The March 2015 Ensign includes a BYU-I devotional from Elder Dallin H. Oaks titled, “Stand as Witnesses of God,” which divides the world into believers and unbelievers. Oaks pulls no punches in critiquing the latter, using the term “anti-Christ” to describe atheists, and asserting that the Great and Abominable Church is “any philosophy or organization that opposes belief in God.” I find this framework to be troubling, and this characterization of atheists to be unfair.
Oaks isn’t sure that atheists really have moral standards. He is worried that “today many deny or doubt the existence of God and insist that all rules of behavior are man-made and can be accepted or rejected at will.” But this doesn’t necessarily follow. You can believe that rules are (human)-made without seeing them as something to be cavalierly rejected or accepted. You can still take ethics seriously. Oaks acknowledges that atheists are not necessarily moral relativists but raises the concern that “absolute standards not based on belief in God are difficult to explain.” The moral values of atheists are suspect, in other words, because he fails to find any persuasive reason for them. But unbelievers could make a similar move, critiquing believers by making the case that their moral principles are based on something imaginary and are therefore not to be trusted. I think we would all do well to acknowledge the ability of people to make genuine moral commitments regardless of their status as believers or unbelievers.
And perhaps even more troubling, Oaks never touches on the possibility that one might have absolute moral standards based on a belief in God and do awful things. The fact that something is grounded in one’s beliefs about the divine does not in and of itself make it of good report or praiseworthy. Too many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, I think, for us to casually assume that religious values are bound to be positive ones.
In asserting the need to stand up for belief in God, Oaks points to the growing irreligiosity of greeting cards. “In recent years the inclusion of religious symbols and reverent words in Christmas greetings and sympathy cards has almost disappeared.” This sounds akin to the suspicion that the adoption of the term “Happy Holidays” is some kind of plot to undermine religion. It seems to me that both of these shifts likely come from market forces, as businesses seek to appeal to a wide swath of a population which is becoming more and more religiously pluralist. (In other words, they are a product of capitalism—which is somewhat ironic, since those who raise these concerns tend to be staunch capitalists.) If we lived in a totalitarian state where it was in fact illegal to print religious greeting cards, I think I could take the concern more seriously.
It is true, Oaks says, that “our nations include and are blessed by citizens of Jewish, Muslim, and other non-Christian persuasions, as well as by atheists.” (So maybe not all atheists are bad? I’m not sure how this fits with his earlier remarks). In any case, make no mistake. At least in America, Christianity is the best. “The United States was founded by persons and leaders who were predominantly Christians and who embodied the principles of their faith in the Constitution, laws, and culture of the nation.” Even setting aside the question of whether this is historically accurate (a real question), I am puzzled about his point. Is he arguing that Christianity should hold some privileged position? That seems untenable in a society as religiously pluralistic as ours. Not to mention that it is odd coming from a member of a church which is not always seen as Christian.
In general, however, Oaks seems less concerned with Christianity per se than with belief. He tells us, “we need to support the coalitions of religious leaders and God-fearing people who are coming together to defend the traditional culture of belief in God and the acknowledgment of His blessings.” It appears that as long as you’re religious, as long as you believe in God, you can be in the club. This also comes through in his advocacy of public prayer—”whatever the designated pray-er’s concept of God and whatever his or her religious persuasion or language of prayer,” this is something worth fighting for.
Once again, the world is divided into believers and unbelievers. The believers need to form coalitions to defend themselves. One thing I find striking about this is the utter lack of acknowledgment that there are differences between religions, sometimes radical ones. Not every religion even has a concept of “God” in the way that monotheists use the term (and the monotheists, of course, have plenty of disagreements among themselves as to what the term means). All of this is irrelevant, Oaks seems to be saying. If you are religious, you are one of the good guys, and we need to stand together. “Religion” is a kind of undifferentiated lump.
But even if we set aside the theological differences, it is worth noting that religions support a wide variety of social causes, and do not always have that much common ground. Gay marriage would be an obvious example of an issue about which different churches have taken very different positions. This is true of a whole host of social issues, from the appropriate use of torture to one’s attitude toward the government. In fact, not every church even advocates public prayer. When I hear about this coalition of the religious, I have to confess that I am suspicious—I think what I’m actually hearing is a call for a coalition of social conservatives.
The worldview in which the primary moral conflict is between believers and unbelievers is deeply problematic. It melds all religion together in a way that has little to do with religion as it actually exists, unfairly demonizes atheists, and ignores the painful reality that believers can and do cause all kinds of harm in the world. I have many friends and relatives who do not believe in God and who clearly follow moral principles in their lives. And I find it very, very difficult to believe that they are a greater problem in the world than, say, religious extremists.
