Czy Chrześcijanin musi być słodki?

Obrywa mi się od czasu do czasu na Facebooku od osób (najczęściej kobiet), które - jak często twierdzą - zawiodłem swoimi poglądami i ostrymi słowami pod adresem polityków, dziennikarzy i innych miłościwie nam panujących lub próbujących zapanować. Według moich krytyków, jako osoba wierząca, Chrześcijanin, nie powinienem nikogo obrażać, bo to nie jest słodkie. A Chrześcijanin powinien być słodki, prawda? Powinien zawsze się do wszystkich uśmiechać i ze wszystkimi się we wszystkim zgadzać, tolerować wszystko i akceptować wszystko.

Coś, oczywiście w tym jest. W końcu powinniśmy kochać bliźnich, nawet wrogów. Jestem jak najbardziej za miłością do wrogów, podawaniem im ręki, obdarzaniem ich szczerą przyjaźnią. W końcu sam lubię i przyjaźnię się wyborcami, których głosy doprowadzają do zrujnowania świata mi i moim dzieciom.

Jak kochać bliźnich?

Ale czy miłość przejawia się tylko w serdeczności i uległości? Myślę, że nie koniecznie. Miłość do Boga i bliźniego można okazywać na wiele sposobów, w zależności od swoich umiejętności, zainteresowań, poziomu zrozumienia nauk Jezusa, a także osobowości, stylu bycia. Miłość można okazywać dzieląc się swoim talentem - komponując, śpiewając, grając na instrumencie, produkując filmy, pisząc książki, malując obrazy. Można też to robić prowadząc uczciwy i rzetelny biznes. Wielu ludzi, naukowców, lekarzy, artystów, którzy zasłynęli z odkrycia lub stworzenia czegoś, co w taki czy inny sposób pobłogosławiło ludzkość było znanych wśród najbliższych jako osoby nietowarzyskie, często wręcz nieznośne. Miłość można też oczywiście okazywać przez bycie miłym. W protestanckiej Ameryce a ostatnio nawet w i w naszym kraju wielu pracowników sklepów i punktów usługowych wykorzystuje swoją pracę dającą im możliwość kontaktu z klientami do wyrażania szacunku, dzielenia się dobrym słowem czy podnoszącym na duchu poczuciem humoru ze swoimi bliźnimi.

Miłość a wojna

Wielu mężczyzn w historii z miłości do swoich żon i dzieci udawało się na wojnę, gdzie - tak, z miłości - pozbawiali życia wrogów. Nie nawiązuję tu do niesprawiedliwych wojen religijnych pod pretekstem nawracania pogan. Nie mam też na myśli wojowników łupiących wsie sąsiadów, by polepszyć byt swoich rodzin. Chodzi mi tylko i wyłącznie o walkę obronną.

Nefitów, na przykład, „pobudzała do walki myśl, że walczą o słuszną sprawę, bo nie walczyli o zdobycie królestwa czy władzy, lecz bronili swych domów, swych swobód, swych żon i dzieci, bronili tego, co było ich własnością, bronili swego prawa czczenia Boga na swój sposób i bronili swego Kościoła. I czynili, co uważali za sprawiedliwe w oczach Boga, gdyż Pan powiedział im, jak również ich ojcom: Jeśli zniesiecie pierwszą i drugą zniewagę od waszych wrogów, nie będziecie więcej tego znosić i nie pozwolicie, aby was zabili. I Pan powiedział także: BĘDZIECIE BRONIĆ SWYCH RODZIN AŻ DO ROZLEWU KRWI.” (Alma 43:45-46)

Prorok Samuel przekazał namaszczonemu przez siebie królowi Izraela następujące objawienie: „Idź więc teraz i pobij Amaleka, i wytęp jako obłożonego klątwą jego i wszystko, co do niego należy; nie lituj się nad nim, ale wytrać mężczyznę i kobietę, dziecię i niemowlę, wołu i owcę, wielbłąda i osła.” (1 Samuel 15:3)

To przykazanie było dane przez Boga, tego który jest miłością, tego, który jest wieczny, nigdy się nie zmienia, którego zawsze motywuje miłość do swoich dzieci. Jest ono zapisane w Biblii. Dla Chrześcijan jest więc historycznym faktem. Powinno ono wpływać na nasze wyobrażenie o Bogu tak samo jak wszystkie inne wydarzenia i nauki zawarte w pismach świętych.

Wielu Chrześcijan, łącznie z niektórymi członkami Kościoła Jezusa Chrystusa Świętych w Dniach Ostatnich, wyobraża sobie Boga Ojca i jego Syna, Jezusa Chrystusa jako Istoty pasywne, niemal zniewieściałe. Myślę, że to poważny problem, bo Oni tacy po prostu nie są a nasze zbawienie uzależnione jest od tego czy ich poznamy, zrozumiemy, zaczniemy oceniać rzeczywistość tak jak Oni ją oceniają, myśleć i czuć tak jak Oni. „A to jest żywot wieczny, aby poznali ciebie, jedynego prawdziwego Boga i Jezusa Chrystusa, którego posłałeś.” (Jan 17:3) - modlił się do Ojca Jezus.

Pozwólcie mężczyznom pozostać mężczyznami

Kobiety, siostry nasze kochane, pozwólcie mężczyznom być mężczyznami. Jesteście na tym świecie między innymi dlatego, że wasi dziadowie byli prawdziwymi mężczyznami, bronili was, usługiwali wam, poświęcali za was swoje życie, a kiedy tonął statek, ratowali najpierw kobiety i dzieci. Nie ulegajcie zboczonej modzie na zniewieściałość mężczyzn. Nie pozwólcie nauczycielom wymagać od waszych synów, by przychodzili do szkoły ubrani w sukienki. Uwierzcie nam - światu potrzebne są zarówno kobiety jak i mężczyźni. Kobiety nie muszą być bardziej męskie, bo nie ma nic złego w byciu kobietą. Podobnie mężczyźni wcale nie muszą się zachowywać jak kobiety. Tak jest po prostu praktycznie. I tak jest o wiele fajniej niż wyobrażają to sobie współcześni opiniodawcy. Nie ulegajmy im, bo nie mają racji.

Pacyfizm a nauki Jezusa

To wszystko nie zaprzecza faktowi, że nasz Ojciec w Niebie przykazał zarówno mężczyznom jak i kobietom by kochali wszystkich ludzi. Nawet wrogów nie trzeba nienawidzić. Nawet wtedy, kiedy się z nimi walczy, słowem a kiedy trzeba się bronić - z użyciem śmiertelnej broni. To wcale nie zaprzecza temu, że powinniśmy przebaczać a czasami nawet pokornie i cierpliwie cierpieć za grzechy innych. Jezus cierpiał z powodu naszych grzechów i do pewnego stopnia wymaga tego samego od swoich uczniów.

Bóg nigdy nie przykazał nam, byśmy byli pacyfistami. Odmówienie pomocy niewinnej, zagrożonej osobie jest morderstwem. Świat uczy, że pacyfizm jest postawą bohaterską. Nie jest. Pacyfizm jest tchórzostwem. Kobiety nie powinny się o to martwić. Od tego są mężczyźni. A kobiety nie powinny nam w tym przeszkadzać.

Przykładem fatalnych skutków postawy pacyfistycznej jest premier Wielkiej Brytanii  w latach 1937-1940, Neville Chamberlain. To w dużej mierze jego słynna „polityka ustępstw” („policy of appeasement”) wobec bandy Adolfa Hitlera doprowadziła do utraty życia 70 do 85 milionów ludzi w tym ok. 6 milionów Polaków.

Jaki naprawdę jest Jezus?

Myślę, że źródło tego problemu leży w nieznajomości pism świętych. Wiedza o charakterze Boga i identycznego mu Jezusa znajduje się właśnie w Biblii, w Księdze Mormona i innych objawieniach. A nie w błędnej interpretacji pism odstępnego chrześcijaństwa. Jezus nie był i nie jest hipisem. Ten prawdziwy Jezus powiedział: „Czy myślicie, że przyszedłem, by dać ziemi pokój? Bynajmniej, powiadam wam, raczej rozdwojenie.” (Łukasz 12:51). „Nie mniemajcie, że przyszedłem przynieść pokój na ziemię; nie przyszedłem przynieść pokój, ale miecz.” (Mateusz 10:34)

Ten prawdziwy Jezus „skręciwszy bicz z powrózków, wypędził ich wszystkich ze świątyni wraz z owcami i wołami; wekslarzom rozsypał pieniądze i stoły powywracał.” (Jan 2:15) Oj, dostałoby mu się porządnie od współczesnych mediów za taką akcję.

