The Basic Unit of Human Communication

Chauncey C. Riddle
Brigham Young University
13 Feb. 1986

Riddle, Chauncey C. (1986) “The Basic Unit of Human Communication,” Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium: Vol. 12: Iss. 1, Article 11. Available at: http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/dlls/vol12/iss1/11

Riddle, Chauncey C. (1986) “The Basic Unit of Human Communication,” Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium: Vol. 12: Iss. 1, Article 11.
Riddle, Chauncey C. (1986) “The Basic Unit of Human Communication,” Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium: Vol. 12: Iss. 1, Article 11.

This paper attempts to give a definitive answer to the question: What is the basic unit of human communication? The inquiry will proceed by establishing communication as a systems concept and will then propose that assertion-in-use-context is the basic unit of human communication, showing the superiority of that unit over others which might be reasonably considered as the basic unit.

In systems theory we may distinguish three kinds of systems, each of which has an appropriate companion definition of communication. We shall assume that in reality there is only one system in existence, which is the totality of the universe. The term system used below should be read as sub-system of the universe. Static systems are geometric arrangements of non-changing parts of sane arbitrarily defined whole. Each static system has internal parts (each of which has some internal relationship with every other part), a system boundary, and an environment. Communication in a static system is unobstructed contiguity of parts of a static system. This is a non-transitive relationship. For example, we say that the kitchen of this house communicates with the living room because there is a doorway which leads directly from one to the other. We say that tunnel A does not communicate with tunnel B in the mine because one must go outside the mind into another static system to gain access from tunnel A to tunnel B.

Dynamic systems are first static systems to which change or functioning of internal parts and the external environment have been added. The dynamic aspect of dynamic systems is construed in terms of input from the environment, internal processing of that input, and output from the system to the environment. Communication in a dynamic system is the effect which one or more parts of a dynamic system has upon any other part. This communication is to be taken as transitive, effect transferring from part to part, contrary to the non-transitive nature of static communication. The unit of dynamic communication may be taken to be effective force applied through time, as in foot-pounds of work per minute. For example, the engine of an automobile delivers an output of foot-pounds of power which is transmitted through the transmission, drive shaft, differential, axles, wheels and tires of the automobile; that power translated into friction between the tires and the pavement propels the vehicle along the surface of the pavement. Thus the engine communicates with the tires to accomplish the work of the automobile. If any linkage part is missing or defective (e.g., if the differential is stripped), then the engine no longer communicates with the tires and the functioning of the system is defective.

An agent system is a dynamic system of which at least one part is an agent. An agent is a being whose acts are discretionary: given any act performed in its specific context, if the actor could have acted otherwise then the actor is an agent. This is an ideal definition, for it presupposes an omniscient observer. For mere humans, agency is attributed when the actor acts first one way am then quite another in apparently identical but time differentiated situations. Communication for an agent system is (1) action of the agent upon the environment to attempt to effect a desired change in the environment; or (2) action by the agent to interpret present input from the environment in order to project a hypothesis as to what will happen next as a basis for communication (1). In other words, agents both send and receive communication as agents. In the agent communication situation the universe is divided into two systems: the agent and all he controls, and the remainder of the universe. Thus agent communication is simply any output from the agent system to the remainder of the universe or any input from the remainder of the universe to the agent system. For example, an agent who reads a newspaper is being affected by an input from the environment in the receiving of communication; he may then write a letter to the editor in the attempt to create a change in the environment by sending communication. Negative examples would be failure of the delivery of the newspaper (so that no effect of the newspaper is possible on the agent) and failure of the letter to reach the editor (thus making impossible any change such as that which the agent desires).

It is now necessary to posit two hypothetical creatures to answer the needs of the two kinds of agent communication posited above. The receiving of communication from the universe by an agent we shall denominate assessment; the sending of communication to the universe by an agent shall be denominated as assertion. Thus an agent receives input from the universe and processes it. This processing is never a simple result of the universe acting upon the agent in a mechanical fashion: the agent is always a creative participant, injecting his desires and beliefs into the construction which he creates to represent in his own mind what is happening “out there” in the universe. Likewise, his attempt to project a cause into the universe which will create a desired change in the universe is clearly a function of the agent’s desires and beliefs. Thus, agent communication is significantly different from either static or dynamic communication. Whereas static communication is wholly a matter of internal relations constrained by spatial contiguity, and whereas dynamic communication is a mechanical type of input and output constrained in a mechanical fashion by the physical properties of the environment and the receiving and producing system, so the input and output of an agent system is internally shaped by the desires and beliefs of the agent (beliefs being a function of the desires of the agent). Incoming and outgoing action is not mechanically determined but is always factored by the unique nature of the desires of the individual agent.

When we compare assessment with assertion we see that both are necessary to communication. But assertion is action, whereas assessment is reaction. Assertion is public and objective, whereas assessment is private and subjective. Assertion is fixed and final for a given time and place, whereas assessment may be ongoing, perhaps never concluding definitively among several possibilities. Assertion is intrusive, offensive; assessment is protective, defensive. Assertion is a reflection of the assessments of the asserter, though assessment may remain mute, silent. Assertion tends to increase in importance with increase of the agency of the asserter, whereas assessment does not necessarily do so. An asserter is found out for what he is, whereas an assessor may simply be a blotter. These contrasts suggest that assertion is the primary factor in agent communication, a better target for fixing a single unit of communication than assessment would be.

Assertion is the intentional act of an agent who attempts to effect a change in the universe (the universe outside of himself) in order to change how the universe affects him. He makes this attempt by a more or less calculated launching ofa perturbation (an effective force) into the universe. This assertion can take a verbal or nonverbal form, the universe seeming to be indifferent to which form it is. Thus an assertion can be a sentence, an exclamation, any noise, any gesture, any movement of body, perhaps even a thought process, should thought processes be detectable by am therefore influential on sane aspect of the universe.

We must also distinguish between assertion in the abstract and assertion in the context of a specific usage by a given agent in a specific environment. Abstract assertions are in reality not assertions but only hypotheses. They are potential assertions, having the form of assertions but lacking the pertinent autobiographical and contextual realities to make them real assertions. All real assertions are thus assertions by an agent in a specific, unique, historic situation. One final preliminary stipulation is necessary. We shall make a basic inclusion of human communication within agent communication. This inclusion cannot be made categorically, for not all humans are agents, and it is typical of adult human beings to be agents. Therefore this stipulation will suffice for the present concern.

It is now possible to state the thesis of this paper precisely. This is the thesis: The basic unit of human communication is an assertion in its historic context of actually being propounded by a real agent. We shall use this concept of assertion-in-use-context as the focus of attention for the remainder of this paper, and shall refer to it by the acronym AIUC.

We shall now state basic laws which apply to the AIUC.

  1. Every AIUC is unique, individuated by space, time, quality and author.
  2. The summed series of a given author’s assertions are his history. (assessments are presumed to be reflected in subsequent assertions.)
  3. Every agent is propounding an assertion at every moment.
  4. The AIUC of a given moment is the being of the agent.
  5. The measure of the agency of an agent is the sum of the agency of the agent assessors which respond positively to his assertion, plus the sum of his effect on non-agent reactors.
  6. The limiting factor on the expansion of the agency of an agent is his ability correctly to assess the desires of other agents as an instrument in the fulfilling of those desires of other agents.
  7. AIUC is the unique vehicle of message.

