My thoughts on the principles taught by Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth books

Many years ago, a friend of mine highly recommended the series of books known as the Sword of Truth (at the time, six books had been published).  I read the first book, Wizard's First Rule, and was instantly hooked.  I loved reading about the relationship between Richard and Kahlan, and how they would never give up in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, and how they genuinely set good examples to those around them for to act.

Some years ago, I finished reading the book, Confessor, and moved on to other concerns, as no other book in this series was available.  Years passed and I did not think about these books on a daily basis.  Then our family decided to move.  As part of moving, I had to start packing, which meant packing up all of my books.  This was the point when I was reminded of the Sword of Truth series.  To my surprise, Mr. Goodkind has written five more books since 'Confessor'.

I eagerly purchased 'The Omen Machine' via Amazon Kindle (complete with audible narration) and entered the world of Richard and Kahlan once again.  It wasn't long before I was also buying 'The Third Kingdom', 'Severed Souls', and 'Warheart' and also reading/listening to them.

Now that I've consumed these more recent four books and have their contents fresh in my mind, I want to take the time to comment on the principles that Mr. Goodkind is presenting in these books and compare/contrast them to the principles that I hold most dear, some of which may coincide, some of which may diverge.

BACKGROUND

Before I cover the following principles, it may be helpful for me to illustrate that the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches that the daily battle between good and evil is a battle between a Creator (ie God) and a devil (ie Satan).  It is a battle between free will and captivity.  It is a battle between happiness and misery.  God desires our happiness and freedom, while Satan desires our captivity and our misery.  Satan wants us to be as miserable as he is (ie if he can't have the rewards that God is offering, he wants to ruin the chance for everyone else to have those same rewards).  For more information, please see my previous blog post about what motivates Satan.

I realize that some people reading this will not believe the statements I just said.  I ask you to bear with me and try to temporarily get inside my head and assume that what I just said is true so that you can understand the following words from my paradigm.  After that, feel free to discard my paradigm and revert to your belief system :)

RELIGION

A recurring theme in the Sword of Truth seems to be that "blind faith" is a Bad Thing and that openly religious leaders are hypocrites and generally evil.  Brother Narev is one of the founders of the Imperial Order, which is as much of a religion as a political orientation.  Abbot Drier tortures innocent people to gain prophecy, and also uses his occult powers to rape Mord-Sith.  Bishop Hannis Arc is the main villain of the latter four books and is bent on obtaining revenge and power.  Even the Sisters of the Light, who are clearly 'good guys' are portrayed as well-meaning but misguided.  Jagang is not necessarily a religious leader, but it is strongly implied that he uses the religion driving the Imperial Order as an excuse to rape innocent victims and maintain a grip of power.

Richard and Kahlan, who are the heroes of the stories, talk about the "Good Spirits", but generally not about the Creator.  The only person in recent books that discussed that Creator at all in much depth was Drier, who spent several pages expounding on the idea that the Creator doesn't care about people on an individual level, but cares enough to provide prophecy to help guide people about what the future holds for them.

It is not hard for a reader to conclude that Mr. Goodkind may view religion in general in a negative light and may view leaders of religion as hypocrites, people intent on binding their followers down in a belief system for the purpose of exerting dominance over them.  It may surprise some readers that this complaint is not new.  The Book of Mormon observes that people antagonistic to Jesus Christ may teach that leaders of Christ's church will attempt to keep their followers in ignorance of the truth by finding them to 'foolish ordinances and traditions' for the purpose of maintaining power and authority over them (see this link) .  The Sword of Truth seems to present the same message.  Surely people like Jagang are attempting to do this very thing.  Jagang teaches a false message in order to maintain power over his followers.

My response to this idea is to take a step back and use some more of that reasoning that Mr. Goodkind and I both cherish.  I suggest that while it is reasonable that a religious leader could teach false principles in order to maintain power and authority over a group of followers, it is equally reasonable that a religious leader could teach true principles in order to enrich the lives of a group of followers.  In other words, just because someone is a religious leader and teaching something, doesn't automatically mean that they are teaching something false.

I humbly propose that the truth about God is not something that scientists can prove or disprove to other people.  It is, however, something that each individual can discover for themselves using a mixture of experience, personal experimentation, and yes, reason.  (more on this in the 'faith' section)

As all people are imperfect and are at different stages of their journey through life, people will naturally disagree about the nature of God.  This is okay.

FAITH VS REASON

I believe it was Nicci who went on a page-long rant about the dangers of having faith somewhere after Faith of the Fallen (I forget the exact book).    The Shun-Tuk have plenty of faith; they believe that by eating a person with a soul that they have the opportunity to capture that soul.  A generous amount of Severed Souls (I believe) is devoted to Richard attempting to reason with a captive Shun-Tuk about how this notion of soul-capturing is ridiculous.  But the Shun-Tuk stubbornly refuses to listen to reason and holds on to his blind faith.

