Feet of Clay

[smac97]

"Feet of Clay" is "an idiom used to refer to a weakness or character flaw, especially in people of prominence and power."  It has its origins in the Bible:

Quote

The phrase originates from the Book of Daniel in the Bible. In it, Daniel interprets a dream of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. In that dream, a magnificent statue is seen with a head of gold, but weaker and less valuable metals beneath, until finally having feet of clay mixed with iron. Daniel predicts that the glorious statue shall be smashed by a stone into pieces, like chaff on the threshing floor, and blown to the winds. The image of the expensive statue laid low has resonated as an analogy for seemingly powerful figures with substantial weaknesses.

Elder Maxwel touched on this theme in a 1982 General Conference address, "A Brother Offended."  It's a really good talk about repairing relationships with those who have left the Church.  Some excerpts:

Quote

It is our individual and constant responsibility to avoid “looking beyond the mark.” (Jacob 4:14.) My focus is my responsibility! What is most to be focused on—the fact that Peter walked briefly on the water or that he did not continue? Has any other mortal so walked, even that briefly?

Imperfect people are, in fact, called by our perfect Lord to assist in His work. The Lord declared to certain associates of Joseph Smith that He knew that they had observed Joseph’s minor imperfections. Even so, the Lord then testified that the revelations given through the Prophet were true! (See D&C 67:5, 9.)

Unsurprisingly, therefore, we do notice each other’s weaknesses. But we should not celebrate them. Let us be grateful for the small strides that we and others make, rather than rejoice in the shortfalls. And when mistakes occur, let them become instructive, not destructive.

I cherish these generous lines from that very able, but very humble, prophet-editor Moroni:

“Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.” (Morm. 9:31; italics added.)

If such is our attitude, we are far less likely to be offended.

Besides, if the choice is between reforming other Church members or ourselves, is there really any question about where we should begin? The key is to have our eyes wide open to our own faults and partially closed to the faults of others—not the other way around! The imperfections of others never release us from the need to work on our own shortcomings.

People who spend their time searching for feet of clay will miss not only the heavens wherein God moves in His majesty and power, but God’s majesty as He improves and shapes a soul.

...

Prophets need tutoring, as do we all. However, this is something the Lord seems quite able to manage without requiring a host of helpers. The Lord provides discreet but needed feedback, as He did to Peter by the shattering sound of a rooster crowing (see Luke 22:54–62), or to an undelegating Moses through a caring, observing, and wise father-in-law—without Jethro’s placing an ad in the Sinai Sentinel (see Ex. 18:13–16).

Happily for us all, the gospel is redemptive. It focuses not on Peter’s lapse in the hall of the high priest, but on Peter’s testimony of Jesus, bold and ringing, before Annas and Caiaphas and the council. (See Acts 4:5–12.)

These things came to mind today as i read this article about the passing of Desmond Tutu, which recognizes his great contributions to the end of Apartheid, while also assessing things he did which, in the author's view, were "misjudgments."  Such lapses, the author notes, do not mean "we cannot admire him" because "{l}ike other figures, he was a man for a moment."  In other words, we can and ought to appreciate and respect him for his virtues, his shortcomings and errors notwithstanding.

There are many other admirable people whom, I think, we ought to likewise admire for their contributions and accomplishments, and then learn from - rather than condemn them for - their failings and shortcomings.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JustAnAustralian]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are many other admirable people whom, I think, we ought to likewise admire for their contributions and accomplishments, and then learn from - rather than condemn them for - their failings and shortcomings.

Seems to be related to the "never meet your hero" saying.

But yes, I agree with you plenty of great people around the world now and throughout history that have done wonderful things but had shortcomings.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

...................

Quote

if the choice is between reforming other Church members or ourselves, is there really any question about where we should begin? The key is to have our eyes wide open to our own faults and partially closed to the faults of others—not the other way around! The imperfections of others never release us from the need to work on our own shortcomings.

People who spend their time searching for feet of clay will miss not only the heavens wherein God moves in His majesty and power, but God’s majesty as He improves and shapes a soul.

.......................

There are many other admirable people whom, I think, we ought to likewise admire for their contributions and accomplishments, and then learn from - rather than condemn them for - their failings and shortcomings........................

King David was a man after God's own heart.  Yet he went on to commit adultery and murder.  In our day, the best place for such people is prison, where they may contemplate their sins in full.  We need to allow criminal law to take its proper course in all instances.  Once remorse and payment due has come, then and only then is it time for understanding and forgiveness.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

King David was a man after God's own heart.  Yet he went on to commit adultery and murder.  In our day, the best place for such people is prison, where they may contemplate their sins in full.  We need to allow criminal law to take its proper course in all instances.  Once remorse and payment due has come, then and only then is it time for understanding and forgiveness.

In his day the best place for such people was on the throne?

[Bob Crockett]

Extremely apt opening post.  If people could only see the Brethren this way. 