Messages are assessments of AIUCs. Messages exist only in the minds of assessors. They are different from intentions, for authors may intend one thing then see that their own assertion must be assessed to have a different message than that which they themselves intended. Messages are the reaction of each sentient, intelligent observer to a given AIUC, including the reaction of the asserter.

Messages have the following components:

  1. The asserter’s intent is hypothesized.
  2. There is a propositional decoding of the assertion.
  3. There is an attribution of strength (urgency, importance, authoritativeness, truthfulness, rightness, all these positive or  negative) for that assertion.
  4. There is an estimate of the impact or result on the universe of that AIUC being assessed (present result and probable future results.)

Propositional decoding is the observer’s mental action of translating the signals of the AIUC into a concatenation of concepts which the observer deems to be a full and adequate representation of what the asserter is saying. This translation may have two or more versions. One version may be the “literal” meaning of the asserter’s words which is then contrasted with the deeper or “real” meaning. When someone say’s “How are you?” upon meeting you for the first time in the morning, it is usually best to ignore the literal interpretation of the words spoken and answer only the “real intent,” which is often simply an acknowledgement that they recognize your presence. This propositional decoding is not necessarily a translation into a standard spoken language. It may be this in same cases. But it is always a translation into the personal concept language of the individual.

The personal concept language of the individual is those concepts which have been formed out of experience and need by each person. If people have many experiences in common, the concepts with which they think about those common experiences will tend to have greater similarity than if they do not have such experiences in common.

The hallmark of understanding of one another’s concepts is the ability to cooperate. When people work together over a period of time, language becomes adequate to facilitate extensive cooperation. This, for instance, is what makes government of the people and by the people possible. When a group of people are familiar only with oppression and tyranny, when they have learned to survive that tyranny only by being selfish and devious, they do not have the mind set nor the cooperative habits and attitudes which enable them to govern themselves peaceably. Another way of saying this is that there must be a language of freedom and responsibility in successful use before a people can enjoy freedom and responsibility.

The construction of a message by an observer is very much like the process that takes place as one watches a person draw, and shoot an arrow. If one wishes to understand the archer, one must figure out the archer’s target, assess the nature of the arrow (poison tipped, well-fashioned, etc.), have some sense of the power behind the arrow (full or partial draw, 20 lb. bow or crossbow, etc.), and estimate the damage the arrow will inflict on what it strikes as well as the future consequences of that striking. If the arrow is aimed at us, the urgency of determining the message is great, and those slow to translate sometimes do not survive. It is noteworthy that the shooting of an arrow is always an assertion, an AIUC, since all actions by a person are such, as noted above.

It would be extremely helpful if one were able to construct the true and correct message related to each AIUC which one observes. Most persons are aware through the passage of time and the confirmation or disconfirmation of subsequent events that their message constructions vary widely in their degree of accuracy. Intelligence would have us study this matter to learn to be as accurate as we can be at all times, hoping and striving for complete accuracy, but still being cautious enough to recognize that we probably will not attain such extraordinary perceptiveness as mortals. The substitute for this unerring perceptiveness which most people desire to have is power. The more power one has, the less one needs to be accurate in judging the assertions of others (up to a point). A potentate commands, not needing to cooperate; whatever interpretation he places on his own AIUC will often stand for the truth even if not true. Of course, the downfall of potentates often comes when they blindly paint themselves into a corner in not correctly assessing the intent of someone close to them who intends to usurp their power.

True message portrayal is the province of the gods. Belief that one’s message portrayals are true is the province of fools and those who think they are gods. Mere mortals must simply do the best they can, shoring up their guesses by redundancy, tentativeness and humility as needed.

True or false, partially true or insufficiently so, whenever we utter our interpretation of another person’s AIUC we are asserting ourselves, and it is then up to our observers to guess what we really mean and how correct we are in interpreting the AIUC which we report. The fabric of society is thus one great AIUC fair wherein everyone is taking in everyone else’s AIUCs, making judgments and hanging out their own AIUCs for everyone else to judge and comment on. No wonder the course of wisdom is sometimes to remain silent.

The message one creates for the AIUC of another is the meaning one attaches to the AIUC. No AIUC is self-revelatory. All meaning is attributed by an observer. With a multiplicity of observers there will undoubtedly always be a multiplicity of meanings for any AIUC. Meaning, like message, which meaning is, is always specifically related to the context of assertion.

Thus words and sentences in mention-context have no meaning. Hypothetical or mock-up meanings can be made up for them. But ordinarily they are not intended to be used, which is to say, to have meaning. There are meanings-in-general of words and phrases, which are the modal uses of the linguistic item in question in historic contexts of use. But there are no proper meanings, no necessary or correct meanings of any linguistic structure.

It is important now to compare AIUC with other candidates for the position of most fundamental unit of language. Comparison will be made with phoneme/character, morpheme/word, phrase, sentence, proposition and message.

Phoneme/character: An isolated phoneme/character may mean anything because it means nothing. These are units of syntactic structure, and they play a necessary and decisive role in the use of language. They are the critical factors in creating and determining morphemes and words. But they are not the basic units of language because apart from their use in or as morphemes or words they have a mention-value only.

Morpheme/word: A morpheme or a word apart from an actual use in a living context has no meaning but may have several potential standard meanings and always has an infinite number of potential use meanings. These cannot serve as the basic unit of language because each, until used, can have no meanings.

Phrase: A phrase is yet incomplete, having the same position and shortcomings of morphemes and words.  

Sentence: Sentences in use are assertions in use, even as words and phrases in use may be assertions in use. But to isolate a sentence from a specific use context is to leave it as potential language, not real language. Assertion-in-use-context is an actual linguistic unit, have a manifold richness of meaning indicators both in the body language of the speaker and in the spatial and temporal context of utterance. So we must reject sentence as our candidate for most basic unit of language.

Proposition: Propositions are whatever they are construed to be by their authors, ranging from true descriptive assertions to the essential informational content of any assertion. Propositions are thus specialized sentential usages and suffer the same problems relative to AIUCs as do sentences.

Messages: Message is always the subjective reaction of a participant in the assertion context. Linguistic structures in mention context do not have messages, and messages related to use context are always answers to the question as to what is being asserted. These messages grow and improve with time and the interpretive ability of the observer, even relative to a given AIUC, and they may also deteriorate with time. To make the subjective reaction of the observer the unit of language would be to beg the question, for to ask what is the basic unit of language is to ask what is the basic unit of meaning.

We are thus left with assertion-in-use-context as the basic unit of human communication. Only that unit is an objective starting point for human inquiry, for the interpretation process. Only the AIUC has the reality and richness to provide determinative clues as to what a given person really means by mankind an assertion is some manner in some particular context.

There are other points which favor AIUC as the basic unit of language.

This use of AIUC is continuous with common sense. Common sense is not always a touchstone, but to defy it is to assume the burden of proof in any matter. But it does seem that we all know that our language teachers are saying something important when they tell us, time after time, that the specific meaning of some syntactical usage must be determined by context.