Męskiej części swoich uczniów Jezus przekazał kiedyś następujące instrukcje: „Lecz teraz, kto ma trzos, niech go weźmie, podobnie i torbę, a kto nie ma miecza, niech sprzeda suknię swoją i kupi. Albowiem mówię wam, iż musi się wypełnić na mnie to, co napisano: Do przestępców był zaliczony; to bowiem, co o mnie napisano, spełnia się. Oni zaś rzekli: Panie, oto tutaj dwa miecze. A On na to: Wystarczy.” (Łukasz 22:36-38)

Czy Jezus zawsze był miły i grzeczny? Nie, bo kochał ludzi. Kochał prawdę, kochał sprawiedliwość. Ludzi złych namawiał do nawrócenia, a kiedy trzeba, nazywał ich żmijami, przewrotnych - przewrotnymi, głupich - głupcami, obłudników - obłudnikami. Jezus nie był dyplomatą, czy postacią publiczną od której oczekuje się ładnych minek i słodkich słówek. Sami się przekonajcie:

„A Jezus odpowiadając, rzekł: O rodzie bez wiary i przewrotny! Jak długo będę z wami? Dokąd będę was znosił?” (Mateusz 17:17)

„Głupi i ślepi! Cóż bowiem jest większe? Złoto czy świątynia, która uświęca złoto?” (Mateusz 23:17)

„Biada wam, uczeni w Piśmie i faryzeusze, obłudnicy, że oczyszczacie z zewnątrz kielich i misę, wewnątrz zaś są one pełne łupiestwa i pożądliwości. Biada wam, uczeni w Piśmie i faryzeusze, obłudnicy, że podobni jesteście do grobów pobielanych, które na zewnątrz wyglądają pięknie, ale wewnątrz są pełne trupich kości i wszelkiej nieczystości.” (Mateusz 23:26-27)

„Węże! Plemię żmijowe! Jakże będziecie mogli ujść przed sądem ognia piekielnego?” (Mateusz 23:33)

Taki Bóg różni się od oczekiwań wielu osób. Apostoł Jeffrey R. Holland napisał:

"Cechą charakterystyczną naszych czasów jest to, że jeśli ludzie w ogóle pragną mieć jakiś bogów, to chcą, żeby byli to bogowie, którzy nie mają wielkich wymogów, bogowie wygodni, bogowie pobłażliwi, którzy nie tylko nie przysparzają kłopotów, ale w ogóle nic nie robią; bogowie, którzy głaszczą nas po głowie, powodują uśmiech na twarzy i pozwalają nam radośnie hasać i zbierać stokrotki. Tak oto człowiek tworzy sobie boga na swoje własne podobieństwo! Czasami — jak na ironię największą ze wszystkich — tacy ludzie powołują się na imię Jezusa i przyrównują go do takiego ‚wygodnego’ Boga."

Dlaczego to takie ważne?

To wszystko, oczywiście, nie sugeruje, że my również powinniśmy ubliżać innym. I wcale nie dowodzi, że moje, na przykład, wpisy na Facebooku krytykujące współczesnych złodziejów, obłudników, głupich i ślepych przewodników, są trafne i właściwe. Nie próbuję się tu usprawiedliwiać.

Podkreślam tylko, że uczeń Jezusa nie zawsze musi być miły i słodki. Dlatego, szczególnie wy - drogie panie, siostry moje kochane, nie osądzajcie nas, mężczyzn zbyt surowo, bo może być czasem tak, że krytykujecie coś właściwego, godnego pochwały. Jeśli chcecie, by wasi wnukowie żyli w świecie, w którym panuje sprawiedliwość, nie byli okradani z wypracowanej w pocie czoła własności i mieli prawo do czczenia Boga zgodnie z własnym sumieniem, pozwólcie nam, mężczyznom, opierać się złym ludziom, którzy dla władzy są zdolni do krzywdzenia niewinnych. Albo się do nas przyłączcie.

Oczywiście róbcie wszystko na swój sposób. My wam nie będziemy w tym przeszkadzać, bo my kochamy waszą kobiecość. Kochamy was tak bardzo, że jesteśmy zdolni postawić się w najbardziej niekomfortowej sytuacji, żeby was bronić. Jesteśmy nawet gotowi znosić wasze narzekania pod naszym adresem, wasze nieuzasadnione oskarżenia, wasze sposoby manipulowania emocjami. Kiedy nam mówicie, że się na nas zawiodłyście, że kiedyś byliśmy tacy mili i słodcy, a teraz tacy niegrzeczni, bo obrażamy panią redaktor, czy pana polityka - my dalej będziemy walczyć o dobrą przyszłość waszych dzieci. Bardziej zależy nam na waszym komforcie niż na waszej przyjaźni.

Zastanówcie się również nad tym, czy wasze ataki pod naszym adresem, wasze odrzucenie, gniew, zrywanie przyjaźni są w harmonii z przykazaniem miłości bliźniego. Przecież nawet jeśli uważacie nas za swoich wrogów, czy nie powinnyście nas kochać i modlić się o nas, zamiast nas publicznie szkalować i zwracać innych przeciwko nam?

Czy musimy wybierać między Prawdą a Miłością

„Będziesz miłował Pana, Boga swego, z całego serca swego i z całej duszy swojej, i z całej myśli swojej. To jest największe i pierwsze przykazanie. A drugie podobne temu: Będziesz miłował bliźniego swego jak siebie samego. Na tych dwóch przykazaniach opiera się cały zakon i prorocy.” (Mateusz 22:37-40)

Druga dekada 21 wieku dobiega końca. Czy idziesz z duchem czasu? Czy dostosowałeś już swoje opinie i swoje nastawienie do instrukcji opiniodawców? Jeśli tak, to których? Masz przecież wybór. W kwestii stosunku do tematu seksualności możesz się przyłączyć do jednego z dwóch dużych obozów.

Najpraktyczniejsza jest przynależność do tego większego, „postępowego”. Tam stawia się sprawę rzeczowo i stanowczo: wszystkie orientacje seksualne są równe, wszystkie prowadzą do szczęścia a każdy kto nawet piśnie, że wierzy inaczej musi być ukarany. Bo nie ma racji. Bo jest faszystą i nienawidzi ludzi.

Po drugiej stronie barykady znajduje się obóz obrońców przyzwoitości. Jeszcze nie dawno to oni byli siłą efektywnie zmuszając nie-heteroseksualistów do zejścia do podziemia w lęku przed utratą pracy, przyjaciół a w niektórych miejscach nawet wolności.

Trzecia droga

W ubiegłym tygodniu Apostoł Dallin H. Oaks przypomniał, że jest jeszcze inna opcja. W swoim przemówieniu na sesji dla kobiet odbywającej się co 6 miesięcy Konferencji Generalnej Kościoła Jezusa Chrystusa Świętych w Dniach Ostatnich, Starszy Oaks zachęca uczniów Jezusa do stąpania „po cienkiej linii między prawem a miłością”.

Zwolennicy pozbawienia ludzkości prawa do posiadania poglądów odmiennych od tych „nowoczesnych” uzasadniają swoje dążenia zasadami tolerancji i miłości bliźniego. Według nich kochanie bliźniego to znaczy zgadzanie się z jego opiniami i wyborami. Jeżeli więc twoja córka podjęła decyzję życia z osobą tej samej płci, musisz się uśmiechnąć i zapewnić ją, że to bardzo dobrze a każdemu, kto powie inaczej dasz w mordę. W przeciwnym wypadku środowisko LGBT przekona twoją córkę, że ją odrzuciłeś, nienawidzisz jej. W przypadku samobójstwa wina, oczywiście, spadnie na ciebie.

Osoby znajdujące się po drugiej stronie tej ideologicznej barykady twierdzą, że miłość do Boga wymaga odrzucenia bliskiej osoby, która podjęła decyzję prowadzenia swojego życia inaczej niż życzyłby to sobie Bóg.

Według nauk Jezusa, obie grupy są w błędzie. Jezus zawsze nauczał i robi to nadal, ustami żyjących proroków, że powinno się jednocześnie kochać Boga i bliźniego. Nie ma w tych dwóch przykazaniach sprzeczności. Szczególnie kiedy weźmie się pod uwagę jedną z najważniejszych wartości nauczanych przez Jezusa - zasadę Wolności.

Naśladowca Jezusa może więc prowadzić swoje życie w całkowitej harmonii z jego naukami i zachęcać do tego samego swoich bliźnich, jednocześnie nie wywierając na nich żadnej presji, udzielając im całkowitej swobody w podejmowaniu własnych decyzji. Jezus nigdy nikomu nie zasugerował, że przestanie go kochać, jeśli nie będzie się z nim zgadzał. Udowodnił to cierpiąc skutki grzechów całej ludzkości. My również, jeśli chcemy być uczniami Jezusa, nie możemy nikomu stawiać takiego ultimatum. Co więc zrobić z bratem, siostrą, synem czy córką, która przyjęła modną filozofię o moralnej równości wszystkich orientacji seksualnych? To proste - nadal ją kochać, nadal się z nią przyjaźnić, nadal zapraszać ją na rodzinne obiady, a kiedy Duch podpowiada - zaprosić ją na kościelne spotkanie czy zachęcić do osobistego studiowania pism świętych. Możemy żyć nadzieją, że nasz bliźni kiedyś się nawróci, jednocześnie pamiętając, że może się nie nawrócić.

Czy grzesznik trafi na wieczność do piekła?

No właśnie, a co wtedy? Co, jeśli mój brat czy mój przyjaciel do końca życia będzie - z punktu widzenia biblijnych nauk - żyć w grzechu? Po długim okresie odstępstwa, w którym chrześcijańskie denominacje w swoich naukach wysyłały grzeszników do wiecznego cierpienia w piekle, albo nieodwracalnie unicestwiały ich dusze, Jezus przywrócił swojemu słudze, prorokowi Józefowi Smithowi wiedzę o istnieniu wielu poziomów Nieba. Bóg chce zbawić wszystkie swoje dzieci. Osoby, które nie nawróciły się, także odziedziczą jedno z królestw chwały.

„Dzięki ogromnej miłości Boga, którą obdarza wszystkie swoje dzieci te niższe królestwa są wspanialsze niż potrafi to pojąć człowiek.” - przypomina Apostoł Oaks.

Nie ma Miłości bez Prawdy i Szacunku

Bądźmy więc wolni i nie manipulujmy nikim.

