One of the falsehoods that has been stuffed into your brain and pounded into place is that moral knowledge progresses inevitably, such that later generations are morally and intellectually superior to earlier generations, and that the older the source the more morally suspect that source is. There is a term for that. It is called chronological snobbery. Or, to use a term that you might understand more easily, “ageism.”
Second, you have been taught to resort to two moral values above all others, diversity and equality. These are important values if properly understood. But the way most of you have been taught to understand them makes you irrational, unreasoning. For you have been taught that we must have as much diversity as possible and that equality means that everyone must be made equal. But equal simply means the same. To say that 2+2 equals 4 is to say that 2+2 is numerically the same as four. And diversity simply means difference. So when you say that we should have diversity and equality you are saying we should have difference and sameness. That is incoherent, by itself. Two things cannot be different and the same at the same time in the same way.
Furthermore, diversity and equality are not the most important values. In fact, neither diversity nor equality is valuable at all in its own right. Some diversity is bad. For example, if slavery is inherently wrong, as I suspect we all think it is, then a diversity of views about the morality of slavery is worse than complete agreement that slavery is wrong. Similarly, equality is not to be desired for its own sake. Nobody is equal in all respects. We are all different, which is to say that we are all not the same, which is to say that we are unequal in many ways. And that is generally a good thing. But it is not always a good thing (see the previous remarks about diversity).
Third, you should not bother to tell us how you feel about a topic. Tell us what you think about it. If you can’t think yet, that’s O.K.. Tell us what Aristotle thinks, or Hammurabi thinks, or H.L.A. Hart thinks. Borrow opinions from those whose opinions are worth considering. As Aristotle teaches us in the reading for today, men and women who are enslaved to the passions, who never rise above their animal natures by practicing the virtues, do not have worthwhile opinions. Only the person who exercises practical reason and attains practical wisdom knows how first to live his life, then to order his household, and finally, when he is sufficiently wise and mature, to venture opinions on how to bring order to the political community.
Disagreement is not expressing one’s disapproval of something or expressing that something makes you feel bad or icky. To really disagree with someone’s idea or opinion, you must first understand that idea or opinion. When Socrates tells you that a good life is better than a life in exile you can neither agree nor disagree with that claim without first understanding what he means by “good life” and why he thinks running away from Athens would be unjust. Similarly, if someone expresses a view about abortion, and you do not first take the time to understand what the view is and why the person thinks the view is true, then you cannot disagree with the view, much less reason with that person. You might take offense. You might feel bad that someone holds that view. But you are not reasoning unless you are engaging the merits of the argument, just as Socrates engaged with Crito’s argument that he should flee from Athens.
So, here are three ground rules for the rest of the semester. 1. The only “ism” I ever want to come out your mouth is a syllogism. If I catch you using an “ism” or its analogous “ist” — racist, classist, etc. — then you will not be permitted to continue speaking until you have first identified which “ism” you are guilty of at that very moment. You are not allowed to fault others for being biased or privileged until you have first identified and examined your own biases and privileges. 2. If I catch you this semester using the words “fair,” “diversity,” or “equality,” or a variation on those terms, and you do not stop immediately to explain what you mean, you will lose your privilege to express any further opinions in class until you first demonstrate that you understand three things about the view that you are criticizing. 3. If you ever begin a statement with the words “I feel,” before continuing you must cluck like a chicken or make some other suitable animal sound.
Reasoning requires you to understand the difference between true and false. And reasoning requires coherence and logic. Most of you have been taught to embrace incoherence and illogic. You have learned to associate truth with your subjective feelings, which are neither true nor false but only yours, and which are constantly changeful.
In fact, “isms” prevent you from learning. You have been taught to slap an “ism” on things that you do not understand, or that make you feel uncomfortable, or that make you uncomfortable because you do not understand them. But slapping a label on the box without first opening the box and examining its contents is a form of cheating. Worse, it prevents you from discovering the treasures hidden inside the box.
Not every day is a good day, live anyway. Not all you love will love back, love anyway. Not everyone will tell the truth, be honest anyway. Not all deals are fair, play fair anyway.