The AIUC gives us the most behavioral target possible for our interpretive quest, even allowing the electronic capturing of the nuances of speech utterance, body language, physical context, etc. Such capturing is never complete, for the full context of any utterance is all that has gone before and much of what comes after. But we can generally agree on the assertion as an assertion in a specific context, even if we cannot agree on the interpretation.

The use of AIUC is metaphysically parsimonious. It does not necessitate the invention of such creatures as “deep structure,” “objective referents” or “platonic categories.” It simply points to language use as the self-expression of particular human beings in particular contexts.

This use of AIUC recognizes agency in both the speaker and the hearer of language. Thus communication is not forced into the narrow reductionistic or mechanistic frame which robs it of its agentive spontaneity and creativity.   This freedom allows language to rise above human resources and to partake of whatever supernatural potential for language the speakers and hearers may have at their disposal. While this point is a debit rather than a credit for a person of naturalistic philosophic bent, it enhances the linguistic understanding of that majority of mankind who savor contact with the supernatural.

AIUC as the unit of language facilitates consideration of non-verbal languages and non-language actions as part of the actual communication phenomenon. Considered attention to these often-neglected aspects of communication has given dramatists power through the ages and advertisers commercial application in modern advertising techniques, which, even with all the advertisers pecuniary diverting of basic principles, still function as prime examples of expert communication.

This use of AIUC is also helpful in that it helps to prevent hubris in the human species by reminding us that there is no human voice that is final and authoritative—about anything—and that every assertion in its actual context of use is always the personal bearing of personal testimony. Much as we would desire to be the last word, to state eternal truth the way it really is, we must simply settle for saying the best we know and for hoping that someone can successfully construe what we mean to their own edification.

The conclusion of this matter is the hope that focus on AIUC will provide an enhancement to the use and understanding of language by seeing it ecologically, as it really grows in a real world.

Posted in Deseret Language and Linguistics Society Symposium | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Basic Unit of Human Communication

Having A Testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ

Principles of the Gospel in Practice – Sperry Symposium – 1985
CHAPTER SEVEN

Chauncey C. Riddle

The purpose of this paper is to describe the nature of a testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. To have a testimony is to know for a certainty that that message is a true message from the true and living God. An understanding of testimony is seen here as an invaluable aid in gaining and strengthening a testimony, should one desire to do so.

Two thousand years ago when Jesus of Nazareth hung crucified in the Roman province of Judea for everyone to see, there were two distinct interpretations of what was being seen. Some saw the Son of God, the Savior of all mankind, hanging in agony to do the Father’s will. Others saw a pretender from Galilee who had blasphemed God by claiming to be his son and was receiving his just reward. That difference is a witness to the principle that human knowledge does not come by sight only. And it emphasizes the importance of knowing for a surety in all matters of moment. Can we be sure, and if so, how? To answer those questions we must examine what we know about human knowledge. What we are concerned about is the common sense about human knowledge: those matters to which every intelligent, observant human being is able to assent. You, the reader, are called upon as a witness to the truth of the following account.

1. Human beings and human knowledge.

We note first that the human being has two parts or aspects. First, there is the outer part wherein the human body plays a conspicuous role; here we humans observe, touch, and communicate about the external world in which we live. This world consists of the earth and nature, other persons, and the human artifacts which compass us. The second part of a human being is the inner world of our own personal thoughts, feelings, and desires; in it are the good, the holy, and the beautiful as well as the bad, the evil, and the ugly. The first is the public arena in which we act and react with the physical universe. The second is the private realm of our ideas, ideals, dreams, and plans. Both of these realms are important. Were we to fail to function relative to either we would be in serious difficulty. Abdication in the private realm is to cease to be autonomous and to become an externally controlled and motivated automaton. Neglect of the public realm fosters incompetence, which in the extreme is called insanity. But normal coping with human life is a careful integration of these two, a cooperative personal response of an intelligent and feeling inner self as it deals with important ideas and values and relates them to the opportunities and demands of an external, real world through a real physical tabernacle. In a world of challenges, opportunities, and dangers, one must draw heavily upon each and coordinate them in order to meet those challenges and dangers successfully and to capitalize on one’s opportunities.

Corresponding to those two aspects of the human being are two kinds of knowledge or belief. (Much of what we think we know is but belief.) In the public, outer realm we have ideas about the physical world, other people, and things. These ideas we gain through communication with other persons whom we respect (authority), from our thinking about what others say– especially noting that others don’t agree in what they tell us (reason), from our own sensory observations about the outside world (empiricism), and from our noting which ideas and procedures seem to work in the world (pragmatics). We take in evidences from all these sources, knead them into a unified picture of the world and file that picture in our memory. We update or correct that picture at will. That picture is our reality, the best we can do in relating to reality. Some of us are very careful, searching out evidence and piecing the evidence into a consistent whole with diligence. Others of us are fairly casual about the whole thing, not even minding inconsistencies and gaps, changing our ideas only when painful necessity forces us to amend our expectations of the world.

The other kind of knowledge, the personal sort, is very different. It is heavily involved in values, ideals, desires, and satisfactions. Perhaps the most important facet of this inner world is our experience of the holy. Many persons have a sense that there is something special, something deserving of reverence within their inner realm of consciousness. This may or may not have been initially influenced by other persons. But every human being must cope with this influence and learn on his own how it acts and reacts in his own inner world. What each person needs to learn and will learn if attentive is what happens when he or she yields to the influence of the holy. Part of that learning comes from contrasting yielding to the enticements of that which the inner self feels to be evil, opposing the holy in oneself. Each of us also experiments with yielding to our own desires, trying to ignore feelings of good and bad, right and wrong. Sometimes we don’t even make decisions: we just let things happen. Out of all these experiments and experiences we learn much about ourselves, about what brings happiness and what brings unhappiness, and about that which is prudent, desirable, and effective.

Since each of us is a person who operates in two worlds, our minds must integrate these two kinds of knowledge in order for us not to be double-minded. That integration is an ideal, perhaps never fully completed. The struggle to gain correct notions in each realm and then to correlate them is the challenge of human life, the basis of drama and pathos, happiness and joy.

It is important to note that the experiences we have as humans do not uniquely determine what we believe either in the outer or the inner world. Our own desires are important. Our desires enable us to search for the kind of evidence which we wish to have, to reject evidence which goes contrary to our desires, and to integrate only those materials which we wish to, and to the degree to which we desire. We literally create our own universe within the bounds of those experiences which are too painful for us to ignore. Those bounds are quite generous, allowing us much freedom. Each person’s synthesis of the universe is thus a genuine reflection of his or her own desires.

