How I discovered that socialism might not be evil

One of the lines in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi that bothered me was the excuse that Obi-Wan gave to Luke after the relationship between Luke and Darth Vader was revealed:

"Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

The idea that something is true or untrue depends on our perspective has been reprehensible to me.  As a Christian conservative, I love the idea of universal general truths, and I abhor concepts such as moral relativism.  The constants of gravity does not change based on current societal trends.  The immorality of murder cannot be removed by popular vote.  Jumping into a volcano is a bad idea.  Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  The United States declared independence from England in 1776.  USC beat Texas in a double-overtime football game at the Coliseum 27-24 in 2017.

These facts do not require a particular perspective, or that the observer have certain feelings.  They are objectively true.

In my youth, as I studied religion, politics, history, and science, I became more convinced of the importance of these universal truths.  One of the natural applications of this was the evil of socialism.

The idea that the government should be able to take property, without any due process, from some citizens, and give it to other citizens, is legalized theft.  I have always been opposed to the concept that any person is entitled to the property of others.  The old Marx saying from each according to his ability, to each according to his need may seem appealing in terms of helping the poor, but attributing an entitlement to unearned goods and services without providing incentives to work, produce, and earn is hazardous at best, and at worst, a major contributor to the murder, imprisonment, and tyranny seen in communist nations in the 20th century.

In the past couple years, socialism has seen a resurgence in American politics, only this time, accompanied by the ultimately meaningless adjective "democratic."  Democratic socialism is marketed with the same promises that leftist politicians have made for decades including health care and education, and with the indication that these things can be made affordable by taxing "the rich" (a group that is rarely defined specifically, and when defined, could not produce enough revenue to purchase all the promised services, even if taxed at a rate of 100%).

In the past couple years, I have struggled to understand how so many young people could get so excited about such a bad, old idea.

Of course, I saw the simplistic memes that described everything government did as "socialism."  Memes with clever captions told me that I drove on socialized roads or that I was protected by socialized fire departments and police departments, but universal health care and universal education was something else entirely.  Of course, conservative meme producers were quick to point out how disingenuous promises of "free stuff" are.  They could point to times before any income tax and demonstrate that society managed to function relatively well without socialized services.  The libertarian sentiment"taxation is theft" has become a memorable slogan, even though it is also simplistic.

People on the left have frequently pointed to corrupt corporate interests (some of which, to their credit, were legitimately bad).  Some of their pundits have suggested that capitalism itself was the culprit... that in all cases, it promoted greed... an unfair generalization.

People on the right hosted discussions where they described socialism as evil... not just an unsustainable idea, but actually evil, and in every case.  

While in the past, the universal absolute statement would have immediately appealed to me, now something seems off about the assessment.  Thinking about the concept led me to realize that the issue was more complicated than I had initially thought.  Perhaps my perspective was giving me a simplistic view of these socialist ideas, and that I could benefit from the counsel of Obi-Wan.

This sort of introspection is rarely easy.  No one likes being wrong, and questioning the philosophies that have shaped perspective could lead to uncomfortable places.  Societies have taxed their citizens by force, and have used the generated revenue to do various things (including those that I believe are necessary).  How could it be acceptable to compel participation for public good in some cases and not others?  Was it possible that I had already unconsciously given my approval for socialism?  How could this compulsion be balanced with the idea that humans have basic freedoms?

In the end, Obi-Wan was right.  The anti-socialist philosophy to which I had clung for most of my life depended greatly on my own point of view.

There is a different point of view... a context... in which socialism works.  I do not mean just some universal services that require common funding such as the military, but an actual case in which people who produce little or nothing should be entitled to the income of others who produce and earn based on their individual production.

This context is called family.  Most particularly, a family with children.

A parent, particularly a father, is obligated to work to produce not only for themselves, but for children who produce little or nothing.  A newborn baby, for example, will incur numerous expenses, and in return will produce large quantities of dirty diapers and sleep deprivation.  Toddlers are experts at turning clean clothing into dirty laundry, clean dishes into dirty dishes, and small disappointments into crises worthy of glass-shattering screeching, but of course, none of these skills are particularly marketable.  Older children may be able to help more, but certainly not enough to offset the costs of larger meals and bigger clothing sizes for their growing bodies.  Regardless of the inability of children to provide in meaningful ways, a parent who does not impart of their substance to provide food, clothing, and other tangible necessities (in addition to the emotional necessities) is criminally negligent, and in the worst case, should be compelled to provide these things.