There is only one thing which the people lack on this point, in order that their traditions and former education may do them good, and that is to know how to sever the good from the bad, how to assimilate to themselves every good trait of character they have seen in their fathers and mothers, teachers and neighbors, and every good thing that has been taught them from their youth, and how to gather to themselves every good principle they have been traditionated in, and store that up as their individual property, and then dispense with every erroneous idea and every inconsistency. Many things which have been taught us in our childhood, or in our early lives, are truly inconsistent; lay them aside and cleave to the traditions which actually tend to virtue, holiness, chastity, loveliness, kindness, honesty, and truthfulness in every respect, and gather all the good into our own storehouse, and let each one say, that belongs to me.Some imagine that they must begin and unlearn the whole of their former education, but I say, cling to all the good that you have learned, and discard the bad.
And the veneration of feelings over truth, not to mention wisdom, is a cornerstone of leftism.
Here’s one way to test my thesis: Ask left-wing friends what they have done to pass on wisdom to their children. Most will answer with a question: “What do you mean?” Then ask religious Jewish or Christian friends the same question. They won’t answer with a question.
Suppose schools were operated on that philosophy, with each discipline a separate path leading to the same diploma. No matter whether you study or not, pass the tests or not, all would be given the same diploma — the one of their choice. Without qualifying, one could choose the diploma of an attorney, an engineer, a medical doctor. Surely you would not submit yourself to surgery under the hands of a graduate of that kind of school! But it does not work that way. It cannot work that way — not in education, not in spiritual matters. There are essential ordinances just as there are required courses. There are prescribed standards of worthiness. If we resist them, avoid them, or fail them, we will not enter in with those who complete the course.
“Do you realize that the notion that all churches are equal presupposes that the true church of Jesus Christ actually does not exist anywhere?”
Would the people who claim all churches (save ours) to be true be willing when sick to take any randomly selected combination of drugs to cure what ails them or administer the same to their children? Would they substitute sand for flour when baking bread arguing that as long as they were sincere, it could not possibly make any difference? Would they fill their gas tank with water, arguing that it too was a true liquid and was also a creation of God and that God loved all liquids the same?
You can say what you want by way of criticism about the Book of Mormon. Give it whatever grade you think it deserves, but what you cannot say is that it lacks for plainness or that you cannot quite figure out where it stands relative to Christ and his gospel. On such matters it is plain, clear, and bold; its writers had no intention of being misunderstood. It is a theological Everest; you can try to cover it with flowers but you are not going to be able to hide it. Simply stated, it is a public relations nightmare.
As to why the Lord made it this way we may not know — but this much we do know, it is philosophically impossible to reject truth without accepting error, to shut out the light without being immersed in darkness, to reject true teachers without cleaving to false ones, to reject the true Christ and his prophets without giving allegiance to those who follow another Master.
The Restoration began with Joseph Smith on his knees in the Sacred Grove and that is where the testimony of every Latter-day Saint must begin, on their knees in a sacred moment asking of God. Everything that we believe as Latter-day Saints rests on the reality of what God said that spring morning to Joseph Smith and the great irony of it all is that the harder the saying, the more offensive it seems to the world, the more peace it brings, it is the very light that chases away the darkness of contention with all that are honest in heart.
That such texts will give offense to some is true. Truth, however, is more important than harmony. Were that not the case, there would have been no war in heaven, no gospel of Jesus Christ, and no reason for the Father and the Son to appear to Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove. If we are to be a Christ-like people, we must value truth above life itself.
If the gospel message is true, it must by its very nature have things in it that require faith to accept. If we are going to get serious about it we can hardly expect to find gospel truths getting along compatibly with worldly fashions, nor can we expect them to get an approving nod from those who worship at the shrine of their own intellect.
The plain fact of the matter is that you cannot build strong testimonies out of weak doctrine. As there is no courage without a struggle, so there can be no spiritual strength without a challenge. We have claim to neither peace nor safety save we build on a strong foundation.
