The post below was originally a response to my friend's comment to my "On Biographers" post. I've thought my response, though, worthy of its own post. Forgive me if you think that error.
Dave,
I wish I'd learned earlier to value your disagreements with me, as I've learned more in my discussions with you than perhaps with any other friend.
Honestly, I hadn't quite expected you to disagree with me, mostly because I wasn't quite sure of my own position. Your comment has had me thinking most of the afternoon, though, and now it seems quite apparent that we disagree.
Responding to President Packer's statement that "some things that are true are not very useful," you contend that nothing that is true is counterproductive. Calling something "counterproductive" is admittedly different than calling something "not useful" because the former seems to mean "damaging," which goes a step beyond merely "unhelpful." I just want to make it clear at the outset that there's a significant difference between the two, and that President Packer used the term "not useful."
There's a great deal that's true that's not very useful, and this is not simply limited to inane truths (like the # of buttons on your phone). I'm certain now that this applies to many of the more juicy truths as well.
For instance, if we know by revelation that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, how can it possibly be useful for us to then note, even in context, the prophet's faults? It's true that understanding all of his actions in context, our position that he was a prophet should not change, but what has it helped? I can't see how it helps. (Some might argue that our ability to honor and sustain him as a prophet in light of knowing his weaknesses would strengthen our faith, which to me would mean taking a very liberal view of "strengthen." I know that, for me, being made aware of a church leader's weaknesses has never strengthened my faith that the leader was nevertheless called of God, even though I'll still sustain that person after learning of them). We knew he was a prophet before, and the light shed on his weaknesses seems like it can only possibily damage that conviction, even if it doesn't ultimately do so.
Even with your Columbus example, assuming he IS the man Nephi spoke of seeing in vision (which I happen to agree with--if not him, who?), you never mention what benefits there are to making us aware that he might have been a racist and ego maniac. Even if it's true, what's the benefit?
You do seem concerned that if I'm not made aware of Columbus' weaknesses, the rest of society will think me ignorant (and perhaps rightly so!). But are you saying that the biggest thing to be gained is that I won't be ignorant (or thought of as ignorant)? That hardly seems worth the price, and honestly that hardly seems like a benefit. That hardly seems helpful.
President Packer's point was simply that when God has made certain facts clear through revealed truth, bringing to light facts that could cast doubt on those truths is simply not helpful. It might not hurt (and indeed, properly understood, it shouldn't hurt) but it's not helpful--except curing ignorance I guess, which neither he nor I see as inherently helpful.
President Packer's point seems all the more clear, at least to me, in the context of a marriage (though he wasn't talking about this). In the course of a marriage, you invariably learn of some of the less desirable characteristics of your spouse [assuming they have any]. Yet when we talk to others about our spouse, we tend not to mention those less desirable points (unless there are SERIOUS things where help is required).
Why is that? My sense from your comment, Dave, is that the position you advocate should lead us to disclose our spouse's problems to others to release others from the shackles of "superficial blissfulness," apparently for some deeper happiness to be found when the rest of us have the chance to know our spouse's weaknesses in context and look past them. If some should choose not to see the full context of our spouse's actions and think poorly of her because of it, their favorable opinion of her was based on ignorance anyway (even though, ironically, their unfavorable opinion now also stems from ignorance).
But we don't do that, and I think it's safe to say neither of us think it'd be right to do that.
Again, Why? It's certainly not because those character flaws might not be true, and it's not even necessarily because, when those unsavory parts of our spouse are understood in context, that others won't still think well of them (after all, we do [or at least we should]). It's not because of our own pride or vain ambition to look good in front of others (or at least it needn't be).
I think it has something to do with an inherent need to look for and accentuate the good in people. I think it also has something to do with love and mercy, and hoping that God will keep His promise to "remember [our] sins no more." (It seems significant to me, tonight, that the Lord didn't say "remember your sins in context").
What I think I can safely say is that mentioning those things one may notice about his/her spouse can't possibly help anything, even if it doesn't ultimately hurt. In fact everyone is better off if I'm the only one who notices them, and if I'm the only one who ever knows about them.
Anyway, thanks Dave. Your comment was quite thought provoking.
2 comments:
I just want to make it clear at the outset that there's a significant difference between the two, and that President Packer used the term "not useful."
Absolutely. That's exactly the distinction I meant to draw.
For instance, if we know by revelation that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, how can it possibly be useful for us to then note, even in context, the prophet's faults?
I'll first repeat something from my other comment:
"One sees, for instance, that the Spirit can work through even those who were not by any stretch of the imagination perfect -- just as it does today in our visibly imperfect local leaders. It encourages one to try to understand context and to forgive -- not just historically, but even in the case of the teenage girl in the ward who just had a baby. And it helps us to distinguish between which of a person's actions were motivated by the Spirit and which were not -- helping us to learn better how to understand the Spirit in our own lives."
Does it weaken my testimony to hear that Joseph Smith seemed at times to be an arrogant brawler (challenging other preachers to fights)? No. Does it strengthen my testimony in him? Probably not.
But it strengthens my testimony in some of my present-day leaders whom I otherwise might view as arrogant brawlers. It helps me to realize that the Lord can work through them -- even in miraculous ways.
But are you saying that the biggest thing to be gained is that I won't be ignorant?
I refer to the above, but make an additional point here.
If I research and approach that fact in the proper setting and context, I will be spiritually prepared to deal with it when it someone throws it at me out of context. Basically, what I am saying is that because it is basically impossible to remain ignorant -- even if you think you want to -- controlling the environment in which you learn the truth will help you understand it better.