While children do not have the capacity to fully support the financial costs of the family, they do have an obligation to help assist in basic tasks of which they are capable.  It is appropriate for parents to require their children to do chores, to tidy up after themselves, and to help one another, all without any additional compensation.  In the context of a household, the idea from each according to his ability, to each according to his need is actually a good concept.  Everyone pitches in, developing selfless motivations, to assist one another to be successful.

The goal of this implementation of socialism is to help children to become capable of production, so that when they are old enough to be free and independent, they will have received the necessary preparation.

That means that, in order for socialism to function in this context, the following things are necessary:

• The non-producers consent to the producers presiding over them
• The producers train the non-producers to become productive (as apprentices)
• The producers have close ties to the non-producers for whom they are obligated to provide
• The non-producers have natural incentives to become producers

This also means that in larger contexts, such as the context of the United States federal government, this model cannot work:

• There is too much grey area regarding who is or is not producing and who should preside
• Apprenticeship is not practical without cooperation to that end between the non-producer and the producer
• There are no natural ties to relate non-producers to producers, which means bureaucracies are needed to assess tiers of production, bind individuals in different tiers to one another, facilitate transfers of goods and services, and to enforce compliance
• There is not any significant incentive for any tier to produce more or to improve

The other important factor that helps socialistic practices work in a family setting is love.  Mothers and fathers have natural tendencies to care for their children.  This means that, even in cases when a child cannot become a producer (e.g. children with mental and physical disabilities), there is still a motivation in parents to care for their children.  While there may be exceptions, most people would not characterize interactions with bureaucracy as "loving."  

Elder Dale G. Renlund shared that "the greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the more the receiver develops a sense of entitlement." (April 2016 General Conference).  This idea highlights the most significant aspect of determining the success of socialistic practices: scale.

On a family scale, individuals are obligated to cooperate in love and respect for the benefit of all.  On a neighborhood scale, families should have a desire to help and serve one another, but not necessarily provide for every need.  On a city scale, resources such as police, fire departments, or sanitation should be shared.  On the state scale, highways, prisons, and other resources should be pooled.  On a national scale, the scope decreases to things that cannot be individually applied such as treaties with other nations, currency management, and defense.  On a global scale, nothing is obligated.

This is not to say that individuals or private foundations cannot voluntarily take up causes on a larger scale... it is to say that these contributions must remain voluntary.  A person who would rather contribute to the Prevent Cancer Foundation than MSF or the Red Cross should be able to do so.

Efforts to compel participation in socialism on large scales tend to have success with one of two properties:

1. The socialistic practices have limited success in some areas while they can still be propped up by the wealth generation of capitalism (which is seen with some Nordic nations)
2. The socialistic practices have limited success when the government kills and/or imprisons anyone who dissents (which could be seen in Venezuela, North Korea, the USSR, and Nazi Germany)

In either case, the consolidation of power necessary to compel participation is prone to corruption and mismanagement.  I do not like the idea of Congressional Leader Nancy Pelosi making health care decisions any more than I imagine the American left loves the thought of President Donald Trump making their health care decisions.  Additionally, the successes of these systems are unsustainable as capitalistic wealth creation is drained away.

Many proponents of socialism have their sights set on alleviating poverty on grand scales, but ultimately, individuals ought to do what they are able to make life better in their immediate vicinity.    As noble as it may be to help everyone in the world, it might be smarter to look from a closer point of view.  Take care of yourself and your family first.  As you are able, help your neighbors.  Remember the counsel of Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf, and "Lift where you stand."  

The more people give to help their own families, the better off everyone will be.

The time that God sacrificed one of the tribes of Israel

The Old Testament manual for Gospel Doctrine gives only one week to the entire book of Judges.  Certainly it's true that there are only so many weeks in a year for Sunday School, and that it is impossible to have a comprehensive study of the Old Testament, but it breaks my heart to see some of the best stuff get little more than a cameo appearance (if anything at all).