[BlueDreams]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Feet of Clay" is "an idiom used to refer to a weakness or character flaw, especially in people of prominence and power."  It has its origins in the Bible:

Elder Maxwel touched on this theme in a 1982 General Conference address, "A Brother Offended."  It's a really good talk about repairing relationships with those who have left the Church.  Some excerpts:

These things came to mind today as i read this article about the passing of Desmond Tutu, which recognizes his great contributions to the end of Apartheid, while also assessing things he did which, in the author's view, were "misjudgments."  Such lapses, the author notes, do not mean "we cannot admire him" because "{l}ike other figures, he was a man for a moment."  In other words, we can and ought to appreciate and respect him for his virtues, his shortcomings and errors notwithstanding.

There are many other admirable people whom, I think, we ought to likewise admire for their contributions and accomplishments, and then learn from - rather than condemn them for - their failings and shortcomings.

Thanks,

-Smac

I completely agree with the general idea of what you mentioned. It’s why I can still believe, for example, that BY was a prophet and disagree with some of his decisions and theological assumptions. Or like the art of some old artists who’s personal lives…let’s say are lacking. 
 

But the one thing I find interesting is what the article deems as errors of Tutu’s. They’re almost all from an ideological  framework…mostly social but veering political at varying points. Which means whether one views these as errors likely says more about one’s sociopolitical leaning and are not likely viewed universally as errors or “misjudgments.” Rather than errors I’d label these as disagreements.

That may seem like a small difference, but to me it introduces humility when assessing other’s views. Labeling these as errors can also lead to assuming value and rightness is found namely in our current world view and value systems. It can lead to “learning from another’s error” as just a means of re-validating that our own assumptions are correct. It can also lead to us never really inspect the limitations of our views or the potential value within theirs, leaving gaping blindspots. 
 

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t things that are almost always wrong or universally best to avoid. I just think we need to be cautious in defining what those actually are.

with luv, 

BD 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In his day the best place for such people was on the throne?

Some people are more equal than others.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I completely agree with the general idea of what you mentioned. It’s why I can still believe, for example, that BY was a prophet and disagree with some of his decisions and theological assumptions. Or like the art of some old artists who’s personal lives…let’s say are lacking. 

Yes, artists of various stripes (painters, musicians, actors, etc.) often given ample opportunity to take a "salad bar" approach, wherein we can take the good they created while leaving the rest.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

But the one thing I find interesting is what the article deems as errors of Tutu’s. They’re almost all from an ideological  framework…mostly social but veering political at varying points.

Yes.  I actually went out of my way to not present the article's criticisms of Tutu as established or justified ("assessing things he did which, in the author's view, were 'misjudgments...'").

There is no pristinely and utterly correct "ideological framework" held by any of us.  In some ways we have blind spots.  In other ways, we have differing opinions on topics about which reasonable minds can disagree.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Which means whether one views these as errors likely says more about one’s sociopolitical leaning and are not likely viewed universally as errors or “misjudgments.” Rather than errors I’d label these as disagreements.

We live in a very interconnected world.  There are very, very few things that are "viewed universally as errors or 'misjudgements.'"  And yet I think the individual can label something that he reasonably and in good faith believes to be wrong as a "misjudgment," or "moral failing," or some other descriptor carrying opprobrium within it.

Take fornication, for example.  While observant Latter-day Saints believe this to be a serious violation of God's commandments, many others think it of little or no consequence.  Notwithstanding that fornication is "not {} viewed universally as" an error or misjudgment or sin, I think the Latter-day Saints are at liberty to characterize it as such.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

That may seem like a small difference, but to me it introduces humility when assessing other’s views.

You raise a fair point, and one I think was made by Elder Maxwell as quoted in the OP:

Quote

I cherish these generous lines from that very able, but very humble, prophet-editor Moroni:

“Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.” (Morm. 9:31; italics added.)

When evaluating the merits and flaws in another person (including prominent historical figures) I think we ought to be circumspect in our language and seek to learn more than condemn or vilify.  

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Labeling these as errors can also lead to assuming value and rightness is found namely in our current world view and value systems. It can lead to “learning from another’s error” as just a means of re-validating that our own assumptions are correct. It can also lead to us never really inspect the limitations of our views or the potential value within theirs, leaving gaping blindspots. 

I think we should always be re-visiting our worldview and value systems, and the assumptions underlying them.  But meanwhile, there are times when we still have to make a moral judgment, where we need to plant a flag and say "this is wrong," even if that judgment is not universally shared.  

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t things that are almost always wrong or universally best to avoid. I just think we need to be cautious in defining what those actually are.

I agree.  One of my favorite films is 2006's Amazing Grace, which traces the decades-long effort by William Wilberforce and others to abolish the slave trade in the British Empire.  Wilberforce reached a moral conclusion (as opposed to a moral assumption) and proceeded on it.  And he continued in the effort for decades largely because he and those with him held on to the conviction that what they were fighting against was morally wrong and needed correction.

Political and economic systems and parties and ideologies are all a mishmash of principles that, at best, will only approximate an individual's moral code, and will virtually always have elements within them that the individual finds problematic or repugnant.  This is one of the reasons I am not hugely inclined to be overtly dedicated to a political party or ideology.

