This People

1. The LDS Future

Talent is what you posses

Genius is what possesses you

– Matthew Crowley

Okay, well here goes. What do we think of when we consider the LDS future? What does it mean to contemplate such a thing? First it would be good to define what LDS is. Are we talking about the Church here? This is the way I see it, and I expect you will hear a lot of, “This is the way I see its” from me on this site. It is the LDS people as such that I am talking about. Can such a concept exist on its own? Are LatterDaySaints* identified only in connection with the Church? Or can they come together and develop a broad consensus from their world wide diversity then move forward together towards a common vision? Can it happen? I remember one expression from sundry LDS commentators which might connect with this concept stated simply as, “this people” possibly going ahead and doing things. (There was once a magazine published under that title which I subscribed to for awhile) What that implies will be as varied as the people who read it and think about it. Such explorations will raise a lot of questions. Before going on, perhaps the title of this segment is a little misleading. It is not about pursuing the future of LatterDaySaints in general but only how some LatterDaySaints who are interested might view the future and apply themselves to it in the context of this idea.

So, let’s talk about our future. I remember the adage of Thomas Jefferson; “I believe more in the dreams of the future than of the history of the past.” I think LatterDaySaints have a certain interest in the future given their modern revelation about the subject, and a significant amount has been taught about it. We seem to hope for a better world of the future, yet we don’t relate to many specifics about it. We then approach the issue either by shunning it – the future will take care of itself, don’t worry about it, or embracing it – there must be something we can do to make the future more palatable. The former tends to be the conventional wisdom for LatterDaySaints. However the latter proposition intrigues me with possibilities of its own. The quandary is well stated by David L. Norton in his book Personal Destinies where he writes:
“No person undertakes to do something he knows to be impossible, and no person undertakes to do something he knows to be inevitable. To attempt the impossible is futile, and to attempt the inevitable is gratuitous. All human enterprise, from the least act to the loftiest aspiration, is obliged to presuppose the possibility of its successful outcome and to direct itself by this concretely apprehended possibility.”
Yes, we can talk about it, but eventually we might want to do something about it. Because just talking about it gets frustrating. To continue with Norton here, his next sentence suggests the approach, “Not successful outcomes but directed activities demonstrate the reality of possibilities.” So directed activities may pursue successful outcomes to help the future along. As the old saying goes, “It is the journey rather than the destination that is most satisfying.” Let us direct our activities daily in useful channels. Norton again describes the self-actualized individual in this context; “At the same time the inclusion of the future in his present means that each act is right for its occasion, and as such it is a mini-consummation, a ‘little completion.’. . . .In the biography of the good life every sentence is a fitting epitaph and is the epitaph until it is succeeded by the next sentence.” So as we discuss, we should do it with little goals in mind that our words may produce something constructive rather than just blowing off steam.

The question remains; is there a need, or is there a desire to address the future in an LDS context? With our small numbers in relation to the rest of the world, what can we do to affect the future? Possibly the question should be; what can we do to affect ourselves in the future? Perhaps what we need is to create an LDS body politic initially on this web site with a future focus however daunting that may seem. It may be small and halting at first, facing a considerable learning curve, to foster a developing concept of the future even though there may be different schools of thought about it. Between where LatterDaySaints stand now and the Second Coming is a gap populated by vague notions about what would apply. Some may assert that the gap needs some structuring with the nuts and bolts of sound ideas – while admitting that humans cannot do everything, they can still do something. How we change ourselves with those nuts and bolts may be the most effective measure of all, and that may have an influence on our neighbors.

Initially, we can expect a lively discussion on the “Bloggernacle” which will be a permanent feature, yet I think face to face encounters will help us cement our relationships. For example, we could hold periodic conventions at central locations and /or regional confabs at various outlying areas. These would be forums for suggestions and celebratory functions. Any resolutions forthcoming would not be binding on the membership because, as will be seen, grass roots groups in local areas should probably have the impetus to develop policy and move it into larger dimensions.
Ron Hartmann

*I tend to spell out LDS as “LatterDaySaints” fused together in one word.

FWIW – We need to develop the capacity to form judgements of our own about the value of ideas, opportunities, or people who may come into our lives. We won’t always have the security of knowing whether a certain idea is “Church approved,” because new ideas don’t always come along with little tags attached to them saying whether they have been reviewed at Church headquarters. Whether in the form of music, books, friends, or opportunities to serve, there is much that is lovely, of good report, and praiseworthy that is not the subject of detailed discussion in Church manuals or courses of instruction. Those who will not risk exposure to experiences that are not obviously related to some Church word or program will, I believe, live less abundant and meaningful lives than the Lord intends.

We must develop sufficient independence of judgement and maturity of perspective that we are prepared to handle the shafts and whirlwinds of adversity and contradiction that may come to us. When those times come, we cannot be living on borrowed light. We should not be deceived by the clear-cut labels others may use to describe circumstances that are, in fact, not so clear. Our encounters with reality and disappointment are, actually, vital stages in the development of our maturity and understanding.

Bruce Hafen

2. Boundaries

It was Robert Frost’s pithy observation that freedom is “running easily in harness,” to which we are constrained to add “- having chosen the harness in which one runs.”
David L. Norton

The Bloggernacle abounds with discussion on any LDS subject imaginable. Of course there are general subject sites along with specific focus sites. I would like this to have a specific focus that emphasizes the future and how LatterDaySaints might approach it. It is not about the future of the Church. It is about the future of “this people” (or at least some of them) to employ a term that is sometimes used. If some of us get together and talk about what we want to do I see a kind of LDS style consensus developing. It will be a challenge. I see some boundary conflicts arising. With good faith we can handle them.

Put yourself into this picture. Come to us and tell us what you want to do and what you want us to do. You see, it is about us. By us we mean not necessarily all LatterDaySaints, but those who might be interested in developing this concept. Now this begins to sound political – one of those buzz words. Yet, no matter what you want to get done, you have to play some kind of politics if you want others to buy in. That being said, one does not have to pursue purely political goals. The future is so wide open that many efforts can contribute to it, social, cultural, economic, artistic, and a myriad of other possibilities. Relax. Be flexible. Be creative.

Above all, this is a grass roots concept; democratic from start to finish. Everyone is equal. All ages are welcome as are all LatterDaySaints around the world. The way I see it, there will be no think tanks, no institutes, no symposiums, no study groups, no gurus, no guest speakers, no twelve step programs, no acceptance of endorsements, no fundraisers, no membership drives, just the basics of democratic life. By the democratic life I mean such as what we might sketch out on the Bloggernacle for a start. For a start yes, but something else will come into it. As one might be able to see by now, this is becoming a goal oriented concept. Few worthwhile goals can be accomplished by an individual. It takes people coming together physically, face to face, to make something happen that all can internalize. People coming together in local areas to discuss and plan things.