But if desire is a powerful selecting and ordering factor, so must be our minds. Because much of the evidence we gain from other humans is contradictory, because reason itself is captive to the premises which we furnish it, because our senses do give us ambiguous reports, because what works is never a sure indication of what is, and because we can fool ourselves as to what really happens inside our personal world, we must use all of the power of mind and discernment that we can bring to bear. Skepticism is our friend, insisting that we duplicate evidence, that we rethink, that we probe and try and experiment afresh, that we challenge every idea. Only a healthy skepticism enables us to separate the true and the good from the welter of appearance and opinion. But skepticism, too, can exceed its proper bounds. As it cuts it may begin to decimate that which is reliable and substantial. If we let it, if we so desire, it easily slips into a cynicism that indiscriminately derogates everything. Each of us must balance faith with incredulity, trust with wariness, exuberance with soberness, creativity with responsibility, passion with temperance, hope with realism. Only thus can we create an understanding of the world which will allow us those successes we desire.

2. Knowledge in matters of religion.

Let us then suppose that we have become intelligent, coping individuals, that we are making a reasonably good stab at being responsible persons, that we are assets to our communities, and that we are intelligent about truth and value. Our synthesis of the two kinds of knowledge is then beginning to serve our needs and challenges. In this state of intelligent awareness of the universe we are basically prepared to address the most important kinds of questions, those of religion. For religion is about ourselves. What kind of person should we make of ourselves? What habits of feeling and valuing, of thinking and believing, of doing and making should we foster in ourselves? Our own habits are our character. Our character is the most precious achievement and construction of our mortal existence.

Let us further suppose that our challenge is to ascertain the truthfulness of that particular religion, the restored gospel, church, and priesthood of Jesus Christ as revealed first to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., and then to a host of others in these latter days. Specifically, let us focus on how one can know that the restored gospel is the true message about salvation for all men from the true and living God. For that message to be true one would need to gather and synthesize enough information to be sure that there is a true and living God, our Father in Heaven, who has sent us his beloved, only begotten Son, whom we should hear. What we hear is that we should believe in the Son, repent of all our sins, choose faithful obedience to him as our sole means of acting, and strive to become perfect in our character (to endure to the end)–all under the personal companionship and tutelage of the Holy Spirit and through the ordinances administered by the authorized priesthood of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While that seems much to prove, it all boils down to one principal feature: Does the Holy Ghost bear witness to our inner self of the truthfulness of these things? As we begin to obey, does that Holy Spirit continue to guide us in paths that we ourselves, judging by our own sense of what is holy, know are good and true?

As there are two kinds of evidence and knowledge about things in general, so there are two kinds pertaining to the hypothesis that the restored gospel is true. We shall examine each of these kinds of evidences in turn, beginning with the evidences from the external world.

The first kind of evidence which comes to bear is that of authority. What do the responsible, intelligent people whom we know who have investigated the restored gospel say about it? If they assure us that it is true, we have an important piece of evidence. If they bear negative witness, we must also account for that. But we can only make responsible judgments about other person’s testimonies, positive or negative, when we have gained further evidence of other kinds on our own. We need to have independent evidence as to whether or not the restored gospel is true or false before we can evaluate any person’s testimony. The testimony of other persons is always inconclusive if there is no other evidence available.

Next is the evidence of reason. What kinds of answers to theological questions go with the restored gospel? Are those answers self-consistent? Are they consistent with the Holy Bible? Is the Book of Mormon consistent with the Holy Bible? Is there a completeness of answers so that every important question has an answer? Is there some consistency about the answers which authorities of the restored Church give? As our reason searches and compares it begins either to be satisfied or dissatisfied. To become either is an important kind of evidence. But this evidence is not conclusive. We can evaluate it only when we get more information from other sources. We cannot know if we should be satisfied or dissatisfied until we know on other grounds whether the restored gospel is true: Then we can evaluate our own reasoning.

We turn to observation. What can our senses tell us of the truth of the restored gospel? They can tell us that there is an interesting artifact produced by Joseph Smith that we can examine: the Book of Mormon. As we read and examine it, we must ask: Whence came this volume? Could a person who never attended school fabricate out of his imagination such a complex, detailed history which is so internally consistent and which fits into the historical and geographical evidence of today, much of which was not even known to the world in 1830 Detractors of Joseph Smith are unanimous on one point: he was too ignorant to have written it. By whom or how, then, did it come into being? So far the only proffered explanation that fits the known historical facts is the one given by Joseph Smith himself: he received it as a revealed translation of writing on ancient plates of gold. What of the three witnesses who also saw the plates? Their testimony must count for something, especially since each in turn was excommunicated from that Church, yet none ever denied his testimony. There is sufficient meat here for every intelligent mind to cogitate upon. Yet this area is in itself not conclusive, even if we find that we cannot discount Joseph Smith’s explanation of the book. We must yet seek further evidence.

Another kind of observation which is important is the order of the universe. The motions of the heavens, the intricacy of the plant and animal orders, the complexity and perfection of the human species all raise questions as to their origin and maintenance. Do these things bespeak the hand of a great creator, or are they simply the blind career of chance concatenations of atoms? Some persons are convinced one way, some the other. The net result is that we see again that observation needs interpretation: no set of empirical evidence is self-interpretive or self-warranting. We must seek elsewhere for surety while not forgetting our observations.

Turning to consideration of pragmatics, we see that there are seeming sociological consequences of accepting the restored gospel. Those who profess belief in the restored gospel have marriage, divorce, birth, and death statistics that are different from the public at large. They seem to have a distinctive cultural pattern that is in accord with the New Testament standards. They prosper wherever they go if they are left alone. These are interesting and valuable correlations. But they do not prove the case. We must yet seek further evidence.

We see that none of the four external kinds of evidence yields unambiguous assurance of the truthfulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. While their combination is more powerful than any type by itself, even that conjunction does not yield solid proof. The reason is that each of these is an external evidence. The essence of the restored gospel concerns what goes on inside a person, not outside. We must then turn our attention to the inner realm, not forgetting nor discounting the outer realm, but holding its evidence in abeyance for the moment.

Inner knowledge concerns the personal private experiments which a person can perform. Before one can experiment he must either believe or desire to believe. One must risk something. This is not to suggest that one must persist in blind faith. But one must begin with the hope that God will answer his prayers. If one believes or desires to believe, he can at least perform the experiments. The experiments will give evidence which will become so sure that his faith is not blind ever after. Each person who is willing to experiment can determine for himself whether the gospel hypothesis is just another romantic dream or is truly a reality.

With at least temporary belief, one can then perform the crucial experiment, which is to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, ready to do whatever one is instructed to do. If one has not already received it upon hearing the message of the restored gospel, the first message from God will likely be that peaceful, burning assurance which the Holy Spirit gives that the restored gospel is indeed true. What one must then do is to believe even more. To believe even more is to pray again, to thank the Father, and to ask what to do next. As the next instruction comes and the experimenter obeys in faith, he embarks upon a path that is rewarding and satisfying. That cycle of belief, prayer, revelation, and obedience is so self- reinforcing and so satisfying to those who delight in doing the will of God that they never need seek for the path of progress again. They need only to persevere. Now they know that the restored gospel is true, for its promise has been delivered. They have received the promised Holy Spirit unto faith and repentance. Because their souls are enlarged and the yearning for and the guidance of the holy in their lives is now satisfied, they know they are on the path of pleasing God and of coming to Him.