Mówienie bliźniemu słodkich kłamstw wcale nie jest wyrazem miłości bliźniego, ale oznaką tchórzostwa i braku szczerej troski o jego szczęście. Niech nasz bliźni zawsze jednak żyje w pewności, że będziemy go kochać bez względu na podejmowane przez niego decyzje.

Prawdziwy uczeń Chrystusa nie wspiera ruchów LGBT, które nie dążą do równych praw, ale specjalnych przywilejów oraz pozbawienia wszystkich ludzi prawa do postępowania w harmonii z naukami Jezusa. Warto też obalać powszechnie panujące kłamstwo, że wszystkie osoby odmawiające wspierania ruchów LGBT kierują się brakiem tolerancji i nienawiścią. W wielu przypadkach jest przecież odwrotnie - to miłość, zarówno do Boga jak i bliźniego motywuje do nie udzielania im poparcia lub stawiania aktywnego oporu.

Słowa Apostoła Oaks’a:

„A tymczasem musimy dołożyć starań by przestrzegać obydwu największych przykazań. Musimy więc stąpać po cienkiej linii między prawem a miłością przestrzegając przykazań i krocząc ścieżką przymierza jednocześnie kochając bliźnich. Droga ta wymaga dążenia do uzyskania boskiego natchnienia w kwestii tego co mamy popierać a czemu się przeciwstawiać oraz jak miłować, słuchać z szacunkiem oraz nauczać.Nasza droga wymaga, abyśmy nie szli na kompromis w kwestii przykazań ale okazywali pełnię zrozumienia i miłości.”

Zapraszam do wysłuchania całości przemówienia Starszego Dallin H. Oaks’a z polskim tłumaczeniem

LDS ostracism - to both sides

This is the first article about causes of losing faith and how to keep it. Click here to read the introduction: How personal crisis of faith doesn't have to lead to apostasy.

ostracism

Ostracism – exclusion from a society or group, exclusion, rejection, repudiation, shunning, spurning, the cold shoulder, cold-shouldering, boycotting, blackballing, blacklisting, snubbing, avoidance, barring, banishment, exile, expulsion; disfellowship; excommunication. (Google)

Have you ever received a cold treatment for something you said or did? Even something as small as a few seconds of silence at a dinner table after making a comment considered inappropriate or too controversial? Perhaps you felt judged and rejected or even emotionally manipulated.

As annoying and confusing as these situations might cause you to feel, they are insignificant compared to the experiences some people have when they lose respect, fellowship, friendships and, in some cases – even a family - because of an opinion or a choice which doesn’t meet someone's expectations.

I believe that only living the revealed principles of the restored gospel assures fullness of happiness. But in this article I will neither criticize nor defend decisions not to serve a full-time mission, date or marry someone who is not LDS, divorce, live a homosexual lifestyle, hold to an unpopular political or other opinion, lose motivation to serve in the Church or even faith in it altogether. Instead, I would like to discuss our reactions to those who used their God-given right to rebel against him.

appropriate or practical banishment

Most people today would agree that ostracism is always negative, something that our primitive ancestors used because of their fear of losing traditions and values, fear of new ideas and lifestyles, to keep annoying people away, a method of controlling or manipulating the rebellious ones into desired behavior or a form of persecution.

To be fair, our great grandparents did manage to stop some negative behaviors from creeping into their culture. For example, women who had children out of wedlock were shunned at, lost friends and respect. While such treatment could be considered heartless and mean, it did effectively motivate people to keep themselves in the line of society's expectations. In this case - ostracism resulted in some children being raised in destitute conditions, but in a long run - it assured that many other children were raised by a mom and dad - which is the most optimal situation. I am not defending the old fashioned practice of hating people who chose to lead their lives out of the established standards. I am only stating a fact that ostracism did bring positive results, especially when we contrast their world with ours. Today women are rewarded by governments for raising children without a father, which is linked with depression and criminal activity of fatherless child. Prisons are full of men who have been raised without a father.

Let’s consider other situations in which it is appropriate to fire someone from a relationship or even emotionally punish him for his choices.

Placing murderers, rapists, thieves and other criminals in a prison is an appropriate form of banishment. It is simply a way to keep dangerous people from the society.

A public servant or a politician who attempts to limit our liberties or has made other immoral choices which affect our well being should be fired without any regard for his feelings. The Lord teaches us to love our enemies but not to support them in their evil doing.

A business owned or operated by a very nice person but which offers something not as good or for a higher price than what his competitors offer also deserves our personal boycott. There is nothing wrong about being a smart shopper or patron.

It is also natural to be selective in our choices of friends, boyfriends or girlfriends. People typically like to associate with those who share their values and standards. It doesn’t even have to do with moral standards or religious beliefs. Should a girl be blamed for rejecting hundreds of boys for the one she feels attracted to? In a way every wife and husband has discriminated against half of the world by choosing to marry the one she wants to spend eternity with and be the parent of her children. Monogamy serves an important role in the Plan of Salvation, even if it causes someone to feel sad or rejected. There is nothing wrong with it. Life is tough sometimes. In my own teenage years I usually either liked a girl who didn't like me or been liked by a girl I was not interested in. Life is life.

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Kingdom of the Saints, we also get to deal with special, fortunately very rare, situations in which we are commanded to separate ourselves from certain individuals. Nephi and Sam were commanded to leave their brothers - Laman and Lemuel. I served in local leadership positions for 10 years and got to watch other priesthood leaders making tough decisions during disciplinary councils. As inclusive, patient and merciful as they try to be, some behavior of members results in disfellowshipment or even excommunication. Usually those decisions are made in order to protect the safety of our people, for example in cases of sexual abuse or unrepentant insistence on encouraging the Saints to rebel against the Lord and break their sacred covenants.

A person who has experienced excommunication might feel rejected and obviously deeply hurt, just as a soccer player who received a red card banishing him from the field for foul play. But he knew the rules before joining the game. We are encouraged to read the scriptures - they make it clear that there is a line we shouldn't cross if we want to keep our citizenship in the Kingdom. We've read what the brethren are expected to do with the wolves among the sheep.

But these situations are very rare. And in most cases – the Church encourages the Saints to embrace the sinner with a circle of sincere love. Surely the person’s family should never reject even those who violated the most serious gospel standards. They should love them no matter what their choices might be. I am talking here about what the Church teaches, not necessarily what it’s members actually do. Tragically, there are those among us who refuse to love and associate with their own son or daughter, because he or she has lost a testimony or has chosen a homosexual lifestyle. This kind of ostracism is a blatant rebellion against the whisperings of the Spirit which teaches to love and forgive. As Paul put it: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance… (Gal. 5:22-23). Excommunication from a family has never been taught by the Church.

LDS ostracism

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we treasure our faith. We wish everyone enjoyed the blessings of living the principles of the restored gospel. It is natural to feel deeply disappointed when our child chooses to reject the values we have raised him to appreciate. It is also natural and frankly, reasonable, to consider those who disregard God's commandments as belonging to the category of sinners. However, it is worth considering how Heavenly Father expects us to react to those challenges and how He categorizes people.

The Brethren have spoken against discriminating people based on their membership or level of activity in the Church. For example, during the October 2001 General Conference address, Elder Ballard challenged us to eliminate from our vocabulary such words and phrases as nonmember and non-Mormon. He then added:

Such phrases can be demeaning and even belittling. Personally, I don’t consider myself to be a "non-Catholic" or a "non-Jew". I am a Christian. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is how I prefer to be identified – for who and what I am, as opposed to being identified for what I am not. Let us extend that same courtesy to those who live among us. If a collective description is needed, then "neighbors" seems to work well in most cases.

leaving Babylon

There have been times when the Lord instructed his people to separate themselves from the rest of the world. Typically, in an effort to end apostasy, God instructs the prophet of the restoration (and sometimes a few who follow) to take some action which would ensure an appropriate degree of Israel's separation from other nations. The faithful in times of Noah were spared from the wickedness of the world by a natural disaster. Moses took Israel out of Egypt. Jesus initially forbade his disciples to preach the gospel to the gentiles (some speculate that moving the Sabbath to the first day of the week might have also served the purpose of forcing Christians to stick together and stay away from the non-believers). Joseph Smith and Brigham Young kept appointing new places of gathering the Saints, resulting in the final settlement in the promised land of the Rocky Mountains. And there were some strange practices which made the Saints quite peculiar - abstaining from alcohol which made going to bars and taverns pointless, polygamy, beards, funny hats, etc.

The separation period of the current dispensation has long passed. We are now instructed to live in the world but be not of the world. For more than a century we have been commanded to treat all people with respect, including those who leave the faith while not letting the philosophies of men to affect our own faith. But still, some people report having experienced being disliked by the Mormons for refusing to meet with the missionaries, for leaving the Church, for watching R-rated movies, for asking an uncomfortable question about Church history or revealing they are going through a crisis of faith, even for not shaving their beards. Why do we avoid those people instead of doing what the Lord expects from us – to love, support, rescue or just accept? I have my opinion why this might be.

where ostracism came from

The Church was restored in the United States of America. Until about a century ago, almost every Latter-day Saint was influenced not only by the teachings of the Savior, but also by the American culture. Currently, there are more members of the Church outside the United States than within. Yet, I wouldn’t be surprised if a non-American Latter-day Saint was much more likely to behave like Americans than those Poles, Japanese or Peruvians who don’t associate with our missionaries. In my country, some members even use American grammar when they speak their native language (I call it missionary Polish).