SELF GOVERNMENT

Our greatest challenge will be self government. The internal politics of the group will have to succeed in the democratic sense. This is harder to achieve than any other form of government. Other governments such as monarchy, dictatorship, autocracy, oligarchy, bureaucracy, and theocracy are easy. Under them, you just do what you are told in a top down pyramid style structure. With democracy, you have to tell the group what you want, then accept their many amendments to or even rejection of your plan, then go out and promote the result as if it were your own. Our biggest obstacle is that we have so little experience with it. You would think that in a democratic country such as ours (the USA) we might be used to it. On the contrary, the average person spends at least 90% of his time in activities that have nothing to do with democracy. Instead we are given orders from above through many bureaucratic and legal systems designed to keep the ducks in a row. This makes for an orderly society. That is OK such as it is. However the most stimulating ideas come from the interplay of multiple actors in a democratic setting, but so few people have that opportunity. I have often asked myself the question, “What is the rarest thing on earth?” The answer I conclude is, “Democracy is the rarest thing on earth,” at least in regards to governmental systems. Some people have trouble with democracy. It is too messy. Let the higher-ups play with it. Then if they don’t do what the people want, all the more reason to condemn democracy. So, in this case, we have got to love what others do not. Yet, I think that civilization’s greatest achievement is self government which embodies democratic procedures, universal rights, rule of law, and equal justice under the law. Admittedly, there are many places on earth that still strive for it, so let us not count ourselves out of that same striving.

The first step is respect for the opinions of others. We will be shocked that even though we have the same religious beliefs, our respective views of the world will extend over a wide spectrum. The Bloggernacle has proven that. There will be a temptation to break into factions, the first pitfall of any democratic society. Factions are tolerable if they can be contained within the original body politic and not wreck the process. A good example of how to handle the problem can be found in the US Senate. In spite of its many faults, it knows how to stick together and get something done occasionally. You would think when the serious differences that senators have stretch to the breaking point they would just disband and go their own ways. Why doesn’t this happen? There is only one answer, because they would lose their positions and their paychecks. That is why the Senate has stuck together through thick and thin these many years. No matter how dissembling and obnoxious some colleagues may be, they are tolerated because there is no other choice. They have found ways to soften this. For example, they are not allowed to refer to each other by name or even address each other directly. Utilizing Senate Rule 19, they must always address the chairperson by title and refer to a colleague as, “The distinguished senator from Ohio etc.” Decorum is a good idea to maintain stability. We should do likewise. We have got to hold on to the idea of respect as if it were our paycheck, and make it the first article of faith in any democratic concept. Let us learn to run easily in this “harness.”

PROTOCOLS

Additionally, to maintain some order, I want to suggest a few protocols. This may change somewhat with time, but for now, I think it necessary for a fledgling concept. Essentially we must face inward and succeed at governing ourselves before we address external situations. Certainly we can promote things of benefit in the public realm. Yet we do not want to insist that certain people do certain things. We are not advocates, not petitioners, not protestors, not demonstrators, not militant or other things similar. I hope the gist of that is clear. However, nothing is cast in concrete except for a few basic principles, yet changes should be well considered. I sound adamant, but I am trying to get this concept off the ground which will take some preliminary rules. I am no wiser than anybody else, and there will be many others influencing this site. Everybody out there is a potential contributor making, it is hoped, that much creativity will develop without too much centrifugal force from factions. Perhaps a moderator will need to be employed to screen comment in accordance with rules that are developed.

As implied earlier, our overarching concern should not be to attach ourselves to the Church or become a shadow church. So our communication about what we do should only be about what we would like to do amongst ourselves. Policies that we develop we impose upon ourselves, not other LatterDaySaints, and not the Church. There should be no need to discuss doctrine, theology, church policy, church history, current church events, church personalities, etc. We are not here to change the Church, but we are here to develop our own skills. Likewise, in our own relationships this is not a forum for personal problems, support groups, counseling, confessing, etc. If I could have it my way, this would be a market of pure ideas that stand or fall on their own regardless of who the author is. We would check our egos at the door and concentrate on the presentation of ideas. That being said, and before you jump all over me, I realize that some of the aforementioned may have relevance at times to what we are considering. Just let us be careful how we use them. Although I am not suggesting a gag order, one might be challenged by someone asking, “What does that have to do with the subject at hand?” Also in a related vein, the question, “OK, since you brought up the complaint, what is your solution?” Yes, we can talk a lot, as we will, but at some point we need action that works in the real world.

Here again, I do not want to neglect the social aspect, or call it the non-serious aspect. When we get together, what we talk about in that realm is pretty much open but should also be discreet. Maybe some ideas from that will float into the serious realm. This may have to start on a local social footing before anything else where it can become the oil that lubricates substantive considerations. A social foundation is expressed by a Jewish writer in describing activities by people of his faith thusly;
“ Many social groups have combined Jewish activity with more informal social and educational enterprises. From its inception the synagogue has served as a social center as well, but in America men often wished to get together on a purely social basis. The earliest social club on record is one that was organized in Newport in 1761. Since that time clubs of all kinds have been started by Jews in various parts of the country. But with rare exceptions their Jewishness has consisted almost exclusively in their Jewish membership, rather than in any particular activity.” *
This goes along well with open forums and plenary discussion subjects. Someone may discuss something in an informal setting that she would never broach in a formal meeting to set the stage for a new departure.
Ron Hartmann

* Salo W. Baron, The Modern Age, Great Ages and Ideas of the Jewish People, Ed. Leo W. Schwarz. (New York, Random House, Inc. 1956) p. 474

3. The Z Word

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: indeed it is the only thing that ever does.
Margaret Mead

When LatterDaySaints think of the future there seems to be one word that stands out on their horizon – Zion. Again, much has been said about this topic, but I am not interested in it as such. It is a far off ideal which is difficult to contemplate. I like to use the expression, “Let’s get half way from here to there.” There again, I can’t explain what that might be. It is more of a sentiment than a definition. Besides, there is probably no way to measure it, so we will not map out a path and proceed. Also I do not claim any spiritual impetus for this concept, so I cannot presuppose that any particular course will send us in that direction. It will probably take contributions from different sources not to mention a lot of trial and error. Yet, if we are to help build Zion we might move forward by our own natural instincts. All we can do is put ourselves in new situations and handle things until something coherent begins to emerge. It comes in the spirit of, “ Let us begin.” We could find a path for progress. To make things better as we encounter them, not to save the world, but as Margaret Mead implies, to change it, or at least our little part of it. Additionally, to also enjoy the journey would be a good idea. One aspect of this journey I might call “zionism.”* Perhaps Zion will be built in stages, and zionism could contribute to those stages. Zionism presupposes change and progress toward a realization of Zion which itself might not materialize as a final state but continue to be a work in progress.

Zionism is an idea with many permutations which will proceed from the eye of each beholder. I would like to give some direction to an LDS version of the concept by first sketching a brief history of it as developed in modern times. The term was used in the nineteenth century by the Jewish people to express a yearning to return to their homeland in Palestine. In 1896 Theodor Herzl, a Jewish journalist, published a book entitled “The Jewish State” which electrified the Jewish community. In it he urged Jews to return to Palestine and establish a political nation state for the Jewish people. Various Zionist organizations around the world were set up to create the State of Israel. Herzl considered it to be a refuge for Jews from outside animosities and a vehicle for Jewish national self-determination. We know the history of it – the heroism, the economic and political successes, and the all around impact Israel has had on the community of nations. The main goal seems to have been for the Israelis to separate themselves from the rest of the world to some extent in order to achieve security from persecution and assimilation.

