Devils and Activism
“I’ve seen the devil of violence, and the devil of greed, and the devil of hot desire; but, by all the stars! these were strong, lusty, red-eyed devils, that swayed and drove men- men, I tell you. But as I stood on the hillside, I foresaw in the blinding sunshine of that land I would become acquainted with a flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of rapacious and pitiless folly. How insidious he could be, too, I was only to find out several months later and a thousand miles farther.”
~Joseph Conrad, ‘Heart of Darkness’
It’s one of those ‘famous’ quotes in English lit. classes and provides much fodder for discussions of ’strong devils’ vs. ‘weak devils’, strong devils being those who actively cause trouble and/or evil and weak devils being those who allow evil to happen, essentially spineless and happy with as much unthinking comfortableness as they can get away with. Given a choice, I think most people would prefer to be a strong devil rather than a weak one. I mean, if you’re going to be bad, why not be good at it?
Some people wonder why other people get involved in activist causes or, within the LDS world, why other people would question this doctrine or that policy (call it religious activism), especially when doing so seems, to the unquestioning, to be unfaithful, on the grounds that to question or doubt supposedly chases away faith. I disagree. In fact, I think it’s the other way around–that to stay comfortably cocooned in a security-blanket version of ‘faith’, unquestioningly accepting the pat, correlated, Sunday School answers and insisting on shelving the hard questions is not real faith. To me, this is a variation of the 2 Nephi 28:21 theme of “And others will he [the devil] pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.” Maybe not Outer Darkness hell or Spirit Prison hell, but certainly a hell of not having grappled with the hard stuff and still having faith in spite of it all. If hell is a barrier to progression, than such comfortableness would surely be hell. The experience of facing your demons or devils is a way to learn of, strengthen, and actively use your faith. Activism Faith. In other words, hiding from our devils does not make them go away, but it does rob us of the chance of exercising that faith, both in preparing for the fight and fighting. How can we say we have fought the good fight if we avoid the battle?
We feminists often get the ’strong devil’ label because we are perceived to be fighting against righteousness, when really we are wrestling with God (not the same thing), seeking understanding where we see confusion and hurt. But even if we are completely on the wrong track (which I doubt) or we occasionally wander into forbidden paths as we seek, I think this is preferable to being a ‘flabby, pretending, weak devil’ who never questions her faith, and therefore doesn’t get the chance to use it.
Of course, all this doesn’t mean any of us should always be itching for a fight, whether with ourselves, with others, or with God. Sometimes we do need to put the difficult things away and focus on the soothing parts of our faith, enjoy the good things of both our life and lifestyle. It also doesn’t mean I think all non-feminists in the church are weak devils or that all people fall into either the strong or weak devil camp, though most of us do have episodes with each–I’m using the terminology to make a point, not point a finger. In the end, we all have different struggles in our quest for faith and I feel that the more positive approach to them is to face them, whatever they are, and ’seek learning [or understanding] even by study, and also by faith’, even if we make some mistakes along the way. Because we are on this Earth to learn, not only to be tested, I think, but to test things out. And if we are still able to choose to follow God and are honestly trying to understand Ultimate, Absolute Truth, then we, even we feminists, cannot be condemned.
I really like what you are saying here.
I remember reading about how Gordon Allport described religion in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic criteria—the growth and security functions. Security religions provides refuge–it builds an ecclesiastical wall which protects us from the onslaught of questions and doubts and decisions. Growth religion on the other hand, forces its adherents to grow, to accept responsibility, to move beyond extrinsic constraints. As he put it specifically, growth religion provides not a wall but “stepping stones to climb for the prupose of understanding, analyzing, serving, and making choices.”
That has always stayed with me, and I think your points go straight these ideas. Strong devils, flabby devils, walls, stepping stones—I love all these visuals….:)
Comment by karina — November 17, 2005 @ 12:01 am
Honestly , Artemis, sometimes I feel as if your views are too extremist for me, but I couldnt agree with you more on this. I know this sounds silly, but I feel more of a kinship with you after reading this post.
I think specifically of “The Screwtape Letters” by C.S. Lewis. The scariest most profound points of the book were when Satan Agents were working their most subtle mischief.
Comment by Kristi — November 17, 2005 @ 12:59 am
P.S. I just picked up a nifty bumper sticker that says “Dissent is Patriotic” That is a major strong devil here in Boise Idaho…
Ah its good to be different. I’m sure this one will be stolen, like the other lefty view bumper stickers I get. One disappeared in the church parking lot hmmmm…..
Comment by Kristi — November 17, 2005 @ 1:16 am
Choosing to struggle with these issues is in my view, choosing the better part. Well said.