But there is yet more to it than just that . . .
. . . bringing to light facts that could cast doubt on [God-revealed] truths is simply not helpful.
A key point of my "position" is that accurate facts don't cast doubt on those truths. Indeed, if they are accurate, they are part *of* the truth. In fact, the truth is incomplete without them -- it is not the truth.
Do Joseph Smith's personality flaws cast doubt on the truth of the Restoration and his role within it? No. In fact, his personality flaws help one to understand the truth of his role even better. He was not perfect as Jesus Christ was. Rather, he was a prophet: an imperfect man who continually humbled himself and communed with God despite his imperfections. That was his role. That is truth.
I have, sadly, known more than one person who left the Church for the stated reason that they felt deceived as to Joseph Smith's character. The problem, as I see it, was that they believed Joseph Smith to be something he was not. They did not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet in the "true" sense of that word. They believed, basically, that he was some sort of demi-god.
They believed in something that was a mixture between truth and falsehood: that he was a prophet and that he was thus more or less perfect. When the element that was falsehood was exposed, they were so upset that they rejected both the true and false elements of their beliefs. The irony is that they sprang from belief in one mix of truth and falsehood to belief in another.
I don't know much about epistomology. But I tend to think that what we believe is ultimately a poor, self-made construction of facts that are much more complex than we can know and principles that are much more abstract than we can comprehend. Learning something new is an opportunity to refine (or even revamp, as necessary) that construction -- to get closer to knowing truth. We must at the same time be careful to ensure that any changes to our construction continue to take account of other things that we know to be true. Which leads to . . .
It might not hurt (and indeed, properly understood, it shouldn't hurt) but it's not helpful--except curing ignorance I guess, which neither he nor I see as inherently helpful.
". . . seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (D&C 88: 118)
We're not to remain ignorant. We just need to learn in the right way. It must be a way that embraces the entirety of truth, and doesn't look at facts in a vacuum. It must be a way that involves faith in the gospel.
My sense from your comment, Dave, is that the position you advocate should lead us to disclose our spouse's problems to others to release others from the shackles of "superficial blissfulness," apparently for some deeper happiness to be found when the rest of us have the chance to know our spouse's weaknesses in context and look past them.
If that is a necessary conclusion based on my position, then my position must be inconsistent somewhere (or I must not be adhering to it), since, as you know, I don't freely disclose my spouse's problems to others, nor do I think I should.
But I don't think it's a necessary conclusion. In fact, I don't think it's even related to my position.
My position is *not* that we need to proclaim facts that are negative. My position is that we should not hide them -- particularly not out of pride or vanity. Indeed, hiding them (particularly in that way) is incompatible with exercising the priesthood. So my position is that we should not hide negative facts. And my position is further that we should not hide *from* them. It is a very different position than that of actively disclosing problems.
Admittedly, active disclosure of problems is the best policy in certain circumstances -- disclosure to spouses and to church leaders, in particular. But, again, I am not saying that we need to tell people about our problems or those of others beyond the extent necessary to repent.
I am simply saying that we should not try to cover our weaknesses. They can, in fact, be made into strengths. I have often marvelled at those with histories of drug abuse or sexual promiscuity who have changed their lives. They have become inspirational figures to me. I am glad to those who do not try to hide those histories, but who rather help me learn from them.
And I am saying that we should not hide *from* others' weaknesses. As discussed above, Joseph Smith's personality flaws do not cast doubt on his role as a prophet -- they are simply part of the truth. He was who he was.
Should biographers actively seek his character flaws out? Any biography, whether neutral, critical, or apologetic, should be accurate -- meaning that it should not only present true facts, but that it should do so in context, presenting an accurate overall picture of the subject (otherwise, it is not really a biography, it is simply a collection of non-contextual anecdotes). How those facts are approached, emphasized, and interpreted is what is important. We must not revise history -- through erroneous additions or "material omissions" -- because we do not understand it. We must simply come to understand it.
I think it has something to do with an inherent need to look for and accentuate the good in people. I think it also has something to do with love and mercy, and hoping that God will keep His promise to "remember [our] sins no more."
Absolutely. But I add one last point here.
That is that the "need to look for and accentuate the good in people" is not something that replaces the mandate not to cover our sins or to gratify our pride or vain ambition. It is something that works in conjunction with it.
Nice.
The story of the person you know leaving the church helps put your thoughts in context, and I've enjoyed the refinement of your point in the comment above.
My sense is that it ultimately comes down to a disagreement between you and I over whether "humanizing" [a term Pres. Packer uses to connote making known weaknesses] the prophets and others. You seem to say that seeing Joseph Smith in full context, warts and all, strengthens your testimony of present day leaders--helping you realize that the Lord can worth through them--even in miraculous ways.
I think Wilford Woodruff said something similar. He said he was once tempted to criticize the prophet Joseph, but then realized that if Joseph Smith could have such flaws and still be called of God, maybe there was hope for him.
President Packer's point was that we should spend our time trying to demonstrate that the man was a prophet, not that the prophet was a man. The rest of the world will be doing all they can to prove he was a man. His point is that we needn't do anything to help them make the point for fear of not being objective otherwise.
My sense is, and I think you would agree, that there's a difference between promoting ignorance and speaking well of people.
If we really are supposed to look for and accentuate the good in people, that runs the risk of leaving others ignorant of latent character flaws only we may be privy to. It's that sort of ignorance [again, save for those SERIOUS flaws that should be confessed] that seems appropriate and even desirable.
Post a Comment