Recently my brother in law Ned told me about a great discourse written in 1974 by the late Neal A. Maxwell, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS church, titled Eternalism vs. Secularism (full-text here). I believe he emailed me a link to the talk which I skimmed, but when I ran into him at a family function some days or weeks later he produces a hard copy for me which I, of course, I set aside with intent of reading at some later point. Days and weeks passed by and then, one day at church, I took the talk out and began reading it. I was amazed by the amount of compelling truths packed into one discourse.
It struck me that today most discourses tend to be a bit more simple, for lack of a better word. Of course that's a generalization and I don't mean anything negative by pointing that out, but it seems to me that the Brethren, as we're apt to call our church leaders, have really gone back to the basics; I assume this trend has to do, at least in part, with the fact that the church has grown so much and so rapidly that one must be aware of the
global audience and the fact that the essential elements of the Gospel are what allow people to get on and stay on the path. Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear can and will find more to study and ponder both in the scriptures and through resources such as online backlogs and ulterior discourses both from and outside of the
LDS faith.
My (superficial) analysis (direct quotes from the talk are italicized):Eternalism focuses on changing the individual by teaching him correct principles. Secularism tends to deal increasingly with adjustments outside man.We've all heard the concept that society tries to change a man from the outside in while Christ, or the Truth, changes man from the inside out. That's sort of the way Elder Maxwell frames this talk. If secularism is a sickness, or drug, that essentially moves man farther away from the truth or happiness, then Maxwell sees society as both the drug that causes the addiction and the recovery center that fixes it.
For the purpose of this brief discussion, eternalism is defined as that view of man and the universe which not only acknowledges, but exults in, the existence of a Heavenly Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, who have authored and implemented a redeeming plan for mankind. Secularism is herein defined as that view of man and the universe which is essentially irreligious with regard to the existence of God and cosmic purpose for man, but which is not necessarily irreverent with regard to man and his worth.
The purpose of this article is not to put down sincere secularism, for it was the Savior himself who, when queried by his disciples about others who were doing good, observed generously, “For he that is not against us is on our part.” (Mark 9:40.) But there are significant differences involved in these two distinct approaches to the problems that confront man, and these differences have serious implications for the individual.
In other words,
eternalism is the truth while secularism is man's best, but it doesn't rely on God. This doesn't mean all secular approaches are necessarily evil but simply points out that they cannot succeed on the long run because they rely on the faulty, imperfect nature of men (the arm of man).
The short-fall of secularism (with its frequent failure to answer satisfactorily the long-range “cost effectiveness” questions concerning what really benefits man), in fact, calls attention to itself. Errant or random do-goodism has so often been sincere but has ended up being ineffective or is reminiscent of “straightening deck chairs on the Titanic.” The wrong kind of help isn’t really helpful; it is often harmful, for “solutions” become problems. Good motives and good ideas can produce laudable results, but sometimes such combinations can also produce the results (now decried by almost all) such as we see, for instance, in our public welfare programs. According to one writer, “Many liberal urban economists and sociologists plainly and simply started to question whether welfare is really good for people …” and “urbanologists have been having similar qualms over the effect of welfare on the family structure. …” (Saturday Review, June 3, 1972.)The section above reminds me of the endeavor in which I am involved in professionally, namely education. There are so many good, well-meaning individuals at the political, academic and local levels who sincerely want to make a difference. Their minds and intentions are then put to work, with the backing of BILLIONS (that's right B-B-Billions!) of dollars, and the results? Sketchy at best. The bottom line is that we are still improving our students scores incrementally on tests, etc. but there are fundamental issues that secularism is not willing to address such as the disintegration of families, the impact of sexuality and violence in the media, lack of parental support and love, etc. Bless the hearts of those individuals in all corners of society (health care, law, medicine, etc.) who stand up and do their best in spite of the terrible odds that students will become increasingly more degenerate, apathetic and generally ungodly until our country falls behind in terms of education and overall economic viability.
The new secular “moral geometry” with its fluid lines, alien angles, and restless points, rejects the idea of divine design in the universe, but then naively seeks to muster righteous indignation in behalf of the disadvantaged—but without any corresponding concern over the need for non-economic morality—the very values necessary to make indignation righteous!
Chronic, unmitigated, and wide economic disparity (featuring both the greedy, insensitive rich and the idle, grasping, envious poor) clearly does contribute to the sin of the world. Nor are secular prophets on record for as long, or as often, as are the religious prophets in describing the obligations we have to the poor. Thus, while there are often (as between eternalism and secularism) shared concerns, there is also a very sharp divergence in terms of the solutions proposed.