Of course, there are other reasons for skipping some of these items.  Depending on the class, not everyone may be interested in hearing about Ehud assassinating Eglon, the overweight king of Moab. (Judges 3:15-30)  There may be some people who would rather skip over the story of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite nailing the head of Sisera to her tent floor.  On the other hand, these stories are some of the most entertaining in all of the Bible.

Perhaps one of the more difficult stories to present is that of the tragedy of Gibeah.

There was a Levite, whose concubine had cheated on him, and in her shame returned to her home in Bethlehem.  The Levite went after his wife.  He spoke kindly to her, and they were reconciled.  (Judges 19:1-4)

Eventually, the Levite took his wife and his belongings, and traveled north.  After traveling for some time, the servant of the Levite asked that they stop in Canaanite-controlled Jerusalem.  The Levite desired to travel further, hoping to stay in land controlled by the Israelites.  Eventually, they came to the city of Gibeah, a possession of the tribe of Benjamin.  (Judges 19:10-14)

This makes sense, because the Levites were meant to be supported in their spiritual roles by other tribes that received a land inheritance.  The Benjamites should have felt an obligation to help this Levite, but when he tried to find lodging, but the men of Benjamin would not help him.  At last, a man of Ephraim saw him, and offered him lodging and shelter.

I suspect that we do not have the entire account regarding what happened next, but we know the following details:

• Some of the men of Benjamin wanted to assault the Levite
• Though they did not take hold of the Levite, they did get the Levite's concubine
• They brutally assaulted this woman to death

The Levite was so horrified by the behavior that he took the body of his concubine and cut it into twelve pieces, then distributed the pieces of her body with an account of what had happened to the elders of Israel throughout the land, pleading for justice against this horrific crime. (Judges 19:29)

The Israelites were so shocked by the depravity of the men of Gibeah that they came to Benjamin and demanded that the guilty men be produced so that justice could be meted out.  To their surprise, the tribe of Benjamin thought to protect the guilty.  (Judges 20:11-14)

The men of Benjamin numbered about 26,000, and the armies of the other tribes number 400,000.  (Judges 20:15-17)

The Israelites were not eager to have a civil war, and so they consulted the Lord and received a confirmation that Benjamin would pay for this crime.  (Judges 20:23)

The fighting lasted multiple days, but ultimately, the armies of Israel prevailed and destroyed all of the tribe of Benjamin except for 600 men. (Judges 20:47-48)

The tribe of Benjamin never really recovered.  Certainly they were given something of an opportunity when Samuel anointed Saul the son of Kish from Benjamin to become King of Israel, but Saul and his sons lost the kingdom, and the tribe of Benjamin ended up little more than a family of aids for the tribe of Judah.

It is easy to look at this sort of story and wonder why God did not prevent this tragedy.  The Levite and his wife might have been safer in Jerusalem.  The father of the concubine was willing to provide for the Levite longer.  They might have been guided a different way.

Instead, God allowed these awful men to take hold of this woman and brutalize her... why?

While the question is speculative, it cannot be said that God did not care about this nameless concubine, or that the woman brought it upon herself through her sins...  God loved the woman, and he has forgiven people who were guilty of her mistakes.  Additionally, God went to great lengths to win justice for the crimes perpetrated against this woman.

Generations later, the other ten tribes would be lost in the conquests of the Assyrians, and Judah would be put in exile in Babylon with the triumph of Nebuchadnezzar... but the tragedy of Gibeah really represents the first tribe to be lost... and not just lost, but sacrificed, by God, to get justice for a the concubine of a travelling Levite.

We don't know all the circumstances surrounding this event... we don't even know the name of the Levite or of his concubine... but we know that in the end, good triumphed over evil, justice prevailed over injustice, and tens of thousands who fought against the outcome were slain.  I think this is a profound thought...  If God was willing to sacrifice (basically) an entire tribe of Israel for a nameless concubine, will he not equally value the welfare of our neighbors, our colleagues, and our children?  