The feminist approach to Mormonism isn’t always comfortable and it is hardly ever easy. Whatever it is, it is better than allowing a cloud of darkness (ignorance) to remain in one’s mind. Thanks so much for this post.
Comment by Mary Ann — November 17, 2005 @ 3:32 am
Oooh, that one is good enough to almost get me to break my bumperstickers-on-my-vehicles ban I’ve made.
Comment by jjohnsen — November 17, 2005 @ 9:17 am
Thank you! I wish I had been able to put my thoughts as eloquently as you just did…
Comment by Tracy M — November 17, 2005 @ 10:04 am
jjhonson -
There are many more bumper stickers like that at this website.
http://www.antibushbumperstickers.com/page-3.html
Comment by Kristi — November 17, 2005 @ 11:31 am
jjohnson:
I didn’t do bumper stickers either for a while until I discovered that many places sell bumper-sticker-shaped magnets. You stick the sticker to the magnet and then it can be temporarily affixed to the car. My current one has been in place for about 2 years, and I’ve never had trouble with it falling off or anything, regardless of weather or other conditions.
Comment by Naiah Earhart — November 17, 2005 @ 2:22 pm
Hmm… “Dissent is Patriotic.”
While I think I understand the underlying implication particularly as intended by the eft of center, it isn’t actually true. While it might be true depending on what is being dissented from as a statement it is simply meaningless.
It makes me wonder at the vacuousness of the Left where inane slogans pass for intelligent discourse and substantive argument.
Comment by Kwan Yee — November 17, 2005 @ 2:26 pm
and Artemis:
Exactly. It is a strange tightrope that we must walk. To lull and pacify ourselves is nothing more than indulging in a false acceptance–supplanting our will, agency, and reason for what we are told. Call it ‘blind faith,’ if you will. We are given eyes (”the eyes of our understanding”), and we must use them to see. To meet our religion head-on, to know it inside and out, to look at the tough issues, and thorugh throrough examination and analysis come to greater testimony is what we, as children given reason and agency, should do.
We must beware of contention. President Kimball gives a good discussion of this in “The Miracle of Forgiveness.” if we seek always to debate, then we invite nothing more than contention, and well, you know where that goes. If we seek truly to know, prayerfully to know, to think, to *discuss*, to learn, to grow, but do not cross that line to battling, then we are doing our duty.
We MUST question and examine and choose, but we MUST do it with a spirit of seeking deeper knowledge. To do it for the sake of doing it, provides only a backdrop of contetnion in front of which the adversary will build a playground. We also, to a degree, have to be careful with whom we work to challenge (to the end of growth) our faith and knowledge. Those who choose to live in that coccoon need to be in the right frame of mind to look with an eye to see, or such a discussion could bruise their faith rather than burn off chaff of uncertainty.
Hmm, I wonder if I went in enough circles there. To sum up: Yes , me MUST question and reason and thereby refine and strengthen our faith, but we must be careful how and when and with what intentions and what compantions we embark on such work.
Comment by Naiah Earhart — November 17, 2005 @ 2:32 pm
Amen! and Thank you! A question I ask my self from time to time is “why am I part of this religion?” This question is also applicable to other roles in my life.
Comment by Ali — November 17, 2005 @ 5:10 pm
Thomas Jefferson was the innane person who was quoted as Saying “Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism” . So I guess if you consider one of the founding fathers of this country to be vacuous…
Kwan Yee… our country was founded on dissent, otherewise we would all still be speaking the queens english.
p.s. bumper stickers are for fun, not everything has to be an “intelligent discourse and substantive argument”.
Comment by Kristi — November 17, 2005 @ 5:45 pm
One of my favorite scriptures seems to fit in nicely with Artemis’s wise comments:
“Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.” –1 Cor 14:20.
Of course, in my quad I’ve altered the text so it’s gender inclusive :).
Comment by janet — November 17, 2005 @ 5:53 pm
Bumper stickers aren’t meant for intelligent discourse, they are used to convey a quick statement or humorous saying. Besides, when was the last time you actually heard intelligent discourse from a Republican representative? Sound bites about braindead women and unborn babies that last 20 seconds are the standard.
Comment by jjohnsen — November 17, 2005 @ 6:19 pm
Good luck finding any intelligent discourse from a Republican. All we get lately are denials, flagrant lying, and more lies:
“We do not torture…”
“We do not use chemical weapons…”
“Iraq had WMD’s…”
“Iraq purchased Uranium from Niger…”
“9/11…Saddam Hussein…9/11…Saddam Hussein…”
“I did not mislead the American public or Congress”
“I will prosecute whoever leaked information about Valerie Plame…”
etc., etc., etc.