This concept of separatism, let us not become too alarmed by the term, may be the first attribute of zionism, if I may co-opt the word from our Jewish friends for use here. In that a particular belief system finds itself different from other beliefs, it will make that difference apparent by unique practices. In effect then, any belief will have to separate itself from the world at large to some extent in order to pursue its purposes even if for designated time periods. The simple expedient of going to church, for example, allows believers to get away from the world for a time to concentrate on what is important to them. So this is a kind of zionism. In fact, just about all the people in the world belong to a religious or cultural or economic group that makes them zionists in their own way. Lifestyles also reinforce zionist attitudes. Such groups as Jews with their mode of dress and dietary rules as well as Amish, Mennonites, Moslems, Hindus, and Native Americans along with myriad others project an image that bolsters their beliefs. Furthermore, organizations that might amplify these concepts could be spin offs from parent institutions such as the Lovers of Zion, the American Legion, the VFW, the Knights of Columbus, the Masons, the Shrine, the Odd Fellows, B’nai B’rith, the Grange, political parties, and political interest groups just to name a few. All such groups pursue ideals which provide them with their own “zionist” agenda.

LDS ZIONISM

The zionist approach might work with LDS conceptions of the future. It is goal oriented. It is belief specific. It is altruistic. In our case it is not really separatist. Yes, LatterDaySaints may get together to come up with concepts. Such concepts will likely be for the benefit of all people. Essentially LatterDaySaints are outgoing and all inclusive. Their concern is for the whole world. Their missionary approach to things reaches out to all. By nature, they are not exclusive or elitist. It is important that LatterDaySaints realize such in this endeavor.

You know, Theodor Herzl had it easy in one respect. All he wanted to do was reclaim the land of Israel for the Jewish people, a simple and exclusive sentiment. Simple enough that he stated it thusly: “The aim of Zionism is to create a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine secured by public law.” Exclusive it was in its goal of a homeland for the Jewish people. All proposals by Zionist adherents could be judged as to whether or not they contributed to that single goal. At one point in fact, Herzl became discouraged at the slow progress of the Palestine settlement and accepted a British suggestion for Jewish colonization of Uganda if only temporarily. When the Zionist convention got wind of it they rejected it out of hand. The Uganda plan they argued was a dangerous diversion from their goal. LatterDaySaints have a different challenge in that they must come up with goals that can be useful everywhere. The Jewish program was geocentric. It concerned itself with settling only one spot on the earth. It also addressed the aspirations of only one nation. Some, no doubt, will say that LatterDaySaints should do likewise since some of our views of the future involve similar concepts. But in the end, the LDS program encompasses the whole world and should therefore, I think, start out with that premise.

Starting out with a world view for zionism is the gauntlet before us. At first, although we keep the world view in mind, we address local issues to benefit our own communities. What is the old saying, “Think globally act locally?” Or as Tip O’Neil used to say, “All politics are local.” Well yes, let us get down to some mechanics here. I envision us, after a time of discussing things thoroughly on the Internet, getting together in our local areas and discussing things thoroughly again. As I said at first, we must learn to govern ourselves in the democratic sense, and the only way to do that is to deal with each other personally. If we can congregate in central areas perhaps no more than an hour’s drive from where we live then meet for a couple of hours once a month, we can begin to get a handle on what confronts us. Let us say that we call these groups “chapters.” This can happen worldwide. I am sure that some areas will be more effective at it than others, and it might not be possible in some places given political circumstances. Such is always the nature of the situation. We will live with it and try to generate interest in it to a world constituency as time progresses. Notice that this requires no one to change lifestyles, to move somewhere else, to take up different employment, to become educated in a specialty, or any significant disruption in a way of life. Accordingly, it is completely voluntary. If it conflicts too much with one’s Church duties, for example, one can discontinue it and come back at a time when it is more convenient. Each chapter can develop its own programs for its particular situation. After awhile they can cooperate for regional, national, and international programs. We will continue to use the Internet for the various services it provides to keep us informed.

A FUN START

Shall we slow down and concentrate on enjoying ourselves? Yes, in some respects, zionism should be fun. I am not afraid of that word in connection with us. I just like to associate with LatterDaySaints. I find them fascinating especially after I have seen them perform on the Bloggernacle and throughout my own life. We have all types don’t we? We will have our differences which we will work on, yet getting together will be stimulating. People could even bring their kids along – we will find something for them to do. Some may not think of this as a social club, but I think that could be an important aspect. In self government socializing is the oil that lubricates the political machinery. What this implies is something like popular sovereignty for chapters. I will say that chapters do not have to do anything they don’t want to do. Their agendas are set democratically from within. No traveling administrator will come around insisting that they do such and such. Of course, getting lazy and doing nothing could spell the demise of any chapter. Chapters have got to be proactive about something. Programs and policies have got to come from the grass roots. That being said, concepts are going to have to eventually work their way upwards to form some system of rules or bylaws. Boards of directors will have to be elected to cover areas, regions, or whatever. Swallow the bitter pill, they will have to establish some “thou shalt nots” for all chapters to prevent them from going off the deep end. Again, this is not telling them what they should do but what they must not do. It just comes with this kind of effort. Just think how chaotic things could become with each chapter completely going off on its own. Call it the development of unifying principles. A board could even ask chapters to adopt certain policies to promote specific concepts. Yet again, chapters would not have to accept those policies, but one could not blame the board for trying.

It will be a lot like the American constitution; something like establishing boundaries between the federal and state governments; like the creative tension between centralization and decentralization and similar to the tension that continues in the constitution to this day. We can live with it if America can. I cannot predict how all this will pan out. It may go through various permutations given the many different LatterDaySaints involved. We ultimately seek unity from this striving to find the way. This is the big challenge before us now. The Z word took on meaning when Theodor Herzl found a way. The same should be no less imperative for us.
Ron Hartmann

• I spell the word zionism here in the lower case to distinguish it from the Jewish rendering of “Zionism” always spelled in the upper case. Since there is not a formal LDS concept of “zionism” I use it as a generic term to express abstract principles possibly associated with the word in various contexts. When discussing the two together I will use the lower case. The word Zion, however, is a formal concept in both religions, so it will be spelled in the upper case.

4. Patterns

History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.
Mark Twain

We are told that a great life is “thought of youth wrought out in ripening years”; and it is perhaps equally true that “great” thinking consists in the working out of insights and ideas which come to us in playful moments. Archimedes’ bathtub and Newton’s apple suggest that momentous trains of thought may have their inception in idle musing. The original insight is most likely to come when elements stored in different compartments of the mind drift into the open, jostle one another, and now and then coalesce to form new combinations. It is doubtful whether a mind that is pinned down and cannot drift elsewhere is capable of formulating new questions.
Eric Hoffer 1964

It seems like we are always searching for something new. The stresses of modern (or should I say post-modern) life send us running for solutions in every direction. Maybe it is time to slow down and relax. We might have to promote the attitude of “playful moments” and “idle musing” not only to produce new ideas but to “formulate new questions.” Later on in the above quote, Eric Hoffer points out that such crucial instruments as the telescope and the microscope (and I might add a more up to date example; the personal computer) had their beginnings as playthings. So perhaps our Zionism should start out as a “plaything”, and maybe it should stay that way to some extent. Can we see ourselves in that context? At least concentrating on creativity could help. Are there any examples of LDS creativity? I recall a priesthood lesson taught in about 1992 from the Strengthen Your Brethren manual (the one with Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove on the front cover) where at page 67 is a quote worth contemplating. The event is the Regional Representatives Seminar in April of 1974 and reprinted in the October 1974 Ensign on page 3. It is the famous quote by President Kimball:
“I am not calling for flashy temporary differences in our performance levels, but a quiet resolve . . . to do a better job, to lengthen our stride”

“The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were and ask why not?” (Italics mine)

That last part of the statement is what intrigues me. Actually it is a direct quote of what John F. Kennedy spoke to the Irish Parliament on June 28, 1963. Yes, it does sound Kennedyesque, but coming from President Kimball, I wonder what he was getting at. We can speculate on that, yet let us concede that it conveys a kind of spirit. We know that President Kimball made many changes that had a creative flavor. Here he asks LatterDaySaints to “dream of things that never were.” How can we put creativity into the zionist arena? First of all, I think we have got to play with it.