I believe God pays very close attention to how we treat one another.  In the end, justice will be a very personal thing for the Lord.  Jesus himself taught, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matthew 45:40)

I suppose one of the most compelling reasons for studying the tragedy of Gibeah, is so that we do not repeat it.  Every man and woman should be vigilant, and if the tendency to be cruel or to be selfish appears in us, it is on that individual to go to Christ..."denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;" (Titus 2:12)

Eve did not lie to God

This year, LDS Gospel Doctrine classes are delving into one of my favorite places... the Old Testament.  I absolutely love this often overlooked and frequently misunderstood portion of the holy scriptures.

One of the first lessons of the year is based on the fall of Adam and Eve.  Many in our class plainly expressed that there are many things about this story that we do not know (which is true).  We do not know the length of time that they lived in the Garden of Eden.  We do not know the size of the garden.  We do not know what the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil looked like.

Of course, there are some things that we do know... some of the most essential elements of the story.  We know that Adam and Eve were naked, and that they were unaware of this fact (Genesis 2:25).  We know that there was a tree with fruit that would somehow give knowledge to those who ate of it (Genesis 3:6).  We know that Satan was present (Genesis 3:1, Moses 4:5-6).  We know that the consequences of Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit involved being cast out of the Garden of Eden, and the introduction of death (Genesis 3:16-24).

There are things that many people infer in the story.  We infer that Adam and Eve were married (Genesis 2:22-24, Mark 10:2-9).  We infer that eating the fruit did bring wisdom to Adam and Eve.  We infer that life was difficult after they were cast out of the Garden of Eden.

The most popular speculations that are made involve Eve.

Some people have suggested that had only Eve resisted the temptations of the devil, that all of humanity might have dwelt in the perpetual paradise originally created by God.  They infer that Eve was the source of pain and toil.  Many modern prophets have refuted this conclusion... and other sources of scripture show that the fall was a necessary step in God's plan of salvation for his children.

Other people, in the spirit of correcting the perceived injustices against our first mother Eve, have suggested that not only should Eve be held blameless, but that she was a mastermind who comprehended that God's plan would require them to gain wisdom, and to have children out of the Garden of Eden.  They suggest that Eve was not tempted by Satan... but that she saw through his ruse into the deeper meaning of partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

This is also bunk.

Satan, who did not go through the process of birth and had memory of premortality, still "knew not the mind of God" (Moses 4:6).  Yet we are supposed to think that Eve, who did not realize that she was unclothed, somehow knew everything perfectly?

I have heard impassioned voices in many wards try to infer that the innocence of our first parents did not mean they were ignorant of the workings of God's plan.  It has been suggested that Eve searched for alternatives to taking of the fruit, thus proving her foresight.  Of course, for members of the LDS church, this would not explain why Adam was ignorant of the reasoning behind sacrifice, or why they only expressed joy in their circumstances after the gospel was revealed to them (Moses 5).

Most importantly, Eve did not lie to God.

God asked for an explanation of Eve's actions, and received from her this simple statement:

"The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:13)

There was no "I partook to fulfill thy plan" or "I partook that mankind might be" or "I partook because there were no other solutions to give us knowledge and allow us to have children."

Here, Eve answered God honestly.  She had been tempted to do something she did not understand, and she did it.

Adam gave a much more complex answer, because there was more complex reasoning behind his action:

"The woman thou gavest me, and commandest that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree and I did eat." (Moses 4:18)

His course of action was motivated by a desire to stay with his wife.  He had a choice between avoiding the fruit, or remaining with Eve, and, thanks to Eve, he chose the latter.

The consequences of the fall of Adam and Eve are profound, and persist even to the present day.  It is central to the plan of God that we be born under the effects of a curse that bars us from the immediate presence of God, and allows us the freedom to choose for ourselves between good and evil.  Eve certainly does not deserve blame... but she does not deserve credit either.

There was only one who knew all of the parties involved in Eden... only one who knew the consequences of every choice... only one who knew what Satan, and Adam, and Eve would do, before they even thought of doing it themselves.  It was the one who planted the garden.  It was the one who created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  It was the one who engineered the entire plan.

Only God knew.

Much as it is today... people have a tendency to give credit and lay blame where they are not due.  Other people may do harm, but the effects of the most heinous acts are, at their very worst, temporary.  Other people may do good, but at their very best, they are still flawed.  We are not so much smarter than our first parents, and we have difficulty overcoming temptations, mistakes, and problems on our own... but the same one who planted the Garden of Eden also knows of us, and his Holy Son Jesus Christ, who broke the curses of sin and death for Adam and Eve, can crush the obstacles that bar us from fulfilling our divine destiny. 

