Why Follow the Prophets?

Man, though a child of God, is estranged from God. His is estranged because of the Fall of Adam, which caused mankind to become unlike God. Salvation is the process of becoming like God so that when we again see God, we can endure His presence. Those who refuse to change to become like God will shrink from Him when they come again into His presence.

The nature of God is that He is righteous; that is to say He is the fullness of pure love. Fallen man, being subject to Satan through the flesh, cannot love purely, cannot be fully righteous. Those who reject salvation and thus do not become pure are embarrassed to stand in the presence of pure beings, so they seek other, more comfortable habitations in the lower kingdoms.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is then the missionary message to all the world of the need to learn to love purely and how to gain that ability. The priesthood is the authority to preach the gospel message and to administer the ordinances. The ordinances are the occasions whereby the power of godliness is transmitted to men, that they may become able to love purely. No man has that power of himself and so it is by grace that we are saved. The Church is the brooder where the flock is warmed, protected and instructed so that each person may progress fully through the steps of salvation.

The prophets are the priesthood leaders of the Church. They are men who have progressed on the path of salvation and can assist others to do so. They have the authority and power of God and know how to do what they are assisting others to do.

Why have prophets? Does one really need to follow the prophets? One does not need to accept and follow God’s prophets if he is content with himself the way he is. But any person who hungers to be righteous, to love purely, must accept the prophets and their instructions and the ordinances they administer to be saved. There is no other way.

To accept the prophets is to accept our God, Jesus Christ and His program of salvation and righteousness. To reject the prophets is to disassociate with them and to reject Jesus Christ and the opportunity to attain to pure love.

One way of showing the essence of the agency of man is to say that man is free to choose on the one hand to reject God, His prophets and salvation, and on the other hand to accept God and through God’s prophets become godly. The choice we make and how soon and how fast we pursue salvation is the measure of our love and concern for someone besides ourselves.

Posted in 2026 Essay | Leave a comment

Am I My Brother’s Keeper

Who is my brother’s keeper?

My father, of course.

When the Lord came to Cain and asked of Abel’s whereabouts, Cain made what should have been a perfectly legitimate counter-inquiry. In asking, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” he was essentially saying, “Abel is not under my stewardship, so why call me to account concerning him?” But it was the Lord’s question and not Cain’s retort which was appropriate. Though not appointed to be Abel’s keeper, Cain had seized unrighteous dominion, presumptuously acting as Abel’s keeper in taking his life.

What is a keeper, anyway? A keeper is a master, one who has power and authority over someone or something. In Gospel terms, keepers are stewards; those who preside over a divinely appointed jurisdiction. To be a righteous keeper is perhaps the most demanding opportunity which eternity affords. One must first overcome the world through full acceptance of the Savior, submitting to His will in all things as He submits to the Father; but one must also take upon himself the authority and obligations of the Holy Priesthood and exercise righteous dominion therein. Anyone who presides in the Kingdom of God is a keeper or steward: Fathers and mothers, ministering brothers and sisters, quorum and group leaders, Bishoprics, Stake Presidencies, General Authorities, and the Lord himself.

What then am I?

I am my brother’s brother, not his keeper. It is my opportunity to love him, to share his burdens, to encourage, to support. But it is not my right to command him to repent, to harrow up his soul in regard to his sins, to tell or suggest what he ought to do; all these things belong to my brother’s keepers—our father, his bishop, etc.

Oh, what a world of good things can I do for and with my brother without presuming to be his keeper, his Lord and Master! If I can thrill to be his brother and love him and support him as I should, we will both be better sons of our father, better servants of the Lord.

Few notions have wrought as much havoc in the history of mankind as the misplaced suggestion that I ought to be my brother’s keeper. Under this banner have paraded all manner of tyranny, oppression, restraint, burning at the stake, meddling, etc. Almost every tyrant has seen himself as the great benefactor of his people, delivering them from their waywardness, rewarding with life or death, wealth or poverty, as he sees fit. Professors tend to see themselves as custodians of the truth, and as such, proper keepers of the minds of their students, administering rewards and punishments according to their own good pleasure. Professional people of all sorts see themselves as benevolent keepers of people’s bodies, sanity, tastes, culture—the list exhausts most every human activity. And some of these people are not above the use of force to inflict life or death, wealth or poverty, truth, health, sanity, culture, etc., on their “less gifted” brothers.

But there is a God and Father of us all. He only and those whom He appoints to stand in His stead have any right to be our keepers. Let us then be better brothers by ceasing to be usurpatious keepers. Let us reject tyranny in every guise and serve Him only whose right it is to reign. And only as we acknowledge and faithfully serve our common Father can we ever truly act as brothers and let peace come on earth.

Posted in 2026 Essay | Leave a comment

Happiness

There are three basic human states of euphoria (good feeling):

  1. Pleasure, which is physical
  2. Happiness, which is mental
  3. Joy, which is spiritual

Pleasure and joy are passive; they are things that happen to us. Happiness is active, it is something we consciously and deliberately choose to do.

The opposite of pleasure is pain. Pleasure becomes pain when too intense, and some mild pains are pleasurable. The opposite of happiness is depression (dread), which is a form of fear. The opposite of joy is remorse (bitterness).

Happiness is a mental attitude. Its primary foundational component is gratitude, and it thrives on one’s appreciation for one’s situation.

Happiness does not depend upon pleasure, on what one possesses, where one lives, or how one is treated by others.

Happiness is a rejoicing in one’s blessings and opportunities. Happiness is mental health.

Happiness increases physical health. Depression and fear decrease physical health.

The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ can help one be happy, but a person can be happy not knowing it. If a person knows the Restored Gospel and refuses to be happy, their state is worse. In the Gospel framework, happiness is a gratitude for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and all they do for us. Not to be grateful upon knowing the Gospel of Jesus Christ makes things worse.

Some things to do which increase happiness:

  1. Never give offense, never be offended by anyone.
  2. When depression tempts, count your blessings.
  3. Be as a little child before conscience, doing its bidding. But do not listen to the evil spirit.
  4. Spend each day working hard to do good, including physical labor.
  5. Remain humble. Pride and selfishness are the enemy.
  6. Keep the commandments.
Posted in 2026 Essay | Leave a comment

The Four Kingdoms of Eternity

We learn from the scriptures that in the hereafter there are three kingdoms of glory where all serve Jesus Christ in eternity and one kingdom not of glory where Satan reigns supreme. The following is my understanding of the differences between these four kingdoms:

The Celestial Kingdom is governed by our Heavenly Father, and all who are there are there because they want to be there and to do what Celestial beings do: They minister to others, blessing them in the name of and by the power of Jesus Christ with the magnitude of the light of the sun.

The Terrestrial Kingdom is governed by Jesus Christ, and all who are there serve Christ. They were the honorable mean and women of the earth during their mortality, carefully keeping all of the Ten Commandments. They also serve others in the name of and by the power of Jesus Christ with the magnitude of the light of the moon.

The Telestial Kingdom is governed by the Holy Ghost, and all who are there serve others in the name and power of Jesus Christ, with magnitude of the light of the stars. These are they who broke the Ten Commandments in their mortality but afterward repented of having done so.

The Kingdom of no glory is presided over by Satan. These are they who delight in and do only hurt and destroy others, having learned to do those things in mortality by seeking the destruction of others using the power and influence of Satan.

Everyone in a kingdom of glory is happy and is satisfied with their situation. Everyone in the kingdom not of glory is unhappy and is never satisfied with their situation and accomplishments.

And everyone in every kingdom is exactly where they themselves chose to be. (See D&C 76)

Posted in 2026 Essay | Leave a comment

Theory of Self, 1985

CCR March 1985 Theory 12

(Note: This theory is constructed from the perspective of an omniscient observer. Since the author is not an omniscient observer, it represents his hypothesis as to what an omniscient observer would say about the following subjects.)

Self: A normal conscious human being considered as semi-attached to his/her body, and to some degree an independent agent.

Body: A personal material intermediary between a self and its universe.

Universe: Everything a self believes to exist outside its body.

Only three kinds of things exist for the self: 1) One’s self, 2) One’s body, and 3) One’s “other”: the universe. This is the egocentric predicament.

The basic functions of a self are volition, feeling, thinking and acting.

  • Volition is the choices of the self for feeling, thinking and acting.
  • Feeling is value placed on ideas, which value 1) stimulates thinking, and 2) generates emotions in the body. Feeling and emotion increase the power of the self to act.
  • Thinking is the creation and ordering of ideas.
  • Acting is deporting the body relative to the universe.

A self is a will, a volition. Aspects of a well-furnished self:

  1. A set of desires. Used for:
          Preferring: Selection among alternative concepts in the realm of the ideal (“other things being equal”).
          Choosing: Selection among percepts or alternatives believed by the self to represent real alternatives believed by the self to represent real alternatives of the universe.
          Feeling: Value intensity attached to preferences or choices accompanied by emotions in the body.
  2. An imagination: an arena for creation and processing of concepts, percepts, constructs, and assertions including a construct of the universe (the latter being a taxonomized [chunked, with each category named] construct constructed by the self which is believed to be a good representation of the real truth about the universe. This image is created and is continuously repaired and amended in accordance with the preferences and choices of the self as the self interacts with the universe through its body).
  3. A logic processor. Concepts are related in whatever systems of order the self has mastered and finds expedient to use.
  4. A language processor in which assertions are encoded and signals are decoded using whatever systems of code which the self has mastered.
  5. An action processor in which choices are made for deporting the body of the self, these choices then being triggered into motion.
  6. A memory bank in which are stored:
    • Beliefs about the true universe (past, present and future).
    • Hypotheses under consideration and on the shelf.
    • All concepts ever created by the self.
    • All assertions ever created by the self.
    • A lexicon of codes.
    • A repertoire of systems of order.
  7. Sets of habits of the self created by consistent patterns of choice for:
    • Preferring, choosing and feeling.
    • Thinking, including imagining, believing/disbelieving, memorizing, forgetting, etc.
    • Patterns of acting (deporting one’s body to relate to the universe to fulfill the desires of the self).

Thinking: Creating and processing ideas in the self.

Processes of thinking:

  1. Sensing: Receiving ideas from one’s body. Product: Sensation
  2. Conceiving: Creating and acting upon ideas in the imagination. Product: Concept.
  3. Perceiving: Interpretation of sensation by pairing a sensation with a similar concept. Product: Percept.
  4. Desiring: Placing a value on an idea by pairing it with a concept member of a value continuum. Product: Desideratum.
  5. Constructing: Creating possible selves, bodies or universes by concatenating concepts (repeated pairing). Product: Construct.
  6. Asserting: Creating hypotheses about self, body or the universe by pairing concepts in a relationship of prediction. Product: Assertion.
  7. Believing: Pairing a construct or assertion with a concept on a real-unreal continuum.

Principal constructs created by the self:

  1. The self. (Structure and functions)
  2. The body. (Structure and functions)
  3. The universe. (The present structure and functions)
    God
    Other selves.
    The past.
    The present.

Basic capacities and concepts of the self:

Root capacities:

  1. Ability to abstract patterns from ideas.
  2. Ability to differentiate similar patterns from dissimilar patterns.
  3. Ability to distinguish contiguous patterns from non-contiguous patterns.
  4. Short-term memory (seven items or less).
  5. Long-term memory.