TRANSCENDENCE

Since youth are the great “players” in this world, I asked myself questions about what motivates them. What are they interested in? How do they see the world? I started to realize from the entertainment they seek to notice a central theme. Before I go any further, I will say that this also applies to adults more or less because they long for their own youth at least some of the time. One theme that emerged is what I would call the “Miraculous.” They like to see things happen that defies the natural order. People with superhuman powers go about altering the course of events for the good. I first noticed it in my own son and his obsession with the Star Wars Trilogy. Those characters using “the force” to alter events to the way they wished. This underlying sentiment continues on and on to the present in such blockbusters as Harry Potter, Twilight, and Ender’s Game just to name a few. Come to think of it, as an early baby boomer, I was enamored of such characters as Superman and the Green Hornet and the powers they possessed. Somehow they had something extra to make things happen. I suppose the same aspect is found in many video games. It must go back to the endless longing in us to not accept the arbitrary world as we find it but to remake it with outside transcendent forces.

Another attribute closely associated with the foregoing is the “Heroic.” This is where we look within ourselves for answers. Who has not wanted to make a difference through heroic effort? Here again, youth are especially attracted to heroes, or should I say superheroes. Even, for them, if it requires supreme effort, the result is seen to be worth it. That ultimate triumph in the end, whether it is sports, academics, creativity, or daunting undertakings that are sought after against all odds. Why not attempt the impossible? The ordinary is just too go nowhere.

Continuing along the same line, we next have the “Romantic.” Departing from the traditional definition slightly, I see it as a devotion to idealism, altruism, justice, brotherhood, and similar “golden rule” attributes. The kind of caring in people that produces a passion for fair play, sensitivity to others feelings and convictions, or anything that uplifts another is the power behind the Romantic. To right a great wrong, to heal the wounded heart, and to advance bravely to the future are some of the endeavors that take us toward fulfillment. A direct corollary to this would be the sense of community it engenders; a most necessary ingredient to its success.

Some say that youth “just want to have fun.” More than that, they want to be challenged. They want to accomplish. They want to have fun doing it, but they are willing to make sacrifices to get it. Recently we commemorated the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy. He lives on in the hearts of people not for what he accomplished but for what he wanted to accomplish. As he said, “We choose to go to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard.” He was willing to sacrifice to do the hard things, and he wound up by making the ultimate sacrifice. Yet he made it fun a good part of the time. No matter how jaded we may be and see ourselves as hardheaded realists, we are always touched when we see someone pursuing the impossible dream. I think, on average, we are successful in our individual endeavors about ten percent of the time. So what? That is life. We have a lot of competitors out there who also have to win. That does not have to ruin our idealism. Or as Jacques Barzun, in his book From Dawn to Decadence, has observed, “The folly of Don Quixote’s actions does not contaminate his principles, they are reasonable and just, as one can see if one listens carefully to his precepts and reproofs. . . .” Ideals based on principle generate continuing effort. Likewise youth usually do not seem to keep score on how many times they succeed or fail. They have fun just pursuing their dreams. I think that one reason why the youth treks sponsored by the Church are so popular is that they cause youth to experience these three ideals to some extent. Of course, there will be the ongoing rivalry between idealism and realism. Perhaps we should strike a balance. Never forget that the perfect can be the enemy of the good, or as Henry Kissinger has said, “Good results may be given up in the quest for ever-elusive ideal solutions.” So there we have it, the miraculous, the heroic, and the romantic, the great triad of human aspiration which in a religious context is perhaps analogous to Faith, Hope, and Charity.

That leads to a final factor that may be the most intriguing of all – to cultivate a sense of “Destiny.” Again the word dream comes up. We each know what we want the future to be, and it is mostly the same yet somewhat different for all of us. A dream becomes destiny when we come together and modify our individual wants into a group consensus that attempts to visualize the “big picture” of the future and go after it. We all need to have the feeling that we are going somewhere. Or as Anthony Robbins has urged, “We all need a compelling future.” Previously I have said that the journey is more edifying than the destination. True, but without a destination in mind, the journey is empty. Our task is to formulate an overarching theme that all can subscribe to. As Martin Luther King said, “I may not get there with you . . . but I have seen the promised land.” The promised land is what kept him going, so we should also see it constantly out there in front of us. It may be vague for us right now and may remain that way for quite awhile. That is OK. We need not visualize Zion in completeness just so we pursue some semblance of it as a partial construct. Just keep working on it. Try to see it coming together toward transcendence. That will keep our journey progressing and the overarching theme can develop with it.

PATTERNS

All of the foregoing has concentrated on aspects of motivation and creativity that are future oriented. Might it be helpful for us to look to the past for some “patterns” to apply to the future? What kinds of lessons does history teach? The old saying, “Those who refuse to learn from the past will be condemned to repeat it,” could be a bit disheartening. I would put the opposite spin on it, “Those who learn from the past have the opportunity to apply the positive things learned to the future.” Or, as Mark Twain might say, “Find the rhyme.” In most cases we cannot duplicate history for our own purposes. Times and situations change so much that the best we can do is find patterns in history that we can use to visualize our task.

OK, so I have previously thrown down the gantlet of zionism. Is there something in the history of Zionism that can serve as a pattern for us? I suppose, in order to find that out is to become somewhat versed in zionism. There are two forms of zionism that we could consider. There is LDS zionism (an expression seldom used but might grow to more usage here) which we sometimes discuss and try to formulate into a vision. Histories and novels have been written about it, but I will not elaborate them here just yet since I am talking to an LDS audience that has access to many writings on the subject. Then there is Jewish Zionism which also has many literary sources. I can think of two works that give a good introduction. A novel by Leon Uris entitled Exodus is an overview of the creation of Israel, is a start. The second, a historical narrative entitled O Jerusalem by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, is an accurate account of the Israeli War of Independence and other aspects of the founding. Any one of these well conveys the spirit of Jewish Zionism. They produce a moving explanation of Zionist methods and accomplishments; moving in that they have the ingredients of the Miraculous, the Heroic, the Romantic, and a sense of Destiny along with an expose of self government.

The question is – might these two zionisms develop a connection? We LatterDaySaints see our version, which has its own preliminary history in the nineteenth century and currently exists as an abstraction in our future. And additionally, we tend to perceive the other as, “Zionism is a Jewish thing that happened way back when – what has that got to do with us?” I think that both have the appeal of an underlying drive for “societal creation.” What history we have of both portrays the challenges of politics, economics, sociality, ethics and any number of other issues in the creation of a nation. Both started out with the fundamental challenge of self government which is the first building block of a just society. Current LDS zionism should practice self government from the start, not in a narrow nationalistic sense but in a way that transcends national consciousness. There will have to be a way to bring us together from all over the world. In each of our widespread chapters can we visualize, for example, the practice of parliamentary democracy? Can we see that advancing from a local piece by piece to a worldwide tapestry?