"...there is none good but one, that is, God..." (Matthew 19:17)

Don't worry about what the New York Times (a former newspaper) says about Thomas S. Monson

"The New York Times (a former newspaper)"

I laughed probably more than I should have when I first heard Andrew Klavan brilliantly describe one of the most powerful institutions of journalism using this moniker... but I appreciated the additional insights he offered as a former journalist and writer regarding bias and narrative driving that naturally occurs in reporting.

Consider this: if you ever come across an article or feature presented by news media about which you have knowledge (whether science, history, or a specific event), it is usually not very difficult to spot problems with the way they present the information, even if the facts they chose to include may be correct.

Unfortunately, even after seeing issues with reports about these issues, we frequently take news media as reliable sources on stories about which we do not have as much knowledge.

Recently, President Thomas S. Monson passed away.  Many people remembered the numerous acts of compassionate service, the frequent and passionate pleas for people to be kinder, or the bold testimony of Jesus he devoutly demonstrated.

Having listened to many of his talks and read many of his teachings, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are familiar with what kind of person he was.

Enter the New York Times (a former newspaper).

Robert McFadden wrote an obituary regarding the President of the Church for the paper, highlighting what he thought were the most important perspectives on the life of the prophet, which seemed to be that he did not run the church the way the Robert McFadden would have.

Several paragraphs were dedicated to the lamentation that women could not be ordained to the priesthood, or that the church was still opposed to homosexuality.  The greatest positives that could be mustered included the fact that he permitted people to access historical documents that exposed polygamous relationships of early church leaders.

A small paragraph at the bottom concedes that he "embraced humanitarian causes" in connection with other faiths.  There is also a note that he visited widows and wrote personal weekly letters to servicemen while serving as a Bishop.

The name "Jesus Christ" was used only in the context of the name of the church.

I have many friends who have been, understandably, disgusted with this take on President Monson.  Some of them have circulated a petition on change.org (which I will not link), to request that the New York Times apologize or rewrite the obituary to better reflect what kind of man he was.

I believe the reason we say this is because, in spite of the fact we recognize bias and narrative-pushing when they write concerning something on which we are experts, we still irrationally think that the rest of the paper is somehow good for something more than lining a bird cage.

Even if the Times were somehow convinced that they were wrong to ignore the great service and kindness of President Monson, they are still wholly opposed to the faith over which he presided.  A correction or rewrite would be a hollow gesture, and to compel it via signature campaign would change 0 hearts to come closer to the one that President Monson spent his life serving... Jesus.

The Times is not the first mainstream organization to have a beef with a prophet.  Abinadi, Alma, Nephi, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha, and many many others have been accused of being judgmental, non-inclusive, and antagonistic.  The records that have endured from the times of these prophets are those written by people who tried to live what they taught. 

So don't worry about what the New York Times says about Thomas S. Monson... care what Thomas S. Monson said about following Jesus.

A Christmas Footnote

One of the most significant changes in human civilization was the metamorphosis of Rome from republic to empire.  These events are filled with drama and intrigue... think of the conquests of Pompeii, the crossing of the Rubicon, the betrayal of Marcus Brutus, the alliance of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, and finally the ascension of Caesar Augustus... the first Roman Emperor.

It is a little ironic that in spite of Caesar's importance, the time when many people are most likely to hear his name is during the Christmas season, in a tale where he was little more than a footnote.  It was written by Luke, and it goes like this:

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judæa, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."  (Luke 2:1-7)

Of course, this tradition does not take away importance from Caesar.  His empire lasted for centuries... and even when it was gone, people treated it as though it were still real.  Caesar's dead language can still be found in our science, our medicine, and our law.

That having been said, Caesar is dead, and his empire is no more... whereas the child in Luke's story... Jesus Christ... is alive and well and his kingdom thrives this very day.

The story of Jesus provides an example of prioritizing the things that matter in the context of the things that matter most.

