Randomly Searching
My first clue was the large NYPD van parked in front of the subway entrance at 103rd Street.
As I came down the stairs to the turnstyles, a uniformed officer took me aside and removed the bag from my shoulder. With a flashlight, he opened all the pockets, finding my Book of Mormon, cell phone, sunglasses and wallet. He then sent me on my way, and flagged down another passenger to inspect. I missed my train by a few seconds, but was none the worse for wear.
Welcome to life in the War on Terror.
I don’t believe that random searches will stop Al-Queda terrorists from attacking the New York City subway system (though I’m not the first by any means to point this out — btw, that link was the only way to find a free version of the op-ed piece in question; I don’t care about the rest of the blog article). But what concerns me here, and what I thought about during my subway ride, was privacy in our current War on Terror, and what guidance the Gospel provides on such issues. I have come to the conclusion that there is limited right to privacy in the Gospel plan*.
The Lord knows our thoughts, our fears, and our secrets. The time will come, we are told, that our sins are shouted on the rooftops, and we would feign command the rocks of the mountains to bury us to hide us from them. In other words, sooner or later it will all come out — and publicly so. Celestial people have nothing to hide, and therefore have nothing to fear. The wicked keep their sins in private, and tremble. Cain was Master of Secrets, while Abel worshipped God openly.
That said, our Church is a Church where sacred and secret meld into one. The temple is the storehouse of hidden knowledge and sacred things not to be known in the world. We are told not to cast our pearls before swine; indeed, during the Restoration many revelations and commandments were given to leaders pseudonymously, to keep their names from the world. Sections of the JST were given under command of secrecy, and pieces of this remain in today’s scripture. We live and walk amongst spiritual secrets daily, and we have covenanted not to reveal them.
What is the proper role of privacy, then? Can the Gospel teach us anything about this notion? If anything, the Gospel teaches that a right to privacy does in fact exist, but privacy is given to God, not to persons. Personal secrets, intentions and plans are laid bare by God, but God’s will can be made known to a select few. In other words, privacy acts as a one-way street in the Gospel. This privacy may be a simple function of God operating within the confines of our mortal veil; I don’t believe that God will permanent keep things from us — and indeed, one of the promised blessings of those who are worthy is that they may come to know the mind of the Lord.
Where this leaves us in contemporary society is a tad muddled — mormons clearly want, and need, a right to privacy, in order to keep sacred acts sacred. But beyond that?
*Please, I beg you, do not engage in a constitutional debate about the right to privacy, which may or may not exist.
Our LDS claim to privacy in some areas can have certain consequences. For example, the reason why in some countries a Temple sealing is not valid as a wedding ceremony is because marriages must be instituted in public. No-one grumbles though: Temples remain private, and LDs couples have a civil ceremony too.
Comment by Ronan — August 17, 2005 @ 11:36 am
Much of the “War on Terror” (or whatever it is being called now) here in the USA is for show. It is meant to reassure the Joe Citizen who was calmed by the presence of 19-year olds with M16s in airports after 9-11. A dedicated attacker who is willing to die will be able to do damage. Look at Israel. They’ve got more anti-terrorism experience than any other country and they have attacks all the time.
We’ve given up privacy for very little additional security.
The only effective changes since 9-11 have been reinforcing cockpit doors and the unspoken lesson that passengers will now crash a plane rather than let terrorists take it over.
Comment by a random John — August 17, 2005 @ 11:43 am
Ronan, I can’t help but wonder if the bifurcated system is the more appropriate way to go in any event. To me it solidifies our notions of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and at the same time cements our independence from the world. It disturbs me, I think, to have the ecclesiastical world and the temporal world commingling.
Of course, when I get called to Adam-Ondi-Ahman and have to consecrate all my possessions, I’ll change my tune.
Comment by Steve Evans — August 17, 2005 @ 11:54 am
Every LDS Brit I know has no problem with the civil ceremony. Besides, it does away, in one fell swoop, with all the issues that can surround temple weddings.
Comment by Ronan — August 17, 2005 @ 11:57 am
Ronan, agreed - and when I got married (9 years ago today!!) we still had to get a marriage license through the local office, despite the marriage itself being performed in the temple (the glorious Manti temple).
Comment by Steve Evans — August 17, 2005 @ 12:11 pm
Steve,
Happy anniversary. Your anniversary is my daughter’s birthday.
And I think you are right about privacy. I am fine with there being some set of legal standards around provacy, but I have to say that often the reasons given seem fishy. For example, suppose I get “privacy software” for my computer to wipe the cache of my machine after every use. It seems likely that a not atypical purpose there is to hide pornography or other vices.
