The Battle for Civility Part IV

In the Book Mormon, we read in Enos verse 13 that ". . .the Nephites, should fall into transgression, and by any means be destroyed, and the Lamanites should not be destroyed, that the Lord God would preserve a record of my people, the Nephites; even if it so be by the power of his holy arm, that it might be brought forth at some future day. . ."

The Lord kept his promise.  The Nephites destroyed themselves.  The Lamanites, who we recognize as part of the ancestry of the Native peoples of North and South America, survived.  Why?  There is one marked difference between these two peoples and I believe the answer is in one word:  Civility.

It is culturally biased to suggest that all forms of reasoning and social refinement had their roots in Europe. We love to quote the ideas of the Founding Fathers, Franklin, Jefferson and Adams, but who has heard of Canassatego, a great leader among the Iroquois Indians?  In 1744, Canassatego told a delegation from the American Colonies:

Brethren, We the Six Nations [the peoples of the Iroquois Confederacy] heartily recommend Union and a good agreement between you our Brethren, never disagree but preserve a strict Friendship for one another and thereby you as well as we will become stronger.  Our Wise Forefathers established Union and Amity between the Five Nations. . .we are a powerful Confederacy, and if you observe the same methods . . .you will acquire fresh strength and power." (Grinde, Donald A. Jr. and Bruce E Johansen. Exemplar of Liberty:  Native America and the Evolution of Democracy. UCLA  1990, footnote 79).                                              

The ideas of civics and civilization meet in the definition of civility.  My friend, who I referred to earlier, suggested that American ideals of liberty were linked to the consistent teaching of civics.  I couldn't define the word effectively, so I did some research.  It has been a good trip.

On Sunday Jauary 17, 2010, Jim Leach wrote a special piece for the St. Petersburg Times.  In his article he said:

"The concept of civility implies politeness, but civil discourse is about more than good etiquette.  At its core, civility requires a respectful engagement:  a willingness to consider other views and place them in the context of history and life experiences." (http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/article1065788.ece)

Michael Purdy, a spokesman for the LDS Church also expressed a similar understanding of the combined nature of civility.  His comments were made in response to concerns over the issue of illegal immigration, but could be applied to any subject of debate:

"Elected individuals have the primary responsibility to find solutions in the best interest of all whose lives will be impacted by their actions

 We repeat our appeal for careful reflection and civil discourse when addressing immigration issues.  Finding a successful resolution will require the best thinking, the highest levels of statesmanship, and the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God's children."(www.deseretnews.com/article/700049003/LDS-Church-repeats-call-for-civil-discourse-on-immigration.  18 July 2010)

Civility keeps barbarianism at an arm's length.  Barbarianism is driven by unrelenting hatred of ideas and peoples who differ from ourselves.  Civility leads to a reasoned system of order for dealing with ideas and peoples who differ from ourselves.  My friend was right, the teaching of civil behaviors does lead to liberty.  The surviving Lamanite peoples knew it, the Founding Fathers knew it, and now, I know it