Faithful prayer leads to promptings that come even when one is not praying or meditating. These promptings come in the same voice and with the same peaceful assurance as the answers to prayer. To experiment with following them is the course of intelligence for those who have enjoyed that companionship of the Holy Spirit. As again they experiment they learn the rewards of further sensitivity to the holy. They also learn to compare the results of yielding to those promptings to yielding to their own desires, especially when those personal desires are abetted by that opposing evil spirit which enjoins selfishness upon one. The knowledge that. comes from faithful obedience to the promptings of the Holy Spirit reinforces and buttresses the already sure knowledge one has from answers to prayers.

To promptings are added special insights, understandings, and interpretations. As one ponders the gospel message and searches the scriptures many questions arise. As these arise the answers also often flow, sometimes because of prayer, sometimes without asking. What they bring is a completeness, a comprehensive overview of the world and the universe as God would have us see them. We begin to understand that nothing is wasted in the economy of our God, that all truth is interconnected, that everything works for the good of those who love the God of righteousness. The satisfaction of understanding and the esthetics of glimpsing the greatness and the goodness of the divine system help us to begin to understand ourselves for the first time and to know even more surely the truthfulness of the restored gospel.

Understanding brings a comprehension of man’s potential, a vision of what he could become through the gifts and promises of God. As these gifts are sought and used for the work of godliness there comes an understanding of God’s power and a realization of the promises. As healings, miracles, tongues and interpretation of tongues, prophecy, discernment, power over the elements, and nobility in the soul show forth the handiwork of God, knowledge builds upon knowledge, and the established, buttressed, well-founded edifice becomes so sure and secure that no power of man or of hell can shake it.

The import of this discussion is that a testimony, a sure knowledge of the truth of the restored gospel can only come in the inner, personal knowledge of a person. What then is the place of the external evidences? They do have their place.

3. The weaving of a testimony.

Let us now change the figure of speech from a building to a fabric and discuss the weaving of that fabric. The beginning of the weaving process is to establish the warp. These are the strong threads, the real substance of the cloth, and they are usually anchored at each end in a vertical row, then spread alternately in two directions to provide space for the shuttle to draw through the horizontal threads of the woof. If the threads of the weaving are fine yet strong and carefully spaced yet tightly woven, a cloth of superior utility is created.

We may liken the strong warp threads of a cloth to the internal evidences which come from our own personal experiments with the holy and the evil, the good and the bad. If we perform those experiments with skeptical care we will accept only those evidences or threads which are strong, true, and reliable. We must also avoid the cynicism which would have us discard that which we perceive surely to be true. And we must have enough threads to mass a sufficient warp. After one experiment we know almost nothing. But after thousands and thousands of experiments we know that we can trust the Lord. As we marshall those threads in a record of the actual experiences which created them, we create a warp of substance, strength, and capacity.

To the warp we may now add the woof threads of the external evidences that we previously gathered but found to be insufficient of themselves. We have many or few of these strands, but obviously, more and stronger threads are better. These are the testimonies of others, the reasoning we have done to observe the consistency and completeness of the restored gospel, the observations we have made of the handiwork of God both through men and in the natural order of the universe around us, capped by the practical evidence of the utility of living the restored gospel. These evidences, though not sufficiently strong of themselves to constitute a testimony, when carefully woven into the strands of strong and sure knowledge, become genuine assets to the whole. Then one can know which doctrines are found to be consistent and can reject the unwanted baggage of the doctrines of men which becloud the matter. Then one can see that it is truly the hand of God which brought the Bible and the Book of Mormon into existence and which has created and does now maintain the starry heavens and the course of nature. Then one can see that the wicked are punished by their own hands and that the righteous reap the rewards of the children of God. To have a testimony is to live, to see, and to know in ways never available to persons who do not have a testimony. ‘~”~

Should one weave such a fabric of strength and beauty it will serve him well. For such a testimony is not gained by taking thought; it is not the product of observation, but of doing the will of God. It is a personally constructed artifact made of individually experienced items selected with the greatest of care and the highest standards. It is not just a cloth, as it is not just a knowing. It becomes the robe of righteousness, that which every soul must have to attend the wedding feast. It is the newly formed character, the fiber of the being of a son or a daughter of God. What we are is what we do and what we know. Our own character is the robe of righteousness which enables us to dwell in eternal burnings. To be saved is to receive the divine gifts that are necessary and to weave a new character for ourselves in the pattern of the divine nature of our Christ himself; then He can present us spotless before the Father. To gain a testimony is to repent, to create a new self through faith in Jesus Christ.

The necessity of the connection between testimony and righteousness is found in the nature of God himself. He is a God of truth, but truth without righteousness is a monster. Thus, he is first a God of righteousness and then a God of truth. Those who wish to become as he is must follow that same order. He promises to fully satisfy the desire of those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. He has no kind words for those who are merely curious. Creating a testimony means doing the works of righteousness. In the process of doing those works one comes to know and understand first the truth of his own inner experience and feelings, then the truth about this physical world in which we live; after that he may learn of heavenly things beyond the ken of mere mortals if he asks in faith. Righteousness is of Christ, for he is the sole fountain of righteousness in this earth, as also he is the Spirit of Truth. To love righteousness is to seek and to gain a testimony of the restored gospel, which then enables one to do the works of righteousness.

The perfect example of the necessity of seeking a testimony through righteousness is found in the lives of Laman and Lemuel. Each of them was furnished with an abundance of evidence of divine things: they saw and heard an angel, they saw miracles, they felt the power of God shock them, their lives were saved by divine intervention. Yet they gained no testimony from their experiences because those experiences were not part of the experimentation of faith. The whole of these experiences was in the external world–to them. They did not seek the Lord in the inner realm and thus had no evidence in the inner realm of their own souls. They could interpret away all of the external evidence and did so. They simply refused to repent. After this world, in the spirit prison or at the bar of judgment, they will have enough evidence to know that the gospel is true and will finally admit to that truth. But then it will be too late to show sufficient love for the Lord and for righteousness to be saved in the celestial kingdom.

4. Questions and answers.

1. What are the qualities of a testimony? A strong testimony is one in which the bearer has certainty that the God of Heaven hears and answers his prayers as he attempts to live the restored gospel. Only those with strong testimonies are able to make the sacrifices that the Lord requires to perfect their souls. A weak testimony is one in which the bearer has as yet little confidence; enough perhaps to continue experimentation and exploration, but not enough to stand tribulation nor the finger of scorn. A sure testimony is one in which the bearer has amassed enough internal evidence to surmount all reasonable doubt that the restored gospel is true. A strong testimony is an assurance of the heart; a sure testimony is an assurance of the mind. A present testimony is one that is a living present companionship with the Holy Spirit. A past testimony is the memory of marvelous former experiences with the Holy Spirit. A strong and sure and present testimony enables one to live by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God.

