Scriptural discussion of the day...

Let's discuss the story of Daniel and the lion's den for a moment...

This is one of the Bible stories that just about everyone is familiar with, but here's a quick summary of the details:  Daniel was a righteous man and servant to the king, whom the other "presidents and princes" hated and envied.  They convince the king to decree that no one may 'petition' any person or God for thirty days other than the king himself--by penalty of 'death-by-lions'.  Daniel, as he had always done, prayed openly to God and then was accused by the presidents and princes.  Daniel's thrown into the lion's den according to the king's decree and, well--you know the rest...

The KJV Old Testament makes it clear that Daniel knew about the law after it was signed (Dan 6:10).  Therrefore, his prayer was done with the deliberate knowledge that it was against the law and could result in severe punishment.  Now, Daniel's situation is different than the problem faced by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego earlier in the book of Daniel--they were required to do something bad, whereas in Daniel's case he was merely forbidden to do something good.  SM&A didn't really have many options--break a commandment, or be condemned.  Daniel, though, had other choices that did not involve breaking the commandments--there are a variety of ways to 'pray', without needing to be open and obvious about it, or even to speak out loud.

In other words, the difficulty Daniel was faced with after the decree of the King appeared to have a solution which didn't involve Daniel being disobedient, or having him get in trouble with the law--and it's interesting to note that Daniel did not try to use it.   SM&A noted after their disobedience that although it was certainly possible that God was going to deliver them from the fiery furnace, it was not guaranteed, but regardless they were not going to break the commandments.  (See Dan 3:17-18)

While the Daniel story doesn't contain anything Daniel said until after the lion's den, you would have to think that, like SM&A,  Daniel also knew that God could, but not necessarily would, save him from the lions, and thus his open defiance of the law was essentially risking his own life.  It's one thing to be unwilling to do something bad, but risking your life by not changing your method of prayer?   If God had chosen not to deliver Daniel from the lions--(1) the Bible story would be somewhat meaningless and unworthy of note--but (2) couldn't you conclude in that case that Daniel's decision was a mistake--throwing away his life and everything else he could have accomplished by not being flexible in his obedience to both the commandments of God and the law of the land?

Let's look at another example:  Mosiah 24--The people of Alma are taken captive by Amulon and the Lamanites.  We read:

8 -- And now it came to pass that Amulon began to exercise authority over Alma and his brethren, and began to persecute him, and cause that his children should persecute their children.
10 -- And it came to pass that so great were their afflictions that they began to cry mightily to God.
11 -- And Amulon commanded them that they should stop their cries; and he put guards over them to watch them, that whosoever should be found calling upon God should be put to death.
12 -- And Alma and his people did not raise their voices to the Lord their God, but did pour out their hearts to him; and he did know the thoughts of their hearts.

Here we have a very similar situation--Alma's people are told if they pray they are to be put to death.  They believe, of course, that God could stop them from being punished, but they also know that they can pray in secret and avoid the issue altogether.  Whether God would have stopped them from being killed if they prayed is unknown--the people of Alma decided not to depend upon that possibility for survival--therefore choosing wisdom and practicality over bravery and faith.

So, then--who made the better choice?  Daniel, or Alma's people?

Things are a little bit different today than in the past.  Once, on my mission (Taiwan) we hosted a missionary from Malaysia who stayed with us for a day (foreigners have to leave the country for at least a day every month before re-entering).  He described to us the unique situation in his mission--open proselyting was not allowed, and there were strict laws in regards to religious meetings, activities, and even conversations with others.  His companion, in fact, had had to be sent home for being too aggressive in his missionary efforts--bringing trouble down upon them from the authorities.

There is a reason the Church does not aggressively send missionaries into areas where proselyting is restricted or illegal.  While, of course, the Lord could protect missionaries from harm (in these and any other dangerous situation they face) the Church has decided that this course of action is unwise--they submit to local laws as far as possible (without breaking standards) and wait for a more opportune time.  It seems obvious that if some country decreed that missionaries could not openly pray (or wear nametags with the Church name on it, or something...) by penalty of death, the Church would respond by telling the missionaries to 'take your nametags off' or 'don't pray openly', and not 'keep doing what you're doing in spite of the law, and the Lord will deliver you from their hands...'

Does this attitude show a lack of faith? ...Or wisdom in being flexible to local requirements in order to obtain a higher goal?