I love that line about the greedy rich and the envious poor. It is commonly held that it's easier to remain ethical and godly as a middle (lower to upper) class citizen because one does not have too much nor too little. I imagine the rich guy in his fancy car scornfully gazing upon the poor and the dude pounding a 40 oz. in front of the TV...either way you're blinded. This isn't to say that there aren't wonderfully righteous good people at every point of the economic spectrum, but individuals who push for hardcore welfare are obviously not really looking to solve some of the basic issues afflicting society. There is that eternal principle of work at play.
Even so, secularism simply seems to assign a higher value to leisure. Though we all need some leisure, secularism often finds itself trying to reduce the necessity for work without showing corresponding concern as to the purposes to which leisure time should be put—except more idleness or pleasure-seeking. Once it is taken, however, a first step toward hedonism compels a second step, and then a third, and so on.
Eternalism focuses on the individual and on those processes in which the individual is taught correct principles and then is given optimum opportunity to govern himself [awesome line!]. Indeed, nowhere does the contrast appear to be more stark between the basic approaches to man’s problems than in the focus of eternalism on the individual as the basic human reality (and next the family). Where reform and desirable change are concerned, eternalism opts for conditions that facilitate true individual growth, letting the consequences of any successes ripple outward. Secularism tends to want to deal increasingly with systems, governments, labels, groups, etc.—with adjustments in the things outside man, apparently hoping that, somehow, changing the external scenery will change the things inside man. Of this latter approach, it was a wise Edmund Burke who warned:
“… society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more of it there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” (Leo Rosten, A Trumpet for Reason, Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, 1970.)
I'm getting quite tired, so I am going to paste some more highlights and, hopefully, I can come back and add some more commentary.
Because eternalism sees man in just that perspective—eternal—it of necessity concerns itself with things that appear to be either trivial to—or which fall within—secularism’s zone of indifference. In a sense, eternalism sees the individual and his potential as one might view an acorn and the subsequent forest. Secularism sees the individual as a very important and very real, but temporary, phenomenon in the cosmic landscape—which leads inevitably to other values and emphasis. When life-style takes the form of “me” and “now” rather than “us” and “always,” apparent consequences are inevitable.But we cannot tame those bureaucracies unless we first tame our appetites, for a bloated bureaucracy is merely a manifestation of citizen appetites, demands, and the subsequent need for external controls.Eternalism lays great stress on the innocence of the newborn (see D&C 90) and on the importance of helping that individual “streamlet” (at its source) to have identity, belonging, and purity as it rolls forward in life, joining the larger stream of humanity. Secularism, however, becomes fascinated with the need for vast purification plants downstream, designed to purge the individual and to “reprogram” him.
Anyway, this is a great talk, a true gem and one that rings just as true today as it did thirty-five years ago or so. I leave you with this: if one wants to change the society or world in which he lives, start by changing the interior man. I know that within me reside some of the illnesses that affect society as a whole in that the psychological and spiritual weakness that reside in the hearts of men are what manifest on a global scale. So, as Michael Jackson put it, "I'm startin' with the man in the mirror...oh yeah!" I think he might have been referring to his physical appearance though judging by all the plastic surgeries. OK, that just destroyed any credibility this blog may have been striving for...ha! Actually, know I'll know if anyone actually read this far! Back on a serious note, I think anyone reading this sort of blog understands this truth and realizes that the essential work for the individual sits with the individual: the work must be performed daily in one's own soul, own family, at work...all of those seemingly insignificant little choices about what one thinks about, says, how one responds to others, etc. these minuscule moments make up eternity. By the way, sorry about the font changes...I'm too lazy to mess with the HTML.
CITATION:
Eternalism vs. Secularism
Neal A. Maxwell, “Eternalism vs. Secularism,” Ensign, Oct 1974, 69
Just what is meant when we use the word 'mysticism'. A proper definition has always been elusive or vague. For the record, mysticism can be defined as an experience where one personally knows, through direct knowledge, the source of all being. Many call this source God; others, the cosmic. The point is, the experience is noetic. We know, not believe through faith or know only through scientific observation, but we simply and truly know.
But we needn't be limited to the four complementary bases, and that's just what has been shown by a Japanese team, who have published details of their creation of an artificial DNA strand. All the components of their DNA product are nonnatural, yet they spontaneously form right-handed duplexes with the corresponding opposite base, and these bonds have very similar properties to those of natural DNA. 
