Tag: question

Living Polar Bears and Dead Frogs – My Learning Model

We learn best from experience that captures our imagination…

“A position that begins with an inflexible conclusion and seeks ‘evidence’ to support it is impervious to reason”

This is a quote that I have adapted from something written by Steve Cuno over five years ago. He has since removed the statement from his site, but not before it left it’s impact on my mind. I added the word “inflexible” to the statement so that it more correctly reflects truth.

This quote was the impetus for the creation of the following model. I’ve developed this tool to help explain how I prefer to confront new information that I am faced with.

At the top I have labeled “rigid”, and the bottom I have identified with “flexible”. A person can find themselves leaning toward one extreme or the other on any given subject. Dividing this line in the middle, on a horizontal axis, to the far left I have given the label “skeptical”, and to the far right, “accepting”. When presented with new information one can approach any given topic with a perspective ranging from being skeptical about it to being more inclined toward believing and accepting it. It is valuable to consider where you fall in this spectrum when confronted with new information.

The top of the model can be epitomized with this quote from Mark Twain:

“Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul.”

Or this one:

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

The top left quadrant I have identified as “blind skepticism” while the top right is labeled “blind faith”. Either way, it should be evident that neither method is considered a good approach to learning. A sincere student of truth should seek to orient him or herself toward the flexible end of the model. The bottom left quadrant I have designated “open skepticism” while the bottom right is “open faith”.

In LDS scripture we read:

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. (D&C 88:118)

What this tells us is that the preferred method of learning is by faith. But “as all have not faith”, then seek diligently to learn from best books etc., while still striving to employ faith in the process. In other words, learning from a skeptical frame of mind is still a useful model, as long as you can remain flexible and allow your thinking to be influenced by truth. Be willing to let go of what is false. Always approach learning with the intent to move toward the bottom right of the quadrant in the above model.

Another example of this idea is given by Alma in the Book of Mormon. What Alma is asking us to do (in Alma 32) is something different than how we are taught in school. Alma was saying, “Hey, why don’t you just experiment with this thing, and plant it as if you believed it. Plant it as if you had faith in it. So forget about the pros and cons, accept the Book of Mormon at face value, and let the Book of Mormon define itself; let the Book of Mormon be the source from which you evaluate whether or not it enlightens you, whether or not it appeals to your heart, to your soul, and to your mind.” Or, if you are not Mormon, use the Bible, or whatever other Holy Book that you trust as foundational to your faith.

For the non-Mormon Christian audience, we see ample evidence from the Bible that support these ideas as well.

For we walk by faith, not by sight. (2 Cor 5:7, see also 1 Thes 2:13)
Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge. (Proverbs 23:12)

There are a number of ways that faith can be defined. In the context of this model, I’m defining faith as a principal of action. Faith is the moving cause of all we do. The principal that excites or gives energy to any activity or pursuit, mental or physical, is motivated by what I am referring to here as faith. Would you exert yourself to pursue any activity unless you believed it would return the desired result? As Napolean Hill defined it in his book Think and Grow Rich:

Faith is the ‘external elixir’ that gives life, power, and action, to the impulse of thought.

To this I would add that faith, as a moving cause of action, is not limited to temporal concerns, but applies to spiritual concerns as well.

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Heb 11:6)

For these reasons I submit that the preferred method of learning is by faith, but that as long as you can be flexible in your approach, a skeptical frame of mind is still a useful model for discovering truth.

The top of the model could be represented simply with a period. The period closes the sentence. A period makes a statement, dot, the end. No more to be said, no more to learn, no more divine wisdom to be gained.

The bottom of the model, on the other hand, could be represented with a question mark. A question mark opens. It’s only when we ask questions that we get answers.

On the left is a skeptical approach to learning. Many fear (and justifiably so) being taken advantage of. The critical approach is employed to protect against this. The right side of the model represents an accepting or believing approach. This may seem counterintuitive to the skeptic, but it is precisely this approach that is encouraged in many religious texts and spiritual practices.

Read the following statement by Hugh Nibley and consider the top of the model where you see “blind skepticism” and “blind faith”:

If I come down and say, “I just saw a polar bear in Rock Canyon,” what are you supposed to say? “If you say you saw a polar bear in Rock Canyon, Brother Nibley, I believe you.” Well, that’s terrible. I don’t want to hear that. That takes all the wind out of my sails. I want you to go up and see for yourself. Or you might say, “Of course, there’s no polar bear. You didn’t see anything of the sort. No polar bears are found below a certain latitude. Polar bears just aren’t found in these regions, so you didn’t see any polar bear.” Well, I might have; there might have been one that escaped from the zoo. But you don’t know. The thing for you to do is not just take it because I say so, or not to reject it because you are being scientific and you don’t think it can be possible. Find out for yourself.

Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Semester 2, pg 351-352

The bottom quadrants of the model encourage exploration and application. As John Seel writes:

We learn best from experience that captures our imagination and which we subsequently reflect upon analytically: hand, heart, and head.

The New Copernicans, page 23

The left bottom quadrant is where I would place the working principal of knowledge, as oppose to wisdom to the right. By way of illustration, there is value in the knowledge gained by dissecting a frog to learn about its organs, muscles, and bones. But approaching it from the bottom right quadrant, there is much wisdom gained from appreciating the beauty of the living frog – hearing its song, observing how it moves, or trying to capture its color on canvas.

Standing Against Authorities of the Church?

When the standard curriculum of church meetings and conferences does not go deeper than basic milk, and my craving for deeper life sustaining meat is filled by a personal study, how do I avoid the natural tendency to become prideful because I think I now know more than others?

Preparing for last week’s Sunday School lesson (yes, I’ve actually been preparing and giving a lesson during this time of quarantine), I ran across this quote by President Kimball, explaining how dangerous pride can be.

“To satisfy his own egotism, to feed his pride, to justify vain ambition, a man took a stand against the authorities of the Church. He followed the usual pattern – no apostasy at first, only superiority of knowledge with mild criticism of the brethren. He loved the brethren, he said, but they had failed to see things he saw. He was sure his interpretation was correct. He would still love the Church, he maintained, but his criticism grew and developed into ever-widening areas. He could not yield in good conscience; he had his pride. He spoke of it among his associates; he talked of it at home. His children did not accept his philosophy wholly, but their confidence was shaken in the brethren and the Church. They were frustrated and became inactive. They married out of the Church and he lost them. He later realized the folly of his position and returned to humbleness and activity, but he had lost his children.”

(Kimball, Spencer W. Faith Precedes the Miracle. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1972, p. 306.)

This caught my attention because I have questioned authorities of the church myself on this blog. These remarks by President Kimball raised a couple of questions of my own. He stated that this man’s children’s “confidence was shaken in the brethren and the Church”. The first question to cross my mind was, why is the focus on the “brethren and the Church”? Why not Christ? And where it appears I am guilty of what could be seen as questioning authority myself, my second question is, what is the difference between “taking a stand against the authorities of the Church”, and raising concerns, asking questions, or pointing out what appears to be inconsistencies between teachings in conference and scripture? What if, instead of being seen as antagonistic to authorities, my questions are sincere concerns, rooted in a desire to truly understand what it means to come unto Christ?

In a recent Address to CES Religious Educators, Elder M. Russell Ballard counseled teachers to prepare and teach in ways that will “build unwavering faith in the lives of our precious youth… Gone are the days,” he said, “when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. Gone are the days when students were protected from people who attacked the Church.” (An Evening with Elder M. Russell Ballard, Salt Lake Tabernacle, February 26, 2016)

Perusing back through my previous blog posts, I took note of some sincere questions that have risen from things general authorities have taught.

The question isn’t do I think I know something Elder Basset or Elder Corbridge does not. The question is, did Joseph Smith know something they do not? When what the authority of the church teaches differs from what Joseph taught or what scripture teaches, or what Christ taught, how do I reconcile that? President Joseph Fielding Smith put it this way:

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine… If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it.”

(Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 203.)

Lest I be misunderstood, I agree with President Kimball in the opening quote. He is cautioning us against pride. The antidote to which, as President Benson reminded us, is humility.

When the standard curriculum of church meetings and conferences does not go deeper than basic milk, and my craving for deeper life sustaining meat is filled by a personal study, how do I avoid the natural tendency to become prideful because I think I now know more than others? Joseph Smith eluded to this very dilemma in his letter to the church from Liberty Jail (words that belong somewhere between verse 25 and 26 of our Doctrine and Covenants section 121):

“How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations — too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God, according to the purposes of His will, from before the foundation of the world! We are called to hold the keys of the mysteries of those things that have been kept hid from the foundation of the world until now. Some have tasted a little of these things, many of which are to be poured down from heaven upon the heads of babes; yea, upon the weak, obscure and despised ones of the earth. Therefore we beseech of you, brethren, that you bear with those who do not feel themselves more worthy than yourselves, while we exhort one another to a reformation with one and all both old and young, teachers and taught, both high and low, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female; let honesty and sobriety, and candor, and solemnity, and virtue, and pureness, and meekness, and simplicity crown our heads in every place and in fine, become as little children, without malice, guile or hypocrisy.”

(TPJS, p 137, emphasis mine)

In the end, when it comes to receiving light and truth from God, I don’t believe education is of any real advantage. Humility is the only real, great advantage that any soul ever possesses. On this point, I have to admit, I don’t feel in possession of any great advantage.