Don’t get me wrong – I love the American culture. The whole world seems to love it. Even those who claim they hate America watch American movies, listen to American music, dress like Americans do, argue about opinions of President Trump, even joke like Americans and use English words (usually the worse ones, but still). And those of us who succeed financially do so because – consciously or not – they follow the principles and habits set by Americans. The American culture has a lot good to offer. But – obviously – it is not perfect.

After growing up in Europe I moved to the US, first to serve an LDS mission and then to study at BYU. Upon my arrival in the New World I noticed that Americans are different from Europeans (obviously). Most of their attitudes impressed me in a very positive way, but there was at least one thing that didn’t seem right. In Europe people are generally more inclusive, more open and friendly toward all sorts of people (which, admittedly, doesn’t always work out the best for us). But in Chicago – where I served as a missionary – people seemed to keep themselves as far away from those who were different as possible. The city was (I assume - still is) divided into districts or neighborhoods: white American, black American, Latino, Polish, Russian-Jewish, non-Russian Jewish, Korean, Chinese, gay and some other. It wasn’t a result of some government planning but a very spontaneous phenomena. On one hand Americans say they value diversity and often express their pride for forming a nation made up of different cultures and nationalities, but in practice – they do all they can to avoid contact with those who are not like them.

When I moved to Utah (1994) I noticed that nearly everyone looked, behaved and talked in a like manner. As if there was a set of rules every person living in the State had to agree to follow. I have never heard anyone trying to correct a person who chose to color her hair, grow his beard, dress funny or display an attitude the Utahns were not used to. I have never heard it, but I’ve seen it. It was done without using words. Literally, by being silent, by quickly changing a subject or by not inviting you know, that guy to a social gathering.

There is some good in not mixing values, attitudes and cultures. Multiculturalism and even mixing races unavoidably leads to occasional disputes, even violence. I lived in America during the Rodney King riots and later I watched the OJ Simpson's trial which divided the Nation into white and black. More homogeneous countries don’t experience those things. But since USA has been open for diversity, perhaps Americans should consistently adopt a more tolerant attitude toward those minorities that are already living among them. Not necessarily by accepting them or changing their own values, allowing foreign ones to dictate their regulations. Some values should be rejected. But I am talking about every day dealings with neighbors, co-workers and in our case - with fellow-Saints. Instead of avoiding people, instead of treating them with silence, why not being friendly anyway?

In some ways Americans have become more tolerant and inclusive since the time I first visited the great country in 1992. But in other – things have gone much worse. A company whose owner shared his unpopular political or religious views have experienced significant profit losses due to an organized boycott. Conservative political commentators are prevented from speaking at universities or face screaming and often violent crowds. Scientists who propose alternative explanations, theories or solutions to problems have their careers ruined. Large percentage of voters admit they would never be friends with someone who voted for the other candidate. Even historic figures have had their statues removed because their lifestyle would be unaccepted by some people today. I don’t know any other place in the world where so many people experience real hatred just because they refuse to embrace currently trendy philosophies and opinions.

And there are those mass shootings, often committed by people, even kids, who are lonely because of their backwardness. I don't want to go into this subject here or blame their classmates or neighbors, but I can't help it but connecting this strange phenomena with the way Americans deal with the weirdos. I have never attended a high school in the US. All I know about an American high school experience I learned from movies. If they do portray reality, let me tell you - I consider myself very lucky that my kids never experienced it. All that pressure to look and act in a certain way in order to meet a social circle's expectations in order to be accepted, the gangs, subcultures, etc. Things are not perfect in Europe, but I have never heard about popularity contests, king or queen of promes, etc. here. I have never seen popular kids refusing to talk to the nerds. And I hope there are not many kids in Europe who lose respect of their class mates after making one mistake. I can't help it but seeing the connection between the culture of shunning and the emotional depression which sometimes leads to terrible violence.

You might not agree with me on this. I am just sharing my thoughts as someone who grew up in a very different place (we have our own problems, they are just different). What I am suggesting is that being overprotective, including the awful practice of ostracism is one of those elements of the LDS culture which has been borrowed from the American culture. It has nothing do do with the restored gospel. It is one of those areas where the LDS culture doesn't overlap with the teachings of the Church. Just as in the New Testament we read about some elements of the Jewish or Roman cultures influencing the early Saints’ attitudes and practices, in our days the American culture is still influencing the way Latter-day Saints think and act.

why ostracism is wrong

1. ostracism is immoral

The Savior set an example of being inclusive by surprising even his closest disciples as He chose to dine with those who didn't share his standards. We can’t consider ourselves the followers of Jesus Christ if we are not converted to the doctrine of inclusion as taught by Elder Ballard and others.

Our doctrine of the Plan of Salvation which, among other things, explains the origin of evil is very unique in Christianity. If we consider the reasons why Lucifer has fallen, what attitudes he has chosen to hold toward those who disagree with him, we might come to the conclusion that the practice of ostracism is indeed inspired by evil, not good. Satan wanted to force the disobedient into obedience. Persecuting others in an effort to manipulate them into obeying our standards seems to be exactly what the devil advocates. While other Christians might be excused for pressuring others into Christianity - after all - they don't have as much knowledge about Satan's nature as we do - we are left with no excuse. We know too much.

2. ostracism hurts them

Another reason is very practical. How can we convince a fascist that he is wrong, if we don't talk with him? By shunning or beating him? How can we bless others if we don’t spend time with them? How can we inspire a sinner to repent if he will never be able to see the fruits of repentance and living the gospel standards? We are kidding ourselves thinking that someone who found more acceptance and support outside the Church, will ever desire to return. Ostracism rarely makes people change their minds. This sort of emotional manipulation just doesn’t work in most cases. It hurts feelings, destroys self-confidence and opens a soul to the spirit of rebellion. It inspires to fight against the Church. I wonder how many Nephites who ended up joining the Lamanites did so, because in their crisis of faith they experienced ostracism instead of understanding and love.

As an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I challenge myself to study scriptures, both the standard works as well as the inspired words of our current leaders, so that I might be able to recognize other elements of our LDS culture which are not inspired by the Spirit. Truth will make me free from inappropriate attitudes. President Nelson doesn’t want me to be a Mormon but a Latter-day Saint. I believe the Lord wants me to see others as my literal brothers and sisters and children of God, more than as members, non-members, normal people, homosexuals, leftists, conservatives, Socialists, etc. I think He want’s me to be aware of who and what I deal with, but He expects me to respond to all challenges appropriately and in a right order of importance.

When I was a full-time missionary I met many nice and friendly people. But there were also those who were less kind. Some seemed to feel offended by very fact we dared not to share their religious views. I often thought - if you think I am wrong, why don't you talk to me and give me the reasons why I should accept your message? Sadly, some of us are not much different. I've seen some Latter-day Saints who also seemed to think that the best way to deal with those who they consider wrong is to either avoid them or avoid conversations about their views. I don't believe it works. Silence and an awkward change of the subject as well as responses like: Is this really necessary for your salvation?, Why don't you pray about it? or I know the Church is true. just doesn't work in most cases. The message such reaction carries is: I don't care about your feelings. or I am scared to talk about it. which understandably leads to the conclusion that the person is not sure of his faith and testimony.

I have had my crisis of faith which lasted nearly 6 years. Some of my words and actions made it very obvious. I approached a few of my friends who were active in the Church, including three of my priesthood leaders trying to share my concerns. Perhaps I didn't do it the right way, I don't know, but from my perspective it looked like they didn't care about me. One of them interrupted me as soon as I said I was going through hard time and changed the subject. Maybe he didn't want the Spirit to leave, I don't know. But for me the message was clear - he didn't give a damn about me and my salvation. As members of the Church we are supposed to stay positive, avoid speaking evil of the Lord's anointed and ever question anything.

I was looking for some empathy and I was open to hear arguments why my views and attitudes were wrong. Yes, I must admit that there were moments when - like my brother Lucifer - I only wanted to hear that I was right. Certainly, telling someone who is wrong that he is right - is wrong. But showing a little bit empathy wouldn't hurt. I think it would have a calming effect on my rebellious spirit if I heard something like this: I've had a similar experience too. or I know someone who dealt with a similar problem.

Why is it hard to talk to people about their concerns or opinions? Americans believe in avoiding two subjects: politics and religion, because they are potentially contentious. They have a point - not many people lost their friends after a discussion about astronomy or gardening. May I suggest that instead of avoiding these and other topics, we try to learn how to talk about them without negative emotions? It's a matter of practice. If we are not open with each other, we lose opportunities to share our opinions and frankly, we shut ourselves from new and potentially valuable ideas (just as some of the people who refused to talk to my companion and me during my mission).

3. ostracism hurts us

This leads me to the third, also practical reason to be open and inclusive: we can learn valuable lessons from those who don’t share our faith. Both ancient and latter-day prophets have taught that there is a lot of good to learn from those who are not members of the Church. God inspires many people, even those who don't believe in his existence, with wisdom and valuable insights. Leaders of the Church from Joseph Smith Jr. to current apostles have taught this principle when they encouraged the Saints to read literature, watch plays and valuable movies and befriend all kinds of people. Did you know that Brigham Young called those who only read the scriptures religious fanatics and he built a theater in Salt Lake City long before the work on the Temple was completed? Did you know that one of the reasons the Church built the Tabernacle was so that guest speakers from other faiths could share their ideas with the 19 century Saints?

