"Courage Is Not the Absence of Fear, But the Mastery of It"

I wanted to draw attention to this quote for a simple reason: It's really just a special case of a more general principle.

"Virtue is not the absence of temptation, but the mastery of it."

It is true that we can sometimes act in ways which bring temptation on ourselves, and that can be a matter of foolishness or wickedness, but a great many temptations come regardless of individual action. Indeed, many temptations grow out of desires which are, of themselves good.

As evidence, sexual sin is quite severe. However, we are told that attraction, even sexual attraction, is a desire which is God-given for a purpose which is essential to His plan. Sex and the desire for sex are, of themselves, good things, and part of the reason that sexual sin is so severe is that it profanes a thing which is so sacred. So it is good and right, but only at the right time, in the right way. As Elder Jeffrey R. Holland once taught, 'When faced with that inherent appetite, a disciple of Christ must be willing to say, "Yes, but not this way."' (The Inconvenient Messiah)

So temptation cannot be taken as proof that a person is bad. Indeed, the ultimate example of virtue, Jesus Christ, "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). Let us be like Him. So I say again,

"Virtue is not the absence of temptation, but the mastery of it."

Title: Usually attributed to Mark Twain, though there seems to be some doubt on the subject

"Obeying, Honoring, and Sustaining the Law"

There's an interesting (and important, practically speaking) conflict that comes up at times:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (Articles of Faith 1:12).

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

Clearly we are required, as a part of our religion, to "render unto Caesar" a certain degree of respect and obedience. Yet we also believe, under certain circumstances at least, in civil disobedience. If you doubt it, consider the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, which is a prime example of the practice: they willfully refuse to obey a law, accepting the consequences, because their moral values could not abide it. And their stance clearly was not frowned upon by God, judging by His miraculously delivering them.

So there is a time for obeying the law, and there is a time for disobeying it on moral principle. The question of where, exactly, to put the line of demarcation between the cases in which we should obey it and those in which we should defy it is what remains to us. To determine this, the above quotes may well give us what we need to know:

• Generally speaking, we believe in obeying the law. So in most cases, we should obey the law.
• However, "We ought to obey God rather than men." God's laws supersede man's. If obedience to a human law directly contradicts a moral law, we ought to follow God first.

In other words, God wins over country, but the law of the land should be respected in cases where it can possibly be accommodated. This also hints at one of the qualifications of a just law, which I should consider in more detail at another point: a just law should not attempt to compel people to act contrary to their conscience, and should maximally provide exemptions for matters of conscience. For example, the idea of the conscientious objector to a draft is one which must be strongly upheld.