2. What then can a person do to strengthen his own testimony? Gaining and strengthening a testimony begins with the heart. If a person does not desire to be righteous, he needs to repent until he has that desire. When his heart is right, he will search for those whisperings of the spirit which are the precious lifeline to all godly things. Sensing their holiness, he will begin to follow the whisperings unto doing the works enjoined, thus becoming a person of some degree of faith. Though he might encounter negative evidence, such as the contrary witness of other persons, seeming contradictions, and venality on the part of professed members of the restored Church, his own faith in the whisperings will lay, positive spiritual evidence beside each of those negative externals until he sees that the truth of the gospel shines through the spotty facade of those negative impressions. Each person is free. Anyone who desires the negative to predominate will have it so. But anyone who treasures that which is honest, true, virtuous, of good report, and praiseworthy will soon find that his joy in his own increased ability to do the works that the Savior commends far outweighs the negative. The Holy Spirit reveals that those who bear negative testimony of the gospel are under the influence of the adversary; their negative testimony is thus a backhanded positive testimony of the gospel’s truthfulness. Seeming contradictions become the occasion for greater understanding in which the marvels and mysteries of the gospel are unfolded to the faithful seeker, thus becoming a positive strength to this testimony. The venality of Church members when interpreted by the Holy Spirit becomes an occasion for sympathy for those persons, a further attestation that the way of righteousness and truth is straight and narrow indeed, and few there be that find it.

So, do I keep the Sabbath day holy? Do I honor my parents with all that the Holy Spirit enjoins? Am I honest in all of my dealings with my fellowmen, pressing down, shaking, and heaping up the measure which I give them? Do I reach out to the poor in money, strength, wisdom, understanding, and honor, sharing with them out of the abundance of heart, mind, strength, and substance with which the Lord has blessed me? Do I fill very mission gladly, exuberant and wise in the assurance that I have of the merits of my Master? Do I love my spouse, my children, and my neighbors with that same pure love that the gods of heaven shower upon me? Do I do all things unto the Lord, knowing that I am his but have no merit, wisdom, or goodness of my own? Do I fulfill my Savior’s instruction in the faith of love so that I can overcome the forces of this world? Do I allow my conscience to smite me down to humility and repentance whenever the thorns of selfishness or arrogance snag my robe?

Every decision of daily life affords me the opportunity to prove that good and acceptable will of my God. As I add faith to faith, obeying in humility in every decision I make from moment to moment, the gifts and blessings and rewards of God flow so abundantly that I come to realize that in the path of such faith I never need hunger or thirst again. He who loves purely is sufficient to my every need. I need to search and wonder no more except to be sure that I continue to please him. I neither doubt nor flounder. I know I am on the path. I must only endure to the end, until my faithful service has brought me to the measure of the stature of the fullness of my Savior, for he is the end, indeed.

3. Is it possible for me to talk myself into a testimony, to desire one so much that I create a false testimony? That surely is possible, just as a person might believe that he is Napoleon or is invisible. But the evidences would not be there. Neither internally nor externally would sufficient confirmations come to allow one to believe a false testimony to be a true one unless one is unable to evaluate evidence. Some persons are clearly unable to evaluate evidence, even in the external, physical world. They do indeed often come to strange opinions about religious matters. That is why it is important to establish one’s sanity in the realm of ordinary, earthly matters before one attempts to stand as a witness to anyone else of the truth of sacred, spiritual matters. Our Savior, knowing the sometimes precarious nature of new faith and testimony, has assured us that he will always establish his word in the mouths of two or three witnesses. Sometimes those witnesses are several kinds of internal and external evidence, which then give us a firm rock upon which to stand.

4. Is it possible to transfer a testimony? It is never possible to share the essence of our testimony with another person, for that essence exists in the private, inner realm which can never be shared. But our sincere and truthful witness, though external to our hearers and therefore a sandy foundation for their testimonies, may be accompanied by the second witness of the Holy Spirit. That second witness is internal, the essence of real testimony. On that rock they can proceed to build surely.

5. Which concepts are closely associated with that of testimony and would assist one to gain a better understanding of testimony? Testimony is a type of knowledge. Similar concepts are those of evidence, assurance, record, monument, and proof. Contrary concepts are those of doubt, discredit, counterindicativeness, and insecurity. The complement concept is that of uncertainty. The opposite is complete ignorance. The perfection of testimony is full knowledge of complete certainty. The prerequisites for testimony are (1) revelation from God, (2) belief in that revelation, and (3) obedience to the instructions of that revelation. (Those are the elements of faith, for faith is the prerequisite to testimony.) The constituents of testimony are the internal and external evidences for the truthfulness of the restored gospel that we have gained and see through the eye of faith. A celestial testimony (the only kind that saves anyone) is based squarely on an abundance of cooperative experience with the Holy Spirit. A terrestrial testimony is based on an abundance of external, physical evidence for the truthfulness of the restored gospel. A telestial testimony is based on a fear that it might be true and an unwillingness to search out the evidence, either internal or external. A perdition testimony is that of a person who knows full well that the restored gospel is true (a past sure testimony), but bears witness to others that it is not true.

5. Summary and conclusions.

A. The essence of a testimony of the restored gospel is present, inner, continuous cooperation with the Holy Spirit in the cause of relieving misery in this world (the work of righteousness). Public, physical evidence about the restored gospel is helpful only when carefully evaluated by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and useful only when tightly woven into our continuous, inner, present cooperation with the Holy Spirit. The function of external evidence in the cause of righteousness is not to assure anyone of the truthfulness of the gospel, but to attract attention to the restored gospel so that a person will personally perform the inner experiments which do bring a sure testimony.

B. Testimony comes only through faith. When we hear the gospel, our first evidence that it is the word of the Lord comes as we receive the internal witness of the Holy Spirit that it is true. If we then act on that witness, asking to know what to do about our doubts–asking anything in the willingness to believe and obey the holy within us, we ask in faith. Asking in faith brings the revelations of the true and living God to anyone who will so ask. Out of these revelations is born the abundance of experience that assures us of the reliability of God’s revelations–which is a testimony.

C. Only hunger and thirst for righteousness is a sufficient motive to experiment on the gospel message in faith. Those whose only interest in the gospel is an academic curiosity can never perform the experiments in faith. No amount of external evidence can, will, or should convince them of the truthfulness of that message. The gospel message is aimed specifically at the sheep: those who live first to love others, as does the true and living God.

D. A testimony is always a construction, a personal artifact. It is built out of a person’s life experiences and is the record of what that person has sought, hoped for, and selected out of the welter of opportunities that this world affords. If a person has received the personal witness that the restored gospel is true, then that person’s testimony, positive or negative, is a clear reflection of that person’s character.

E. A testimony is always nontransferable. While one may indeed bear witness of his inner experience, that inner experience forever remains his private domain. But as one bears true witness, the Holy Spirit can and will witness to the hearers of the truth of that person’s witness, which is the beginning material for the testimony of each of those hearers. To some it is given to believe on the testimony of those who know.

F. Any person who has a sure testimony of the restored gospel, and thus of the Holy Spirit, can endure by means of the laws and ordinances of the gospel to a sure knowledge of the Son and of the Father. But one must endure in faith.