Concept Development: (“®“ = “yields”):

  1. Cognition of a pattern. (Stored in short-term memory.)
  2. Repeated recognition of pattern ® an essence, type, class, substance (stored in long-term memory.)
  3. Dissimilarity of recognized pattern ® an accident (a quality).
  4. Recognition of patterns of accidents ® qualities
  5. An essence + context ® (dissimilar background) ® existence
  6. Essence 1 + Essence 1 + common context ® number (quantity established on the basis of contiguity/noncontiguity).
  7. Number + Number ® patterned relations of numbers
  8. Patterned relations of numbers + imagination ® arithmetic, other systems of order, including different concepts of space (established on basis of contiguity/noncontiguity).
  9. Essences + space ® structure (a type of essence).
  10. ( [Essence 1 + context 1) + (Essence 1 + context 2]) ® (possibility of) change (time). (Other changes also contribute.)
  11. (Structure 1 + space 1 + time 1) + (Structure 1 + space 2 + time 2) ® function 1 (locomotion).
  12. (Structure 1 + space 1 + time 1) + (Structure 2 + space 1 + time 2) ® function 2 (metaphysics).
  13. (Structure 1 + accident 1 + time 1) + Structure 1 + accident 2 + time 2) ® function 3 (action).
  14. ((Structure 1 + function (1v2v3)) ® (Change of function (1v2v3) of structure 2) in a recognized pattern ® cause

Summary: Basic kinds of concepts:

  1. Patterns established on basis of similarity/dissimilarity and contiguity/non-contiguity
  2. Essences (substances, classes, types)
  3. Accidents (qualities)
  4. Structures
  5. Functions
  6. Relationships
  7. Spaces
  8. Times
  9. Causes

Concepts are classes used in the imagination of the self.

True: That property possessed by a construct or assertion wherein it is held by its creator self to represent correctly the universe created by the self. May or may not be based on evidence.

Really true: That property possessed by a construct or assertion wherein it represents correctly the universe as seen by the omniscient observer.

Individuation: Determination of the uniqueness of an idea.

  • A concept is individuated when it represents a single, unique property or when it represents the unique intersection of a set of properties (is dissimilar to all other essences or concept patterns).
  • A percept is individuated when it is clearly differentiated from its perceptual context by figure/ground comparison.
  • A construct is individuated by the uniqueness of its attributed structure and function.
  • An assertion is individuated by the unique intersection of ideas created by the predicated pairing.

Existence: That property of a concept, percept, or construction wherein it is deemed by its creator to have been successfully individuated in the creator’s mind. To be thought is to exist.

Really existing: That property of a concept, percept or construct wherein its nature as individuated by its creator is seen by the omniscient observer to be correctly and sufficiently individuated.

Real: That property of concepts, percepts or constructs wherein its imagined referents in the universe are believed by the creator of those concepts, percepts or constructs actually to be instantiated in the real universe.

Really real: That property of concepts, percepts or constructs wherein its imagined referents are real to the omniscient observer.

Assertions are of three types, each with several subtypes:

1. Disclosure: The characterization of self.

    • Exclamations: Wow!
    • Valuations: That is a good lad.
    • Preferences: Quiche is the greatest.
    • Choices: I’ll have the sirloin.
    • Plans: I’m getting up at five in the morning.
    • Intentions: Someday I’ll get around to doing genealogy.

2. Directive: Attempting to control the actions of others.

    • Commands: Stop!
    • Questions: What time is it?
    • Definitions: Escargot means snail.
    • Maxims: A stitch in time saves nine.
    • Art forms: Devices to attract and hold the attention.

3. Description: Portrayal of the nature of the body or of the universe. (For the intent of constraining the beliefs of other selves.)

    • Fact: Identification of a present phenomenon (percept). This is an albatross.
    • Law: An inductive generalization about a body of perceived or reported facts. Albatrosses lay eggs.
    • Theory: The creation or non-perceptual constructs as mechanisms to explain and deduce the laws and facts of an area of inquiry. Albatrosses lay eggs because they are descendants of reptiles. (Naturalistic theory construction.)
  • Principle: The adduction of fundamental postulates to guide theory construction in an area of inquiry. All life forms are differentiated descendants of simple life forms. (Naturalistic principle adduction. The desires of the self control which theories are constructed and which principles are adduced. Theistic or other principles and theories could be used to accomplish the same logical ends.)

Structure of assertions

All assertions consist of:

  1. A single class (concept or construct) which is the subject class: Adult geese.
  2. Another single class (concept or construct) to serve as predicate, with which the subject is paired: Creatures which mate for life.
  3. A specified relationship of predication asserted to hold between the two classes. The parameters of predication are:
  • Specification of a class relation: inclusion, exclusion, coextension.
  • Specification of which members of the subject class are asserted to have said class relation to the predicate: all, none, some, three, etc.: All who can find a mate.
  • Specification of the time frame during which the said predication is asserted to hold: Beginning when geese came to be real, ending when geese cease to be real.
  • Specification of the area or volume of space in which the said predication is asserted to hold: The planet Earth.

Finished example: Since geese came to exist on the earth and until they cease to exist, all adult geese which can find mates, mate for life.

Note on assertions: The sentence above is not an assertion because assertions exist only in the self and are ideas only. A well-formed assertion is the most careful, exact and defensible idea that a given person can form. An assertion is of value as it aids the self in thinking or as it helps the self to accomplish a specific objective when that assertion is encoded and launched into the universe.

Posted in 2026 Essay | Leave a comment

Theory of Communication

Definition: Communication: The effect one being has on another being.

  • May be reciprocal or not.
  • May be relational (static) or affective (dynamic).
  • May be agentive or not.
  • May be intentional or not.

Human communication is not a transfer of meaning or ideas. Such is impossible given the ego-centric nature of each self.

The process of deliberate agentive human communication:

  1. The sender-self creates a sender message.
  2. The sender-self acts to project that message (speaking, writing, signing) through its body.
  3. The receiver-self perceives the code signal used by the sender.
  4. The receiver-self creates a message which he/she hypothesizes the sender is sending.

Definition: Message: The mental unit of deliberate agentive communication. It exists only in the self and is associated with agents only.

A sender message always consists of three parts:

  1. A desire or intention
  2. A message-action (physical and/or verbal) intended to fulfill the given desire or intention.
  3. Creation of a hypothesis as to what will happen next.

Postulates and laws of communication:

  1. To exist is to communicate. Not to affect anything is not to exist. All real beings communicate with something.
  2. Some beings exist only to be acted upon. Other beings exist both to be acted upon and to act.
  3. Communication produces two kinds of effects: change of accident and change of essence. (Example: To give someone information is to affect that person in accident. To cut off a person’s leg is to affect the person’s body in essence. There is no way for communication to change the essence of a self. Self does not equal body.)
  4. An agent is a being wherein the only changes made by communication are changes of accident. All change of essence is made by the volition of the agent.
  5. An agent self affects change of essence in that agent’s self mainly by choosing accidents in which to immerse the self (we affect ourselves by choosing the communications we will receive). The choice of certain types of accidents and the persistent dwelling in them to the exclusion of other choices of accidents create habits of choice and satisfaction which in time will create a new essence of the self.
  6. There is no being which is not acted upon. There is no unmoved mover in regard to accident; the closest thing to that is perdition (to be lost). There is an unmoved mover in regard to essence: God.
  7. Only agentive beings created messages.
  8. Agentive communication is always moral or immoral. (Value considerations are part of every action.)
  9. An agent is a being whose sending is not fully controlled by its receiving.
  10. All “natural language” usage is elliptical in communication. Always much is assumed which is not said.
  11. No receiver recapitulates the full intended message of a sender. Full recapitulation is approached only asymptotically. The communication situation is always entropic, never complete.

Definition: Total Communication: Observing and accounting for all of the (possibly observable) acts of the sender, not just present speech acts.

Ways to maximize communication:

  1. Strive for total communication. Know the values, beliefs and habits of the sender or receiver.
  2. Communicate about many things. Communicating about everything enhances communication about anything.
  3. Sender variables: (i) Strive for redundancy, (ii) Reduce ellipsis. (iii) Define and act out messages ostensibly. Paint a picture. (iv) Encode appropriately to receiver’s ability to decode. (v) Attain and maintain correspondent’s attention.
  4. Receiver variables: (i) Capture the message (Actively search out the intent, the assertion, the relevance (expectation). (ii) Search for and/or stimulate evidence which will confirm/disconfirm the interpretive hypothesis.
Posted in 2026 Essay | Leave a comment

Great Expectations, c. 1980

(Written about 1980)

One critical activity which every organization needs to conduct with some regularity is sharing visions of the organization’s goals. Briefly set forth here is a panorama of goals relating to Brigham Young University.

The university itself, BYU, as a whole, has two main purposes. The first is to be proficient in education, in fact to become the most proficient educational institution in the world. This is a way of saying that an effective combination of great teachers, great teaching, great students and great learning will produce people of intelligence, refinement and attainment such as is not accomplished as well in any other institution. This process will turn free upon this earth alumni who will be effective in establishing and spreading the Savior’s kingdom upon the face of the entire earth, both temporally and spiritually. The second purpose of BYU is to show forth an example to the world of what good things being a servant of Christ can bring to pass. BYU could become a showcase of excellence in the way it is organized and governed, a model of effective educational process, a harmonious community of professional and non-professional people working delightedly together for common ends, a place of beauty, cleanliness and propriety. In its showcase role, BYU would also be a center of creativity in matters of intellect and heart, idea and art—a model of ingenuity successfully applied to pure and practical research to produce creative solutions for both personal and social perplexities. As a light unto the world, BYU would be an unashamed partisan promoter of everything in the world which is virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy, demonstrating the sanctity of families, the glory of freedom, the intelligence of faithfulness, and the possibility of a pure heart.

These lofty institutional goals gain both meaning and credibility when associated with comparable visions of what their components would necessarily become were those goals to be attained. Key components are students, faculty, department chairmen and deans. Let us examine the potential and ideal role of each of these in turn.

The ideal BYU student is a person who is a covenant servant of Jesus Christ, who has dedicated himself wholly to living by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God. While not perfect in attaining that consecration as yet, there is a willingness to obey and a hunger for excellence that turns every exposed deficiency into an opportunity for grateful repentance. Creativity for such a student is not measured in muttering defiance of the dress and grooming code, but in exhilarating discovery of the manifold paths available to insight, understanding, ability and ingenuity that open to energetic searching. Learning is not measured by grades, credit and degrees but in ability to solve problems and to bless others. Education is seen as neither a hurdle nor an attainment, but rather as a process of continuous daily creation of a new self as the soul enlarges in heart and intellect in a life-long endeavor to rise to the opportunity of our human situation. This ideal student would come to BYU with some solid learning and training, but more importantly with willingness to work hard, with the flexibility to reform, with the determination to endure to the end.

It is obvious that this ideal student is already a paragon. But that is not unthinkable nor impossible. All that is asked is that the majority become like the present best students. That will happen in the same way we have attained the blessing of our present best students. How did they come into this excellence? Some gained this by being born and raised in the homes of faithful Latter-day Saints who themselves had all those virtues.

But where do these parents come from? Hopefully they are former BYU students, or persons who have enjoyed a similar opportunity. But chickens and eggs notwithstanding, how do we affect this cycle to get it going? That is where the faculty comes in.

The ideal BYU faculty member is also first and foremost a dedicated Latter-day Saint. He or she has been amply nurtured with the words of Christ, and being a believer, is well on the way to enduring to the end, living constantly in the precious hope that makes that end desirable and in the firm faith that makes that end attainable. Through relying solely upon the merits of the Savior, all good things are at hand or are attainable by such a one.