I recently finished watching a Netflix show by Ricky Gervais Life After. In my opinion, this is one of the most valuable shows ever made about Christlike love. The main character – Tony – is surrounded by people who patiently endure his depressing approach to life, his verbal abuse - often very offensive and derogatory comments, etc. (oddly, many of his comments are hilarious). They tolerate him because they remember him as a great, valuable guy he was before he had experienced a personal tragedy. So, they believe in his potential. And they love him even though he is less than pleasant to be around. Especially the last two (of 7) episodes are very touching and inspiring. As I watched it I thought – these are the kinds of people I wish I was surrounded by.

Ricky doesn’t believe in God and has a very negative attitude about religion in general (he makes it very clear in all his movies and shows). This is sad. Surely, he misses a lot of blessings predicated upon living the principles of the gospel. But our Christian culture has something to learn from him and others who don't value religion. No, not valuing religion is not the lesson I suggest we should take from them. But perhaps we should relax a bit, consider not taking some things too seriously. Perhaps there is some value in not categorizing people into religious and not religious, into those who behave properly and those who don't care about spiritual things. After all, this is exactly what the Brethren seem to teach us.

I recommend Life After with the warning: you will have to hear some very funny but quite foul jokes. I wouldn’t watch it with kids. If you are familiar with Ricky Gervais, you know what I am talking about. But I love him for writing the script under the influence of the Spirit (except for those not inspired parts) and I will thank him for it one day.

if you have experienced ostracism - consider this:

Blame the members but not the Church. Listen carefully what the Brethren say and read carefully the scriptures. Don't read between the lines. Don't mistake Jesus Christ's boldness in calling sin a sin for invitation to persecute the sinners. Don’t blame the Brethren for faithfully supporting their Master in encouraging everyone to follow his teachings. If you belong to the LGBT community, you have not been wronged because the LDS Church teaches that homosexual behavior doesn’t bring happiness, but because some members of the Church thoughtlessly follow the habits they have been taught by the world since their childhood – to be intolerant, to put everyone into categories and leagues, to make fun of those they don't understand, etc. Instead of loving you, like they are encouraged by the Brethren, they follow the wicked traditions of their fathers.

If you lived among true Latter-day Saints and used your right to reject the gospel (and assuming your behavior is not disruptive), you would still be invited to dinners and ward activities, you would still be surrounded by sincere friends and you would never have heard hurtful comments. Maybe not never – nobody is perfect. In a way every member of the Church stands with one foot in Zion and the other in Babylon (or, as Brother Brigham put it - our bodies are in the Salt Lake Valley, but our hearts back in Illinois).

I believe that the invitation of President Nelson to stop referring to ourselves as the Mormons is deeper than just a public relations move. The Lord really doesn’t want us to be just another exclusive and intolerant religious sect called – in our case – the Mormons. He wants us to be real Saints, followers of Jesus Christ who befriended not only those who listened to him, but also those who chose to reject his message, even adulterers, collaborators, prostitutes, even the lawyers and tax collectors ( ;) ).

Those who hurt you had no right to demand perfection (or whatever they consider perfection) from you. Don’t be like them. Don’t expect perfection from the Latter-day Saints either. If you are still a member of the Church, let me remind you that we joined this Church to bless more than to be blessed (or, I should say - with the promise to be blessed because of blessing others). In some cases or periods of our lives our mission is to go as lambs in the midst of wolves (Luke 10:3). We are to forgive and repent, not to expect that others will forgive us. We know God will if we repent, but people are not as reliable and predictable as He is. They might need more time or - frankly - some may never forgive even a stupid mistake. It’s a fact of life. One unfortunate comment might forever cause someone to have a negative opinion about us. I have experienced it more than once (you should try it if you don't believe me - just make as many unfortunate comments as I do and you will see :) ).

You have been wronged. But you must admit, just as you have the right to your own set of values and attitudes toward others, everyone else should have the right to believe and treat others as they please (as long as they don't use physical violence). They should have a right to be jerks, if they choose to. Show them you have more class. Don’t try forcing anyone to pretend they respect you by turning to the state and using its weapons to ban intolerance. Throwing people in jail for using a wrong personal pronoun is not going to create any friends – it might change someone’s behavior, but it will also make them hate you even more. Forcing a baker to bake you a cake is also not going to make Christians respect you.

Show the LDS Church the same respect that you expect from it. They might call you a sinner, you are welcomed to call them sinners too, but note they don’t disrupt your gatherings, they don’t force themselves into your meetings like the feminists have done in the past during priesthood sessions of General Conference. Note the LDS Church has never tried to force anyone to like it's members or ensure them equal treatment by promoting hate speech laws. They have never proposed a law granting Christians or LDS special privileges, for example, forbidding employers to fire them or landlords from signing contracts with them. While not hiring someone because of his sexuality is wrong and stupid, don't you think that just as you are free to associate with or avoid whoever you want, business owners should have the same right?

And don’t kid yourself that a love parade with people dressing and acting in a shocking, repulsive way in public is going to turn the hearts of people in your city to your cause. You might scare them for a while or prevent them from speaking their minds in public, but - in a long run - they will respect your people less and some might even turn to violence, for example, in order to protect their children from being exposed to teaching gender doctrine in schools or - as it is already practiced in some European countries - encouraging 7 year olds to masturbate, etc. Doing those things is much worse than what they do to you. Screaming at someone is less cool than giving him a silent treatment (both are wrong of course).

Also, be willing to compromise – not necessarily your standards or lifestyle, but your behavior among those whose standards differ from yours. If you are a guy and have a boyfriend, don’t be surprised that it is painful for your LDS family to watch your displays of affection during family dinners. Take it easy. Just as they shouldn't expect you to teach the evils of homosexual lifestyle, you should not expect them to be taught the advantages of it. You can do it when you are alone with your loved one. Imagine someone showing up with the red MAGA hat at an LGBT gathering – that would be very inappropriate, don’t you think?

If you feel angry about the LDS Church, reconsider your opinions by considering facts. Perhaps, things are not as bad as you have been told they are. For example, some people blame our religion for teen suicides in the State of Utah. Do some investigation, even by using Google. Note that no scientific studies suggest any connection between teachings and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and suicide attempts. Note that there are other states with higher suicide rates. Also, notice that the Church's position about homosexual behavior hasn't changed for almost 200 years. If it is true that more teenagers try to end their lives now than before, consider what has actually changed. I can think of at least one thing that is different about our times - previous generations were not encouraged as current young generation to experiment with sexuality and manifest their homosexuality. Not until very recently young people with same-gender attraction have been told to rebel against their fathers' traditions, demand special privileges and feel wronged for not being accepted. I don't know if any of those things make people not wanting to live, but surely this is something worth considering if we are interested in getting to the bottom of this important and tragic issue.

turn evil into good

Something I love about the first chapters of the Bible is how God was able to turn Satan’s actions into good. Satan’s successful temptation of Eve opened the way for us to experience the Second Estate and the Atonement – without which the Plan of Salvation would have failed.

I have had my own experiences with the Mormon ostracism. While some negative reactions I feel I didn’t deserve, some - I must admit - I have brought upon myself. Either way, I think it was obvious I was going through hard times. Some of my brothers and sisters didn’t love me enough to try to help me. It was more convenient for them to remove the source of annoyance (just like the Pharisees did with Jesus). As a result I went through a crisis of faith that lasted 6 years. I never lost faith in the gospel – the testimony I had received was sure, I feel like nothing will ever cause me to doubt the Church is led by God. But I lost my faith in my local leaders, in friendship and in myself. I started doubting I would be able to make it as a faithful Latter-day Saint. I felt I no longer belonged with those people I was surrounded by in the Church. At some point I even decided that if these kinds of people are going to live in the Celestial Kingdom, I don't want to be there.

Paradoxically, I also learned the value of real friendship. Once I felt abandoned by the Mormons I started making friends with people who don’t share my faith, don’t set the condition that I should be like them. I also contacted some of my old pre-baptism friends and now we keep in touch again. Last week we got together for the first time in 28 years - had a wonderful time in a Turkish bar - drinking beer, Whiskey and - in my case - a yummy, non-alcoholic cocktail. I repented of abandoning them for not being interested in meeting the missionaries. And I am no longer turned off by language and attitudes which are not in perfect harmony with the Spirit. I still have a hard time respecting and accepting some people whose views and behaviors hurt others, but the words of the Savior about loving and blessing enemies remind me that overcoming this might be a worthy challenge.

I am also trying to repent for not keeping in touch with my mission companions, BYU roommates and other Latter-day Saints from the past. If our relationship in the last 20 years was not so casual, limited to smiles and short conversations - mostly on Facebook, if I was genuinely concerned with their lives, Skyped them regularly, etc. – I am sure I would be in a much safer position when my crisis of faith started.

It also goes the other way. Who knows how many crisis’s they have gone through and I wasn’t there for them. At least one of my mission companions and great friends has left the Church. We have this weird tradition in the Church – at least this has been my experience – we hang out with friends until we meet the girl we want to seriously date and marry. Once we get married, we forget about our old friends, as if they were part of our lives just temporarily, to get us through the weird single period. Marriage and family is the real life, everything prior to that was sort of pre-existence. Nothing exists outside the walls of our home. Thank God for Church callings, home teaching or ministering program, Relief Society, missionary work, professional work or other things that force us to talk to people outside our families! I question the inspiration in this attitude. Again – the scriptures and the Brethren have never thought our home is the only important place. It is the most important, but we are encouraged to to have meaningful, appropriate relationships with others as well.

I would like to share one more piece of advice to those who have been mistreated by fellow-Saints. Once I realized that I only have to rely on my closest family, myself and the Lord, I limited my activity in the Church to Sunday meetings and occasional activities my wife really enjoyed. I admit – there were Sundays when after the Sacrament meeting I would leave and go for a walk while my family stayed for the rest of the meetings and socializing.