Posted in Essay, Faith, Philosophy, Restored Gospel, Sperry Symposium | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Having A Testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ

Assertion Analysis Template

Chauncey C. Riddle
1984 Class handout

  1. Assertion:
    1. Sentence:
    2. Author:
    3. Reference of sentence:
    4. Subject class:
    5. Predicate class.
    6. Relationship of subject to predicate.
  2. Type
DisclosureDirectiveDescriptionDeclaration
ExclamationCommandFactone with
Value judgementDefinitionLawauthority
ExpressionQuestionTheorymakes a legal
PreferenceFunctionPrincipledeclaration
PlanArt forme.g., I now pronounce you man and wife

3. Support

  1. Internal to message:
    1. Authority
    2. Reason
    3. Empirical
    4. Statistical
    5. Other
  2. External to message:
    1. Authority
    2. Reason
    3. Empirical
    4. Statistical
    5. Other

4. Conclusion

Posted in Assertion Analysis, Class Notes | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Assertion Analysis Template

LDS Ideals for Education

Chauncey C. Riddle
c. 1984

I. What is the Relationship of Education to Living the Gospel?

Repentance in the Restored Gospel can be viewed as the process of change. Specifically, it is the change from being a natural man to becoming one who possesses the divine nature of the Savior. To endure to the end is to repent so completely that we become new creatures, just men made perfect, even as our Savior is perfect.

Seen this way, repentance is an educational process. It involves comprehending something that is better, then achieving that better condition. Line upon line, precept upon precept, the servant of Christ is taught to understand and then to exemplify a new mode of being and living.

To construe repentance as education is not to construe all education as repentance, for one can learn to become evil as well as good. But viewing education in this manner does help us better to promote repentance. We see clearly that repentance is the process wherein gospel principles are progressively taught and learned, thus enabling the faithful to govern themselves correctly.

The principle reason for the existence of The Church of Jesus Christ in every dispensation is to promote repentance. Members of the Church do this first by teaching and preaching the gospel to all to whom the Savior sends it. The gospel is the basic message as to how to repent. Then, for those who accept the gospel, the authorities of the Church assume the responsibility of assisting in the perfecting of the Saints, encouraging all who desire to do as to endure to the end. In this process, everything in this world that is virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy is sought after for the children of Christ in order that they may come to the fullness of Christ.

While it is the principle responsibility of church leaders to promote repentance, gospel education in the full sense, that opportunity is shared by every member of the kingdom. Apostles, prophets, and presidents are set to teach, preach, expound, and exhort as they lead the house of Israel to become like the Savior. But it is a wicked and slothful servant that must be commanded in all things. Each covenant servant has within him the gift of the Holy Ghost, that precious pearl of great price which empowers each to be an agent himself, to receive knowledge and direction from heavenly sources, and to bring to pass much righteousness by careful, repentant obedience.

Every faithful person in The Church of Jesus Christ thus ought to be engaged in the process of education. Each one should be seeking, searching, learning from those who are above him in the stewardship structure of the kingdom. Each should be teaching those in his stewardship, and each person should be humble enough to learn from those under him in stewardship.

The thesis here maintained is that repentance will be enhanced in the Church by seeing it as a species of education, and that education will be enhanced in the Church by seeing it as a species of repentance. Such a view would promote the following consequences:

  1. It would become plain that knowing the gospel is not enough; that it is doing what we know which fulfills both repentance and education.
    1. It would be more easily recognized that telling people what they ought to do is only the first step of leadership; helping them to learn to do what they ought to do is also required for repentance and for education.
    2. Seen this way, repentance would lose the negative connotation it has for some (that which sinful people need to do) and would become the way of life for all church members who are not yet perfect.
    3. Seen this way, education would become a lifelong way of living for all church members—learning to know and being able to do every good thing, and thus becoming able to help others in every way possible, as did the Savior.
    4. Just as repentance is seen to be a means, not an end, linking it with education would help all to see that education is not an end but a means to greater service to others, a preparation for righteousness. This would tend to cure one of the persistent perversions of the “civilized” world: the idea that education is an end, sometimes help to be the ultimate end, in itself.
    5. If the additional idea of hungering after excellence is added to education, quality added to quantity, then education as repentance, clearly centers on the Savior. For it is he who is the spirit of truth and the light of the world, showing the world a more excellent way. Only in and through Jesus Christ is quality education fulfilled, just as only in and through him is repentance fulfilled. He is the fountain of all truth and of all righteousness.

Conclusion: Greater emphasis on lifelong education in the Church and linking it to repentance would enhance both education and repentance.

II. What is the Mission of Latter-day Saints in This World?

The life mission of any member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is identical to that of any other member in its general features. Those features are that:

  1. The whole of each person’s life is seen to be a mission in the cause of Jesus Christ from the time one receives the covenant of baptism until one is released with his final breath. This means that one is on a mission twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, at home or abroad, in sickness or in health, and in whatever marital state or church calling one is found.
  2. Each person’s daily assignment in that mission is to turn his assigned portion of evil into good. Defining evil as that which is not good as it could be and taking the Savior as the standard of good, the life goal of a Latter-day Saint is to do that which the Savior would do as if he had our stewardship as his own. Our life should be one continuous labor to uplift, to enoble, to beautify, to instruct, to correct, to celestialize all around us, when, where, and how it is appropriate to our stewardship and as directed by the Holy Spirit.

A child forlorn, frightened, sobbing is an evil of this world: it is the mission of a Saint to hold that child, to administer comfort, security, and understanding as the manifestation of a pure and inspired love, thus turning an evil into something better. A ward choir which sings grudgingly, mechanically, egotistically is an evil; with skill, sensitivity, and love an inspired director can lift every participant to praise God in voice and song, to bear witness and gratitude through the meaning of the lyrics, to sing to bless rather than for recognition or reward. A widow’s home is unpainted, with sagging doors, cracked panes, and drafty casements; brethren of the priesthood who are skilled and who care descend upon that home and leave dignity in place of deterioration. There are children of an Andean village who have no opportunity for education; a low-cost, locally administered self-help program is designed, embodied, and delivered, giving those children access to the modern world. A people languish in ignorance of their true spiritual heritage: their need is assuaged by the teaching of the Restored Gospel in their midst.

Every father, mother, builder, teacher, chemist, administrator, repairman who is a covenant servant of Christ should be striving each day to make the world a better place, to uplift, encourage, and comfort not only fellow Latter-day Saints but ultimately all of the earth’s inhabitants. No one except the President of the Church carries the burden to worry about the whole world, for each of the rest of us has a more limited stewardship. Each morning each faithful servant should go to his knees in prayer to discern his assigned quotient of evil to be turned into good for that day, knowing that the powers of heaven will assist his faithful labor and that therefore his day will be “sufficient unto the evil thereof.”

Compensation is one of the last things the true servant is concerned about. He knows that he must perform honorable work and be compensated for it to provide for himself and for his family and to have a modest surplus with which to bless others. He knows that his greatest personal opportunity is to turn evil into good for which he is not compensated. Therefore, he deliberately spreads his resources of wisdom, knowledge, skill, and substance in many times and places where there cannot or should not be any return favor. He always remembers that it is to the Savior that he is beholden for his health, strength, mentality, knowledge, wisdom, and skill with which to bless, be it in compensated or noncompensated opportunities to do good.