Kinda makes “I did not have sex with that woman” pale in comparison.
Comment by Rich — November 17, 2005 @ 8:34 pm
Kwan, here’s a bumper sticker for your car:
Cheney / Voldemort ‘08
Comment by Rich — November 17, 2005 @ 8:41 pm
There are things in the Church which we believe, which are true. There are things in the church which we believe, which are not true–but they’re comfortable; we’re used to them. “That’s the way we’ve always done it.”
The idea of segregation was so comfortable from Brigham Young down to WWII-times, nobody really had a problem with denying black men the Priesthood, even though the scriptural basis for the denial was fallacious. As people realized that the policy was really hurtful, the comfort gave way to the realization that the belief wasn’t true. After a while, “that’s the way we’ve always done it” wasn’t good enough anymore.
It’s my hope that, with time, people will come to see that the a few of the church’s policies remain hurtful (especially, IMO, those regarding gay members) and “that’s the way we’ve always done it” won’t be good enough anymore. They’ll realize that the scriptural basis for the old policies was thin, at best, and wrong, at worst–and they’ll throw the old beliefs and policies into the rubbish bin, where they belong.
What else is there, which is commonly believed, which is not true? (God cares about white shirts and ties? Please?) Can the “big devils” please work towards the destruction of these pernicious beliefs?
Comment by Mahonri — November 17, 2005 @ 9:18 pm
I love the gospel. I really do. But sometimes, the hardest thing for me to do on a Sunday morning is to get out of bed and go to church, because I know what I’ll be faced with: lots of people who think that to question is to deny, that to be left of centre (and I am radically left of centre on most issues) is to be in cahoots with the Devil. When ward members see me smiling in church, it’s not because I’m happy to be there or because I’m feeling the spirit; it’s because if I don’t smile through the torture that is church (especially Gospel Doctrine class) I’d scream. (Am I the only one with that fantasy—to scream loudly, right in the middle of Sacrament, just as some sanctimonious bastard mentions for the umpteenth time that we need Relief Society because they make cakes?)
I get in an argument just about every time I step foot in Gospel Doctrine. Just recently I was soundly pounced upon when I stated that the truly Christian thing is to give the needy what they want, and not what we think they need. It says it right there in Mosiah 4:26 and in a couple of places in Alma. But apparently, even though scripture is on my side, what I was saying was heretical—so much so, in fact, that when the man leading the charge against me said that if church funds had ever been used, even accidentally, to purchase alcohol, the gospel ceased to be true, not one person called him on it. They were all too busy condemning me.
I love the gospel in its purity—I love Christ and his teachings, I love the Book of Mormon. But I have a problem with the gospel in its practice—I struggle with the sexism and conservatism and narrow-mindedness of individual members. I want a gospel that will include me, with my left-wing radical environmental feminism and belief in socialism. I have a church binder full of things that make me smile. One of them is a little bit of paper that says, “I’m a MIT, not a Molly.” MIT is a term I believe my sister invented; it means Mormon of Independent Thought. If that makes me a “big devil”, well, in order to get a gospel in practice that includes people like me, I think we need a few more of them.
Comment by Quimby — November 17, 2005 @ 11:53 pm
Karina,
I’ve not read Gordon Allport, but I like the thoughts, especially the bit about security religion v. growth religion. I’m also a big fan of visuals and symbolism. They convey so much more than they say, sometimes, and they’re so adaptable.
Kristi,
Drat. I don’t want to be an extremist or sound like one. But I’m glad you feel a kinship now. I’ve always enjoyed your comments. Maybe we’ll become unlikely friends.
Naiah,
You are so right. We need to seek for the right reasons. I know that sometimes in the seeking, one can sometimes let the wrong reasons or feelings creep in, and sometimes others impute the wrong reasons to us. But the seeking, the true, sincere seeking–that’s how you find true faith and, eventually, true truth. ‘Tis a worthy quest.
Comment by Artemis — November 18, 2005 @ 11:57 am
As I wrote and you conveniently ignored, it all depends upon what is being dissented from. But to say that there is anything noble about dissent for it’s own sake is both irrational and absurd. It’s an empty slogan and not at all what Jefferson or any of the Framers intended but it certainly does resemble other inane slogans perpetuated by the Left such as “celebrate diversity.” Whatever for?? Unless the diversity being celebrated, in and of itself is meritorious, there is no reason to celebrate it and perhaps plenty of reason to be repulsed by it. By all means let’s celebrate practical application of Talibanic sharia for instance -to name one of many unworthy cultural diversities.