This might sound like not a good advice, but it worked for me. On one hand, I kept the weekly routine of Church attendance - which was part of my baptism covenant. On the other – I think it was good for me to slow down and relax a little bit. I still wonder if the fact that the Church takes so much of our time and attention is because the Lord wants the Church to occupy most of our time or perhaps it is just a tradition influenced by some protestant cultures. You decide for yourself. As for me – my crisis of faith made me appreciate the world outside our LDS world (which was also created by God) more. I am not talking here about any of the evils offered by the world – alcohol, pornography, having a lover, etc. I am talking about being silly with my kids and kissing their feet, weekly dates with my wife, lonely walks in beautiful forests, petting our cat, hanging out with valuable people who are not LDS (they never mind me ordering Pepsi instead of beer), watching valuable or just fun movies, reading literature, attending lectures on history, science or whatever you might be interested in, watching stars at night, taking pictures of moon eclipses, getting involved in community or supporting a political party whose goals seem to be the same as those Captain Moroni fought for. I really don’t think the Lord expects his Saints to only bless each other. He is concerned with spiritual development of all of his children. Let’s befriend as many as we can – even if they smoke, drink or swear.

thank you for reading this

This has been somewhat therapeutic for me. Writing helps me organize my thoughts and in this case – made me reflect on the valuable lessons from the last 6 years of my life. If you managed to read this far – thank you for spending so much of your time with me. If you have been hurt by Latter-day Saints and don't buy my arguments for returning, at least you now understand better where we come from. And if you are a Church-goer, please remember that you have never been taught by the Lord to follow the members, but follow the Brethren whom He has sent. Love the future gods you are privileged to know, including those you think are lost, but as the Lord reminded us in the last General Conference – they are not totally lost because the Lord knows where they are and is watching over them (Elder Ulisses Soares, GC - April 2019). And keep in touch with your friends so you can rescue each other when you find yourself alone in your crisis of faith. And don’t blame me for getting addicted to Ricky Gervais – it was your choice, not mine to start watching it! Cheers!

the gift of poesy vs. prophesy - LDS messages in Mickiewicz's Dziady

Religion is full of poetry, and poetry is full of religion. The loftiest and sublimest, as well as the sweetest and tenderest poetry is religious, and cannot be otherwise.

- Orson F. Whitney, poet, Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Verily the poets of the world are the prophets of humanity.

-- Josiah Gilbert Holland (as quoted by Orson F. Whitney)

POLSKA WERSJA TEGO ARTYKUŁU - kliknij tutaj

[I wrote this article about a year ago - before I decided to start a blog about doctrines, practices and history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I meant to send it to Walter Whipple - my friend I don't need to introduce - the first Mission President in Poland and a Polish history, literature and culture freak ;) . As I was writing this I thought: when he taught me Polish literature course at BYU years ago, perhaps this would be a good subject for a paper. I ended up not sharing these thoughts with Walter or anybody else besides my family. I was a little bit scared how my crazy theories might be received. Finally, I asked myself: What is the worse thing that might happen? You can call me a fanatic, but some of you might get interested in Adam Mickiewicz's works, in which case - you will benefit. I am sure of it! The guy was not only talented, but definitely inspired too.]

INTRODUCTION

Adam Mickiewicz

LDS missionaries come to Poland full of faith that the Spirit will direct them to individuals chosen to accept the fullness of the Gospel as it was restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. They hope the Lord has a plan for the Polish nation that will save many people and firmly establish his Church among them. As they wander through the streets of Warsaw, Kraków and other cities, they often see name Adam Mickiewicz engraved on statues and printed on street name plates. How little do they know this considered by many the greatest poet of the Polish nation wrote about doctrines and ordinances revealed through Joseph Smith Jr. before the Prophet officially established the Church in 1830.

I admit I am one of many victims of Mickiewicz’s beautiful poetry’s charm. It is possible that his writings have impressed me so much that I got carried away with my interpretations. You be the judge.

Adam Mickiewicz and his Dziady

If you have been to the main square of the Kraków’s Old Town, you couldn’t miss the statue of Adam Mickiewicz. It’s one of many built all over the country. His portrait hangs in thousands of classrooms. Every Polish child is taught that Mickiewicz is the bare (Pol. wieszcz) of our nation. The word indicates his patriotism, divine inspiration and spiritual leadership.

To be fair – not every Pole likes Adam or his poetry. Like anything that kids are forced to study and revere – our natural rebellious tendencies successfully tempt us to dislike his works and upon the completion of our education – ignore them for many years. Just like in the US, revisionist history about the great historical figures is becoming popular also in Poland our days. There are controversies surrounding Mickiewicz - of course. We don’t know if Adam was good and virtuous or a sinner, but one thing is sure – he had a remarkable talent and his texts have inspired many generations of poetry lovers as well as many Polish patriots.

Dziady is his greatest work. It is also considered one of the greatest poetic drama of the European Romanticism. Last year (2017) the first full translation into English of the book (by Charles Kraszewski) was published in London under the title Forefathers’ eve.

The title refers to an old Slavic ritual performed on November 1 of bringing the spirits of dead ancestors in order to hear their advice and provide them with the help they might need in order to get to Heaven (later the tradition was replaced by Catholic Day of the Dead).

The form of the drama is strange and mysterious. Different scenes take place in different places (Wilno – today’s Latvia, Warsaw – Poland, Lvov – today’s Ukraine, Petersburg – Russia) and often don’t seem to connect with the whole. The veil which divides the world of the living from the spirit world is often parted and voices of angels as well as the devils are heard. Dziady starts with Part II followed by Part IV which were first published in 1823. Almost a decade later Mickiewicz finished writing the patriotic part III. Interestingly, Polish youth study Part II in Junior High and Part IV in High School.

Many verses contain symbols which are not easily identifiable, which makes the drama even more mysterious. Identities of some of the protagonists are not always clear. The main hero of the book has different names in different parts. His name Gustav is replaced by Konrad and in the last part probably he is referred to as the Pilgrim.


At the same time, many parts are very plain. For example – advice given by the spirits of the dead are both deep and simple at the same time. So, even if the whole might not make complete sense, the reader can still benefit from the text. The writings of prophet Isaiah might be a good (although not a perfect) analogy.

I won’t attempt to walk you through the whole text or provide a summary of consecutive parts and scenes. Instead, I will focus on a few fragments which I marked in my copy. In my opinion – to a Latter-Day Saint they naturally bring associations with some of the doctrines and ordinances of the restored Gospel. I believe you might find at least some of those verses valuable and even remarkable.

Unfortunately I don’t have access to the recent English publication, so I will do my best translating some of the fragments (you can find the original text HERE - for your own verification). As you read them – please keep in mind that my only concern was providing you with the correct meaning, not the magnificent form of those passages. The original sounds much more beautiful.

It is worth noting that most of the book was written at the same time the Restoration was taking place in New York State (1823) and the last part just two years after the Church was formally established (1832). I think we can safely assume Adam Mickiewicz didn’t have any contact with the Church and was not familiar with our doctrine (which was being gradually developed in the New World). Especially since some of them were taught by Joseph Smith long after Dziady was first published. And when Poles in Europe read his work, including the possible prophecy about Joseph Smith’s martyrdom, Joseph was still alive and just beginning to lead the Church of Jesus Christ.

So, let’s start:

I. RESTORATION OF THE ORDINANCES FOR THE DEAD

In one of the first scenes of the drama, Gustav appears as a dead spirit and visits a Greek orthodox priest and his children (Greek orthodox Church doesn’t practice celibacy). He introduces himself as a representative of the dead forefathers and tries to convince the priest that the ancient saving rituals or ordinances for the dead should be restored.

Granted, those rituals are not baptism for the dead, but the purpose of the ancient Slavic tradition is exactly the same as our purpose for performing baptism and other ordinances for the dead. Gustav reasoned that without them, our dead ancestors cannot be allowed into heaven and they are unable to administer to us – the living.

We also believe the temple ordinances for the dead are necessary for salvation and we also expect that our ancestors, upon entering the Paradise will assist us in our lives as ministering angels, perhaps helping some to come in contact with the missionaries, etc. Also, every time we perform the ordinances for the dead, we are edified by the Spirit and are reminded of the covenants we have entered into in order to achieve Exaltation.

Mickiewicz’s view of the established Christian religion is worth noting. He considers it at least to some degree apostate, lacking understanding of spiritual reality and important saving ordinances.

II. ETERNAL MARRIAGE

Gustav preaches to the priest about 3 kinds of death: One is the separation of the spirit and body, another is eternal damnation (what Latter-day scriptures refer to as spiritual death). Interestingly, the third death Gustav lectures about is the separation of two lovers. He doesn’t specifically mention the word marriage, but he plainly talks about a man and a woman being together for ever after their death.

Many Christians believe that Christ’s Sacrifice overcomes two kinds of deaths: physical and spiritual (sin). But as far as I know - only the Latter-day Saints emphasize that one of the purposes of Christ’s Resurrection was overcoming death which – without his authority to seal families – separates or divorces a husband and wife. We know that the keys Jesus gave to Peter were not some mysterious keys to Rome or Heaven, etc., but the keys of the priesthood and the power to seal spouses and families (…and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven… - Matt. 16:19).