There are even things in the Church that I find challenging, sometimes even disconcerting.  But there are some precepts in play that help me along. 

First and foremost, I strongly believe that the Church is what it claims to be.  

Second, I think the Brethren are, in main, quite deserving of a fair measure of deference, respect and support.

Third, I think there is substantial evidence that the Brethren are, notwithstanding their individual flaws and cumulative/collective errors in administering the affairs of the Church, doing quite a good job.

Fourth, I often ask myself the "Armchair Quarterback Question" before passing judgment on another person's efforts: "Spencer, are you really so sure that you are in a position to adjudicate this person?  Do you really think you would have done a better job had you been in his place?"  The answer usually being somewhere between "No" and "Big Time No," I generally default to Moroni's maxim in Mormon 9:31.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

A great article on this general topic: J.K. Rowling and the death of nuance

Some excerpts:

Quote

There are few good things to say about the public conversation around transgender issues, which all too often shows us — all of us — at our worst. But it also offers up a seemingly endless series of case studies illustrating wider problems with the way contemporary culture and institutions deal with difficult ideas.

The latest lesson comes from Boswells School in Chelmsford, Essex. It has dropped J.K. Rowling’s name from one of its houses. Previously, she was honoured as a champion of self-discipline, regarded as a role model for children perhaps for her determination in starting her globally-successful series of books under difficult circumstances. Rowling wrote her first Harry Potter novel as a struggling single mother, telling stories to millions of people about a boy-wizard who does the right thing even when it’s difficult.

The school does not say, of course, precisely what Rowling has done or said that is wrong: vanishingly few of those who criticise her even bother trying to point to any particular words to justify themselves, probably because her words offer no such justification. Instead, simply discussing trans issues at all is, ipso facto, proof of guilt.

According to the BBC, Boswells School took this decision because Rowling’s 'views on this issue do not align with our school policy and school beliefs'.

Those few words capture something important and dismal about the way some people and organisations conduct themselves today. This approach demands total alignment of a person’s views and positions; anything less must not be tolerated. This is the elimination of nuance.

Quite so.  

Quote

If you take this position, it is impossible to say of someone: 'I agree with them about X but disagree with them about Y'. Instead, all you can do is divide the world up into two lists: people who you consider acceptable and everyone else. Troubling complexity is wished away, replaced by the childish comfort of oversimplification.
...
It {} suggests deep inconsistency and a lack of intellectual rigour. No doubt it is possible to construct a coherent worldview where a person who holds a position that does not 'align' with your beliefs cannot validly be admired for any of their actions or thoughts. But if that is Boswells’s position, can the school apply it consistently? I ask because of the people whose names remain on its houses.

One of them is Sir David Attenborough. Now, I bow to no one in my admiration of a man whose natural history films remain one of the greatest things about this country (and a reminder to those who would destroy it that the BBC is, on balance, a national asset). But while I strongly admire his work as a broadcaster, I incline towards disagreeing with him about population control.

Sir David has supported Population Matters, formerly known as the Optimum Population Trust. This is an organisation that thinks there are too many people in the world and has previously taken positions including arguing that Britain should not accept Syrian refugees because there are too many people here already.

I admire Sir David’s films. I don’t admire his views on population. What does that mean? Not much: that’s just how life works if you don’t attempt to see the world through the narrow lens of 'values' and purity tests. Can we assume that Boswells’s position is that Sir David’s views on population control are consistent with its policies and values?

Yep.  When such a rigid "alignment" requirement is imposed, the only options are A) to become quite intolerant (since nobody's beliefs perfectly "aligns" with another's), or else B) to become arbitrary and capricious, and cowardly, in applying this requirement.  A case in point:

Quote

P.S.

Since this piece was published, several people have kindly pointed out something I’d missed about this story. The school has replaced the name of J.K. Rowling with that of Dame Kelly Holmes, an Olympic athlete. And guess which issue Dame Kelly has expressed controversial views about...

Dame Holmes, it turns out, was in 2019 "targeted by trans activists after she objects to athletes who have transitioned competing in women's sports."  That sure seems pretty similar to what J.K. Rowling was also saying in 2019.

Anyway, back to the article:

Quote

What about Florence Nightingale, for whom another house is named? Most people, rightly, admire what Nightingale did to improve nursing and medical care. What about her support for colonialism, her belief in the 'necessity of engrafting civilized habits on uncivilized races'?

Presumably, if Boswells rejects house names on the basis that a person holds views inconsistent with the school values, we can infer that by retaining Nightingale House, the school considers Nightingale’s views of race and empire acceptable?

Or — and I’m just speculating here — is it possible that some vestigial part of the school’s collective intelligence remembers that not only is it possible for one person to do admirable things while holding contentious views, but it is also a purpose of education to equip people to understand and appreciate such distinctions?

That last bit deserves repetition: "{N}ot only is it possible for one person to do admirable things while holding contentious views, but it is also a purpose of education to equip people to understand and appreciate such distinctions."

Thanks,

-Smac