Of the good things to lay hold of, the ideal BYU faculty member has, without exception, taken a firm grasp of the learning of this world. Conversational ability in the language of faith and the language of learning has led to a thorough but selective mastery of good things to be found in the realms of intellect, art, science and technology. Being versed in the basics of many subjects, we say that this ideal mentor has an admirable general education, thus being ready for further learning and further thought in an exciting horizon of interests and abilities. Having selected at least one subject for intensive and thorough investigation’ the faculty member tries to become acquainted with all that is good and all that is going on in that subject. This is a continuing mastery, one which is updated, reviewed and renewed constantly through the reading of scholarly journals, talking with knowledgeable people in the field, attending selected conventions, and a lot of pondering of the subject.

This happy combination of extensive general education and intensive mastery of a major field of interest we denominate as scholarship. A scholar is one who is well-schooled, knowing something about nearly everything and a lot about something. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of being a lively, continuing scholar. This is the sine qua non of the ideal faculty member. His life and mind are a treasure-house of good ideas, good understanding, good skills, and good will which have been broadly sought, carefully selected, intensively prized and masterfully crafted into an intelligible and communicable whole.

Scholarship is thus the beginning, the necessary foundation of all other good things which the faculty member might do as a teacher. On this foundation three additional attainments of note might be built. These are excellence in teaching, creativity and administration. We will briefly delineate the articulation of each of these scholarships.

Scholarship is the basis of good teaching. No matter how lovely the landscape, the dry spring and the empty well will not, cannot quench the thirst for knowledge. The copious flow from an ample scholarly mind will bless many an inquiring shrub of reaching tree, moisten and bring to life many a meadow of community, provide sustenance for multitudes of faint souls. The power of a great teacher is renown for the influence of such a one multiplies and spreads from generation to generation. But it seems that the real and principal difference between the great and the not-so-great teacher is in how much they are able to inspire their students to want to learn. It is true that techniques of pedagogy, the ability to teach with examinations, the ordering of iterations, and the mastering of media all enhance the teaching-learning process. But it is also true that the massive enhancement of ability to teach comes with attainment of the stature of a great scholar. Then the other things become important. Without scholarship they are as tinkling brass and a sounding cymbal.

Though scholarship is fundamental, teaching and the ability to teach well comes next and hard by in the scale of values for the ideal BYU faculty member. We must not forget—nor make apology for the fact that BYU is primarily an undergraduate institution where exemplary teaching is the main mission of the faculty. The quality and quantity of excellent teaching are the accomplishments to be most greatly desired and rewarded at BYU as capable faculty scholars apply themselves to their mission. While it is admitted that this perspective on the importance of good teaching has not been operative in many past administrative decisions, there is now a clear intention to place the importance and worth of such teaching in its proper effective place in the university system.

What then of creativity and research? Are they to be downgraded? No, they are not. The emphasis on enhancing the creative and research accomplishments of the faculty, taken both individually and collectively, will continue apace. For creative effort has not yet reached its rightful place in the collective faculty repertoire. Many individuals will continue to foster, encourage, guide and stimulate the majority of faculty members who have yet to achieve the exhilaration of genuine contribution to the knowledge and accomplishments of mankind.

This emphasis will continue because creative effort also has a rightful and necessary place in the institutional life and goals of BYU. This place is vouchsafed by several factors. First, creativity is service to mankind. Thus artistic, scholarly and scientific creativity are ways to bless. Creative drive when based firmly on solid scholarly attainment, motivated by righteous desires and quickened by the divine gift will produce much of value. It is the business of a university and especially of this university to produce beauty, intelligence and solutions to problems that will assist in building up the kingdom of the Savior. It is desirable that every member of the faculty master the discipline, the scholarship, the desire and the faith in Christ which will enable them to make a contribution in a creative way. For this reason: We are trying to teach our students to have discipline, to become scholars, to desire to bless, and to find the faith that will enable them to become righteously creative. There is no better means of teaching righteousness than to demonstrate it, for it is infectious.

In addition to blessing mankind in being creative, this effort also builds the builder. More than teaching, creativity gives immediate challenge to the scholarship of the would-be creator. Students may suffer silently when the intellectual stream is thin; but matter and nature yield only to sufficiency of effort and attainment. Though flexing intellectual muscles on students is interesting, it seldom is overwhelming. But the creative challenge is always sufficiently overwhelming to cause us to grasp and to grow. And while one can parlay phrases into unrighteous dominion in the classroom, the Holy Spirit transmits the light only to the honest, and more abundantly to the pure. In short, teaching is a mastery which may be counterfeited, whereas genuine creativity cannot. Thus creativity is the hammer, and scholarship is the anvil which shapes and molds a great teacher into the real thing.

Yet teaching remains paramount. Teaching is the end at BYU, with scholarship and creativity as essential means to that end. The fact that neither scholarship nor teaching and creativity has reached full fruition in the past at BYU does not bind the future. The important thing is that we know where we are going. The ideal teacher at BYU is a continuing solid scholar, a creative contributor to the intellectual and spiritual wealth of this world, and a master-teacher of young Latter-day Saints. All three.

A word needs to be said about proportion. Proportion and propriety are companions, especially in the gospel framework. While there can be no universal formula because of our individual differences, a pattern may nevertheless be useful. It is suggested that the steady state phenomenon for the paradigm faculty members would be one-fifth of time and energy devoted to the scholarship of keeping up in one’s field and in enhancing one’s general education; one-fifth might also be devoted to the love and labor of creative production; and three-fifths, the solid majority of heart and mind, be attuned to the kindly delivery of students from the prison of ignorance, undisciplinedness and irresponsibility. This outlines the mission of a faculty member at BYU.

Though the paradigm is complete, yet one more talent commands our attention. Also necessary to our community is the ability to administer. It is a curious twist of our language that this noble word which once meant to serve and to bless now has the connotation of governing or lording it over someone. The phrase “good administrator” does not touch the heartstrings as does the phrase “good shepherd.” For the administrator is now seen as a driver, a demander, an exacter, a worshiper at the idol of efficiency. It is plain however that in the Gospel context “administrator” ought to be first a leader who finds green pastures. Such should nurture, build, bless and encourage. Such a one should protect, reassure and cherish, perhaps these even along with reproving betimes with sharpness but then showing forth an increase of love.

The LDS administrator is not sent to lord but to love—without guile or hypocrisy, but in pure knowledge, long-suffering, persuasion—and with a clear vision of where the flock is to be led. Such a one is sensitive to what one’s stewardship is and is not. Towards those to whom such a one reports there is loyalty, creative support, and untiring diligence in making the plan a reality. Towards those whom such a one leads there is loyalty, sharing of vision, encouragement to the enlargement of self, tenderness with fearful venturings, commendation for triumphs, and consolation for trials. Ever is kept in mind the image of the Savior, he who is successful and at once faithful Son and faithful Father, he who is a great example, the Way, the Truth, and the End.

It is also of paramount importance that BYU have good leaders, leaders whose hearts are pure and whose efforts are fruitful. To be such a leader of faculty demands first that unquenchable thirst for righteousness which brings one to the Savior. It demands next that one be a scholar in his own right. These are necessary. But leadership must needs be supported by the full faculty paradigm: Creative contributions and mastery of teaching make the complete fisher of university men and women.

To all of this must be added that component of administrative effectiveness which relates to personal technique. To control one’s own time, to prioritize projects, to eschew procrastination, to conduct an orderly system of paper flowing and filing, to be wise in counsel, to be fiscally prudent, to be able to communicate effectively, to form thoughtful agendas and to conduct meetings that have desirable velocity—these are the sorts of skills and habits which mow down detail without becoming trapped in trivia. Taking necessary drudgery in stride is the giant step which enables us to address appropriately the substantive issues of our opportunities.

What is the needed place of administrative skill in the university? It is something that everyone should cultivate and prize, just as everyone should prize grammar and spelling. It is ideas that are important, but bad grammar can dam the flow of ideas. So it is effective programs and communications that make an organization go, but ineptness can slaughter the noblest of causes. Every person associated with the university has something important to administer, beginning with himself and his relationships with others. If everyone would prize and pursue such skills, our real business, education, would flow surely as the water in a concrete canal, quietly delivering a burden that the debris-choked winding stream can never but approximate.

All of which brings us to the role of department chairman. What is the model to which we might look?

Historically at BYU, the department chairman has been on average an office manager. He has wrestled budgets, class schedules, catalog and curriculum materials, student complaints and faculty requests. Occasionally turning to matters of paramount importance, he works to find top new faculty and to resuscitate poorly performing professors. His role has been established by precedence, and the pattern often has taken the channel of least resistance. Perhaps it is now time to change that pattern in many cases.

Consistent with what we have illuminated as the paragon professor is the concept of the department chairman as exemplar and mentor to the faculty of the department. Suppose a department chairman were chosen because that person best exemplified all the fundamental faculty virtues: dedicated servant of the Savior, solid and excited scholar, classic example of the able and caring teacher, creative continuing contributor to the professional field and sure-footed administrator. Would it destroy such person to make them department chairman? Would this be a waste of rare talents? Indeed, this would be a disaster if their mission were construed to be to push papers and make peace.

But suppose the charge was to continue to be an example of all these good things and then to give personal encouragement and counsel to each member of the faculty to do likewise. Rather than assuming that all faculty members come fixed and formatted to all eternity, why not assume that a faculty appointment is a special opportunity to grow towards perfection under the kindly example and guidance of one who is far ahead in their things and under the rigorous realities of the necessity of professional production in the classroom and in creativity. Without the gospel all of this could be so threatening as to devastate good intentions. But because we have an eternal perspective and a framework of values that is special, all of this becomes possible and desirable.

In sum, the role of the department chairman would be to do the following things: To assist in the selection of able, new faculty members; to encourage and counsel in effective teaching; to encourage and guide in significant creative contribution; to bring the department faculty together to function as a team, so that the scholarship, teaching and creative work of each fits into a pattern that strengthens every other faculty member and makes possible a community of complementary scholarship, teaching, and creativity wherein the whole is clearly greater than the arithmetic sum of the parts; to give vision and leadership to department curricular programs; and to bring students to appreciate and deeply partake of the special offerings which a united department provides for them.

Looking past the department chairman, we need to round out these great expectations by contemplating the nature of the office of the college dean. It is plain that paragon professors and charismatic chairmen need special deans.

The ideal dean would first have been the ideal faculty member, then the ideal department chairman, for the dean is a leader, and one can scarcely lead where he has not been. It takes a good one to tell a good one, but more importantly, only paragons can raise up paragons. The major function or role of the dean is to choose, inspire and lead to greatness the department chairmen of his college. The other parts of his assignment—to coordinate the departments within the college and to coordinate the college with the rest of the university are made infinitely easier if he succeeds at his principal task first.

Now it is unlikely that any dean will find chairmen who are already perfect faculty members and who cannot improve in their administrative performance. The administrative structure of the college ought to be built then with two main things in mind: opportunities and means for strengthening department chairmen, and opportunities and means for lifting from them unnecessary administrative trivia. One way these two helps might be delivered is as follows.

The dean might procure the services of a full-time administrative assistant who would facilitate the paper flow of the college. This person might be responsible for preparing and expending budgets, completing necessary reports, filling out forms, meeting deadlines, etc. this person would not be a decision maker. All judgment matters would yet rest with department the department chairman and the dean. While all drudgery work could not be shifted, much of it could be, freeing the dean and the chairmen for the weightier matters.

