Randy Powell is a Ph.D. candidate in History.
Just the other day I sat in my office discussing with a friend a study conducted by a literary scholar, now Dean of Arts and Sciences of the university at which I study, who wrote an article claiming proved once and for all that Solomon Spaulding and Sydney Rigdon authored the Book of Mormon.[1] In this conservation, I expressed doubt that his computational textual analysis actually proved anything as it conveniently ignored the larger historical context. Not only that, but I have had too many bad experiences with technology to put any kind of certainty into it. But this article is not what I want to focus on. Rather, I would like to discuss what came after. One of my professors walked by and entered the conversation. I was quickly reminded that Joseph Smith was indeed a fraud and made everything up (all religion is a fraud according to this him) and that faith blinded me to this fact. According to this professor, faith is nothing more or less than the unseeing acceptance of certain tenants or ideas without analysis. Faith is a passive thing, one that ignores evidence in favor of “just believing.”
I was shocked, saddened, hurt. Certainly, I thought he would know after reading my work and seeing how I study the past that I don’t simply ignore contrary evidence or simply believe what others say without a critical eye. I had hoped he would assume that my membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was based in a critical analysis of evidence and facts, not just the passive acceptance of tenets without thoughts of my own. More than that, I held onto a most uncharitable grudge. Looking back at that moment, I had a choice to make. I could take his comments as a personal attack or I could think more carefully and thoughtfully about his comments. I chose the former, and arguably the easier way. However, as time passed, I decided to try to understand his comments from his perspective. Instead of taking his comments as a personal attack, I took them as a sign of respect. He respected me enough to share his thoughts with me. As his student, he was challenging me as he did in class, not insulting me. Like any good teacher, he was attempting to engage me in a debate as intellectual equals. I was too offended, however, to do that and I missed an important opportunity to treat someone with a different viewpoint like Jesus would.
All of us have strong beliefs, and when someone says something that we perceive as contradicting or belittling them, it is our natural response to feel attacked or insulted. Often, people do not mean to attack us (sometimes they do though). Rather, our anger and frustration often come from expectations of how people should behave that are not necessarily reasonable or grounded in reality. When we understand that we are all in, as David A. Bednar explained, a “learning laboratory,” then we recognize that differing outlooks are to be expected and natural.[2] When we react negatively based on unrealistic assumptions (usually how people should agree with everything we say), we lose vital openings to practice Christ-like charity and love those different from ourselves.
In our history, there are many examples of even our leaders jumping to conclusion without fully trying to understand the perspectives of others. In 1949, the Catholic priests in Utah published a pamphlet titled “A Foreign Mission Close to Home.” David O. McKay and other leaders were offended, believing that Catholics fully intended to convert Latter-day Saints. The only problem is, church leaders did not actually read the pamphlet. They assumed that the word “mission” in the title had the same connotation as a “mission” in the LDS Church. They envisioned an army of Catholics seeking to bring members of the Church into the Catholic fold. However, for Catholics, the word mission meant something else. It signified a small, struggling, and underfunded parish, not necessarily proselytization. In fact, the pamphlet never advocated converting Latter-day Saints, but was published to raise funds from the small congregations doting the Utah landscape. Because church leaders applied their own understandings to a certain term, it caused a rift with our fellow Christians that took time to mend.[3]
This is a powerful lesson for us today, whether in our interactions with those in and outside the church. Even our fellow members have vastly diverging understandings of the same issues. If in Sunday school, sacrament meeting, or Family Home Evening, someone says something that apparently disparages our own perspectives, beliefs, or worldviews, can go with our gut reactions or take a step back. Jesus’ question “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” certainly applies to hypocrites but moves us all to look inward.[4] He asks us to evaluate ourselves and not judge others. We must first look inwardly at ourselves, our assumptions and expectations instead of giving into anger or hatred. Only then can we live in peace with those who engage the world differently.
\
[1] I won’t go into the lengthy history of this idea, but suffice it to say that since 1833, various individuals have argued that an obscure author Solomon Spaulding, with some religious embellishment from Sidney Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon.
[2] David A. Bednar, “ And Nothing Shall Offend Them,” October 2006, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/and-nothing-shall-offend-them?lang=eng.
[3] Gregory A Prince and Wm. Robert Price, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 115-119.
[4] Matthew 7:3.
Comments
Post a Comment