Finally we must proceed to inform our view of history. We live history everyday; our own most assuredly and our own mixed with other peoples, institutions, and circumstances. We love to talk about “our history.” We spend about 90% of our words reciting what we did or what happened to us. We are all hooked on history. We each walk our history day by day and interact with others in ways that shape our historical experience. As if we ride a train of our history going down the tracks, sometimes we ask ourselves if this is all there is. Some set of circumstances might impel us to jump off. Such notable Zionists as Leo Pinsker, Theodor Herzl, Chiam Weizmann, David Ben-Gurion, and Golda Meir along with many others rode their trains until at some point they made a departure to seek their own Zionist destiny. Admittedly, persecution, dislocation, and migration were powerful driving engines that impelled them to create a new society. In that, they became the founding mothers and fathers of Jewish Zionism. Using them as a pattern for our own endeavors we, no less, could seek to become the founding mothers and fathers of LDS zionism. Of course we must have some incentive to also jump off the old history to a new. Alas, however, we will not depart from our history significantly. We are at most part time zionists, and we still have our Gospel covenants to develop. Yet we hope to find something positive to contribute to the world. I suspect that some aspects of Zion may not be mandated but could be developed voluntarily. I am not saying that this is the only way Zion will be built. There would undoubtedly be non-democratic components to it, but it will be gratifying to see what LDS zionists produce over the long haul. Are we like those zionists who went before us who were put in a time and place where they would be most effective to themselves and to their cause? Do we have a rendezvous with destiny? For me, as Eric Hoffer suggested, the two zionisms live in different compartments of my mind and sometimes drift into the open and jostle one another to form new combinations. Maybe that can be the same for all of us, so let us think of things that never were and ask, why not? With a “quiet resolve” finding a pattern to follow, towards a destiny, to make new history.
Ron Hartmann

5. Where From Here

Now, as to the young men. You must not wait to be brought forward by the older men. For instance, do you suppose that I should ever have got into notice if I had waited to be hunted up and pushed forward by older men? You young men get together and form a “Rough and Ready Club” and have regular meetings and speeches. Take in everybody you can get. . . . As you go along gather up all the shrewd, wild boys about town, whether just of age or a little under age. . . . Let every one play the part he can play best – some speak, some sing, and all halloo.
Abraham Lincoln – Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield – 1838

I just thought I would include the above quote for some perspective on our curious subject. To me, it makes some interesting points. First, one can see that it was a far different time to ours now, but perhaps, it conveys some useful premises that we may have forgotteMen’sn. Then he was speaking to a group of young men. How would he convey the same thoughts to a modern audience of mixed age and gender? Is there something now to be gleaned from the statement? I am intrigued by the term “rough and ready.” It suggests an easy going sociality. Such a fraternal relationship seemed to be so common in those days. We have a hard time maintaining bowling leagues now. He also mentions something like spontaneous singing. We have certainly lost that talent. As John Phillip Sousa said, “What will happen to the American song voice now that the phonograph has been invented?” Yes, it was a far different time that needs to be reappreciated.

Notice the emphasis that he places on face to face meetings. People getting together for discussion in a leisurely way is something rare now. Allan Bloom in his book The Closing of the American Mind puts it this way, “As Western nations became more prosperous, leisure, which had been put off for several centuries in favor of the pursuit of property, the means to leisure, finally began to be of primary concern. But, in the meantime, any notion of the serious life of leisure, as well as men’s taste and capacity to live it, had disappeared. Leisure became entertainment. The end for which they had labored for so long has turned out to be amusement.” In the last segment the word “muse” was used to describe creative thinking. Now we have the word “amuse.” These words are Greek in origin, and when you put an “a” in front of a Greek word, it becomes its opposite. Thus, “amuse” means, without thinking or perhaps thinking humorously. So we need to trade back amuse for muse. Thus, pursuing the “life of the mind” needs to be reinstituted as an important function of leisure.

From all that has been said so far, where would you go from here? One would have to establish various premises as a foundation for what we will do. The machinery has to be set in place to run our ideas through. I am not so much concerned with what we decide (although that is important) but how we decide it, in other words, “methodology before policy.” The democratic process is crucial here. How well would parliamentary procedure in the form of, for example, Roberts Rules of Order, be employed in our efforts? The challenge is to make decisions using a fair system of procedure that gives everyone a chance to put forward his positions and, in essence, leave no stone unturned. Yes, it turns out to be a slow process, but it is thorough. Can we work with that?

MEMBERSHIP

Other aspects of the concept need to be explored. For instance, of what will the membership consist? I see it as active LatterDaySaints who have proven their faithfulness in the obvious ways; CTR if you know what I mean. I want to see what committed LatterDaySaints will come up with when they have to balance this with their other obligations. I just think that people so engaged will do the best job of propounding LDS zionism. That does not mean that they represent LDS people as a whole. They can only represent who they are in the zionist context. However, we would hope to get as fair a cross section of all LatterDaySaints as we can to participate. Young and old, men and women, rich and poor, should all feel accepted. Chapters should be organized to reflect that. There must be no gerrymandered boundaries or specialty chapters designed to pursue particular agendas. For it seems like, as soon as a group is established, somebody will want to break off saying, “We don’t like those people over there. We will form a group of our own where we will be more comfortable with our own kind.” This attitude is destructive to overall effectiveness which will be discussed further later. Let us make sure that we include those interested LatterDaySaints in a given geographical area. This concept should be the “big tent” for LatterDaySaints.

True enough, factions might develop, but they must be contained in, yet allowed influence in, the organization. It may turn out that in some cases a large faction might dominate a chapter. Let me put myself in such a situation where I may be in a small minority in a chapter. I will be frustrated of course over the lack of response my ideas might get, yet I will soldier on in the hope of things changing some day. Moreover, I think that elections should be structured along with run-off elections when necessary to develop broad coalitions in building chapters and representative bodies that have jurisdiction over wider areas. Where I am but a small voice in my own chapter, other chapters nearby may have larger numbers that reflect my views. When everybody votes, one man one vote, for a regional board of directors, let’s say, then my strength becomes greater because possibly more of my persuasion are voting. That board of directors will then have a larger proportion or perhaps even a majority to espouse my views. So the larger the area that the concept covers the more likely it will promote equilibrium among factions. For example, James Madison’s Federalist No. 10 addresses this issue.

We talk of factions, but they might not be that significant. With many varied issues even a small minority finds itself in the majority some of the time. Also, it is impossible to maintain a “party line” on all issues. The old saying that we are each a “minority of one” and sometimes become a “majority of one” will prove to be the case. Also let us not be afraid to utilize compromise and negotiation to smooth things over. The concern of LatterDaySaints over contention and disunity in such circumstances is understandable. Thinking in church terms, it can be destructive to church solidarity. Thinking in democratic terms, it is a natural part of the process if it is kept within democratic bounds. In this sense I see a distinction between unity in “religious reverence” and unity in “democratic decorum.” In our religious view we strive for unity through reverence. The charge, “If ye are not one ye are not mine” comes to mind. In this way we shun contention and see any disagreement as dangerous and especially irreverent. In a religious body a total meeting of the minds is the goal. On the other hand, in a democratic body, its decorum allows for a lively exchange of views then majority rule decides the issue. Differences are allowed to continue to exist afterwards. In the words of John Boehner and others, “We can disagree without being disagreeable.” Unity in this sense allows for a loyal opposition.