This pattern is not limited to the story of the nativity, but should typify our observance of Christmas.  Careers, performances, programs, purchases, and other busy elements of our lives have real value and sustain many important aspects of this season... but they are little more than a footnote in the context of friends and family, music and prayer, kindness, generosity, and love.

Jesus would later teach this concept best (as he did with everything):

"Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s." (Matthew 22:21)

May it be so for each of us this Christmas.

How NOT to teach from conference talks

For the past several years, teaching in Melchizedek Priesthood quorums and Relief Society in Sunday meetings have focused on the teachings of former presidents of the church.

This coming year, these meetings will focus on the teachings of living prophets and apostles.  This announcement is both exciting and terrifying.

Exciting because members of the church frequently take for granted that we enjoy the counsel of prophets and apostles who are guided by Jesus Christ.  There have been times when only a small family such as that of Noah or of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob enjoyed this type of guidance.  In the days of Moses, or during the reign of the Kings of Judah and Israel, a small nation had access to prophetic guidance.  The current availability of prophets to people around the globe is unprecedented, and frequently overlooked.  Emphasis on these inspired messages in Sunday meetings provides an opportunity for those who attend to receive the servants of God.

Terrifying because many people have sat through "Teachings for our Times" lessons that focused on general conference talks that follow this tired formula:

1. The instructor gets a volunteer to read a paragraph from a talk
2. The instructor tells everyone that they like the paragraph
3. The instructor asks a question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, pray."
4. The instructor checks the clock, and unless it is at least 5 minutes passed when the class is supposed to end, they begin again at step 1

The new teaching materials for youth and now for Priesthood and Relief Society are titled "Teaching in the Savior's Way," and this focus is intended to do promote that.  Rather than have a structured lesson from a manual, the philosophy is meant to provide opportunity to counsel and instruct based on the needs of the individuals.  This format is intended to promote a more natural expression of truth, faith, and testimony, and less of a canned one-size-fits-all lesson.

This is exactly how Jesus taught.  To some people, he emphasized truths using dramatic comparisons such as the prodigal son and the good Samaritan.  To others, he spoke more abstractly, such as his message to Nicodemus about being born again (John 3), or his teachings about the need to seek the bread of life to those who were hoping Jesus would give them a free meal (John 6).  He spoke with impressive authority in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), and with patience for little children (Mark 10).  He knew how to handle those who were argumentative (Matthew 21:23-45), and those who needed help (Mark 2).

Jesus wanted people to think deeply about eternal truths.  His approach encouraged people to search the scriptures and the words of the prophets, and persuaded people to pray, even though he did not emphasize the use of questions like "what are some ways we can follow the prophets?" or "who has a personal experience about this principle that they would be willing to share?"  Though the words of prophets were fundamental to his message, he demonstrated their importance through application and demonstration rather than a shallow proclamation such as "I like what Isaiah said there."

For those who are assigned to teach in any capacity, I hope that this new focus encourages you to teach as Jesus did.  Let the words of the prophets and the guidance of the Holy Ghost help you to persuade bad men to become good... and good men to become better... "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." (Ephesians 4:13)

The Confederacy was evil... and also good...

The South.  The Confederacy.  Racism.  Slavery.  Evil.

These ideas have been connected for so long, that it seems most people assume they are all synonymous.

Of course, this isn't surprising to hear from social justice "warriors" or the fascists who identify as "antifa," but the extreme alt-right has been happy to contribute to the idea by waving confederate flags and throwing obnoxious nazi salutes as they proclaim utter nonsense about racial superiority.

The more surprising source of hatred for Confederate generals include those on the right.  I was surprised to hear several individuals on the right proclaim the following ideas:

• Confederate soldiers and generals were nothing but traitors, in spite of their service to the United States before and after the civil war
• Even if many whites in the south did not own slaves, southerners were willing to fight and die so that slavery would still exist
• The south was noble in the revolutionary war, evil in the civil war, then noble again in the world wars
• The north represented the pinnacle of morality in the civil war, and their soldiers were willing to fight and die because of their great love of blacks

History books published in New York, Boston, or other northern state all seem to agree that the civil war was a conflict between good and evil, and a great many people (even intelligent people) seem to take the account of the victors as a complete, objective, and unbiased source of truth.

