territorial integrity of Georgia and called for Russia to leave Georgia.

The fact that Russia has since mostly pulled out of Georgia, following a cease-fire agreement (AFP, 2008) and has insisted on including a South Ossetian delegate in peace talks with Georgia (Williams & Wagstyl, 2008) indicates that it was not using “humanitarian intervention” as a cloak for ambitious national expansion.

The theory that best explains Russia’s reason for invading Georgia is that of “humanitarian intervention”.

Similarities between the Morianton-Lehi land dispute and the Georgia-South Ossetia dispute are that one party thought land of the other party belonged to them, there was escalating violence, fleeing refugees petitioned for outside military intervention, and the aggressors had to be completely subdued.

I think it is significant that in the Book of Mormon story, everyone was restored to their lands after they covenanted to keep the peace. It is even more interesting to me that a union took place between these two warring parties that previously fought over the land. It seems to show that unity is the solution to contention.

Works cited in paper
AFP. (2008, Oct 15). Georgia-Russia talks angrily break down. Retrieved Oct 15, 2008 from http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4-tWFI-anlmK7ShA_zWkvtcCUqA.

Abdullaev N. (2008, October 7). Russia Adds 2 New Countries to Its Map. [Electronic version] The Moscow Times as shared by RussiaProfile.org. Retrieved on Oct 11, 2008 from http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=CDI+Russia+Profile+List&articleid=a1219852580.

Gotsadze, E., Associated Press. (2008, August 8). Fighting with Russian spreads to cities across Georgia. CNN.com. Retrieved October 7, 2008 from http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/08/georgia.ossetia/index.html.

Norton E. (2008, Oct 11) Why Uneasy relation exist between Poles and Russians. Welcome to Polishsite. Retrieved on October 11, 2008 from http://www.polishsite.us/politics-and-economy/poland-and-russia/162--why-uneasy-relations-exist-between-poles-and-russians.html.

Nichol J. (2008, August 29). Russia-Georgia Conflict in South Ossetia: Context and Implications for U.S. Interests. [pdf document] Congressional Research Service. Retrieved on Oct 11, 2008 from fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34618.pdf.

Russia Today. (2008, September 7) Witnesses reveal ‘Georgian atrocities’. [Electronic version] Retrieved Oct 2, 2008 from http://www.russiatoday.com/ossetianwar/news/30071.

Russia Today. (2008, August 9). NATO encouraged Georgia – Russian envoy. Retrieved October 11, 2008 from http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28660.

Rodriguez, A (2008, October 2). Ukraine’s Russia Quandry. [Electronic version] The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved October 6, 2008 from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-crimea_rodriguezoct03,0,3220653.story.

Whalen J, Chazan G. (2008, August 21). Moscow is Likely to Recognize Breakaway Republics in Georgia. [Electronic version] Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on Oct 11, 2008 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121923076375956371.html.

Williams, F. & Wagstyl, S. (2008, Oct 15). Georgia and Russia begin talks. [Electronic Version] Financial Times. Retrieved on Oct 15, 2008 from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/137b08f2-9a52-11dd-bfe2-000077b07658.html

Judging a movie

I happen to be taking a film class this semester. Let me tell you, it is an education, and sometimes not always a good one. I want to pass on some things I’ve learned that I hope will help you increase your ability to judge films with righteous judgment.

One thing I’ve learned is that it is not enough to say, “_____ was a good film”, because the question “Why?” quickly arises. Too often we speak only in generalities. In order to evaluate (meaning to form an idea of the value of) a film, we must judge by certain specific criteria.

One criteria that people often use to judge a film is by whether it is realistic or not. They get really into looking at the props and whether they are accurately depicted for the time period the film is set in. They point out when the hero doesn’t reload his gun when he should. They wonder whether people would really act that way. War movies are especially judged by this criterion. Were the Nazis brutal enough? Was enough blood spattered in a realistic manner? It seems to me that there is some realism that is not worth seeing, because the desensitizing effect on our spirit would outweigh any educational benefit we might receive from seeing what it was really like.

Another criterion that is often used to judge a film is by morality. I very much like this criteria, of course, because my religion is so much a part of my life that I see the world through the lens of morality. The thing that very much disturbs me is that my film book seems to be ambivalent about moral criteria as an important criteria for judgment or for making an effective film. It merely acknowledges that some people think that obscenity, nudity, and violence is bad, whereas others think those elements are praiseworthy. It suggests that a film might be praised morally for its overall view of life as suggested by its form as a whole, even though its individual elements might be considered offensive. If we admit this to be the case, we find ourselves wondering where to draw the line—how much swearing, sexual content, violence, etc. can a movie have before it becomes bad? How much safer to avoid it! And then, of course, we find out that someone has made a film that has none of these things in it, but which deals with a terrible theme in such a way as to make it unfit for consumption.