DEMOCRACY

Democracy has survived a long time with its contentions without wrecking communities. There is a State somewhere with an overwhelming majority of LatterDaySaints which is also reflected in the state legislature. Do these LDS legislators have significant differences over time? Do they work them out? Is that State ever on the verge of falling apart over political contention? I envision a similar environment for this concept. We might just bring our relationships to a higher plane with this democratic format where there will be ample opportunity to practice Christianity.

The parliamentary world presents a new challenge for most people. When I happen to be in a significant group and suggest the use of parliamentary procedure, I am often met by stares of, “We don’t need all that mumbo jumbo clouding the proceedings.” Yet many is the time when confusion reigns or when proposals get railroaded through much to someone’s chagrin later. Bringing order to a group and getting positive results is an art. I can think of a work that illustrates this well by Robert Caro who writes The Years of Lyndon Johnson series biographies of that statesman. In the third book, Master of the Senate, in the Introduction, he states;
“In an America that has been focused for most of the two centuries of its existence on executive, or presidential, power, legislative power, very different, is very little understood. But the life of Lyndon Johnson is a uniquely effective prism through which to examine that kind of power. . . . not only of legislative power, but of legislative genius. This type of political genius is very different – indeed, in some aspects, diametrically opposite to – presidential genius, and is also, in America, little understood. But in his creation of and use of legislative power, Lyndon Johnson proved himself to be possessed of a talent that was beyond talent – a rare, instinctive gift. Part of the nature of genius is to do something new and remarkable, something unique. That is what Lyndon Johnson did.”

Johnson’s legislative record speaks for itself as well as his presidential/legislative record related in the fourth book The Passage of Power. I do not endorse all of his methods, but these narratives present a good understanding of the parliamentary environment and the contribution it makes to democratic life. The advice I would give to somebody approaching this concept is, first and foremost, always be a legislator. Consider that your paramount duty always. Treat your counterparts as equals always. The interplay of ideas is best exercised in the legislative arena, so I would like to keep this concept a largely legislative enterprise. For a start we could debate mock proposals prepared from examples of historical or current issues.

Granted, we will have to elect officers and boards as essential components especially as it gets larger. Ideas will develop from the grass roots and move upward through a system that refines them enough to represent a consensus in a regional and perhaps eventually in a worldwide context. Yet we must not get too carried away with building an executive/bureaucratic superstructure on top of our legislative foundation which seems to be the fetish of most organizations nowadays. However, after all, whatever any executives may propose, they have to convince the grass roots legislative membership to implement it. One design to keep a rein on the executive, I would suggest, is annual elections for all boards and officers with the option to be reelected once then a hiatus of a year or two before holding the same office again. Another would be “sunset provisions” in various programs to make them automatically reviewable from time to time. This is not to say that executive officers should have no influence. We just need to be careful how we utilize executive power.

That brings us to the task of housekeeping. Many details will have to be worked out. I will just mention a few here. Things like chapter borders and establishing new chapters will have to be managed. Bylaws will have to be instituted. Membership qualifications will have to be decided. And, oh yes, the old perplexity of money and dues will confront us. In reality, I anticipate numerous issues eventually coming up in the way of policy decisions and philosophical stances for this concept. It seems like I can think of a million things that could go wrong (or need correcting). But in my life experience, only about ten percent of my fears ever materialize. Let’s see now, ten percent of a million can’t be very much – right? There I go scaring people again. Problems usually arise gradually, so we should not have to get serious right away. We are not utopian, and we should not make too much work for ourselves. Relax and enjoy!

ZIONIST VISION

There will come times when work is called for. In the meantime, we will get things started with a gentle push. The learning curve might be long. Yes, it could begin with a bang, but that will be the exception rather than the rule. We will be confronted with fits and starts to find our way. Unlike Theodor Herzl, I do not have a master plan. Master plans are nice; they give direction. Perhaps our main effort in the first few years will be to find one. In lieu of that, we might follow David L. Norton’s advice that, “Not successful outcomes but directed activities demonstrate the reality of possibilities.” So right now we just have to generate some directed activities. I will start with a suggestion. We could study the lands in which we live and think of ways to enhance them. And improvements in economic activity might go along with that; pretty standard fare but constructive enough. Also, we could seek ways to keep our young people connected to us. Not necessarily spatially but psychologically connected would be worthwhile in a zionist sense of destiny. We want the coming generations to develop a zionist vision. These are universal sentiments and should be welcome everywhere. The thrust of these endeavors is what we would call temporal, or to put it another way, quality of life. They are concerned with this world and how we will influence it for the better by raising ourselves a cut above the way we have traditionally viewed ourselves. The way I see it is, to be consistent with our concept of zionism, I have an investment in this world, and I want it to pay better dividends. That is why I am working in a zionist arena with a futuristic vision. Yet, let us not insist that we are creating Zion. Rather, let us do things that we hope will contribute to it in the long run by maintaining programs that we find useful. Remember also that unproductive policies can be repealed.

We may sit around for a long time not coming up with much. This is antithetical to LatterDaySaints. We want certitude. We want action and quick results, yet we can and sometimes will be patient. Through it all at least we have each other. We will have opened up a dialog that has not been opened before and a continuing dialog that will create a special bond. We will be small in number and daunted by the big world and its even bigger problems. As Margaret Mead advises, small groups of dedicated citizens can change the world. By studying a situation closely over time, we may find, as it were, a crack in a foundation that nobody else has noticed, seeming insignificant, but is a key to the integrity of the structure. We fix that crack like the Dutch boy putting his finger to a hole in the dike. I have noticed in my own life that, by really concentrating on a problem, I can sometimes see an alternative that others have missed. Or as one investment bank puts it, “Seeing first what others see eventually.” Exploring by this method along with new dialog on an issue is one way a small group can be effective.

As mentioned earlier, we might like to provide an environment where the miraculous, the heroic, the romantic, and a sense of destiny can thrive. Again, I do not have a sure fire way to make that happen. Those attributes seem to grow out of conflict. I prefer to minimize conflict, yet I know such is not entirely possible. By all means we should make sure that conflict is non-violent. In the end, it boils down to overcoming obstacles in service to ourselves and others. The employment of those four attributes may come into focus in such endeavors.

The feeling of brotherhood that this concept must engender will be the key to its success. I return to the theme of people getting along together – the spirit of democratic unity. Unity in a democracy is the ability to disagree yet agree to disagree and go on to get things done. We hope it is not becoming a lost art among ourselves. Looking back to the days of Abraham Lincoln again, the historian Fern Nance Pond described literary clubs in the New Salem, Illinois area that Lincoln was likely, as a youth, to belong to thusly;
“The members subscribed to a Constitution and Bylaws, and held meetings once a month. One outstanding rule was that no member should use the name of the Supreme Being in debate. Any member failing to give attention to the speeches was fined from three to six and one-fourth cents; and any one guilty of disorderly conduct was fined from one to six candles. Every member was required to perform in all the several departments, – debating, declaiming, composing, criticizing, and lecturing. Some of the standing committees were: Commerce, Agriculture, Military Affairs, Navy, Morals, and Education. The purpose of the last committee was to “establish a library and a high school, and to report upon the current systems of quackery.”