The dean might himself serve or appoint someone to serve under his direction to encourage research and creativity in the college. This person, working with the department chairmen, could make regular rounds to visit with each faculty member. In the mouths of two witnesses there could be commendation for work well done, encouragement for new ideas of worth, counsel to avoid pitfalls, help with resources to foster fledgling success, programs to unite people with complementary talents in team challenges. Were this person a master of imagination, laboratory techniques, mathematical and statistical manipulation, research strategy, or whatever else is pertinent to creativity in the field, what a great work might be done in supporting the department chairmen. This person might also be the graduate coordinator for the college.

Another role which the dean might himself fill or to which he might appoint someone would be a curriculum and teaching specialist for the college. Knowing that good academic programs don’t just happen but are planned, evaluated, revised, evaluated, adequated to need, evaluated, etc., such a person would be constantly engaged to bring all possible intelligence and technique to bear on the adequacy of the courses and programs of the college. Working carefully with each department chairman, there would be a sense of propriety, efficiency, and educational soundness that would guide all deliberations. The professional consensus of faculty and administrators would yield, through time, programs magnificent in concept and execution.

A most important part of that execution would be the teaching effort of each faculty member. This college administrator, working with the department chairman, both master teachers, could inspire and enthuse individuals to build pedagogical expertise on the foundation of the individual’s scholarship. Fostering caring about students as individuals, planning class and examination sequences into models of value added would be an ongoing delight for all participants. What happens for the student is the pay-off for the existence of the entire university.

Perhaps there are other special programs and functions to which the dean would address himself or assign someone. These persons together with the department chairman might form a council to transact all of the judgment matters of the college. There is strength in counsel, as there is in coordination. Community of vision and effort foster success if leadership can provide the proper values and the proper persons for such participation.

It is to be remembered that the picture printed above is an ideal. It is one possible ideal among many. Only as any such ideal is simultaneously correct, wise, and shared, can it be effective as a change agent in our institutional life. It is plain that we need ideals for we are not yet perfect. We need to be united in the cause of our Savior and seek to establish his righteousness. Everyone needs to learn his duty and to act faithfully in that office. We need to be as one in heart and in mind. It is hoped that the consideration of the ideals here portrayed will in some way bring us closer to the reality of those grand goals.

Posted in 2026 Essay | Leave a comment

To Know the Truth

  1. Jesus Christ is the truth. Our Savior is a God of truth. He speaks only the truth and all he does is based on truth. He received a fulness of truth, grace upon grace, from his Father, and thus became a God. His mission is to administer truth and power to men.
  2. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Truth. The Holy Ghost is the unseen messenger representative of our Godhead. He witnesses of the Father and of the Son to the inhabitants of the earth and teaches all men what the Savior would have them know and do.
  3. Man is dependent upon Jesus Christ to know any truth. The Savior lightens the mind and quickens the intelligence of every man upon the earth, for in him we live and move and have our being. We perceive, think and act by his power and are successful in any venture we undertake according to the leave he gives.
  4. The Gods give all men enough truth to enable men to defy them or to obey them. The plan of the Gods as now unfolding is that all men should have both truth and power given to them by Jesus Christ during their probation. Each is given enough truth and power to think, to perceive, and to act in relation to their physical, social and spiritual environment. Those who receive that truth and power on earth can pursue the acts to perceive, experiment, act, build, destroy, etc., according to their own desires. It might be said that they are at least intelligent animals, able to feed, clothe and amuse themselves. They are thus agents unto themselves. If they choose to defy God, they usually can yet feed, clothe and amuse themselves. If they hearken to God’s spiritual influence, they must initially yet feed, clothe and amuse themselves by the same basic processes used by those who defy the Gods.
  5. Men who defy the Gods are and will be damned. Men who defy the Gods may be or become ever so clever at feeding, clothing and amusing themselves, but each is damned or stopped on his animal plane. They can have no sure knowledge of the unseen world nor any claim upon eternity. They live from day to day, having no real hope for the future. They imagine the nature of the unseen universe according to their own desires, and thus encapsulate their mortal lives in gross error. And thus are they damned. As long as they are healthy, and socially and temporally successful, they do not know they are damned. Yet they are helpless and even terrified before two things: physical death and supernatural power.
  6. Men who obey the Gods cease to be men. Those who obey the Gods (who yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit) die as to the natural, carnal man and are born again. As newly reborn persons they are called saints. Should they come to the maturity this rebirth affords, each will have become a god. Though saints must feed, clothe and amuse themselves much as men do initially, they become progressively different as they grow spiritually. They begin to differ from the world in dress, speech, attitudes, actions, and the more they grow the more different they become and the less dependent are they on any worldly institution, person, or idea. Death loses any terror it might have had and the use of supernatural power becomes the basis of their lives. They are not damned, but are able to lay hold of every good thing.
  7. Saints have access to the knowledge of the Gods in the degree of their spiritual development. As saints hearken to the voice of God, He unfolds to them those things hidden from the world. These hidden things are the mysteries, about which a saint is not to speak (except by direct command through revelation), but which it is his heritage to receive in full (by direct revelation). By this means a saint can come to know anything about the unseen world (past, present or future existence not presently available to him through the physical senses) or about what is good and right. The life of a saint is thus encapsulated in truth.
  8. Saints who reject the way of the Gods become more perverse than those who never accepted the Gods. To accept the Gods is to accept their way (their discipline or morality). Some who embark upon the way of the Gods find that it grows too strait and too narrow. There are some other things (sins) they would rather do. So they reject the way of the Gods, usually first by pretending the way is not strait and narrow. In this they try to convince their fellow saints that some form of sin is actually righteousness. Perceptive fellow-saints resist this perversion and the rejector feels uncomfortable and begins to stand apart from the saints (he apostatizes). Then, angry that he could not justify nor get company in his sin, he turns to fight the people and the order of the Gods, since their mere existence condemns him in his own conscience as unclean. Being fully delivered to the power of Satan such a one finds satisfaction only in the destruction of that which he once knew to be true and good. Being fully delivered, such are worse than ordinary men with whom the Holy Spirit yet strives. They propound evil and error with vehemence and scorn and persecute those who know and live the truth.
  9. The key to knowledge is morality. True morality is the discipline or the way of the Gods. Those who know this way and follow it are able to learn anything they desire. Some suppose that knowledge is the key to morality, that when one knows enough, he will not sin. But knowledge is only the possibility of morality. Only when a man knows what is the will of the Gods can he obey and thus be moral. Many who know that do not obey.
          He that knows what the Gods desire and who does that willingly is moral. He is a disciple of Christ. Having thus disciplined himself he will not abuse any power or truth given to him, but will only use it to bless others. This is morality, the key to knowledge and to supernatural power.
  10. Those who are most moral will produce the greatest achievements. The purpose of the gods is to bless men, and to do this through saints whenever possible. Saints are sent into the earth to rescue souls and to create a sanctuary, a heaven on earth. This sanctuary, Zion, is to be a light to the world, showing forth the truth and goodness of the Gods in every righteous manner. The saint is thus a problem-oriented person. His objective is to accomplish his specific assigned tasks in bearing witness to the world and in establishing Zion. The more righteous the person is, the more significant will be the problems he is able to solve in establishing heaven on earth. His inventions, organizations, productions, artistic creations, social persuasions or whatever his task will be clearly superior to the world in morality and in technical excellence. No worldly power will or can deter the righteous saint in fulfilling his mission.
  11. Those saints who achieve great things may not always be known for elucidating truth. The saint has an unlimited source of truth and power, though an access limited by his own personal righteousness. But he knows that his access is given to him to perform, to solve problems, not to become a revelator unto the world unless thus appointed. It is normal in the world to seek fame by propounding some new thing. The saint does not seek fame nor does he want to become a light unto the world for any reward. He gives the glory to Christ. The saint will be powerful in accomplishment, which may bring him some renown. But he will usually always know far more than he is willing to tell others. He speaks the truth he knows of the unseen world only as commanded by God. Thus he may well forego the reputation of being a great thinker or writer which publication might bring. He is simply content to do the will of Christ.
  12. The ultimate knowledge is to know the Savior. Of all things a saint seeks to know, it is to come to know the Savior personally, for that is life eternal. Failing in that, all other knowledge is relatively fruitless. Succeeding in that, there is a harvest of souls and worlds available that surpasses the comprehension of man. To know Him, the Truth, is to be free. This is what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about.

Conclusion: Any collection of saints who wanted could readily have the acknowledged greatest university in the world. But greatness will be more apparent in what they do rather than in what they say.

Posted in 2026 Essay | Leave a comment

Root and Branch: The Relationship Between Values and Ideas, 1977

1 April 1977
Chauncey C. Riddle

The opportunity to speak or to write to others is a sacred trust. I hope that I may speak truly and to the edification of each of my hearers.

One good place to begin in any scholarly discussion is with the things we say in our daily conversations. It is commonplace to distinguish at least two types of statements. One type concerns the “whatness” of the world. Utterances such as “today is Wednesday,” “apples are red,” “diamonds scratch steel,” and “E=MC2” are examples of this type. We speak of this type of utterance as having truth value, and we assign values to such statements under the aegis of our favorite theory of truth. Even if the truth value is unknown, we usually assume there is one.

The second type of utterance we deal with here we call value statements. Examples of these are “tamales are delicious,” “honesty is the best policy,” and “leisure time is a great good.” Admittedly there are problematic cases that make a precise division between truth statements and value statements very difficult. But we can in the vast majority of cases make an adequate division between these two types. Since the metaphysics of the truth type of utterance is better known and more well-established than that of value statements, let us analyze the first further, then see if we can use the structure of the first type as a map for value situations.

Truth-type statements or sentences are themselves but representations. As with all linguistic formulation, no symbol has any inherent meaning. When any person utters a sentence such as “it is dark,” there is in the mind of the speaker or writer a certain combination of ideas which he attempts to express using the words, “it,” “is,” and “dark.” That combination of ideas, the meaning of his sentence, is a function of the entire noetic frame, or the mindset of the speaker. We sometimes call the combination of ideas which the speaker has in his mind a proposition. Propositions are judgments about some aspect of the nature of the universe. When one wishes to have others share his ideas, he projects perturbations of the physical world such as body movements, written symbols, vocal and audible sounds. He hopes that these signs or symbols will stimulate in the minds of others the proposition he intends. Others, upon perceiving whatever the speaker has done, try to imagine what-on-earth might have been the intent that caused the communicator to make the expression he did. This second-guessing is for some strange reason called “communication.” It is always a game of charades in which we can never be quite sure that we really understand or are understood. It is not our business here to elaborate further on the problems of communication, great, pervasive and urgent though they be. We must rest content with the distinction between sentences and propositions, which is the distinction between symbols and meaning.

When we analyze meanings, especially those conjoined into propositions, we find that each proposition is a judgment. Judgments are made possible by the happy conjunction of experience—that raw material arising out of the stream of consciousness—and the programmed nature of our minds. Without arguing the case for naturism or the Kantian synthetic a priori, I simply take it as well established that every human being, taken as he is, has a mind somewhat analogous to a computer. Roughly speaking, experience is the data fed into the computer-like mind. The mind is programmed to process the data of experience and does so, producing the judgments which we have called propositions. Though it is plain that experience can affect some of the mind’s programming, it is also plain that there is some mental programming which is and remains independent of experience. Hume and Kant cannot be laughed away even though they did perhaps make mistakes.

Out of this hasty sketch we might now identify eight basic elements. First, the stream of consciousness, the basic stuff we experience as mental life. Second, a self, the “I” that emerges out of the stream of consciousness consisting of the body, mind, desires, etc. Thirdly, the external world, which we come to construct as a happy marriage of conception and sensation. Fourth, the data of sensation of which we become conscious when we begin to contrast the real universe from our solipsistic construct of it. Fifth, the programming of our minds, of which we become aware as we attempt to distinguish truth from error. Sixth, the propositions we form as self-conscious conclusions about the universe. Seventh, the statements we make to express our propositions. Eighth, the basic desires which we finally realize are irreducibly important to all of our judgments about prepositions.