It seems to me that the truth should be more obvious.  Certainly slavery was a terrible sin, and those who engaged in it, supported it, or excused it, were completely wrong.  The politicians who defined the laws of the Confederate States of America were certainly among the morally bankrupt self-serving fools who gifted their opponents in the north with the guise of morality... but to assume that every person in the south or who supported the south was equally guilty is as stupid as saying "everyone who disagrees with my political views is literally Hitler."

In fact, General Lee had a copy of Les Miserables by Victor Hugo given to all his generals, because he believed that it symbolized the Southern cause.  In other words, he did not believe it was to preserve slavery.  Perhaps more than what transpired before and during the war, was the character he demonstrated after the war.  He advocated for the healing of the union, and on one occasion told a woman "Madam, don't bring up your sons to detest the United States government. Recollect that we form one country now. Abandon all these local animosities, and make your sons Americans." 

Lee's letters express his efforts to be humble, obedient, and to adhere to his Christian faith.

Additionally, a southern perspective of the political climate that led to the civil war provides a bit more depth than the northern account of moral piety:

"The ardour, the fury, the stubbornness, the injustice of the abolitionists, provided the same ardour, the same fury, the same stubbornness, and the same injustice among their adversaries.  Did the North appeal to the Bible and to authority of the Scriptures?  The South did likewise.  Did the school of Mr. Sumner, the chief of the abolitionist party, cite acts of cruelty in the slave states?  The partisans of the South recalled to it the condition of the free negroes in the North, where they were treated as a pestilence, absolutely forbidden to ride in a wagon or omnibus, to go into a church, temple, or theatre, or to rest in a cemetery reserved exclusively for the use of the white race.  In Illinois, the foot of a negro could not tread upon the soil of the state.  He exposed himself to be whipped and led back to the frontier.  In other states, if he married a white he was soundly thrashed.  The North forgot too readily, in attacking slavery, that it had long been pariticeps criminis.  Only from the day when a considerable party in the free states believed it would be able to make use of the fact as a powerful lever against its associate, now become its rival - only from that day did it bethink itself to be shocked at the profound immorality."  (The Life and Campaigns of Robert E. Lee, Edward Lee Childe)

The truth in the civil war is no different than the truth today.  There are good and evil elements in every faction, and in every person.  Certainly slavery was a terrible evil that should never have been embraced by any state in America, but it was definitely not the only evil that existed.  It is ironic that those who proclaim the righteousness of their anger against the evils of the American South would espouse the same sort of collectivist bigotry that they believe fueled their anger.  There is faith, kindness, and goodness in the south, contrary to what New York based writers seem to think.

While I can hardly blame anyone for being disgusted at some sheet-wearing clansman waving the Confederate flag (as this race-based collectivist nonsense repulses me), I suggest that they do not have a monopoly on this or other confederate emblems.  For some, it truly does represent racist stupidity and hateful dogma, but for others, it represents fried catfish, collard greens, corn bread, pulled pork, humidity, football, southern hospitality, churches on every corner, and any number of other positive aspects of life in the American south.

Finally, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I have another perspective of the confederate flag...  My personal heritage does not include a large number of southerners... most of my American ancestors lived in the north.  Many traveled across the plains as pioneers in the mid 1800s, before the civil war.  While they were loyal Americans, and opposed to slavery, they had been neglected by the United States government as they were wrongly driven from their homes in Missouri and in Illinois.  The federal government only took an interest in the Mormons when they believed us to be a threat.  President Buchanan sent an army to occupy the Salt Lake Valley in an unwarranted demonstration of power and control.  Even a thousand miles outside the United States, it seemed our people were not safe from persecution... but suddenly, something happened that drew the army back east...  Something that allowed the pioneers to take root, and to build permanent homes...  That something was a group of men attacking Fort Sumter on April 12th 1861 under the Confederate flag.

While I am not aware of a single Confederate soldier who believed they were fighting so that Mormons would be free to exercise their religion, when I look at the flag of the south, or any number of Confederate monuments, that is what I see.

I make no attempt to excuse the evils that did and do exist in the south... but I would suggest that there was and is goodness there as well... and that perhaps understanding different perspectives might be better at reducing the injustices and ill feelings that judges a person by their geography, heritage, or skin color.