It amazes me that such associations could sustain themselves in that era of poor transportation and other logistical difficulties. But thrive they did in the forms of lyceums, Chautauquas, salons, rough and ready clubs, and other constructs. Such groups are not completely gone today, but they now tend to concentrate on specific issues. People craved interaction then to address plenary subjects. These institutions succeeded and continued along with the American Union in the nineteenth century. To borrow a turn of phrase from Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address regarding the Union, the question was, “ could it long endure?” The same question applies to any democratic entity especially one created where none existed before. So we should also apply that question to ourselves.

ENDURANCE

In this last part I would like to conclude on the theme of what contributes to our endurance. First, I would say that, as a democratic concept, there must be only one body politic in a designated geographic area. Especially as an all LDS organization it will reflect what its membership can produce. Through their creativity and empowerment they will achieve something unique. Now again, I am not saying that they will represent all LDS people in what they do. They will just show what an all democratic LDS group can accomplish. When someone comes along and wants to break away from the main body, for whatever purpose, it destroys the unity that existed up until that time. If nothing else, we should be able to show ourselves that we can stick together and get something done. Of course, those who would divide us would claim that they can get more important things done faster. That will always be the temptation, but that misses the real issue. We are known as one religion, we can exist as one, democratic body politic producing results in a timely way. There will be different chapters separated by geographic boundaries that do different things of course. That is acceptable if it is within the bounds of their sovereignty. The point is that there must be enduring unity within each chapter. Then when we all come together and happen to decide issues on a regional or international level, we must strive for unity there too. Consequently, the tension of centralization vs. decentralization in a federalist sort of structure will have to be addressed in an ongoing effort. We will be both centrifugal force in diversity and centripetal force in unity so to speak. Yet, let us not see these as antagonistic factors but as balancing and complementary aspects of our endeavor. Or in other words, the only way we can achieve unity is to understand what we are not united about and work from there.

As we proceed, we may develop programs and policies that would be applied internally to ourselves and, possibly later, externally for the public. Through the democratic process we should have ample time and focus to come up with wise purposes. However, there might be distortions that arise. There may be some who, in effect, would make this concept a carbon copy of the Church. This it cannot be even though it may be a natural impulse. Nor can it be a carbon copy of Jewish Zionism. It must develop a character of its own. That does not mean that it need abandon Christian values. The main thrust should be to not compete with Church methodology.

I do not see too much of a problem in that, even when we wish to include our youth. I do not want to leave youth out who might be interested by developing programs that they might participate in. For example, if they could stand group discussions and civics lessons, and OK, something that might stimulate their interest in the miraculous, the heroic, and the romantic. Yes, there is something of a challenge there. Although youth would not be members, by deferring actual membership to age 21 so as not to compete with missionary aspirations, they might be able to come up with useful suggestions for activities adaptable to themselves. For example, one Jewish commentator described the youth of his religion in their approach to activities as follows;
“ . . . , youth organizations of all kinds – the Menorah movement, Young Israel, Zionist youth groups, and others – have for many decades stimulated concern for, and action in, Jewish fields on the part of young people acting on their own initiative.”*

Further complications can come along in the form of those with a personal agenda axe to grind. It may be a certain political approach. It may be a ploy to make money. Or it can be any number of other things that the human mind can devise for disruption. It seems like this era in which we live is especially rife with so many creative ideas to gain advantage over one’s fellow man. I call it “the age of gimmickry.” Just answer an unknown phone call then you might come away with a “boy, have I got a deal for you” story. And as mentioned earlier, in Abraham Lincoln’s day, such activities were described as “systems of quackery.” It has always been around, so I do not think I need to explain it. LatterDaySaints have had enough experience with it to be wise enough by now. Whether it comes in the form of the “cut and run” style where money is involved, or whether it comes from someone’s constant harping about what has to be done, it must be dealt with fairly. Obnoxious people should be tolerated unless they are truly disruptive. For dishonest people – it depends on what harm has been done, or what is about to be done, the response should be appropriate. There will be an ongoing discussion of what “quackery” is and how it should be handled. Some kinds of thinking are so ridiculous, yet there will always be those who will promote such to be brilliance. In Master of the Senate this quandary is stated, “To traditionalist senators of both parties, moreover, the idea of taking action against a colleague because of his political views was anathema, At that time, there was a feeling that if the people of a state wanted to send an _ _ _ to the Senate, that was their business.“ Such is part of the democratic scene and must be accepted.

That brings us to the modern quest for establishing facts. It seems to be especially difficult in the face of the “internet wars.” we all face. We have to become adept at sorting out all kinds of conflicting “true facts.” This can be a real challenge, so we need to find a way of ferreting out what is happening and not accepting things at face value. To put a humorous twist to it, we will know what to do after my tablet faces your tablet and they fight it out then we will see who wins. In some cases such a ridiculous state is already here. What shall we do about it? Be skeptical about unproven assertions. Demand proof and check that proof again and again. Beware of the sound bite system of short statements propounding obvious solutions. Let us make sure that the “information age” does not become the “disinformation age.”

Issues of money will arise in how to finance the concept. Sustaining the many chapters will require them to be largely self supporting. They would have the power to assess dues within certain limits. We want to avoid the attitude that our progress can be bought with money through appropriations to this or that program. Our real accomplishments will be found in face to face relationships with people everywhere. There will be a need as the concept grows to elect people to various boards and conventions to represent chapters and regions. The “logistics” of moving these people around will have to be considered. Other commitments such as maintaining a web site and various incidentals are to be expected. A central financial body will have to be set up with accounting safeguards and legal entity status to insure the fiscal responsibility that will make this happen. We just want to make sure that this does not get too expensive by keeping costs down as a regular endeavor.

Before one becomes shocked at the previous statement, it does not mean that we should be against prosperity. Prosperity in the form of traditional business methods could be sought after. Certainly, people will invariably discuss economic issues in their local chapters. This may take a considerable proportion of time. In a Zionist context, a love for the land and its productivity in the form of agriculture, yet not to neglect industry, or even something more sophisticated could be envisioned in a big picture. I am told, for example, that LDS business people regularly get together (BYU Management Societies) in some of the bigger cities to work on economic opportunity for their areas. We can also do something like that. Again, in a Zionist context, people on the web site and other venues will get together and network many ideas. Eventually, subjects may come up that have seldom been thought of that could lead to opportunities. Using this network in relation to various underlying objectives could be beneficial for all. Hopefully then, reasonable success can be achieved while avoiding the con-man.
Take a break.
Ron Hartmann

* Salo W. Baron, The Modern Age, Great Ages and Ideas of the Jewish People, Ed. Leo W. Schwarz, (New York, Random House, Inc. 1956) p. 474.