I understand that there are other reasons (like credit card info) to be careful. But I wonder if a not insignificant portion of privacy is about hiding one’s shame.
Comment by Frank McIntyre — August 17, 2005 @ 12:34 pm
Steve - Congratulations on your anniversary. And yes, the Manti Temple is beautiful. My son was married there 8 years ago.
The issue of privacy is an important one in American life and is also complicated. I certainly have no problem allowing a NYPD officer looking in my bag (even though I live in Washington DC) because I really have nothing to hide. But I think the greater threat to our way of life in giving up rights of privacy can be found in the scriptures “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” Experience has taught all of us that whether it is the police, the government or a member of your family, that scripture speaks volumes.
Comment by Lamonte — August 17, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
Superb post, Steve. This is truly a fascinating bivalency. I think that the church has grown to embrace “privacy rights.” Confessions used to be public, now they are for Bishops. Excommunications used to be announced from the pulpit within the last couple of decades. The church actively defends the legally privileged nature of church courts.
As a consequence, I think people are more apt to hide their sins. Because repentance has become so private, everyone appears perfect. This perceptions feeds guilt.
It is not all bad either. I think that not announcing excommunication is probably healthy (mostly because members a petty).
Comment by J. Stapley — August 17, 2005 @ 12:54 pm
J., excommunications are an interesting aspect of privacy, as are the confidentiality of talks with the bishop. But these aspects are I believe kept private primarily out of concern for integrity of the institution, not the individual. Even when a person waives his/her rights and speaks openly of their church court, etc., the Church reserves comment. I think, as you said, this tends to make repentance an increasingly private act and feeds guilt.
But what is the alternative? Announcements on the bulletin board? Public church courts? The thought is perfectly shocking.
Comment by Steve Evans — August 17, 2005 @ 12:59 pm
Perfectly shocking, but the pretty much foundational in our church. I’m trying to remember if Oliver Cowdry’s excommunication trial was public. I think it was. I know as recently as the early eighties it was church policy to announce excommunications in Sacrament Meeting.
I don’t know what the answer is. I don’t particularly want to hear brother X get up and confess his porn habit. Most people would be uncomfortable and he would be ostracized. I don’t think those consequences are right either. I can imagine, however, a society where the penitant are comforted and accepted.
Comment by J. Stapley — August 17, 2005 @ 1:10 pm
Steve, if we are looking through the lense of the Gospel, I wonder if we really have any “rights” at all? Are we not all beggars, etc.? It seems to me that if we are honest about our relationship to God, we don’t “deserve” anything, nor are we able to “demand” anything–by right or otherwise. I’m thinking outlout here, so maybe this is too restrictive a line of thinking. I suppose it is true that the Lord has told us that we have the “right” to expect Him to keep a promise, so maybe it is too restrictive.
But it seems to me our true relationship to Heavenly Father is such that we are completely at His mercy. This, to me, is one of the most terrifying things about our religion. As Elder Maxwell has taught so beautifully about submitting our will towards God, I have thought this is surely the most difficult thing He requires of us. Then again, I suppose we have the “right” not to submit…
Comment by Travis — August 17, 2005 @ 2:10 pm
J. Stapley is off by at least two decades, if not more, regarding a church policy of announcing excommunications. I served in a bishopric in the early 80’s, and there were no announcements then of excommunications.
On the other hand, there are instances still where such an announcement may be appropriate–esp. where the actions of the transgressor were widely known, or if there has been predatory behavior–and the handbook permits the announcement to the appropriate organizations (usually the melchizedek priesthood and the relief society).
Steve: congrats on hanging in there for nine years (actually, it’s Sumer who deserves all the kudos)! And in three days, I’ll see you and raise you 20.
Comment by Mark B. — August 17, 2005 @ 2:21 pm
The connection between the theological concept of God’s omniscience and the technology of power excercized by governments is important to note. Here, God represents one who holds supreme power, and he does so because he can be everywhere and see everything. The idea of God “watching” is a powerful way of exerting power. This same concept is at work all the time in contemporary society (Foucault traces it to the early modern period). Hidden cameras, secret shoppers, random searches, are all rooted in the same technology of power based on omniscience.
Comment by Taylor — August 17, 2005 @ 2:22 pm
hmmmm…I know of at least one area in 1980 where announcements where still practiced.
Comment by J. Stapley — August 17, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
Travis: tough questions. Yes, we are completely at the mercy of God. Does that mean that he is the source of our rights? Are rights illusory, temporal notions? I can certainly accept the idea that our rights as we conceive of them are illusory, but I’m not sure that rights as a general concept are entirely God’s invention.