In order to be clearer as to what I intend in distinguishing these eight elements, I give the following items and examples.

  • Item: the stream of consciousness, Example: these are moment-to- moment flow of sensations, thoughts, reactions, judgments, etc., that constitute our living.
  • Item: the self, Example: to each person, his body, mind, desires.
  • Item: the external world, Example: Other people, the earth, the heavens, the events observed in daily life.
  • Item: the data of sensation, Example: noises, sights, tastes, touches, smells which we come to realize are our unique contact with the external world.
  • Item: the noetic frame, Example: the grammar, symbols, mathematics, logic, and concept of the universe which we discover ourselves to use in creating an external world out of data of sensation.
  • Item: propositions, Example: consciously formed hypotheses which we form in an attempt to characterize some aspect of what we hope to be the true nature of the external world, such as: the cost of energy will be double in the next five years.
  • Item: statements, Example: symbolic expression of propositions in gestures, words, writing, etc. All sentences are examples.
  • Item: desires, Example: personal propensities which we come to recognize as our prejudices. These color all judgment, making objectivity only a relative thing, never absolute.

Some important things to note about this scheme are:

  1. It is a dynamic process of the self interacting with the external world through time.
  2. It is an adaptive process as the self reacts to the external world to adjust to reality, then attempts to affect that reality.
  3. The adaptive process involves a heightening of self-consciousness and tentativity. Judgments become less categorical and actions become less impulsive as one learns by experience.
  4. The more refined our understanding of these matters becomes, the more alone we become. To put it another way, the more we understand about the universe, the more free we become from the trammels of other peoples opinions and ideas.
  5. There is the possibility that the irreducible “self” is a collection of desires and that these desires pattern to form a personality. Perhaps we know ourselves only as we can observe our own desires shaping and guiding our actions and ideas as we become intellectually acute.
  6. If the self is a pattern of desire, that would explain why we have such a difficult time agreeing with each other about the nature of the universe. Desires seem to shape inquiry and to mold conclusions.
  7. Of one thing we are sure, no finite set of data about the universe uniquely determines what hypothesis is necessary to explain it. This is to say, no set of observations ever uniquely constrains its own interpretation. In fact, any finite set of data has an infinite number of hypotheses logically available as potential self-consistent devices for explanation.

Perhaps it is our desires that save us from the absurd relativity of an infinite explainability. While they may do so, they apparently also create the illusion of objectivity, which leads to dogmatism, which leads to orthodoxy, which in turn often leads to inhumane treatment of other people. But that is another story also. Let us turn now to the consideration of value statements.

Value statements such as “pie is good,” all have something very simple in common. Every genuine value statement is a reflection of a value judgment. The essence of each of these valuations is the judgment that the object in question will satisfy some desire of the self. Thus when I say “pie is good,” I am saying that I expect that the normal case will be that if I eat pie, it will satisfy my desire to sweetly titillate my palate as the pressure increases inside my stomach and I get that nice “full” feeling. The simple thing that all value judgments have in common is that they are judgments that the thing valued will satisfy or has satisfied some personal desire.

Some value statements relate to the future and may be called “anticipatory” value judgments or statements. Others are a recognition of satisfactions already achieved and may be called “reflexive” value judgments or statements. Anticipatory value statements are always guesses, for they are at best inductions. Reflective value statements represent the knowledge of hindsight, the value of accomplished fact. These two are usually sufficiently distinguished by grammar. For example, the categorical statement, “honey on hot bread is delicious,” may indeed be based on reflection of past experience, but the intention of the utterance is for future use as a guide to action; this example is an anticipatory judgment. When a purely reflective judgment is made, the utterance is usually more restricted, e.g., “The sweetness of honey has in the past enhanced the eating of hot bread for me.” Reflective statements are less presumptive. They stick to the known facts (all known facts are of past time) and do not arrogate omniscience or unerring induction as do the utterance of categorical statements.

I take it to be an important truth statement to note that we human beings are sufficiently limited in mental capacity that while we can judge many things to be good with a high degree of accuracy, we always need to allow the possibility of having made a mistake. We can say fairly surely “that x was good,” but not “that x is good” as an anticipatory statement, meaning “that x will satisfy my desire,” for surely each of us has eaten and has remained unsatisfied. More important even is our necessity to note that we human beings cannot ever rationally assert that “x is best,” that is the most satisfying of all things relative to a given desire.

One might ask about the statement “John is good.” Is this also but anticipated satisfaction of desire? The answer is “yes,” unequivocally. To say that John is good is to presume to know enough about John to anticipate that he will act in such a way as to satisfy at least one desire I have.

All of this brings us to a definition of value. Value is the property we ascribe to something when we think it will satisfy a desire we have. Categorical ascriptions of value are anticipatory. The value of something increases as desire for satisfaction increases and as we see the object being valued as the supposed means to that desired satisfaction. Value is thus instrumental. It is the worth we ascribe to something as a potential satisfier of desire.

It is plain from what has been said that value statements are expressions of value judgments. Value judgments are the result of the careful intertwining of propositions or judgments about the truth of the external world, of the desires of the self, and of understandings of how things I the external world can satisfy the desires of the self. Error is of course possible at each point. We may misjudge our own desire. We may only guess that an object or event in the external world will be instrumental in satisfying us. We may possess or control something we value but may be unable to apply it to our desire, as the person who has always wanted to fly an airplane suddenly discovers that his pilot companion has just had a heart attack, and that he is now flying an airplane even though he does not know how to control it.

It is important at this point to distinguish two things which have usually been confused in the history of value discussions. This is the difference between “good” and “right.” Good is the proper domain of value judgments. Goods, values, are subjective, related to the desires of some real, existent self. It is here assumed that different persons have different desires and that these different persons therefore value things differently.

The term “right,” on the other hand, is not a value term as has so often been supposed. “Right” is a truth-type term. To use it correctly is to make a judgment about the world which is not dependent upon the desires of the self which is doing the judging. The term “right” concerns that which will bring about the happiness of other persons. Doing what is right is not necessarily doing that which those others think will satisfy their basic desires. To be concrete: if my neighbor is starving it is right for me to take nourishment to him.

But suppose my neighbor is not starving but it seems good to him to steal my food. If I wish to be righteous, I have the opportunity to do that which will help to meet his need. One of the ideas which I believe is that wickedness, such as stealing, never was and never will be happiness. So if I tempt my neighbor to steal, I may increase the good of stealing in his eyes, but it will not make him happy in the long run. So I must not tempt him to steal. If I am prompted by the Holy Spirit to share with him before he is tempted to steal, perhaps he will see the happiness and satisfaction that comes from sharing and will avoid the empty satisfaction of stealing.

The point of this discussion of right is that right is truth-related, not value-related. It is objective, not subjective. It is absolute, not relative. To find what is good I must know my own desire and what will satisfy it. To find what is right I must know what is my neighbor’s need and how to satisfy it.

The same difficulty that attaches to my discovery of good also attaches to my discovery of right. If I have difficulty in discerning my own true desires and in knowing what will satisfy them, an even greater difficulty attaches to discerning what my neighbor needs and what will satisfy him. Even as I cannot maximize my own decision as to what is my best good, I indeed cannot maximize my decision as to how best to help my neighbor.

But even if I cannot find my specific good or a particular right, I can understand the general nature of what they are. My mind is sufficient at least to compare my inadequacy with my ideal. And my mind is sufficient that I can place a high value on doing what is right. To make this clear, let us now return to the analysis of truth statements and relate the analysis of value statements to it.

Very possibly it is the functioning of desire in the stream of consciousness that makes possible the concept of self. Desire gives rise to action, as when a baby cries out of hunger. Action leads to reaction, and an external world begins to take form in the mind of the child. Frustration of desire through inappropriate action leads to refinement of the concept of the external world, separating data from construct. This separation enables constructs of the mind to come to consciousness, and noetic systems are refined. Refined noetic systems coupled with carefully gathered data make possible responsible value judgments. Value judgments about the world lead to our actions; for example, if I desire nourishment and perceive oranges hanging on a tree, and if I know that the oranges are good inside even though they taste nasty on the outside, I will value what I see and perhaps pick and eat. But it is important that I be able to judge this act of mine to be right or wrong. If I have to steal the orange, my initial valuation of good may be overridden by my desire to do what is right. Perhaps I err in choosing good and right, but I am often very successful in recognizing that certain acts are wrong.

What may we conclude from all of this, about ideas and values and their relationship? Perhaps the following: 1) Values are ideas. They are notions of instrumental worth, attributed to objects or events by individuals. Values are real to the extent some persons hold them. They are unreal for persons who do not hold them. 2) Some value attributions are correct, some are incorrect. Reflective value is always the judge of anticipatory valuing. 3) Values can be partly correct, as when the holding of values is temporarily socially satisfying but ephemerally so. An example would be walking a tightrope to show bravery, then living as a cripple ever after from falling. Time and perspective are all important in assessing the correctness of any assumption of anticipatory value. We can also be satisfied at a given moment, only to discover that a new vista of truth has uncovered in us a latent desire that surpasses or conflicts with the desire which has just been satisfied, as when someone discovers that the pleasure of accomplishment exceeds that of indolence. 4) Our understanding of the processes that operate in the universe is critical to our judgments of anticipatory value. Satisfaction is a function then of the truth we know about the universe. The more we know, the more correctly we can value things. Correct values make possible correct action to gain satisfactions. 5) We might conclude then that our beliefs about truth and our judgments about values are all relative to our desires and our desires are relative to the passage of time. In a real sense, we do not know what is true or good; we only feel what appears to us now.

Now some general further conclusions to all of this:

  1. We can rightfully judge no man, including ourselves. We perforce will judge some men to be good, but we must in all humility forebear to judge the righteousness of any man.
  2. To be able to judge every man is necessary before we can be righteous beings. We are righteous only when we can righteously judge everyone around us and so act as to maximize the happiness of each and every one. Since attainment of that lofty goal is impossible for any unaided human being, no man can of himself be righteous.
  3. The only kind of being that could be righteous would be one that was omniscient and omnipotent, and whose only desire was to do what is right. A clear perception of truth coupled with unlimited power to do the good things the omniscient mind has shown would lead to the happiness of others, would make a righteous being. Only gods could be righteous beings.
  4. Happiness comes only in doing good for others. Happiness is a function of righteousness. Only a righteous being can truly be happy.
  5. Unaided human beings cannot become truly happy.

Let us turn now to the analogy which stimulated the title of this paper. We might liken the human being to a tree. The roots of the tree are the desires of an individual. The roots of a tree provide the drive, the pressure for growth and accomplishment, as desires drive a person. I remember cutting down a young Box Elder tree one spring. Sap swelled up and flowed copiously from the sawed trunk drenching the ground around the base of the stump. So do desires well up within us.

The trunk and scaffold of the tree we might liken to the noetic frame a person has, which is his understanding of the universe. A great and strong understanding can support a great weight of activity and accomplishment, just as a strong trunk and scaffold can support much fruit. I suppose we all have seen fruit trees broken down by the weight of their own growing product, just as we have seen people broken by the tasks for which they were not prepared in understanding and ability.

The branches and twigs of the tree are like the values a person has. Ideas and understandings are translated into particular choices through valuations, even as the trunk and scaffold of the tree transmit the drive and nourishment of the roots to the twigs.