Comment by Kwan Yee — November 18, 2005 @ 12:05 pm
I agree that dissent is patriotic. I think it’s important to question authority. WIthout dissention and questioning of authority, we would still be under english rule, we would probably still own slaves etc. etc. We should not be so complacent as to just accept what the government tells is all true. That would be the beginning of the end.
Regarding the Church, I think we should be careful what we question. Yes there are many things that are done in the Church that are not doctrine but are, shall we say, traditions. One of those things that comes to mind is that most members think that all other members should be Republicans and if you aren’t a Republican you aren’t a good member. This is false and should be challenged. That’s another topic though.
There are other areas that are not up for debate though.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — November 18, 2005 @ 1:37 pm
Kwan Yee–
Sure, any slogan is evacuated of meaning if you don’t understand the underlying arguments–republican slogans as well. Frankly, the idea of celebrating homogenuity seems even more inherently idiotic than the alternative, if we were to remove the meaning from both. With the subtexts added, though, the Right’s alternative is rather obnoxious. Vacuity hardly seems more the earmark of the left than the right at the moment–since when is “might = right” an intelligent discourse on anything?
They’re just bumper stickers. Save your fury for something else, like actual political debate.
Comment by janet — November 18, 2005 @ 1:40 pm
Yeah, the new strong devil is that gay marriage is ok, that defending freedom (especially for brownish people is bad) that abortion is good, that ascribing God as a first cause to anything is bad, that Islam is a religion of peace, that Christianity is an insidious force for evil etc. etc.
Comment by GeorgeD — November 18, 2005 @ 4:24 pm
GeorgeD
I take it the point of Artimis’ post has completely escaped you?
NO
Comment by Not Ophelia — November 18, 2005 @ 10:58 pm
Don’t get too worked up about Kwan. She’s just a very serious Anne Coulter fan. [Makes me gag too, but hey, it’s a free country]
It wouldn’t surprise me if the above line came from one of Anne’s books — perhaps the fugaciously witty How to Talk to a Liberal [if you must]
As for meaningless soundbites, how about the ubiquitous “support our troops” ribbons. Talk about drivel on a bumpersticker . . .
NO
Comment by Not Ophelia — November 18, 2005 @ 11:19 pm
I guess one must be explicit when responding to comments other than the original post.
p.s. George Sand was a woman but GeorgeD is not.
Comment by GeorgeD — November 18, 2005 @ 11:42 pm
Congrats, Artemis, on being named to BCC’s “Best of the Box” for this post–it’s wonderful, and I’m sorry I’ve not been around this week to have seen it earlier! Very well written, my friend, and right on.
Comment by Athena — November 19, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
Comment by Rich — November 19, 2005 @ 3:15 pm
There is a fine line between questioning and picking apart just to find inconsistencies. The former can quickly become the latter. No-one jumps from good to bad, it’s usually baby steps. An alert mind as to this is what really makes the difference.
I am often held up as an example of dissent = worthiness. Tattoos and piercings, Rock music, these things led to me once being compared to the Whore of Babylon. But I am proud to be a worthy reccomend holder, you figure it out. I know from personal experience though that we can’t be so hell bent on questioning that we disregard the ultimate truths of the gospel. Perhaps white shirts and ties are there to help guide those whose faith is not strong, not to bind those who are.
I disagree about political affiliation too, as a staunch conservative I am often the one being attacked. Maybe we should all just swap wards.
Comment by MarissaS — November 21, 2005 @ 10:42 pm
P.S Quimby
I wholeheartedly agree about giving those in need their wants as well as their needs. In fact, I was taught the same in seminary.
Also ’support the troops’ being drivel is just the sort of mindset that causes people to refer to my ARMY husband as a cocksucker (and worse) without ever having the pleasure of meeting him. Forgive me for not giving you a high five. We CAN disagree with out being hurtful and malicious.
Comment by MarissaS — November 21, 2005 @ 10:50 pm
Sorry, but I stand by my comment. Support our troops bumperstickers are drivel. What do they mean exactly?
Some ideas:
1) Look at me, I put this bumpersticker on my car. That means I’m patriotic, unlike you liberal scum who don’t like the war.
2) Shut up and support President Bush’s policies.
3) I’ve never sent a package or letter to a soldier in my life, but hey I have a bumpersticker. Ain’t I cool!
4) War is like a football game and I’m cheering for the hometeam. Go, troops go.
5) I’m a patriotic jingoist. I’d never let my child join the service [that’s such a lower class thing] but I’ll happily put this bumpersticker on my Humvee so you can know I think correct thoughts.
