How Right Are You?

[stemelbow]

Is it more important to find unity than to be right?

If the Atonement was the greatest work accomplished on earth, eternally speaking, and the Atonement's significance is at least in part related to His prayer in the garden then unity seems to be far more the gist of all this than "I'm the rightest". The Savior plead for others to find unity in Him and in the Father. That seems like a rather significant thing.

Men are called into positions to lead the church, for instance. They aren't perfect men by any means. they have weaknesses just like others. They are subject to err in judgment. But, with that said, is it more important to support their decisions even if they are wrong than to take a stand opposing their errors? In the end what does it matter if the leaders are wrong from time to time? There may be some lasting effect in some individuals but overall things perhaps move forward, at least in principle. If, for instance, the ban on the priesthood was really just big mistakes made by leaders of the Church, in the end the mistake is corrected. Perhaps God has a way to make it up to those who would have received the priesthood and church and Christ had they not been put off by the ban? I mean it could be seen as a shame upon us individually to think we went along with a priesthood ban (this is assuming some here are older than I am, since I never was part of that crap like perhaps some of you), but what is personal shame? Its somehow related to vanity. I recall reading the David O'McKay biography, The Rise of Modern Mormonism and in it there is some detail of the beginning of the Church in Africa and how the ban played a role. It seems in some measure without some outspokenness regarding the ban the question would not have been seriously broached, the supplications would not have been offered and the ban would not have been lifted. So perhaps there's a line we need to determine whether its worth crossing.

In the end, we're just weak people trying our best to align ourselves with what we think is good. i don't think there's anyway around having to live with mistakes of others. Every poster here, every person on this planet has some wrong ideas that they hold too, I'm thinking.

[bluebell]

Sounds like Dr. Phil. His favorite question seems to be, "do you want to be happy or do you want to be right?" I think it's a good point. Somethings are worth fighting about.

When it starts to be about being right, especially in a religious discussion, then it's become about the wrong thing.

[Wants2know]

Depends…. with my kids…. It's more important to be right. With my husband… unity (but don't tell him I said that).

[thesometimesaint]

I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

[LeSellers]

I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

I allow myself one mistake a day.

At this point, I can't die until December 18, 2236 January 4. 2237 February 5, 2237.

Lehi

Edited December 16, 2011 by LeSellers

[BCSpace]

Is it more important to find unity than to be right?

Absolutely not. You figure out what's right and unify around that. The Gospel is a Divider.

[stemelbow]

Absolutely not. You figure out what's right and unify around that. The Gospel is a Divider.

As is sometimes the case, the figuring takes some effort and time. I don't know if you buy into the idea that the Church was wrong regarding the priesthood ban or not so it might not serve a very good example, but there are perhaps others. What do we do when the figuring results in an indeterminate answer? Do we not touch the subject? Do we take a stand and unite on that stand until further light and knowledge is gained? What exactly?

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

[Nominee]

As is sometimes the case, the figuring takes some effort and time. I don't know if you buy into the idea that the Church was wrong regarding the priesthood ban or not so it might not serve a very good example, but there are perhaps others. What do we do when the figuring results in an indeterminate answer? Do we not touch the subject? Do we take a stand and unite on that stand until further light and knowledge is gained? What exactly?

I can't help but notice the similarities between your concerns and questions and the concerns and questions of a young boy named Joseph Smith. So I would recommend turning your questions to God.

Ask, and it shall be given unto you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

~3 Nephi 14:7

Oh, and listen to the prophets until God tells you not to. And then ask him to clarify maybe because it would be confusing I'm sure if God were to actually say "don't follow my prophets."

Edited December 16, 2011 by Nominee

[BCSpace]

Absolutely not. You figure out what's right and unify around that. The Gospel is a Divider.

As is sometimes the case, the figuring takes some effort and time. I don't know if you buy into the idea that the Church was wrong regarding the priesthood ban or not so it might not serve a very good example, but there are perhaps others. What do we do when the figuring results in an indeterminate answer? Do we not touch the subject? Do we take a stand and unite on that stand until further light and knowledge is gained? What exactly?

I think there are many doctrines that are too long standing and too clear to mistake yet some defy them anyway because it conflicts with their lifestyle or worldview. It also depends on how much one thinks the Church is guided by God. One can get to a point where they might as well not believe that it is and so might as well not be LDS. And yet there are indeed instances of the prophets and apostles giving their opinion. That has been resolved, however, by the Church's (now 40+ years old) stand that what is published is official doctrine and what is not published by the Church is not.

As for the priesthood ban, I think it's pretty clear that the Church, at worst, was trying to follow Abraham 1. I don't believe God would have allowed it to go on as long as it did without a legitimate purpose. I do believe that if one believes the Church was mistaken to implement it, one also wholly rejects the Church itself as guided by God. I am nuanced here in that I think one can get away with believing the Church might have been mistaken in how it was implemented; for example, it seems that, historically, the descendents of Ham were not necessarily African or black. The ban is still official doctrine and there is no mention of it being wrong or misguided so the above is pretty much the only way to roll if one claims to believe.