Now I don't know whether Mr. Goodkind takes a negative view of just blind faith or any faith in general.  But it is worth noting that Richard places an astounding amount of faith in the information contained in the Cerulean scrolls that he discovers in the book, Warheart.  He also places tremendous faith in the information left for him from Naja Moon in village of Stroyza.  He really has no way to independently verify the accuracy of this information, but acts as if it he is completely certain that it is trustworthy.  He even takes the Sword of Truth into the sliph along with his friends, risking their lives, because the sliph assures him that they are safe to travel.  He never hesitates to trust the sliph.

In short, Richard demonstrates faith over and over throughout the books.  The kind of faith that he demonstrates is the "good" kind of faith that Jesus Christ taught that people need to cultivate in their lives in order to achieve greatness.

What I've come to realize as I've gotten older is that faith in something trustworthy can be a powerful ally.  It is faith in something untrustworthy, or false, that is where people can get into trouble.

Mr. Goodkind emphasizes that reason should be the guiding principle in people's lives.  And I agree.  Reason should be employed whenever possible.  However, reason is only useful when a person already has sufficient experience to apply reason.  When someone does not have experience, faith in something trustworthy can take the place of reason until a person gains enough experience that they don't need to rely on faith anymore.  This is the message that Jesus Christ was really teaching.  He wasn't saying "Have faith in me so I can keep you from growing."  He was saying "Let me guide you until you have enough experience to be able to guide yourself."

Let me talk about faith and fitness for a little bit.  I've gotten into fitness lately, including exercising and eating healthy.  Now, if I was a perfect person, I would have enough experience to know how many calories are in the food that I eat.  I'd have enough experience to know how many calories I need to eat each day in order to lose body fat.  And I would know how much exercise I need to do each day so that my body can safely lose body fat in conjunction with the daily calories that I am eating.  But here's the problem.  I don't have this kind of experience.  So I can either do one of two things: I can try to figure everything out on my own, or I can have faith in something that may be trustworthy for a period of time and evaluate the results.

Frankly, I don't have time to "figure everything out on my own."  I don't have time to figure out how many calories are in every kind of food I eat.  So I need to have faith that those nutrition facts labels on the back of food packages are correct.  Do I have time to figure out how much I need to eat and how much exercise I need to do to lose body fat?  I could probably eventually figure this out.  But it could literally take years.  Instead of spending this time, why not have faith in something that may be trustworthy for a period of time and then evaluate the results?  This could be something like experimenting with info from a web site or a book as far as exercise and nutrition and seeing whether I start to lose body fat.  The thing with fitness is, one can't weigh oneself every day on a scale to measure progress because one's daily weight fluctuates a lot.  So one is kinda forced to have faith and experiment and not be able to evaluate the results for a few weeks at minimum.

What I think a lot of people don't realize about faith is that, when done correctly, it is not "blind faith."

 Jesus said "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." See https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/7.17?lang=eng#16

This scripture used to make no sense to me.  And it has been translated in kind of a confusing way.

But what Jesus is saying here is that no one needs to have blind faith in anything that Jesus teaches.  One simply needs to exercise enough faith to follow Jesus' teachings for a _period of time_, perhaps a month, and then _evaluate the results._  If the results are that a person feels happier, feels more motivated, feels more optimistic, then the doctrine is correct.  If the results are that a person feels less happy, more miserable, and more lost, then the doctrine is false.  It is really the scientific method in a religious context.  And it requires faith in order to do this personal experiment.  I don't even know if a person needs to believe that they will achieve a particular result.  A person could do an experiment as simple as "Ok, Jesus said that the greatest people are those that serve.  I am going to do an experiment and try to serve people a lot more for a few weeks and then evaluate the results.  Then I'll decide whether to consider any of Jesus's other teachings or not."  This is faith.  But it's not blind faith because it is reasonable.  Once the experiment is concluded, faith is no longer needed for that one thing because experience will have been gained.  A person would no longer need to have faith that service brings happiness because he/she would now have the experience that proves that service brings happiness.  It would also create confidence in that person that Jesus is someone that is trustworthy which would increase their faith in taking Jesus's advice.

Having faith in something that is trustworthy isn't just a good habit, it's a fantastic habit which provides accelerated growth and opportunity that one may not otherwise be able to obtain in this life.  Faith in something untrustworthy is where people can get into trouble.

The question shouldn't be whether faith has merit.  The question should be whether Jesus Christ is a trustworthy source for truth.  And that is something each person can discover for themselves by applying the experiment I discussed.