One thing I always used to wonder about was why filmmakers would get so upset when other companies would edit the obscenity, nudity, sexual content, and violence from their films. It never seemed like that kind of stuff is necessary to the plot. In my film textbook, it says, “If form in cinema is the overall interrelation among various systems of elements, we can assume that every element has one or more functions. That is, every element will be seen as fulfilling roles within the whole system…One useful way to grasp the function of an element is to ask what other elements demand that it be present.” (1) So, somehow, the filmmakers make a story that is so constructed that those elements of obscenity, nudity, sexual content, and violence are in some twisted way important to the effect or progression of the plot.

Let’s take an example. Enchanted . PG, right? The scene that most disturbs me is when Robert walks in on Gizelle when she’s just getting out of the shower. (Guys do not just walk in to the bathroom when they know that a strange woman they took in from off the street is taking a shower!) Pigeons cover her up with a towel just in time, before there is nudity, but still the shock of what almost happened.. Oh, words fail me. And then somehow they end up stumbling around and she falls on top of him on the hallway floor, still in her towel, just as his girlfriend walks in. ARGH! Why did they have to put all of this in there?!

In my frustration with it, I thought about how it affects the events in the story. First, it sows the seeds of distrust in the girlfriend so that she begins to distance herself from Robert. (Robert and Gizelle are going to end up together somehow..) Also, it provides the groundwork for the totally cute musical number later in which Gizelle tells Robert how to patch things up with his girlfriend (and the musical number ironically becomes another bonding experience between Robert and Gizelle). We could take out that shower bit and then we’d have no premise to support some of the other events that happen afterwards.

When this kind of content is necessary to the plot, the plot itself has moral flaws. Could it be improved? I bet it could. The story would have to take a rough massaging, but it could be done.

Lets move on to some of the other criteria used to judge a film. These are criteria that the book says are artistic.

First there is coherence, which is also called unity. I like to think of this as an indication that the film has started in the right place in the story and ended when it should, and that it has a feeling of completeness, that the various elements reinforce each other and accumulate a meaning for the viewer.

Then there is the criterion of intensity of effect. This refers to whether a film is striking or emotionally engaging to the viewer. Many filmmakers are trying to get as strong an emotional response from us as possible, so when we say that we are not affected by a film, we are truly desensitized.

As Latter-day Saints, we spend as much as our lives as possible sensitizing ourselves to moral situations so that we can make good choices. The more sensitive we get, the more we will notice things in the films we watch. We may find that films we liked years ago become painful to watch now. That is okay; it just means we need a higher level of entertainment.

I have to make a comment about an aspect of intensity of effect. Latter-day Saint artists, in trying to create stories or films or paintings or whatever with emotional intensity have to constantly make choices about far they will go to achieve an effect. How far will you go to convey the idea of love? Filmmakers think that means steaming up the screen with sexual content, but if we put morality as our top priority, we know sexual content is off-limits. The intensity of effect must be achieved some other way—through the accumulation of many small and simple things.

Another criterion for evaluating film is that of complexity. A complex film is one that is interesting on different levels. It could be that the characters are complex mixtures of good and evil. It could be that the plot has unexpected twists and turns. It could be that the topics that are examined are difficult and puzzling. It could be that there are different storylines going on at once. It could be that focus is on a larger number of characters rather than on just a small number.

Here too in the issue of complexity there is potential for abuse. For instance, I really, really don’t like it when the hero or heroine becomes such a complex mix of good an evil that it seems impossible that they could ever pull off the heroic action. I am constantly annoyed by whiny heroes and whiny heroines who are fighting their heroic “call” up to the moment that they start doing their hero thing. In my mind, heroism requires strength of character that has to be built up over a period of time through smaller feats of heroism. I'd like to see those preparatory feats. I subscribe to the idea of the “prepared hero”. I also don’t like the idea of characters that do both very terrible and very good things. A bitter tree can not give good fruit and a good tree can not give bitter fruit.

When films examine topics that are difficult and puzzling, it seems like it is almost on a collision course with moral criteria, because difficult topics (like marital relations, aging, death, illness, gender issues, and so on) require sensitive treatment and a velvet touch, yet filmmakers are still going for that intensity of effect, trying to knock our socks off.

Another criterion is that of originality. There seems to be some kind of idea out there that it is original if films depict good things to be bad. I’ve already run up against the idea of making the villain the hero. Ones in which marriage is portrayed as inhibiting and divisive and religion is portrayed as evil and yada yada yada…. this is seen as original? The problem with doing this is that soon the good value of the thing demonized is forgotten and with proliferation of this point of view, the other point of view disappears and then bad marriages are viewed as the only ones worth portraying, oppressive and bigoted religion is the only religion that appears, snotty rude children are the only ones shown on film, and so on.

I think true originality lies in discovering something good that no one quite noticed before, saying the truth in a fresh way. And being original in a moral way is actually spiritually demanding and requires inspiration and the help of God for it to be genuine and not sentimental. This is why I feel that morality is an integral part of art and the creative process.

This has been a bit of a rant, but I really had to get it off my chest. Thanks for listening.

Citations
(1) Film Art: An Introduction, David Bordwell and Kristen Thompson, p65