Edited December 16, 2011 by BCSpace

[Thunderfire]

In the end, we're just weak people trying our best to align ourselves with what we think is good. i don't think there's anyway around having to live with mistakes of others. Every poster here, every person on this planet has some wrong ideas that they hold too, I'm thinking.

You bring up a good point in that all of us are weak, trying as best as we can to do what is right. It was a major epiphany for me to realize that while I believe I am right about some things, I only think I am right about other things.

A prophet gave me some wise counsel which resonated with me. I must decrease so Jesus can increase in me. I have a little strength and it's best used when I use this strength to decrease allowing Jesus greater strength to flow through me.

[Sandy Petersen]

There are four possible situations here.

1) I know I am absolutely right, and it is an important matter. In this case I get up on my high horse and defy the world. Real Life example: I am pressured by co-workers to drink champagne because it is a major company event. I refuse and purposely put coke in my glass so it is clearly NOT champagne when I drink the toast with them. I know I am right because I have a testimony of the Word of Wisdom, and it is important because I want to make it clear to my co-workers that my religion is a serious matter for me.

2) I know I am absolutely right, but it is really nothing very important. In this case I am willing to pull in my horns and be silent. Real Life example: an elderly ward member preaches from the pulpit that it is counter to church culture to wear a colored shirt on sunday, and only white shirts are acceptable. I do not accept this doctrine in the slightest, but I did not feel impelled to bear my testimony of colored shirts during gospel doctrine lesson immediately following (I'm the instructor).

2) I am not sure I am absolutely right, and it is something that is very important. In this case I look for guidance from those whom I expect to be wiser. Real Life example: the ban on the priesthood bothered me growing up and throughout my mission. I was highly suspicious that it might just be cultural. But I was willing to let the church leaders deal with it. I was sure they were putting even more thought into it than me. As it turns out I was right (that they were thinking about it) and the ban was enacted shortly after my return from my mission. Yay!

2) I am not sure I am absolutely right, and it is something that is not important. In this case I shrug it off. Real Life example: my wife rearranges all my thousands of books into a sub-optimal layout so that it is difficult to access what I want, but she thinks it looks nicer. I admit I do not shower praise upon the new system but I don't lobby against it.

[Lightbearer]

Is it more important to find unity than to be right?

I wonder how God and Christ would have answered this question in the grand council? Would Lucifer have been cast out for rebellion if God had thought it was more important to be unified than to be right? I am certain that it is more important to be right (if one is indeed right!) than to be unified... otherwise we are tossed too and fro by every wind of doctrine by the cunning slieght of men:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"

(New Testament | Ephesians 4:11 - 14)

In fact as the above quote points out that is why we have apostles and prophets in the Church, so we can come to the unity of the faith. We will not do that if we just agree with our enemies and those who try to destroy my faith in the intrest of unity. I am well aware of the importance of avoiding contention, but that does not mean that we must deny our faith or try to compromise the doctrinal purity of the Gospel just for the sake of not arguing. The following also gives an interesting take on the OP:

"Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 71:7 - 10)

Oh and for the record in my view the priesthood ban was not a mistake, it was doctrinal, just as the lifting of that ban was doctrinal and yes I am old enough to remember before 1978... and there was no backpeddling or denouncing of the church's original position, there was only joy that the Lord had saw fit to lift the ban as He had taught that it would be in His own due time.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm always right, unless I'm wrong. Of course, I am never wrong. (But then again, I could be wrong about that ...)

P.S.: OK, I'll venture a rare, serious contribution to a thread. Doctrine & Covenants 38:27 (going from memory on the reference, but unless you've been comatose throughout your membership in the Church, you'll recognize it) doesn't say, "I say unto you, that ye must be right; and if ye are not right, ye are not mine." It says, "I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine."

Edited December 16, 2011 by Kenngo1969

[CV75]

Is it more important to find unity than to be right?

***

But, with that said, is it more important to support their decisions even if they are wrong than to take a stand opposing their errors?

***

I think being one with Christ is the same as being right, and is manifest in different ways under different situations. Where this is a function of subjecting our will to His, it is not manifest as enmity against others, but as the pure love of Christ towards them. It takes some finesse and inspiration to address honest differences with charity, humility and the help of the Spirit.

The battle stories in the Book of Mormon show how this works on a grand scale, and the letters between Moroni and Pahoran show it on a smaller scale. I would say that such inspired records are more reliable about the correct spiritual principles involved than conclusions drawn from a biography no matter how close the source.

Not just anyone can correctly tell whose outspokenness is inspired of God (and which of these influences His servants into action), and whose uninspired outspokenness is leveraged by God to bring about His purposes through His servants. It is telling who is taking or attributing credit for a change and how, or who is left on the outside looking in when this occurs. I think a key to understanding this dynamic is recognizing who have the keys.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

I know, I thought you were wrong…that was the only time for me. Were it not for that my record would be perfect.