BALANCE

The principle of balance is brought up in the Sword of Truth.  It may surprise Mr. Goodkind to learn that the Book of Mormon also talks about the necessity of balance, or opposition.  "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility."  (see https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.11?lang=eng#10 )

I could see Richard saying something like this somewhere, although perhaps without reference to holiness :)

PROPHECY VS FREE WILL

The last four books of the series deal heavily with prophecy.  The really ironic thing is, that while Richard doesn't care much for prophecy, prophecy is actually shown to be something real in the books.  It's not just charlatans trying to con people.

In the books, prophecy is shown to be something that doesn't belong in the world of life but came into being by mistake.  The description of how prophecy works is pretty fascinating.  Basically the dead do not reckon time the same as the living and are able to see the future as if it is present.  So the dead are able to tell the living about future events due to cracks in the veil between life and death.

As for free will, Mr. Goodkind may again be surprised to learn that the Book of Mormon talks about free will and indeed is a champion of free will: "Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself." (see https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.27?lang=eng#26 )

Where Mr. Goodkind and I may differ is in the notion that free will is at odds with prophecy.

It may be presumptuous of me, but I suspect that Mr. Goodkind does not believe that anyone can know the future and therefore anyone who claims to be able to do so is not speaking the truth.  This may be a reaction to popular Christian religious notions, such as prophecies contained in the Bible, which may change some people's behavior based on what they believe will come in the future.

Here's my take on prophecy.  I believe that God can see the future in the same way that the fictional 'good spirits' of the Sword of Truth underworld can see the future.  And I believe that God could reveal certain future events to his children (ie us) if that would help us grow and become stronger.  However, I do not agree at all with the rhetoric presented by Ludwig Drier about why prophecy comes about, nor do I agree with Richard that prophecy is at odds with free will or somehow removes free will.

The Book of Mormon is full of prophecy.  But it is not the kind of prophecy presented in the Sword of Truth.  There are no prophecies about whether someone's room is going to catch on fire, about whether Richard is going to return to the palace of prophets through the sliph, or things that really have no eternal consequence.  The prophecy in the Book of Mormon is mostly plain statements about what the purpose of life is, rewards we will obtain by following Jesus, and warnings about what will happen if we choose not to follow Jesus.  For example, here is a warning that this life is the time to prepare to meet God and to not procrastinate.

If this sounds strange and foreign to you, let me try to liken it to something more familiar.  Let's say a father is sending his son off to college.  The father "prophesies" that the purpose of college is to grow and learn.  The father "prophesies" that the son will be able to get a good job as a result of working hard at college.  The father "prophesies" that if the son wastes time at college and procrastinates trying to obtain an education, that Bad Things will happen.

Is the father taking away the son's free will be telling the son these things?  I would say no.

In the same way, prophecy that God gives to us is not about taking away our free will, but instead revealing things that we need to know to ultimately succeed, things that are obvious to God which we would have no way of knowing about if He didn't reveal them to us.  For example, how could we possibly know that this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God if He didn't tell us?

In conclusion, I believe that this world has plenty of false prophecy and also some true prophecy, and that true prophecy comes from God and is for the purpose of guiding us through life so that we can achieve great things.  Incidentally, I don't believe that true prophecy is revealed through random people who are born with "the gift".  I believe that God chooses people to carry his word to others and that these people are called prophets.  It's up to each individual to apply the principles of experimentation that I mention above discover who the true prophets are.  (and if you are saying to yourself right now that there are no true prophets, I would suggest that unless you can magically get inside every single person's head who is alive right now, you can't logically make such a claim)

THE SANCTITY OF LIFE

Richard preaches that life is sacred.  I totally agree.

CONCLUSION

I'm a fan of the wonderful stories that Mr. Goodkind is able to come up with.  I feel that I have a pretty firm grasp on the points that Mr. Goodkind is trying to make.  I hope that Mr. Goodkind is able to take the opportunity to consider the ideas that I've presented in this blog post and see why I may still reasonably believe in principles of faith and prophecy even after reading his books and that one can use reason and be thoughtful and still be a religious person.

Religious freedom being threatened

"Others resort to politically correct name calling, rather than talking about difficult topics in a spirit of mutual respect.  Hurtful labels like bigot or hater are all too common."

The earthly mission of religion [is] to set men free.

Religion is the duty that we owe to our creator.

A free society cannot subsist without religion.

A law does not become unconstitutional when it coincides with religious principles.  otherwise we couldn't have laws against murder and theft.

Religious speech cannot be singled out for government suppression.