The leaves of the tree we might liken unto our sensory capacity. Through our senses we observe the world and generate and gather strength for our understanding. By this means we receive words and other symbols from other people which also build our understanding, even as the leaves of the tree receive sunlight and carbon dioxide and manufacture the cellulose which accrues to the structure of the tree in its annual growth.

The fruit of the tree would be our actions, our words and deeds. A good tree brings forth good fruit, an evil tree, evil fruit. The kind of fruit may be determined by genetics, but the quality and quantity of the fruit are determined by the individual tree. The spread of its roots, the strength and shape of the trunk and scaffold, the spacing and direction of the limbs and twigs, all of these factors determine how much and how well the tree will bear fruit, be it good or evil.

As the strength of the roots of the tree are always transported through the trunk and branches, even so in human beings desires are always translated through beliefs (understandings) in the creation of values, and all action is a reflection of values. The power of our actions is a function of the strength, the power, of our desires. But desire not given a pattern and outlet by understanding is as sap that spills onto the ground. Desire comes to fruition only through ideas and values.

There are three basic morals to this analogy. First, desires, however good and noble, if filtered through error in the process of creating values, will produce poor fruit and will not yield satisfaction of desire. Second, we can see that evil desires, when translated through truth or error into values, will produce evil fruit. Third, we see that only as good desires are translated through truth can correct values be formed and thus good fruit is born. Perhaps an example would clarify each of these three.

First, an example of a good desire translated through false ideas to produce bad values and evil fruits. One basic human desire is to help other people who are ill. But not long since, the medical profession entertained the false understanding that bleeding a patient would improve his health. Bleeding was therefore a valued therapy. But the resulting fruit was unfortunate, as when the good doctors bled George Washington and doubtless contributed to his demise.

Second, an example of evil desire and good understanding. We might take Adolph Hitler as a prime case. He seemed to be driven by the desire for power and dominion, which I take to be an evil drive. But he and his collaborators knew a good deal about the world. They were sufficiently understanding of psychology and power to dominate the politics of their country. They understood social organizations sufficiently to build and awesome social mechanism for both internal control and external aggression. They understood science and technology sufficiently to equip their armies, navies and air force formidably. They understood economics enough to avoid internal insolvency. They understood almost enough to conquer the whole world. The values those desires and understandings produced were predictable: loss of personal freedom, demand of total loyalty to the state, inhumane ability to cause suffering in others in behalf of their cause, etc. The fruits were war, destruction of the Jews, untold suffering.

A third example, this one of good desires coupled with correct understanding, might come from the founding fathers of this nation. Their desire was to bless others. They understood that liberty was one of the greatest human needs, and that it could be attained only through a limited republican government of checks and balances. Thus they valued limited sovereignty for the government, with the remainder accruing to the people. The fruit they bore was the constitution of the United States of America.

I take it that it is not necessary to give an example of bad desires coupled with bad ideas. Prototypes of this variation abound everywhere, and we can be grateful that they seldom come to fruition. I suppose further that we all agree that good desires coupled with truth yield good values and fruits. But the question might be asked, “Which is worse: good desires coupled with false understanding or evil desires coupled with correct understanding?” This question results of course in a value judgment, but I suggest that the most troublesome of the world’s problems come from good desires coupled with error rather that from evil desires coupled with truth. As a case in point I would like to contrast Hitler’s socialism with communist socialism.

I again take Hitler’s socialism to be based on an evil desire, the domination of the world by the Aryan race, but applied with much skill and realism as to how to make things work in this world. Hitler possibly was finally contained and destroyed because so many persons of differing persuasions recognized the evil desire of his group. He forged his own opposition by the obvious malappropriateness of his intent. No outsider was surprised that his regime bore evil fruit of suffering and repression; these were expected as the natural consequence of a recognized evil desire.

A contrasting case is that of the communist movement of the twentieth century. I include in this many flavors, such as both British socialism and Russian socialism. Here we have a political movement with obviously good intent: the focus is on freeing mankind from economic want. It is difficult to find anyone who seriously agrees to the contrary of that desire, who believes that economic deprivation and differentiation are good. A little reflection shows, however, that the good desire of the communist or socialist approach is filtered through an unreal romantic notion of the reality of this world. For example, the supposition that forced cooperation is superior to voluntary cooperation as an efficient and effective means of producing the goods by which to relieve want has been shown to be untrue again and again. The supposition that people prefer economic security to personal liberty has been found wanting, necessitating iron and bamboo curtains.

Filtering the good intention of communism through such bad ideas about the world, has produced incorrect, unfortunate valuations which in turn have led to massive evil. Soviet communism has produced chambers of horrors equally as bad, if not much worse, than those of Nazi Germany. But the world looks on communism with some indulgence because the intent, the desire, seems defensible. I maintain that evil is evil, regardless of intent, and that only good intent coupled with truth about the nature of man and the universe can produce a good society. Only then will values be correct and appropriate to good desires. I further maintain that most human beings have good desires, and that the evils of our world are the flower and fruit of untruth more than of evil desire. The conclusion I reach then is that while we must not lose sight of the goodness of desire, our main concern to make a better world must be the beliefs we hold which give rise to our values.

It is plain that what the world needs is a new mode of gaining truth. Tradition is obviously inadequate. Science, the successor to tradition as a source of truth has done well, but is also obviously insufficient, for it can only deal with questions which have an empirical testability. Before this age sinks completely back into the morass of astrology, soothsaying and priestcraft, perhaps it will listen to the profound conclusion of David Hume:

“A person, seasoned with a just sense of the imperfections of natural reason, will fly to revealed truth with the greatest avidity: … To be a philosophical Skeptic is, in a man of letters, the first and most essential step towards being a sound, believing Christian; …” (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion).

I would like now to be specific about some of the values of our culture and the beliefs that create them. One obvious desire of American civilization is “the good life.” Perceived values of “the good life” are financial security, elimination of physical labor, elimination of pain, prolongation of life, high consumption of energy and goods, and social esteem. This partial list of values accounts for a vast bulk of the verbal and physical acts of persons in our society, such as the desire for publicity and degrees, fashion consciousness, demands for health care, the stifling of every discomfort with pills, proliferation of labor-saving devices or systematizing some form of slave labor, and the willingness to do almost anything that is financially profitable.

The acts mentioned clearly arise from the values mentioned as those values clearly arise from the desire for “the good life.” But the desire for this good life is transmitted through a set of beliefs, a set of ideas about the nature of people and the universe. In the case mentioned, the functional beliefs of the typical American are that man is only a physical body, that one does not exist after death in at least anything like the present situation, and that one has obligations only to himself. Now I admit that some of these typical Americans say, when asked theological questions, that they believe otherwise. But it has long since been shown that in many typical American religions theology is not correlated with religion, i.e., theory has little effect on practice. The functional belief is that selfishness, the concern for the comforts of the self, is the appropriate means to the good life. Selfishness may be itself a basic desire for some persons. But I assume there are many persons who would not be so selfish if they had true beliefs.

It is possible, for instance, to assume that the true nature of our situation is that the true person of each human being is his spirit, not his physical body, that we human beings will continue to exist forever with social and environmental concerns very much like the present, and that we are obliged to account to everyone whom our lives affect and to every physical thing around us which we use or abuse. I assume, of course, that all of us live on eternally, even after what we call death. None of these fundamental ideas I here mention as the true nature of our situation is susceptible of scientific proof or disproof. Nevertheless, every intelligent human being has some belief on each topic, which beliefs are the translating mechanism by which desires pass into values and become acts.

Should a person believe this second set of ideas, and have a desire for the good life, he would substitute a desire for anonymity in place of the honors of men, so that all men may have their fair share of esteem. Fashion consciousness would be replaced with the desire to help all persons be neatly and comfortably clad. Demand for personal health care would be replaced with concern for proper hygiene for all persons in order that disease might be prevented. Pain would often be endured as part of needed learning experience rather than treated as an evil. Personal physical labor would be seen as a valued contribution to the well-being of society and nature, replacing the obverse high consumption demands upon society and nature. The drive for amassing money would be replaced with the hunger to give service with as little thought for reward as possible.

What is the real difference between these two frames of mind? The one I have labeled as typical American assumes that the strong might as well take all they can, for life is soon over and ended, and if I am rude to someone, they probably cannot get back at me. The contrasting frame of mind assumes that we are on an eternal trip together; the weak will eventually become strong and all will be equal. We therefore would need to learn to cooperate and to treat everyone else as we would like to be treated, that rudeness will come home to haunt every selfish person as he is eternally confronted by and must account to his ancestors, his neighbors, and his posterity.

I suppose that everyone here is convinced that values and valuations are important to our lives or you would not be here. It has been my attempt as the main thrust of this paper to demonstrate that considerations of truth must go hand-in-hand with considerations of value and that our ideas of what is true inevitably guide and shape our values. I conclude that we must be very concerned that our ideas about the universe be true in order that our valuations will be correct.

A second emphasis of this paper has been to show that unaided human ability, individual or collective, is not sufficient to know those truths about the unseen world which are essential to correct values, nor is it sufficient to be able to make correct anticipatory valuations. This thrust has not been here fully demonstrated. I assert it, but also have full confidence that complete demonstration of this point can be made by any of you, for I have seen this demonstration made many times. I conclude from this that men must look to their spiritual resources to discover those truths and values which will enable them to attain happiness.

I further suggest that the key to using spiritual resources is to honor our own best ideas and feelings and through them to find the prophet of God. When we get a consonance between what we feel and what the prophet of God says, we will then find those truths and values which will enable every one of us to find happiness.

Finally, I witness to you that there is a true and living God who does reveal truth and correct values to men. The name of that God is Jesus Christ. The name of his true living prophet is Spencer Woolley Kimball. Thank you.

Posted in 2026 Essay | Leave a comment

Achieving the Consensus

The thesis of this article is that a consensus of beliefs and values among Latter-day Saints is desirable and will be achieved. The purpose of this article is to assist in the attainment of that consensus by furthering understanding of it.

Unity as the Ideal

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God. We are given to understand that the entire celestial community is one with them. This community acknowledges the same truths, accepts the same values, and abides a unified chain of command. It pleased our Savior to do nothing in his mortal mission except to do his Father’s will, though he was already a god in his own right. Indeed, because he was a god, being perfect in desires and decisions and knowing all things, he fully recognized the perfection of his Father and the importance of being one with his Father through complete obedience to his Father’s will. But the obedience came first. Our Savior became a god in the premortal existence because he was given the opportunity to test and try the Father’s will to see if it was good. Finding it to be good, he disciplined himself to do nothing but the Father’s will and thus was able to become a god and our Savior.

The invitation to join that celestial society and unity, to become one with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, is the “good news” of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Every human being is invited to sample and to experiment with the truths, the values and the commandments which the Savior gives to men. Some sample, experiment and find the word of Jesus Christ to be satisfying, ennobling, and enabling to them in the quest of making this world a better place. Others sample, experiment and reject. A major cause of rejection is doubtless the fact that there is an adversary, the father of lies, whose mission it is to distort the message about Jesus Christ, to prevent people from receiving it in its purity and simplicity, thus to thwart the work of righteousness and unity. But that thwarting is temporary at best. Before any person is judged in final judgment, either by God or by himself or herself, he or she will have opportunity to receive a direct divine revelatory manifestation of the word of Christ through the Holy Spirit, not mediated by men of the world. Thus each tastes the pure word and is free to choose it or reject it according to their own personal desires.