Outstanding response, Lynnette. Of all the bizarre things Oaks does here, the lumping together of all religion as good seems the most bizarre to me. He really sees himself as being on a side with ISIS and the Westboro Baptist Church against the atheists?
I live in Rexburg and was listening to this devotional live at home while cleaning my kitchen. When he brought up people saying “happy holidays” instead of “merry Xmas” I threw something across the room.
Some of the older (registered republican) Apostles seem to be preaching their politics as religion. Oaks is particularly good/bad at this.
We now have this ensign article https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/03/satans-rebellion?lang=eng which to me is defining the believers as those who oppose gay marriage, and those who don’t oppose gay marriage as followers of, or lead astray by satan.
The definition of a good Mormon (the conservative definition) is narrowing. We will soon have some Apostles, like Uchtdorf who are defined out.
The only way I can see past this is to get a discussion going on a retirement age of 80 for Apsotles, so we can replace the worst offenders. We need a leadership who teaches the inclusive Gospel of Christ, in preference to their culture.
Oaks was largely the recent and rare press conference. Was it about the Gospel? No Conservative politics!
I think there is little hope for the future of the church, let alone the progressive members if this continues. There is very little growth in first world countries. There are very few countries where there are conservatives as conservative as USA. The church looks so extreme politically to the rest of the world.
It is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ it must stop! How?
And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a secular humanist.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, moral relativists, relying on scientific evidence, erasers of sacred reminders, or even as this secular humanist.
I send Christmas cards twice in the year, I quote Christian founding fathers on all the social media profiles that I possess.
And the secular humanist, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, Humans are responsible for what we are or will become..
That’s a brilliant rebuttal of an odious talk. Thanks Lynette. Oaks is very worrisome.
Another great post, Lynette. I wonder if it would help if Oaks met with Greg Epstein (Humanist Chaplain at Harvard and author of Good without God) or Chris Stedman (a protege of Epstein’s and now Humanist Chaplain at Yale). Both are examples of atheists with strong moral foundations who magnify their opportunities to do good in the world. Not every atheist is or even likes Richard Dawkins. We recently had a great guest post at BCC from an atheist friend of mine who also defies Oaks’s stereotypes:
http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/02/05/a-stranger-in-the-garden/
While we’re fantasizing about Oaks taking meetings with these folks, we might as well also dream about him reading John Fea’s book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
Keep up the good work. I always look forward to your posts.
Perhaps more importantly we might fantasizing about him being the President/Prophet of the church and what that would do to help the church go to all the world?
This looks to me like the church’s attempt to be ecumenical (especially given its competing narratives of directly criticizing other churches)…but it also highlights a problem that often comes out from certain kinds of ecumenism — ecumenism basically amounts in those instances to be, “Let all us believers thank God that we aren’t *atheists*!”
Wonderful post, Lynnette!
I think it is interesting and somewhat perplexing that belief vs. non-belief is the focus and concern of Elder Oaks, rather that moral/ethical/righteous living vs. non-moral/ethical/righteous living. Didn’t Jesus say that even the devils believe in the Son of God, or something to that effect?
And yet belief remains such a central part of Mormon life at this point in time–you can behave like a real disciple of Christ but if you don’t profess belief in the prophet you cannot participate in saving ordinances. (And you can behave in many questionable ways and yet still get into the temple.)
I understand that belief can be a powerful force for improving behaviors. However, belief often seems involuntary, at least in part. Although I feel there is some choice involved, there are some things that I can’t bring myself to believe. And yet I can still behave in moral ways.
So why are we being cajoled to do something that may be beyond our control, rather than being encouraged to change actual behaviors that are more within our power to change?
For me and my house we will stick to the 11th Article of Faith.
“We claim the privilege of worshiping All mighty God, according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege. Let them worship how, where, and what they may.”
Dear Mike C,
I found your post quite by accidents as I am studying the book of Numbers and looking to find answers about these daughters.
Jesus did say that demons believe and they shudder. Probably knowing their destiny and the awe inspiring power of God Almighty. So the lesson to be learned, it isn’t enough to believe. We also know from scripture that all sin and fall short of the glory of God. So striving to live a moral and upright life is futile. We need our savior to be our righteousness and lean on him to give us the ability to be righteous. All our acts of righteousness are but filthy rags at his feet. It is humanistic to think we can attain salvation on our our good works or moral character. The Pharisees tried doing that and see what Jesus thought of them. They had every right to think they were righteous, they had to memorize the entire Torah. But in all that Jesus called them a brood of vipers, because their hearts were so hardened they didn’t recognize the savior of the world in human flesh. Seek the Lord while he may be found. Search the scriptures for your salvation, put your trust and belief in the One who brings new life. Test everything that people say against the Bible. blessings to you in your search for true salvation.
Fantastic post. We sure need to be less divisive. Thank you!