[mfbukowski]

In the end, we're just weak people trying our best to align ourselves with what we think is good. i don't think there's anyway around having to live with mistakes of others. Every poster here, every person on this planet has some wrong ideas that they hold too, I'm thinking.

You got that one right! Glad to have you back from that other place. It's a huge time waster!

[mfbukowski]

I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

I make mistakes all the time. I even made one just a while back. 1987 I think.

[Honorentheos]

Hi Stem,

Your question is one that extends beyond just the LDS faith, but into almost every significant divide in human cultures.

Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia and his colleges identified five "innate, and universally available psychological systems" that transcend all cultures. Yet, within each culture how people prioritize these systems tends to vary along two paths. The five systems are:

Harm/Care - the importance of preventing pain in others

Fairness/Reciprocity - the importance of allowing other's the right to equal treatment

Ingroup/Loyalty - Importance of having defined boundaries between the us and them

Authority/Respect - importance of leadership, respect of those in authority

Purity - importance of avoiding disgust

In general, people tend to fall in one of two groups - those who place the first two systems as being more important than the other three, and those who tend to place the them all about equal but lower than the first group rates the importance of preventing harm and fairness. Truth is, it has little to do with your religious upbringing as to which way you'll lean, and you find people of both types in every group. But I think most Mormons tend to be of the latter catagory - placing a higher emphasis on loyalty, respect for authority, and maintaining purity than they worry about ensuring fair treatment.

If you're interested, I'd suggest the following links -

This is a presentation on TED that Jonathan Haidt gave on the above (warning, while he doesn't swear, he shows two graphics that some might find offensive due to edited profanity and the use of the Lord's name): Jonathan Haidt at TED

After that primer, you might be interested in some of the material available here: Moral Foundations Website

ETA - corrected misquote of Haidt's findings

Edited December 17, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Daimao]

Slartibartfast: "The chances of finding out what's really going on in the universe are so remote, the only thing to do is hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied … Look at me: I design coastlines... Science has achieved some wonderful things of course, but I'd far rather be happy than right any day."

Arthur Dent: "And are you?"

Slartibartfast: "No, that's where it all falls down, of course."

Arthur Dent: "Pity, it sounded like quite a good lifestyle otherwise."

Myself, I'd rather be lucky than good, but that's another discussion.

[mfbukowski]

After that primer, you might be interested in some of the material available here: Moral Foundations Website

Looks very interesting- thanks

I think that last link is bad- at least it didn't work for me

[mfbukowski]

But I think most Mormons tend to be of the latter catagory - placing a higher emphasis on loyalty, respect for authority, and maintaining purity than they worry about preventing harm or ensuring fair treatment.

And yet,

Fairness/Reciprocity - the importance of allowing other's the right to equal treatment

sounds an awful lot like the "golden rule".

Of course the first two are usually recognized as "liberal" values, politically speaking, and those you ascribe to us are considered "conservative". (I have not listened to the video yet- but that seems obvious)

So we don't tend to follow the golden rule and have authoritarian values?

I have to stay loyal to my tribe of course and attack you, you understand..... even if it is unfair....

Edited December 17, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Honorentheos]

Hi MFB -

I mistyped the first time and had corrected my original post so perhaps you saw this earlier and copied it? The results of Haidt's polls show those who self identify as "conservative" have what he calls a "five point" moral system that includes all five of the systems I listed in the post. But the mass of these five values sits slightly lower on the graph than the placement of the two-points self-identifying liberal generally value highest. Yet, in both groups the prevention of harm is rated highest relative to the other values.

So I think his data indicates all people, across cultures, generally associated morality with the prevention of harm. If you watch the video, towards the end he offers some insight into why liberals could learn a lot from conservatives about why we may have an evolutionary predisposition for valuing authority. That being, people tend to stop doing good when there isn't a form of punishment involved. Turns out, we aren't all that altruistic.

That causes a problem for secular humanists, IMO, and strengthens the argument for some religionists that society needs religion or something very much like it. In our country, that often gets juxtiposed with the state-as-religious-substitute which can lead to unfortunate overreaching. But it isn't entirely wrong. I'm not sure it should be considered bad, either. But that's too much of a tangent.

Here's Haidt's website address in case the link is bad again, so you can copy-paste into your browser - http://faculty.virgi...b/mft/index.php

ETA - I guess I didn't correct the original post in every instance. Good catch. I'll fix it.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

I have to stay loyal to my tribe of course and attack you, you understand..... even if it is unfair....

That's ok. My all-encompassing sense of fairness makes room for you to do so and appreciates that you have the right since the harm done is minimal (water off a ducks back) while if it gives you a sense of well-being I have no issue with being your Huckleberry.

[Sine Saw Square]

The biblical account of Abraham commanded of God to sacrifice his son comes to mind. I'm sure he felt/knew that human sacrifice was wrong and that he was right about the issue but was willing to obey and therefore be in unity with the will of God.

Maybe the question should qualify with whom you are seeking unity? And how the rightness of that unity can be judged by a third party?

Edited December 17, 2011 by Sine Saw Square