The premise underlying this opportunity to hear and to test the word of the Lord depends upon two fundamental beliefs about the universe: 1) That there is one truth, one reality about any matter of fact about the universe. It is either true or false that men have spirit bodies separate from their physical bodies. It is either true or false that men’s spirits live on after the death of the physical body. It is either true or false that all men will be resurrected and will stand before the Savior and account for each decision the made during probation. It is also to be understood that each human being has some ability to tell truth from falsehood; using that ability, each human being is forced to judge the Savior where and as he or she can, to decide whether or not the Savior speaks the truth. 2) That there is value, as well as truth, attaching to everything. Value means that every idea, fact, or deed may be or should be preferred over another rival idea, fact or deed. One can prefer the idea of equity among men over the idea of inequality. One can prefer this poor person to be clothed rather than naked. One can prefer to share one’s goods with one’s neighbors rather than take their goods from them. We value what we prefer. “Values” are the abstraction of these preferences. The truths we accept and the values we hold cause us to act as we do, and are the framework within which we act.

The claim for the word of Jesus Christ is that it is the key to the learning of all truth, about any matter, and that it is also the key to the learning of correct values, how to act righteously (to bless others as much as possible). The gospel is thus seen as a selective net. It gathers out of the world those who are honest in heart and/or who hunger and thirst after righteousness. But as in the parable, some gathered by the net are sent away, because the real test is not accepting truth and righteousness as abstractions or ideals, but actually living by them in solving the many and varied problems of one’s daily mortal life.

The purpose of living by truth and righteousness under the personal direction of Jesus Christ is twofold: to bless those who are less fortunate and to band together with other servants of Jesus Christ to create a society based on truth and righteousness. The Church of Jesus Christ exists to provide an orderly cooperative means for the servants of Jesus Christ to bless the less fortunate (e.g. missionary work, welfare services, education) and to create a celestial society in a telestial world. That celestial society, when attained, is called “Zion.”

The scriptural description of a Zion is a people who have one heart and one mind. They dwell in righteousness and thus there is no poor person among them. To say they have one heart means they have the same values, the same desires. To say they have one mind means they have a common understanding of the truths of the universe. To say that they are Zion means that they live unitedly in bonds of shared values and truths, each a cooperative and faithful member of the body of Christ. The body of Christ is one because each member believes, prefers and acts under the direct leadership of the Savior. As he instructs, so each believes and acts. The beliefs and preferences are the same because each has yielded his or her heart and mind to the Savior, to become his little child. Each acts differently, according to the gifts and assignments each receives, but all act in harmony, the Savior being the head, telling the eye, the ear, the hand and the foot what to do and how to do it.

The mission of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is thus two-fold: to share their wealth with the world, the greatest wealth being the knowledge of the mind and will of the Lord (the Gospel); and to establish Zion, a people who see eye to eye on all matters of truth, preference and action. These two efforts reinforce each other. The more unified the members of the church are, the greater the power of their missionary witness. The greater the labor and sacrifice in blessing others with the missionary witness, the greater will be the gifts of God in revealing more truth, understanding further correct preferences, and in carrying out greater works in unified effort.

What a marvel it would be to see Zion, a people who were informed, understanding and discerning about the politics, economics and social problems of this world and who were in full agreement with one another. What a marvel to see a people united about scientific matters, religious practice, where everyone would have a shared understanding of the truth about the creation of the earth and its living forms, about how religion is supposed to affect politics, about what kinds of music, art, dance, etc., are ennobling and strengthening and which are not.

But understanding of the “what” of Zion is not usually clear not useful unless accompanied by an understandable account as to how it can be made real in this world.

The Means to Unity

The world recognizes the importance of unity and tries to achieve it. One notable tactic employed by the world to gain consensus is careful management of the information and education a population receives, including the withholding of information, exposing all persons to a stipulated set of ideas, and the promulgation of falsehood. These variants on the management theme have been employed by governments, societies, and religious organizations from the beginning of recorded history and are in full flower today.

Another tactic of the world, actually an application of the first tactic, is to elevate a methodology to where it becomes the solution to all problems. In past ages this has been attempted for the oracles, in our age the enthronement of science is the application. This tactic, as those above, gives those who can employ the methodology great power over the rest of the population, which power has not always been used selflessly. The major drawback of this tactic is the inability of the methodology to work unerringly and sufficiently. The oracles did not always score; science often gives partial answers which must later be reversed and it cannot handle the most important questions of fact nor any of the questions of value.

The world is thus tossed to and fro by winds of doctrine, depending on who has power and/or prestige in a given society at a given time. This background highlights the strength and desirability of the alternative offered to the world in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The gospel mode of knowing and acting focuses on the inner experience of each human being rather that upon the testimony of the senses or the power of reason. It exalts the conscience of each person. The gospel message says that our challenge is to become spiritually alive. Each of us has personal knowledge of the existence of at least one spirit—our own. We can recognize in our own inner experience something qualitatively different from our experience with other persons and objects in the world. We have feelings and experiences within our own consciousness that we do not perceive in relation to anything but our own body.

The gospel message is that we should be honest in heart—to admit what our heart (our conscience) tells us and to honor that influence above all other things. But it is to be done in coordination with our experience of the world, our mind, and the relations we have with other people. It tells us that it is our spirit, our own unique individual inner person, that is our primary link with the Holy Spirit. As we are honest in admitting to ourselves what our own feeling (conscience) says to us, we can receive and profit from the continuing manifestations of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit tells each person receptive to it when the Restored Gospel is taught to them that they should believe in Jesus Christ. They should believe that he is the Son of God and will become our Lord and Savior if we will believe in him and obey him through the Holy Spirit. The obedience he requires is for us to forsake all selfishness and to focus our lives upon blessing others under his direction. To assist us in that obedience, he asks us to covenant with him by entering the waters of baptism, after which he bestows upon us the power and right to have the Holy Spirit (which is His spirit) with us at all times, to guide us in all matters. Then he commends to us to endure to the end, which is to repent of every sin, to cultivate the companionship of his Holy Spirit to the point where it does guide us in all things and reveals to us the truth of all things, until we have used our agency to use the help of the Holy Spirit to shape and forge a new mind, a new heart, a new countenance—until we have become as he is. For he is the end. Then, having access to all truth and all correct values, our power to do the work of righteousness, to bless others, is limited only by their willingness to receive.

Once a person has begun to honor his or her inner spiritual resources, which come through the Holy Ghost, all other powers the person has can become active to assist them in learning about the trustworthiness of this spiritual mode of knowing and acting. As the Holy Spirit testifies of some truths, our senses can test the ideas to see if that is the way the physical world is. With other ideas we can use our reason to check for consistency and continuity. With yet others we can bring to bear our experiences in the past. Or we can perform and experiment, to see if a given principle is true. In all things the Lord says “Try me. You judge whether or not my word ennobles and strengthens your soul.” With all the intelligence we have, we may test and prove all things. At the same time we must know ourselves. Would we reject a truth because it is not acceptable to our peers? Would we reject instruction to share with someone because we would rather be selfish? Would we have to “eat” too many of our own previous statements if we became little children before Jesus Christ? Would we be willing to lose our job, our family, our friends, to embrace truth and righteousness? Whenever we measure the Lord, we automatically measure ourselves.

The emphasis in the gospel mode of knowing and acting is upon character. As one strips oneself of pride, arrogance, carnality, dishonesty and every other selfish thing, one becomes a fit vessel for more and more light and truth. The light and truth are not just for having, but for doing, for blessing others, instead of doing it in the weakness of our own limited views. We have access to the omniscience of our God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Important truth and the whole truth cannot be learned by those who are not committed to moral action, to use that knowledge correctly. The end of the gospel is not to produce knowers; it is to produce doers full of knowledge who act fully under the direction of Jesus Christ.

Let us note some special features of the gospel mode of knowing and acting.

1. No human being is the final authority on any topic. Servants of Christ are specifically enjoined not to rely upon the arm of flesh nor to believe the words of any man save that man speak by the power of the Holy Spirit. If we know by the power of the Holy Spirit that what some person says is by the Holy Spirit, then we can accept and agree, because the Savior is the source of what we both accept, not any mortal human. Our hope, our trust, our faith is in the Savior. If the president of the Church of Jesus Christ speaks, we rejoice and accept because we know by the Holy Spirit within us that he speaks by the Holy Spirit: he speaks for the Savior. We give special attention to his words because he is president; we accept his words not because he is president but because we ascertain that he speaks for our Savior as he speaks. The same is true for any other speaker. We listen to many persons in and out of the Church, but we believe and act only upon that to which the Holy Spirit bears witness.

2. Use of the gospel mode is available to every human adult of normal mentality.
The proviso here is that a person cannot use the gospel mode of knowing and acting until he or she has heard it. Thus faith comes only by the hearing of the word of the Savior. The word needs to be preached to all the world, that all may be truly free to become partakers of the heavenly gift. But having heard it, any person, regardless of race, culture, creed or experience can turn to their inward resources and judge and evaluate all ideas and actions as long as the Holy Spirit is their personal tutor, taking each person where he or she is, leading each in a perfectly designed path to that growth necessary to become like the Savior.

3. A growth process is engaged in by every person employing this mode, which enables each person to become more knowledgeable, more able. It is the mission of the Holy Spirit to lead each covenant servant into a fulness of truth and light, i.e., knowledge and wisdom. We are led by it to that water, which, if we partake, we never need thirst again; but we must drink. If we are humble, we have the opportunity to test and try the Lord at each step, with each instruction. Some things revealed to us may take years for us to understand, accept and assimilate. Other things will be taken in stride. The provision here is that once we see and accept something as true or good, we must not go back on it. If the Holy Spirit reveals something to us and we ponder, evaluate and test it, then realize that we for ourselves know it is true, we must then never pretend that we do not know about that something, or that it is false. We are required to be honest, never to reject something we know to be true.

Doubtless it is pleasing to the Lord when our line by line, precept upon precept learning moves at a good pace. But should we for some reason of upbringing or professional training pause longer than most at some point, he is kind. He labors with us, helping us to assemble and assess the evidence, but will not overwhelm us with more evidence than we care to have. He loves us and wishes for each of us individually all of the experience, the growth from which we can profit consistent with all the honesty and humility which we can bring to bear.

As we are humble and honest he reveals to us first the basics and then even the mysteries as we demonstrate that we will use such revelation to do good under his direction. This increases our knowledge until our understanding reaches to heaven and increases our power until we too can perform mighty miracles in blessing our fellow beings.

4. As people independently apply the gospel mode it brings them gradually into agreement with each other about all matters of truth and value. As there is only one true God, one faith, one baptism, so there is one truth about each matter of fact, one best way to act in any given situation. The Savior does not insist that we subscribe to all he says at once, but plainly is pleased when we choose his truth and righteousness in preference to the ideas and values of the world. Doubtless he is more pleased with careful, deliberate preferring followed by faithful endurance than by ready acceptance that cannot gain root. But the goal is plainly that we should become one with him even as he is one with the Father.

To that end, the Savior bestows the Father’s glory upon each of his covenant children. The glory of god is intelligence, or light and truth. It is bestowed by granting the gift of the Holy Ghost upon the head of each newly baptized person. All this that they might become one with each other and with him, even as he is one with the Father. The watchmen will see eye to eye when the Lord doth bring again Zion.

How It All Works In Our Lives Today

The Savior uses three prime instrumentalities to bring the inhabitants of this world to a knowledge of his will: 1) The Holy Spirit 2) his living prophet 3) the scriptures. The witness of the Holy Spirit is a necessary accompaniment to the other two. When the prophet speaks, the Holy Spirit testifies to all who will receive it. When people read the scriptures and can receive the Spirit, the Spirit witnesses to that truth also. The living prophet takes precedence over any dead prophet, to which the Holy Spirit also attests. But in the mouths of two or more witnesses, all things are established, the Holy Spirit being the usual second witness when we hear the living prophet or when we read the scriptures.