6. Where From Here Two

Until you’ve been in politics you’ve never really been alive. It’s rough and sometimes dirty, and it’s always hard work and tedious details, but it’s the only sport for grownups – all other games are for kids.
Robert A. Heinlein

As I trudge on to the end of this treatise, I come to the point of addressing issues of “speculation” about the concept. Take for example one that is reasonably well accepted by LatterDaySaints about the nature of Zion. When it happens, the world will be at peace. People will get along so well that conflicts will be minimal or possibly nonexistent. Getting along then is the paramount consideration for this concept to develop zionism. It will not be the whole story, but it could contribute. Using that premise, I ask myself, “How will they arrive at it?” I conclude that it is accomplished by an ongoing process. It could start through the development of self government by democratic methods. In fact, if people are going to wind up being so good, they should have no problem making democracy work at that time or even before that time. It has been observed that some democracies / republics of the past have failed from various causes. Perhaps it is about time that one lasted in our case at least. So I see democracy as useful for the formulation of Zion and possibly as a permanent component of it. In the book Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman there is a brief reference by the Prophet to “Theodemocracy.” What that means or how it applies to democracy and Zion I am not sure. I suppose there will be schools of thought about it, but let us move forward with what we have now.

What we have is an “ism”- zionism. Ism is a buzzword with a sometimes bad reputation as many isms of the past have come to disaster. This one, I hope, is not a doctrine but a methodology, or as some have expressed it as much more “procedural” than “substantive.” The only cut and dried aspects of it are democratic methods, respect for the rights of others, rule of law, and peaceful persuasion along with a few principles that I have mentioned that should be valid anywhere. There is no zionist catechism or litmus test to govern one’s opinions. In fact, members may belong to this without any interest in Zion. They may promote their own ideas in democratic fairness. We may talk of building Zion. We cannot be sure yet how to build Zion, so one may come to this proposing many kinds of ideas. So zionism itself is not cut and dried; it is by nature an ongoing experiment. Something seemingly without much resemblance to Zion may eventually influence it. Let experimentation take its course so long as it avoids divisive chaos. We LatterDaySaints always seem to be concerned with self improvement, and we certainly want to move towards becoming a Zion people. So the question might arise, ”Will this make me a better LatterDaySaint?” However, I do not think that should concern us so much. A person should not worry about making the grade spiritually in this effort. Zionism should be something that is pursued for its own sake. For example, the American Revolution and Constitution did not seek to change people but sought to make government behave itself. The success of that approach undoubtedly made Americans a better people by creating better government for its own sake. On the other hand, the French and Russian revolutions attempted to change people outright, and we know the results of that approach. One can see that a striving for zionist principles could have a certain congruity with Gospel principles and thus move us in the same direction. I suppose one will have to decide for oneself what effect it will have on one’s spiritual life. Yet, it is most important to maintain one’s commitment to Church and family obligations while exploring this zionist course. To use an old expression, “we should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.”

I suppose it all boils down to the question of our relationship as LatterDaySaints to such a new experience. Yes, we have enough to do for sure. So we should do this only if we like it, or giving it some time, come to like it. I do not expect many to come on board at first, yet a small contingent could serve as an example to others. If a few learn democratic methods that will make it easier to convey to others. The old adage, “Seek not to find yourself, but seek to lose yourself,“ should find application here. There must be something, or several things, out there that we can develop. When we find them, they will provide their own reward. As Abraham Maslow describes self-actualizing persons who have found their purpose, “For them, the conventional dichotomy of work and play is transcended totally. . . . If a person loves his work and enjoys it more than any other activity in the whole world and is eager to get to it, to get back to it after any interruption, then how can we speak about ‘labor’ in the sense of something one is forced to do against one’s wishes?” This is something like what we call “empowerment” or being “proactive.” Sure, I will hear much about the pitfalls of such an approach. You will probably not be able to point out one that I have not considered, but I have tried to weigh the downsides against the upsides in the LDS context. I think the upsides will be somewhat apparent at first, and they will emerge brighter with time and tend to minimize the downsides.

Do not become discouraged at the beginning. Things may start out alright. With time, disappointments develop. It might seem like things are going nowhere. That is typical especially for a concept that must develop its own creativity. Since we are entering a realm of trial and error, it behooves us not to be too concerned with results just yet. Like I said before, I do not have a master plan, but I see little bits and pieces sparking here and there. When Lyndon Johnson first entered the Senate, he seemed to experience the same dilemma. Putting his bits and pieces together with those of other senators and asking them what they really wanted an unfolding drama developed that reinvented the Senate. Improving our relationships by seeking “the better angels of our nature” will put a more positive light on the politics that Robert A. Heinlein mentioned. Let us go forth in the spirit of the Thirteenth Article of Faith: “If there is anything. . .”

Now let us take a moment and take stock of what we face. What place would pursuing Zion have in the overall scheme of things? I would think that it is not necessary to our salvation. What the Gospel and Church gives us right now is all that we need. So why do we talk about Zion and contemplate it.? The hope for peace and a better situation in this world could be part of it. That we try to contribute to its coming in this extracurricular way will be challenging. Can mastering of democratic practices and pushing for democratic unity make a difference ? Reordering government and politics, as I see it, might be some of the answer.

How to conclude this piece is a quandary. I recently ran on to a post by Nathaniel Givens in T&S entitled Zion as Superorganism on April 25, 2016. He reiterates what has just been written above in a little different light where in part he says:
“We’re under divine direction to build Zion, but we don’t in any real detail (know), what it’s supposed to look like. How are you supposed to build something, if you don’t even know what it looks like? . . .
“Nephi’s dilemma was essentially the same as ours. The Lord told him to build a ship, and he did not know how to do that. I found his response illuminating. He did not ask for blueprints. He asked for help in making tools. This is an entirely different approach from the one anticipated by our question, but as I thought about it, I realized that this is actually a general pattern. . . . The scriptures routinely depict people being asked to build without blueprints, take journeys without maps, and in general get started without knowing how to finish. Tools not blueprints. . . . It is an interesting dichotomy. Blueprints by their very nature are top down, centralized, and inflexible. Tools, on the other hand, are bottom up, decentralized, and flexible. One set of blueprints only tells you how to build one model of house, but a set of tools allows you to build all kinds of different buildings. . . .
“So the question becomes: what tools? We know a lot-as a society-about tools for building a staggering variety of physical artifacts, but what do we know about building societies? Now, you might think that we know all about building societies since humans are, by definition, social animals. But it turns out that that is exactly the problem. It is because we instinctively build communities and societies that we don’t really have a good awareness of what we are actually doing. . . . “
Comment 5.1 – “I do think it is possible to achieve something like an ideal Zion even if our starting point is pretty messy. Part of that depends on the exact meaning of “ideal” of course. I’m not invested in something (like) a Platonic ideal of Zion, a mathematically perfect rendition. What I do have in mind, however, is some kind of qualitative shift that would mark a real, perceptible difference between “almost there” and “we’ve arrived.”

So the immediate quest is to develop tools. In the case before us, the main tool right now could be democracy, and we have got to practice using this tool. To build a society requires a keen application of democracy. As we approach the future on this site a competent and elegant creation could arise, for Zion may have a power all of its own.
Ron Hartmann

FWIW – Mormonism calls for thoughtful disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some of the truth, but will develop its truths; and enlarge it by that development. . . . The disciples of ‘Mormonism,’ growing discontented with the necessarily primitive methods which have hitherto prevailed in sustaining the doctrine, will yet take profounder and broader views of the great doctrines committed to the church; and, departing from mere repetition, will cart them in new formulas; cooperating in works of the spirit, until they help to give the truths received a more forceful expression and carry it beyond the earlier and cruder states of its development.

B. H. Roberts

FWIW – . . . it is now time that we each implement extraordinary measures – perhaps measures we have never taken before – to strengthen our personal spiritual foundations. Unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures.

President Russell M. Nelson October 2021 General Conference