If this country were really supporting the troops there’d be a lot more than bumperstickers and cuts in benefits for family members and veterans.
I’d think a military spouse would be very sensitive to this sort of hypocracy. I know I would if I were in your position.
NO
Comment by not ophelia — November 21, 2005 @ 11:11 pm
My dad, a WW2 veteran, tells it this way:
But I don’t know that getting rid of the bumper stickers is totally necessary; just amend them:
“Support our Troops: Impeach the Commander In Chief“
Comment by Rich — November 21, 2005 @ 11:58 pm
We’re not in a position to know what people who have bumperstickers do or don’t do. I believe that it is a symbol of their apreciation for someone who is willing to put themselves in harms way for the freedom of others, whether or not the person with the bumpersticker believes in the actual battle or not. Many people with the stickers will tell you that they don’t support the war. I prefer to think that if someone doesn’t know how to respond to the war or they aren’t sure how to do more then they use a bumpersticker to show part of their feeling. Not everyone is ready to shout “Impeach the President”. Maybe they should be given credit for at least thinking about it, unlike some people who simply stick their head in the sand. Bumperstickers don’t mean much, as evidenced by the people with the “peace Now” bumperstickers that drove by twice just to voice their disagreement with protestors outside my husbands office. I agree that some of it may be lip service, but why be a pessimist. There are far more important things to worry about. Like mothers who can finally see their children grow up freely. Or keeping my kids from killing themselves long enough to reach the age of five. How about donating money or food so that a family here can eat?
Why is it that I become unable to recognize hypocrasy when it becomes evident that I am a conservative? Let’s not be mistaken here, I’m not fooled by the Government. I am questioning what others are saying so I must be a Republican(no) and I must be wrong for questioning what most others here believe. *Since I am presented with a decidely liberal viewpoint everyday, and I question it, aren’t I essentially the same as those who are presented with the opposite and question that? I refuse to comment further, since this has nothing to do with the original post, but I would be delighted to hear your response to my admittedly tongue in cheek question presented above*.
Comment by MarissaS — November 22, 2005 @ 10:40 am
Maybe we should have a post about bumperstickers and how to interpret them and their politcal nuances. I, for one, have a liberal aunt who served in the army who says emphatically that she supports the troops, but not the war. Bumperstickers are just bite-sized social dialogue. There’s not really enough information in most to draw definitive judgements from. Mostly, I think they’re entertaining.
I will be happy to start a post for those who’d like to discuss bumperstickers. Meanwhile, this post has been quite successfully threadjacked from the discussion of faith that it was primarily intended to be. In the words of one of MY favorite bumperstickers, “Don’t make me get my flying monkeys….”
Comment by Artemis — November 22, 2005 @ 11:03 am
I love this website by the way-I feel like the little girl in the bee outfit in that Blind Melon video in the 90’s who feels like an oddball next to all the normally dressed folks…but in the end finds a pasture full of bee outfitted people just like her!I’m tapping dancing in all your guys honor, even the people I don’t agree with…
Comment by karina — November 22, 2005 @ 12:15 pm
I was speaking with a recently reactivated friend today about this post. She shared that she didn’t begin to question the things that were taught until she felt her faith was secure on the big things (BoM, Joseph Smith, truthfulness of the Gospel, etc..). That gave her room to then branch out and question what is generally accepted simply because it has always been accepted. I think that her statement beautifully typifies the feelings of most people. Perhaps they are not yet strong enough to question and find answers for themselves. Perhaps they have no desire to, which means (in my mind) that they are likely not ready to delve into those waters anyway. Learning is a constant process and many people don’t recognize when they have stopped learning and become stagnant. We have been counseled to seek knowledge, and I feel that not doing so is just as dangerous as the aforementioned forbidden paths.
Comment by MarissaS — November 22, 2005 @ 4:03 pm
Well written website! I, too, feel like a bit (ok, alot) of an outsider. I find myself secure in the truthfulness of the scriptures, and exact doctrine of the church, and the temples, but have a big issue grasping the “unofficial” tenets of the church. I’m going through IVF and infertility treatment, and it is hard to not question so many things that are in the Church Handbook (and the church opposes) but which have no scriptural or doctrinal reason for their opposition on the matter. And all the little cultural things on top of it. Glad to know I am not alone in this.. I always felt it was rather lame to not question things, because without questioning, how are you ever supposed to learn and build your testimony? I can’t imagine that the Lord just wants us to follow blindly, or have a testimony that is just the same as everyone else’s.
Comment by Nicole — November 25, 2005 @ 2:04 pm