Sharing a religious voice isn't "imposing ideas" on other people, it's putting an idea forward for consideration.  Someone's values will prevail

Separation of church and state

I sense that some of my friends feel that any religious principle has no place in federal or state law because of the concept known commonly as "the separation of church and state."

I see a problem with this:

It may be very difficult or even impossible to guarantee that a law is not religiously motivated.  To insist that a law not be based off of religious principles may increase the likelihood that laws would be based off of atheistic principles, which, to me, are also religious principles.  Having laws based off of atheistic principles doesn't achieve a separation of church and state; quite the opposite.

I think what reasonable people may want to consider is the following scenario:

If a Mormon, a Catholic, a Muslim, a Jaw, and a Protestant all able to agree on a certain law that is motivated by their (different) religious beliefs, is this not a reasonable law for a country to have if the majority support the law?  I would suggest that the answer may be "yes" in many cases.  Why?  Because it's fair, it's what most people sincerely think is best, and it isn't biased toward any one group's interests.

And if you think that the answer to my above question is "no", I would invite to give some serious reflection as to why that may be.

It is better to deny oneself (yet another reason why same-sex marriage is contrary to God's plan)

Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Or

3 Nephi 12:30 For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.

My interpretation: It is better to deny oneself of harmful physical appetites and enter into heaven than satisfy these appetites and be cast into hell.  This seems to be in conflict with the modern principle of same-sex marriage which teaches that it a person is born with a specific type of sexual urge, then it is appropriate to satisfy this urge and the government will support anyone who wishes to behave this way, no matter what the cost to society ends up being.

Mini purpose of life

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/6.55

55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.

I read that as: once people become teenagers and their bodies start to mature, they will be faced with a new temptations that will be contrary to God's will. Each person's temptation will probably be different.

The precepts of men

• 2 Nephi 4:34

  34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm offlesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.

• Jeremiah 17:5

  5 ¶Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.
• • 2 Nephi 28:31

    31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.
  • • 2 Nephi 28:30

      30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, preceptupon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.
    • • 2 Nephi 28:26

        26 Yea, wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto theprecepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost!
      • • Doctrine and Covenants 45:29

          29 But they receive it not; for they perceive not the light, and they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men.
        • • 2 Nephi 28:5

            5 And they deny the power of God, the Holy One of Israel; and they say unto the people: Hearken unto us, and hear ye our precept; for behold there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men;

What does 'discrimination' really mean?

I see some people tossing around the word 'discrimination' a lot these days, and like Inigo Montoya once said, "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

According to dictionary.com, the word (in the context which most people have been using it) means:

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

To summarize, if a person is discriminating against another person, it means that they are treating them differently because of the group to which they belong rather than in individual merit.

Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, recently wrote this piece for the Washington Post.
I quote a section of his remarks here:

"There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country.

A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors. Some, such as the bill enacted in Indiana last week that drew a national outcry and one passed in Arkansas, say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law.

Others are more transparent in their effort to discriminate. Legislation being considered in Texas would strip the salaries and pensions of clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — even if the Supreme Court strikes down Texas’ marriage ban later this year. In total, there are nearly 100 bills designed to enshrine discrimination in state law."

I am troubled that Mr. Cook seems to be automatically assuming that religious freedom laws are  intended to be used to discriminate.  While I freely acknowledge that some people may use these laws as an excuse to discriminate, I also see a vital need for laws of this nature to protect other people who have no interest in discriminating.

I believe that one must examine each case individually to determine whether a person claiming religious freedom is discriminating.  Let me give you a few examples of possible scenarios that I am talking about:

Scenario	Discriminating?	Rational
7-11 eleven, which posts a sign that says "no shirt, no service" refuses service to a man who walks in without a shirt	No	The man is being treated based on his individual behavior, not because of any group to which he belongs
Restaurant refuses to serve someone because of their skin color	Yes	The person is being turned away because of belonging to a group, not because of their behavior
Wedding cake maker, and/or wedding photographer, and/or wedding planner refuses service to any customer (regardless of sexual orientation) who specifically wants services related to gay marriage	MAYBE	Here is where people need to slow down and not jump to conclusions. The business MAY be automatically dismissing the customer simply because they belong to a specific group. If so, yes, they are discriminating. However, the business MAY be dismissing the customer because the business owners sincerely have a religious believe that God created marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that to participate in a ceremony that conflicts with this commandment would be an offense to God.  If this is the case, then the business owner would primarily be concerned with his/her relationship with God and would the essentially be willing to sacrifice the relationship with the customer.  This is not discrimination because the group to which the customer may belong is not a factor in this decision.

Conclusion: Some people misuse and/or misunderstand what the word "discrimination" means. The more that we are all on the same page, the better we can move forward with thoughtful dialog on the subject.