In 1831, the Prophet Joseph Smith received a revelation now known as Section 42 of the Doctrine and Covenants. This section contains a commandment of the Lord for each faithful member of the Church to enter formally into the living of the law of consecration. The Lord labored with the members, giving them revelation after revelation through the Prophet Joseph encouraging them to implement this law. The people either would not or could not do so; in any case they did not do so. After several years the Lord relieved the Church of this requirement and substituted the lesser law of tithing, which is the church standard to this day. The consensus failed in that case. The principle of consecration is true, however, and this people cannot establish Zion until such time as they voluntarily achieve consensus and implement the law of consecration as the standard of the kingdom. That implementation can and will come only as the Lord again calls his people, through his living prophet, to live that principle. Meanwhile, the principle remains true and necessary for preparation for a celestial society. Every person who hopes to be like the Savior must accept it when they learn of it, before they can progress further. Thus, there are many in the Church today who are fully converted to the principle, and who could and would implement it immediately in their lives if the living prophet gave the signal. On the other hand there are many, faithful by present standards, who would choke and die spiritually if asked to swallow it. Some not now converted would eventually come to it and embrace it faithfully, but would need time and patience on the part of their leaders to come around.

Meanwhile, the hearts and minds of members are being prepared. A few years ago President Romney noted that faithful members really ought to double their fast offerings. Many heard, received the witness of the Spirit, and doubled. The next year the Spirit said to some to double again; the next year again. When President Kimball said subsequently that members who were able should be contributing ten times the amount saved by fasting, many faithful members could attest that was the will of the Lord because they were already doing it in obedience to the Spirit. That is faith. That is consensus indeed.

In 1833 the Prophet Joseph Smith received the revelation now known as Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants, The Word of Wisdom. It was not given nor received as a commandment, and some then faithful members of the Church did not readily accept and abide it. The principles of this revelation were true and good before the revelation and after. But the consensus was slow in coming. Later the revelation was made a commandment by a later living prophet. The active membership of the Church now has a consensus about the word of wisdom. The truths and values included in the consensus of the present membership of the Church is enlarged to include the word of wisdom.

The consensus is thus a moving quantity. It always begins small and enlarges gradually over a fixed territory of truth and righteousness, fixed in the sense that truth and righteousness do not change. Rather the spirituality and faithfulness of the members of the Church grows so that they come to agree on more and more items of truth and righteousness.

In June 1978 the living prophet said that faithful members of the Church of all races could then hold the priesthood. It had always been true that that event would take place, as had been prophesied. Some wanted it to be true earlier, when it was not yet appropriate. Some wanted it to become true later, even not in this world. Some only wanted the Lord’s will to be done and rejoiced when his will was made known. When the prophet spoke, the faithful went to their knees, seeking that second witness. It came in the still small voice of peace and joy. Suffice it to say, the consensus came quickly on this matter, for many who thought and desired otherwise quickly sought, received and rallied behind the living prophet.

The living prophet also spoke out against the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, asking church members not to support it. Many were already of that mind and supported immediately. Others prayed and supported because they later received the second witness. Others say they have no witness and do not join the consensus. Yet others actively fight the stand of the living prophet, even going so far as to hold him up to ridicule. It is of the latter two groups that we must speak more particularly.

Those who have no witness are in a quandary. They have given assent to the gospel message and to many if not all of the statements of the living prophet. They may be keeping a journal, beautifying their home, raising a fine garden, doing extra missionary work, acting faithfully in their callings. The prophet does not say they must accept the anti-ERA position. They are given time, much time to ponder, pray, and to work out their feelings in the matter. Meanwhile, there is considerable rational evidence and experience to give them reason to see possible problems with ERA. And there is the sustaining witness of all of the other general authorities and of most members of the Church. They feel some pressure from within the Church to accept the prophet and some pressure from other sources to reject what the prophet says on this issue.

The pressure on each side is appropriate. It is under pressure of repeated hammerings that the fine steel is forged. To be under pressure and yet carefully to make one’s way to truth and righteousness is the way of the Lord. This world is so constructed that no one ever traverses the narrow way by accident.

The question does and should arise, Can I give allegiance to the prophet, sometimes accepting his word only because the Spirit attests to it? When the opinion of knowledgeable people of our society is contrary because the known evidence seems to indicate that a position contrary to the word of the prophet is true, some people find themselves with a difficult conflict. Could one be intellectually honest and prefer faith over evidence? The answer is that faith (the revelation of the Spirit) is evidence of things not seen which are true. The question then becomes one of preference. Does one prefer the evidence of human authority and inconclusive sensory data, or does one prefer the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Human authority and sensory data have proven to be a sandy foundation so many times in the life of mankind and in the life of each individual that one need not know about revelation to hope for something better. One need only be intellectually honest. But dependence upon the Holy Spirit is an option only for those who understand it and have tried it and proved that it works. Anyone who has proved himself or herself that it does work has had the experience of following a sure, unerring guide. The real question is then: would I prefer the testimony of the leaders of our worldly society that say abortion is a morally neutral act and will bring improved conditions to our society? Or, will I prefer the testimony of the prophet and the Holy Spirit that cutting up, scalding to death, or poisoning a live human body is one of the most heinous and repulsive crimes ever perpetrated by a human being and will eventuate in terrible consequences both for the society that allows it and for the individuals that participate in it? Where is intellectual honesty? Anyone who knows enough about intellect to be honest about it knows that an intelligent person will fly to genuine divine revelation with the greatest of avidity. The problem of intellectual honesty is a difficult problem only for those who know no alternative to the hypotheses and inductive leaps of the best of ordinary human thinking.

Some are confused by the supposed desirability of the separation of church and state. In our present circumstance that separation seems good; however, when the Savior comes, we will have no laws but his laws. Meanwhile, we need not confuse church with religion and state with politics. While it may be necessary now to hold entirely distinct the institutions of church and state, it is surely not either desirable nor possible to separate one’s religion from one’s politics. Our religion is the pattern of our choices in the problems of our daily lives. It is what we really believe, for out of it all of our actions flow, including our thinking and acting about government, social relations, taxes, wars, and voting. To attempt to separate religion and politics is to become schizophrenic—two-headed. No man or woman can serve two masters. Our political stance is always a clear reflection of our true religion. Confused or not, each person must eventually declare for or against the prophet, which is to say for or against the Holy Spirit, for or against the Savior.

When the living prophet speaks on ERA and says it is a matter of morality, what does that mean? It seems to mean that while church members are free to take opposite sides on some political issues because they don’t yet matter a great deal, this one is different. This one is of sufficient importance and danger that every member should seek for special spiritual witness in this matter; not to join the consensus out of blind obedience but out of prayerful faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. This matter is so serious that it cannot be left only to those who already know by the spirit where they should stand. The witness goes forth to rally the sleeping and the indifferent and the temporarily misdirected as well. Hopefully, the consensus will become great enough that the amendment will be defeated and its train of presently unseen evil averted. Faith is to believe what is true but not seen; the faithful believe because they too know that their living prophet is led by Jesus Christ. They know that because they are also led by Christ.

Church members are told they may oppose the prophet’s stand without jeopardizing their membership. This freedom is necessary to give time, ample time, for each person to wrestle with his or her conscience. To be a convert, to support the prophet because of the whisperings of the Spirit, even if it takes a long time, is of infinitely greater worth than grudging external allegiance gained only by fear and sanction. The prophet bears his witness, borne out of faith and prayer, and invites all members to do the same. The unavoidable conclusion is that those who cannot eventually agree with the prophet reject him as the prophet. Is it possible that the prophet and all of the general authorities could be wrong? Not if this is the true Church of Jesus Christ. To reject the prophet and the other authorities is to say this is just another church of men.

What of those who fight the living prophet and the general authorities openly in opposing their stand on ERA or any other issue? It is plain that they are fully apostate. They may indeed see cultural value in the Church and desirable features of the theology, but they have rejected their covenant with the Savior and the instruction to receive the Holy Ghost. The most important thing about their excommunication is that then the disbeliever is better off, being relieved of the obligations of his or her covenant.

The Future of the Consensus

The issue of ERA is not the final item. The living prophet will not be stayed. He must lead this people as the Savior directs. He must love the Savior and the members of this church enough to bring the bridegroom and the brides together. The brides must have oil in their lamps. The oil is their faithfulness. The wise virgins are they who are wise, have received the truth, have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide and have not been deceived. Doubtless there will be a series of statements by the living prophet, attested to by the general authorities, each of which will give each member repeated chances to declare himself or herself in or out of the covenant and the kingdom.

The natural course of events would seem to portend that as the pronouncements of the prophets probe more deeply into faith, life and politics, the circle of those who accept it will grow smaller and smaller. But this Church is not a natural phenomenon. This is the work of the Savior to prepare a kingdom for his second coming. Out of every nation, kindred, tongue and people they will come. They are the humble and faithful who will be wise, will receive the truth, will take the Holy Spirit for their guide and will not be deceived. They will form a mighty army of the Lord, as army so obviously good and righteous that even the unbelieving nations of this world will be constrained to acknowledge that these truly are the servants of Jesus Christ, for they love one another and are one in heart and in mind, even as He said.

What mechanism, what cultural pattern can or will engender the consensus we hope for? Likely the strength of the process will be found in the homes of Latter-day Saints. Whenever the living prophet speaks or writes to the Church, husbands and wives will carefully review what he has said. If the Holy Spirit has not already attested to his words in the process of initial hearing, they will try to gain complete familiarization with what the prophet has said, simultaneously seeking the witness of the Holy Spirit, yea or nay. As each person independently receives revelation, they then bear witness to one another. If they agree with the prophet, they rejoice, because they then have three witnesses to the truth: the living prophet, the Holy Spirit, and each other. Then they will encourage each of their children to gain his or her own personal witness as they encourage each of their children to gain his or her own personal witness as they review the words of the prophet on Sunday or during Family Home Evening. Unmarried adults will follow a similar pattern, seeking and treasuring the second witness. Ministering brothers and sisters will share their witness with the people they minister to. Bishops will share their testimony with their ward, as will stake presidents with their stake. Thus will we come to be of one heart and one mind and dwell in righteousness.

But what if a husband or wife both gain no witness from the Holy Spirit? They should continue to strive for that witness. Perhaps they will hear the witness of their bishop or ministering brother or sister and will receive the quiet warm assurance of the Spirit that they speak truly. To be able to believe in the words of others is also a gift of the Holy Spirit.

What if they receive a witness they feel is contrary to the word of the prophet? Then there is trouble indeed. They need to look to their lives, to see if they are keeping the commandments; if not, they have gotten out of tune and are receiving and accepting revelation from the adversary, who is only too willing to tell anyone anything they wish to hear as long as it is not the truth. If they finally cannot agree with the prophet, they say in effect, that for them he is no prophet. If they once knew that he was a prophet and represented the Lord, they have now begun to reject the prophet and the Lord.

In the last days there will come an entire separation of the righteous and the wicked. Yet a while do the wheat and the tares grow together. The love of a prophet of God calls all men to declare themselves as wheat. But he cannot compromise the truth. He must speak as he hears. And all who hear the same beloved Savior agree with the prophet. Perhaps the separation has begun. “If ye are not one, ye are not mine.”

Posted in 2026 Essay | Leave a comment