III. NO SALVATION WITHOUT MARRIAGE

In the opening scene of the drama a spirit of a dead young woman appears to people surrounding an equivalent of an altar. Her name is Zosia. During her life, she was an attractive girl and many boys were interested in her. But she didn’t care about marriage. She was comfortable with her careless life – playing with her pets, enjoying nature, etc. After her unexpected death, she found herself somewhere between the earth and the heaven. She was confused, because she didn’t feel sad, nothing hurt her, but she was not happy either. This is very similar to what the LDS Church teaches about the state Adam and Eve were before the fall and their marriage which opened the way to experiencing the challenges of mortality. Zosia experiences continuous boredom and is not sure what world she actually belongs to.

When she is asked by the man performing the ritual how the living can assist her, she replies – let young men grab my hands and pull me down for who has never touched the earth, will never go to heaven. (Kto nie dotknął ziemi ni razu, Ten nigdy nie może być w niebie.)

I can imagine a youth leader using this scene as a great teaching tool for those young single adults who don’t take advantage of YSA activities organized by the Church which allow young members to meet more people, perhaps a future boyfriend or girlfriend or even a spouse. The world currently teaches that remaining single is the way to go, since family life is too expensive and deprives a person of peace and unconcern.

The purpose of marriage is starting a family. As a former single and now a husband and parent I confirm that without my family I never actually experienced walking on earth so to speak. Nothing teaches charity, patience and forgiveness better than your own children, especially when their natural tendency incites them to rebel in their teenage years. Without this experience, it is difficult if possible at all to get to know Heavenly Father – our Parent we so often rebelled against but He continues faithful and always invites us to return to him.

Probably no other religion emphasizes marriage as much as we do. But consider this: if someone asked you: Is it a sin not to get married?, you would probably have a hard time answering. A person won’t be sent to hell for being single. He can still inherit the Celestial Kingdom. But only married man or a woman can be exalted.

Mickiewicz also doesn’t consider Zosia a sinner, but at the same time she is guilty of indifference. She is not in hell, but she is not in heaven either. She is floating between heaven and earth.

Boys are trying to pull Zosia down, as she requested, but the wind keeps blowing her away making it impossible for them to catch her. She is finally told that she will have to – we would say – hang around – for two more years and then she will be allowed to enter heaven.

The restored doctrine doesn’t prevent people who neglected during their lives the ordinance of sealing for eternity from eventually achieving exaltation. But they will have to wait, probably till some point of the Millennium, before they can meet all the requirements. Hanging between the earth and heaven is a great analogy.

IV. BLESSINGS COME AFTER MUCH TRIBULATION

Upon the request of the folk priest, spirits of two dead children also appear and request a mustard seed. They explain that during their short lives they never experienced misery. They then share their wisdom: Who has never experienced bitterness, will never experience sweetness in heaven (Kto nie doznał goryczy ni razu, Ten nie dozna słodyczy w niebie.).

We know that all dead children are saved. But the wisdom about bitter and sweet does ring the bell.
Prophet Lehi in 2 Nephi 2 also taught about the importance of opposition in all things. He also believed that happiness is only possible if we have experienced misery. He said that our first parents were placed in the garden where two special trees were placed producing two kinds of fruits: the one being sweet and the other bitter (v. 15). The plan was that Adam and Eve should partake the forbidden bitter fruit in order to go through the pains of mortality and eventually partake of the sweet fruit of the tree of life.

V. NEW NAME

In the beginning of Part III the main character – Gustav receives a new name. From now on he is referred to as Konrad. He then prays to God in a way similar to the description of Jacob of the Old Testament who fought with God (or angel). With the help of a priest, Konrad eventually receives forgiveness and experiences a change of heart. He becomes a leader, hero and savior of his nation.

As I read this part, I wondered why Konrad is given a new name before his repentance and experiencing the change of heart. Shouldn't he have started with repentance, experience the change of heart and then - as a new creature - have been given the new name? But then I realized that it is possible for a member of the Church to go to the Temple, receive his endowments and never actually learn from the knowledge poured out by the Spirit in the Holy Place. Just as baptism is not the end but the gate where the narrow path begins, so are the ordinances of the Temple. If we learn from our visit to the Temple, we can experience the change of heart and actually become a new person – a savior on the mount Zion.

VI. MYSTERIOUS RESTORER

The examples I have shared thus far are plain. The messages are clear and remarkably similar to some of the doctrines which were restored through the prophet Joseph Smith – salvation through painful experiences of life, relationship between a man and a woman, eternal marriage, repentance, change of heart and the need to restore ordinances for the dead.

It is possible that Mickiewicz could coincidentally write something that can remind us of a passage from the Book of Mormon or a doctrine taught in the Church. But – in my opinion – there are too many coincidences.

Now let’s discuss the most mysterious part of the book – a prophesy about a reviver or restorer. It is a vision received by priest Peter in Scene V of Part III after which angels attempt to take the priest to the third heaven. It is also one of the most known part of the text. For example – before you finish saying to a random Polish person: and his name is forty and four – he will habitually shout: Dziady!

Just as the poetic prophecies of Isaiah or other prophets can be interpreted in more than one way, so can be the vision. Some prophecies were even fulfilled on more than one occasion. For example – the famous two sticks from Ezechiel 37 represent both reuniting of Judah and Israel as well as an event which took place hundreds years later - the publication of the Bible together with the Book of Mormon. There are some theories of how priest Peter’s vision should be interpreted, but Mickiewicz himself never offered his explanation.

In the vision the martyrdom and the resurrection of Jesus Christ are dramatically and beautifully described. The history of Polish nation is compared to the painful death and the resurrection of Christ. Dziady was written during the partition of Poland. Mickiewicz lived in times when Poland was not present on the map of Europe. The regimes of Russia, Prussia and Austria are compared to three pieces of wood upon which our nation was crucified. But just as Christ eventually returned from the dead, Mickiewicz predicted that Poland will rise up again (and it did – independence was achieved more than 6 decades after Mickiewicz’s death) and save the rest of Europe (perhaps the Battle of Warsaw of 1920 which stopped the Soviet invasion of Europe, the Solidarity movement of 1980s which was a key contributor to the collapse of the Soviet Union or perhaps even the future destruction of the socialistic European Union).

But Mickiewicz also compares Christ to a mysterious restorer or reviver (Pol. wskrzesiciel) without ever revealing his identity. Some scholars believe it is Konrad – the main hero of the drama, but it is only one of a few theories. Let me share a new possible explanation.

Here are some characteristics of the Restorer:

1. He belongs to the nation which emigrated to the north (scene V, verses 14-18).

Multitude of wagons – like clouds rushed by winds,
All in the same direction.
Oh, Lord! Those are our children,
There, to the north – Lord, Lord!
What fate awaits them – exile!

2. He is called defender and restorer/reviver (verses 21-22).

Behold – ha! – the child run away – is growing – he is the defender!
The reviver of the nation,

3. He will be born of a foreign mother (v. 23).

From a foreign mother;

4. He is a descendant of old heroes (v. 23).

His blood old heroes,

5. He will be abused and judged by the whole Europe (v. 29-30).

Whole Europe drags and abuses him –
“To the tribunal!” – The mob takes there the innocent one.

6. He will be sentenced by a heartless judge who is fully aware of his innocence (v. 31-35).

On the tribunal – despicable faces, with no hearts, no arms: judges –
These are his judges!
They cry: “Gal, Gal will judge him!”
Gal didn’t find fault in him – he is washing his hands,
But the kings cry: “Condemn him and turn him into torment. […]

7. Freedom or Liberty will lament over her dying son (v. 51).

And mother Liberty is standing at his feet, crying.

8. God will forsake him and he will die (v. 56-58).

My beloved! He dropped his dying head,
Crying: “Lord! Lord! Why has thou forsaken me!”
He has died!

9. His white cloth will cover the whole world  (v. 59-63).

To heaven, he is going toward heaven!
From his flew away
Garment – white as the snow –
It fell down – widely – the whole world covered itself in it.
My beloved in heaven, is still visible.

10. His eyes are like three suns (v. 64-65).

His three pupils shine lie three suns,
And he is showing nations his wounded right hand.

11. He has three foreheads (v. 70-71).

Terrible man – he has three faces,
He has three foreheads.

12. A mysterious book will protect him (v. 72-73).

A mysterious book is opened like a baldachin
Over his head, covering his face.

13. He is called the governor of freedom (or liberty – Pol. namiestnik wolności) (v. 74-77).

Three capitols are his footstool.
Three ends of the world tremble when he cries;
I hear voices from heaven like thunders;
It is the governor of freedom visible on the earth!

14. He will build his Church (v. 78-79).

On fame he will build the vasts
Of his church!

15. He will stand on three crowns but himself he will not wear a crown (v. 80-81).

He is raised over nations and over kings;
He is standing on three crowns, but he is not wearing a crown.

16. His life will be trouble of troubles (v. 82).

And his life will be the trouble of troubles,

17. His name will be nation of nations (v. 83).

And his title will be – the nation of nations;

18. His name is 44 – forty and four (v. 23-24, 84-85).

From a foreign mother; his blood old heroes,
And his name will be fourty and four.

All of these points can be applied to Jesus Christ and the Polish nation (at least as seen by the patriotic exile - Adam Mickiewicz). But in verse 21 a restorer is introduced. When a member of the Church of Jesus Christ hears about restoration, the prophet Joseph Smith comes to mind. So I read the vision again entertaining the idea that the restorer is Joseph Smith. Remarkably, I found all 18 points fitting the Prophet of the Restoration without much stretching.

What do you think?