Comment by Steve Evans — August 17, 2005 @ 2:36 pm
J Stapley, it is indeed disturbing when someone gets up in fast and testimony meeting and out of the blue, starts confessing about his porn/masturbation habit. What was even more disturbing when it happened in one of my wards was that several members apparently thought the bishop told him to do it, necessitating the bishopric going around to each sunday school class to do damage control and reassure people that we don’t do things that way.
I guess there might be some benefit in public confession of sins if everyone did it; we might feel more supported and less isolated if we knew each others’ struggles more, but I can also see it becoming almost competitive. And completely depressing.
Comment by Allison — August 17, 2005 @ 5:43 pm
arJ(#2), while I largely agree with the overall point of your comment, I think you underestimate the tremendous good in the world that can be wrought by a properly trained and motivated 19 year-old with an M16.
Comment by gst — August 17, 2005 @ 6:04 pm
I’m shocked that you think rights “may or may not exist”. Rights aren’t granted by men (via a constitution), rights are granted by God. Privacy is right given FROM God to the people, and we must keep and defend these rights from those who follow Satans plan.
Comment by Daylan — August 17, 2005 @ 8:54 pm
Daylan, as I’ve pointed out, it is by no means clear that rights are granted by God.
Comment by Steve Evans — August 17, 2005 @ 9:31 pm
gst,
I did not mean to badmouth the troops. They do a great job in their intended roles. It does seem to me though that putting fully automatic weapons inside the secure area of our airports did nothing to actually make the airports more secure. In fact many in my field (which is computer security, and somewhat related) speculated that this actually made the airports less secure. This isn’t the fault of the troops. It is the fault of policy makers that are so desperate to look like they are solving problems that they do ANYTHING to make it look like they are doing something productive. And for the most part it worked since the public seems to have not figured it out.
Comment by a random John — August 17, 2005 @ 11:27 pm
From my experience excommunications were announced in Priesthood meetings in the early part of the 80s and not at a sacrament meeting.
Don’t you think that privacy could be granted because God is a loving and merciful god? I know I’ve heard about someone’s horrifying sin or past and thought, I really wish I didn’t know this about that person. Not because I’d love them any less but I’d worry about gossip and that person’s need to just work out their own salvation with out the whole world peering down at them or putting in their two cents.
I think that God has mysteries because in our limited intelligences we may not be able to handle certain aspects of the gospel. I don’t want to be held to standards that would be impossible for me to keep up with.
Anyway, that’s why I like the merciful God view of privacy.
Comment by kristen j — August 18, 2005 @ 11:24 am
Kristen, I love the way you tie mercy to privacy, and it makes a lot of sense to me. However, I am not sure that is how privacy works as a practical matter in our religion, since the privacy cannot be waived by the individual.
Comment by Steve Evans — August 18, 2005 @ 11:29 am
You said, “But these aspects are I believe kept private primarily out of concern for integrity of the institution, not the individual. Even when a person waives his/her rights and speaks openly of their church court, etc., the Church reserves comment.”
I don’t think that in protecting the institution the individual gets left in the dust. I think this privacy issue can work for both the institution and the individual.
On a global level the institution is protected from everyone and their grandma analyzing why the church acted in this particular way. On a village (?) level the individual is protected from everyone and their grandma from talking about what an idiot they are for making mistakes in their life.
Comment by kristen j — August 18, 2005 @ 12:11 pm
Steve, continuing the conversation (#15) (sorry for the long delay), I actually think there is some scriptural support for the proposition that Moral Law doesn’t come from God, but from some external source. (What that is I have no idea). I’m thinking of Alma’s statements that God cannot lie or God would cease to be God. One way to read this is that there are rules (laws, principles, etc.) that even God must follow. One of the things that makes Him God is that He follows them perfectly. I suppose that if we posit some kind of Moral Law or Code, we could theoretically find some things we could claim as “rights” under the Law/Code. So, perhaps, in this sense God allows us certain “rights (what’er they may be) because He is perfect and acts in accordance with this Moral Law. I’m too much of a philosophy/doctrine lightweight to have any clue as to what such a Moral Law might be, but it is an interesting idea.
Comment by travis — August 18, 2005 @ 12:16 pm
I wonder if the idea of our sins being announced on the rooftops is akin to the line that gluttony is not a secret vice. It could be that the exposure to come will be an obviousness that we fattenned up on sin and made it part of us. Being fully known doesn’t seem to leave room for privacy.
Comment by John Mansfield — August 18, 2005 @ 4:16 pm
John, an omniscient God means that there is no such thing as complete privacy. But when the scriptures talk about our private sins being made public, I still wonder whether God will make all information public about everybody. I doubt it, but I have no idea what distinctions could be made.
Comment by Steve Evans — August 18, 2005 @ 4:31 pm