Any time we declare something to be true, we have picked a fight with that which is untrue. We cannot, as Marion G. Romney assured us, do the Lord’s work without offending the devil. [12] It is as certain as the night following the day that we will never be able to declare our message without opposition or without giving offense to some.
Truth includes, but is not limited to, knowledge that corresponds to reality—things as they were, things as they are, and things as they will be (Jacob 4:13; D&C 93:24). Gospel truth is “morally richer,” therefore, than the world’s definition of truth, as Terry Warner has written (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 4 [New York: Macmillan Co., 1992], p. 1490). Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). He has “received a fulness of truth” (D&C 93:26). Hence, we are to seek to have “the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16). Furthermore, as to the “manner” of people we are to become, it is clear we are to strive to become “even as” Jesus is (3 Nephi 27:27; see also 2 Peter 3:11). If we keep the commandments, the promise is that we will receive “truth and light” until we are “glorified in truth and knoweth all things” (D&C 93:28).
This process is part of being “valiant” in our testimony of Jesus. Thus, while we are saved no faster than we gain a certain type of knowledge, it is also the case, as Richard Bushman has observed, that we will gain knowledge no faster than we are saved (Teachings, p. 217). So we have a fundamentally different understanding of knowledge and truth—behaving and knowing are inseparably linked.
Ultimate orthodoxy—and orthodoxy isn’t a popular word nowadays—is expressed in the Christlike life that involves both mind and behavior. Christ’s manner of life is truly “the way, the truth, and the life,” and he has directed us to pursue his example (John 14:6; see also Matthew 5:48; 3 Nephi 12:48; 3 Nephi 27:27).
Another important implication of what we have been discussing is that all knowledge is not of equal significance. There is no democracy of facts! They are not of equal importance. Something might be factual but unimportant, as Elder Spencer Condie has observed. For instance, today I wear a dark blue suit. That is true, but it is unimportant. The world does not quite understand this. As we brush against truth, we sense that it has a hierarchy of importance. We are dealing with some things of transcending importance. Some truths are salvationally significant, and others are not.
Such are not Jesus’ ways, for he asks that perception and implementation be part of the same spiritual process. In Alma’s words, we are to “give place” in our lives for the good seed of the gospel to grow—which involves a form of knowing that combines cognition as well as implementation (see Alma 32).
Given these foregoing views of restoration theology as they pertain to knowledge, truth, education, and wisdom, there is, finally, no comfort zone for vanity or hypocrisy. There is no sanctuary for them.
As far as salvational truths are concerned, therefore, the secular knowledge explosion in recent years—with all of its many and unarguable benefits to mankind—has not been a bang at all. It has been merely a whimper. It was the Restoration that provided the explosion of salvational knowledge.
Our different frame of reference should never cause us to preen or to be insensitive to the uncertainty or despair some feel in the world precisely because they believe sincerely that man exists in “godless, geometric space.”
As if speaking to this very point, the Prophet Joseph Smith observed, Knowledge does away with darkness, suspense and doubt; for these cannot exist where knowledge is. There is no pain so awful as that of suspense. [Teachings, pp. 287–88] Joseph, of course, was speaking about a particular kind of knowledge.
For mortals, therefore, the gospel is inexhaustible, because “the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10). Jacob’s words are strikingly similar to Paul’s: “For the Spirit speaketh the truth . . . of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be” (Jacob 4:13). Unsurprisingly, the scriptural definition of truth matches. It is the “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (D&C 93:24). What vastness!
Ironically, many refuse to examine gospel truths simply because of how God reveals them. These very methods swell skepticism among many. Furthermore, these divine disclosures are not democratically dispensed because such things are “made known unto them according to their faith and repentance and their holy works” (Alma 12:30; see also 2 Nephi 1:10).
The world in its search for physical security, for instance, tends to build Maginot Lines while naively neglecting its northern flank. It seeks to control the diseases flowing from sexual immorality but without honoring the principles of fidelity and chastity. The world in its wisdom constantly seeks to accommodate the natural man while gospel wisdom constantly urges us to put off the natural man (Mosiah 3:19). This is a pivotal point, and it makes all the difference!