1. He belongs to the nation which emigrated to the north. – the Prophet Joseph Smith was a descendant of Israel through the lineage of Joseph and Ephraim -  one of the lost tribes of Israel lost in the northern countries.

2. He is called defender and restorer/reviver – Joseph Smith is known as the Prophet of the Restoration.

3. He will be born of foreign mother. – it will not be a Pole. It could be someone born in America, let’s say in upstate New York.

4. He is a descendant of old heroes. – again, Joseph Smith was a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and other ancient prophets and heroes of the Holy Bible.

5. He will be abused and judged by the whole Europe. – I think every missionary who ever served in Europe knows that Joseph Smith is mocked by many. The values popular in Europe are the exact opposite to the teachings of Joseph Smith – marriage is discouraged, belief in God is laughed at, socialism is gaining popularity, patriarchy is demonized, revelation is considered a fairy tale, etc.

6. He will be sentenced by a heartless judge who knows he is actually innocent. – martyrdom of Joseph Smith (some of those who caused his assassination, like William Law later admitted he knew Joseph was innocent). In a broader and more symbolic way – many people who brush aside or reject the message of Joseph Smith and the Restoration do so not because they are convinced Joseph was a fraud, but because accepting him would be inconvenient. It would contradict their traditions.

7. Freedom or Liberty will lament over her dying son. – Only the fullness of the Gospel can bless individuals and nations with real liberty – freedom from sin as well as a system of government which ensures freedoms of individual, free market system, etc. When a person rejects Joseph Smith, he looses a valuable chance of becoming spiritually free from error, sin and hope for a better world.

8. God will forsake him and he will die. – Several LDS prophets noted that Joseph Smith was a type of Jesus Christ. The Prophet’s martyrdom was also a type of Jesus’ martyrdom. Allowing their murders were important parts of God’s Plan of Salvation or the Plan of Liberty.

9. His white cloth will cover the whole world. – Revelations given through Joseph Smith will eventually be taken to every nation, tongue and people. Priesthood restored through him will be present everywhere. The Book of Mormon translated and published by Joseph will be available to every nation. Temples will cover the whole world and multitudes of nations will dress in white cloth according to the instructions given by Prophet Joseph.

10. His eyes will be like three suns. – according ot Alonzo L. Gaskill (The Lost Language of Symbolism) eyes were a symbol for the receipt of light, knowledge, insight, and revelation. Multiple eyes on one being are usually interpreted as a symbol of omniscience…. (p. 36). The sun is a symbol for the Son of God and the glory of things celestial or divine in nature. (p. 323). Number 3 is a symbol of the Godhead and divine involvement, backing, or influence. (p. 319).  The three towers of the Salt Lake Temple symbolize the Godhead and the First Presidency. Joseph Smith saw things as they are – as God sees them.

11. He has three foreheads. – revelations from the Godhead, priesthood authority. Joseph thought as God thinks. Forehead – a symbol for what we think about, love, or desire. (p. 313)

12. A mysterious book will protect him. – Joseph was the first person whose spiritual education started with the study of the Book of Mormon. Following it’s teachings was a protection in his life. It is the keystone of the Restored Gospel. The book could also refer to the Bible.

13. He is called the governor of freedom (or liberty) – again, the Gospel as it was taught by the prophet Joseph Smith brings true freedom.

14. He will build his Church. – This is a remarkable comment which seems to limit possible candidates to founders of religions and clearly erases the drama’s hero Konrad from the list.

15. He will stand on three crowns but himself he will not wear a crown. – Joseph was directed by the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost – the eternal King. Joseph himself is not a king, he is only an instrument in their hands.

16. His life will be trouble of troubles – Joseph’s life was full of troubles – persecuted, arrested multiple of times, abused physically, at least one of his children lost their lives due to the persecutions, his wife refused to accept some of his revelations, etc.

17. His name will be nation of nations – He led an organization to which joined people from different countries. He started a Kingdom which will be present in every nation.

18. His name is 44 – forty and four – described here martyrdom of Joseph Smith took place in 1844, the nearest 44 after Mickiewicz wrote the book. Obviously, this is not the only possible meaning of this number, but no other theory provides anything that comes this close.

IS IT POSSIBLE?

Is it possible that God inspired a poet to write a book that would then inspire the whole nation on more than one level?

After quoting Josiah Gilbert Holland: Verily the poets of the world are the prophets of humanity, Elder Orson F. Whitney added:

I am not prepared to admit – nor do I suppose Holland meant to say – that the poets of the world are its only prophets, or that they are prophets in the same sense and degree as the inspired oracles of sacred writ. But I do believe the gift of poesy and the gift of prophecy to be akin to each other; that both are of divine origin, and that they generally go hand in hand. Prophets are almost invariably poets; and poets, in many instances, have been remarkably prophetic.

I find the prophecy of the Restorer remarkably prophetic.

A. Mickiewicz receiving
inspiration - Lvov, Ukraine

Adam Mickiewicz was a talented poet who loved his nation and desired it’s salvation from oppression. He thought, he pondered and received the promise given to all who seek and knock. In times when Poland was enslaved by foreign or domestic regimes thousands of Poles read Dziady in secret. The lecture gave them hope that God would eventually save their nation. Many inspired by the text were actively involved in the fight for independence.

But we – Latter-day Saints know that true independence and freedom is possible only through following Jesus Christ and his priesthood. For us Dziady provides a deeper level of understanding how our nation (as well as every other) can become truly free. Joseph Smith – a modern day prophet and representative of Jesus Christ plays a key role in this personal as well as national fight for real liberty.

I am aware that I might sound like an overexcited convert. I admit that once you feel the enthusiasm caused by your personal testimony of the gospel, your perception of the world changes. You start noticing it’s elements in astronomy, nature and inspired literature. Ever since two of my sons’ fascination with cars started, they often notice very unique cars going through our streets. But those cars are not imaginary. They simply never noticed them before.

Maoryski prorok Potangaroa

I am not suggesting that Poland will necessarily play a special role in the restoration of the fullness of the Gospel in the world. Dziady was written for Poles and deals with our history. Every Pole or non-Pole faithful Latter-day Saint understands that accepting the Prophet as God’s true servant is necessary for gaining individual freedom from sin and error. This applies to Poles, Germans, Chinese, Zulus and everybody else. Perhaps inspired leaders of other nations also predicted the Restoration in their countries.

Actually, such cases are known and recognized by the Brethren. In the Church’s production Ensign to the Nations a prophecy by Potangaroa, a leader of the Maori nation of New Zealand was quoted:

You will recognize it when it comes. Its missionaries will travel in pairs. They will come from the rising sun. They will visit with us in our homes. They will learn our language and teach us the gospel in our own tongue. When they pray they will raise their right hands.

Just a few years after the first missionaries arrived at the island, 10% of all Maori have joined the Church.

MISSIONARY WORK IN POLAND

A member of the Church who has served his or her mission in Poland might ask: If God has such a remarkable plan to restore the Gospel in Poland, how come the work there is going so slowly? Why are most Poles not responding appropriately to the message? Why do they choose to stay faithful to their traditions, even though they often criticize them? Why don’t they accept the doctrines of salvation for the dead, eternal marriage, family? Why do they lack boldness of Gustav who demanded that the priest of an apostate Church should allow the restoration of true ancient practices?

I think Mickiewicz provides the answer in at least two places of his Dziady:

1. In Scene IX of Part 3 Mickiewicz describes a display of military power by the tsar of Russia (who represents evil, Satan, etc.). The action takes place on cold streets of Petersburg. After the parade is over, a dead Slav is found in the snow. Apparently, he was faithfully waiting for his lord, a Russian army officer who had commanded him to wait and guard his belongings until his master’s return. The servant faithfull obedience to his master cost him his life. Mickiewicz comments:

Oh poor man, such heroism, such death,
Is achievement for a dog, but for a man it is a sin.
What reward will you receive? Your lord will smile and say
That you were faithful to your death – like a dog.
Oh poor man, why am I shading a tear
And my heart pains as I think about your deed:
I feel sorry for you, oh poor Slav!
Oh, poor nation! I feel sorry for your fate,
The only kind of heroism you know is the heroism of slavery.

What killed the servant was his blind obedience to his master. Polish people are aware of the flaws of their traditions. They often complain about them. But, strangely, they are not willing to give them up. They raise their voices as they declare their faithfulness to Virgin Mary and the Holy Catholic Church to their death. No matter what. Even if it is not true. And they die spiritually.

2. What is the solution then? In Scene VII of Part 3 Adam describes the Polish nation with these words:

…Our nation is like a lava,
Cold and hard on top, dry and unpleasant,
But the inner fire won’t cool down for a century;
Let’s dig this crest and go down deep.

There is something about us, Poles that stops us from using our natural, divine potential (lava or fire). The advice is not to lose hope but to keep digging until the volcano erupts. And this is what our missionaries have been doing for nearly 30 years now – once in a while witnessing a miraculous conversion of a Pole who decided to listen to the inner Light of Christ and in consequence experiencing it’s eruption like a volcano erupts with hot lava that changes surroundings, etc.

Later in Part 3, in chapter Track to Russia (Pol.: Droga do Rosji) Mickiewicz describes Slavic people as having bodies made of thick tissue. Inside the body lives the soul compared to a caterpillar which is developing muscles and wings. He then writes:

But when the sun of freedom will shine,
What kind of insect comes out of this shell?
Will a bright butterfly tower over the earth,
Or a moth emerges, the night’s dirty tribe?

Mickiewicz seems to be cautious here about predicting an inevitable triumph or failure. It is all up to us how we respond to the message of true Liberty.