Thus the daily mission of a Latter-day Saint is to search out the mind and will of the Savior relative to his formal and informal callings, then to turn evil into good in those callings. He does it cheerfully, gladly, and gratefully, rejoicing in the goodness of our Savior. He thinks about poverty, ignorance, disease, inferior values, and corruption in high and low places and strives to help. He may need to invent, translate, build, tear down, persuade, expose, correlate, and cooperate, but all with pure motive and under the direction of his Master, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Whatever preparation he needs to fulfill his task, he seeks; he begins with personal repentance from all sin, carries through to the acquisition of knowledge and skills, and his efforts culminate in attaining power in the priesthood to do all good things. This is the true education and repentance. It is likely that through the efforts of such servants of Jesus Christ this earth will be first terrastrialized, then celestialized and delivered spotless and whole to its worthy creator.

III. How and by Whom Should Latter-day Saints be Educated?

  1. Individuals ought to be motivated to learn the gospel (as opposed to emphasizing programs that teach them the gospel) and likewise motivated to do all that they can in righteousness to better themselves in the social and economic context in which they are personally located. The individual member of the Church must believe that his own efforts to learn the gospel and also all other worthwhile knowledge are efficacious. He must see that his own efforts are the most important factors which affect the quality of his spiritual and material well-being. It seems that too many of our members, especially in new and economically developing countries, are led to believe that their future well-being is unrelated to their present activity, that they are personally powerless to alter the circumstances of their lives. There seems to be a need to redirect such thinking toward personal initiative and responsibility.
    1. The family, headed by a righteous patriarch and faithful spouse, should be responsible for making certain that their posterity are fully instructed in all they need to know to be faithful to Christ, to overcome the world, and to subdue the earth.

IV. The Role of the Patriarch in Zion.

A patriarch is a faithful servant of Jesus Christ, a bearer of the Melchizedek Priesthood who is yoked with a faithful spouse in the temple covenants of eternal marriage.

The personal goal of every patriarch and his wife should be to endure to the end, which is life eternal. Their family goal should be to so lead and inspire their posterity that they also come to know the Savior.

The process of enduring to the end is mainly an educational process. One must be taught the gospel message and be taught to do all that it entails. The educational role of the patriarch and his wife is to assure that their children are fully instructed in all they need to know to be faithful to Christ, to overcome the world, and to subdue the earth.

If the patriarch and his wife have fully learned to be faithful to Christ, to overcome the world, and to subdue the earth, and if they have learned to do and are doing all they should do, then they can fulfill their role, which has three principle parts:

  1. To love purely, so that each person in his stewardship is enveloped in a spiritually oriented atmosphere of unconditional love. Giving this emotional sustenance is by all odds the most important thing a patriarch and his wife ever do.
  2. To instruct by example and by precept in every important matter, in order that those in their stewardship can learn all that they need to know and do, in both spiritual and temporal matters.
  3. To provide such spiritual, physical, social, and economic protection and support as is necessary and appropriate.

These persons thus blessed by the patriarchal order have the maximum earthly opportunity to exercise agency. For it is only this divine order coupled with the Restored Gospel and the authority of the Priesthood which provide full free agency to any person on this earth.

V. The Educational Ideal for Zion.

What kinds of education will righteous parents foster for those in their stewardship? Six kinds of education are proposed:

1- Family Education. The patriarch and his wife should assume direct personal responsibility for instructing each of their children in each of the following areas:

Personal discipline

  • Emotional steadiness
  • Intellectual honesty
  • Physical orderliness
  • Unselfishness

Language skills (including a foreign language, if possible) Spiritual matters

  • The gospel
  • How to receive and live by the gifts of the Spirit
  • The scriptures
  • The order of the Church
  • The order of the Priesthood

Work (learning to do and to love it)

Ability to cooperate

Hygiene

  • Cleanliness
  • Body functions
  • Nutrition
  • Exercise
  • Healing

Sex education

Family preparedness

Citizenship (opportunities and responsibilities)

Service (learning to rend it as appropriate)

Skills, basic

  • Care of tools
  • Safety
  • Food preparation
  • Household management
  • Care of machinery
  • Teaching
  • Accounting for stewardships

Social graces

Parental influence in basic education has often done all it will do by the sixteenth year of the child’s life.

2- Basic Formal Education. The patriarch and his wife should assume guidance and quality control in the educational opportunities which their children having in schooling outside of the family to learn:

  • Literary skills
  • Mathematical ability
  • Sciences
  • Countries and peoples
  • Physical education
  • Arts and crafts

Basic formal education is roughly what is received in the United States in K-12 education. For this basic formal education parents should use whatever opportunities are available in their local area which do not put their children into a deadly emotional, spiritual, physical, or social environment.

3- Manual Education. The patriarch and his wife assume the responsibility for instructing or arranging for the instructing of each child in one or more manual skills by which that child could later support a family, such as:

  • Administrative Assistant skills
  • Auto mechanic
  • Farming/ranching skills
  • Clothing construction
  • Building trades

Ideally this education would be substantially complete by the end of the teenage years.

4- General Education. The patriarch and his wife assume the responsibility for instructing or seeing that each child is instructed in the basic intellectual matters which a person needs to have to cope with the world. Areas which especially need to be pursued are:

  • History
  • Economics
  • Politics
  • Philosophy
  • Literature

This general education is to give a person the strength to be alive to the educational, political, and economic forces of the world and to be able to influence those forces for good.

The general education is roughly equivalent to two years of college work, though many have not attained it even after two years of college.

5- Missionary Education. It is contemplated that every young person in the Church would be fully prepared to go on a mission at age nineteen, having received full-fledged family, basic, vocational, and general education, then capping that preparation with a thorough understanding and ability to use honorable proselyting techniques. It is also contemplated that every worthy young man in the Church would be called and honorably fulfill a full-time mission.

Upon returning from missionary service, every young person would be ready to marry and to enter full-time work or to enter into further education.

6- Vocational Education. The patriarch and his wife should advise, encourage, and assist as is appropriate in the vocational education of their children. Vocational education is viewed as

(1) on-the-job education for a career,
(2) technical schooling, or
(3) the last two years of college and whatever graduate training is appropriate for entry into the job market in one’s chosen work.

VI. How Can we Foster a Better Tradition Concerning Learning and Teaching?

Even the casual observer cannot help but notice the marked difference in affluence and learning attained by various social and ethnic groups in American society. Japanese, Jews, and Mormons are often cited as examples of subgroups which have, on the whole, prospered in society and have achieved high levels of formal education relative to accomplishments in these areas by other groups.

Studies have shown that the desire to excel (achievement, motivation) is generated by two kinds of cultural practices.

  1. Achievement training in which parents, religious leaders, and other impose standards of excellence upon tasks by setting high goals for children and youth, indicate their high evaluation of the person’s competence to do a task week, and communicate that they expect evidence of high achievement.
  2. Independence training in which parents, leaders, and others indicate to the youth that they expect them to be self-reliant and, at the same time, grant them relative autonomy in decision-making situations where they are given both freedom of action and responsibility for success or failure.

Essentially, achievement training is concerned with getting people to do things well, while independence training seeks to teach them to do things on their own.

The Jews, who for centuries had lived in more or less hostile environments, have learned that it is not only possible to manipulate their environments to ensure survival, but even to prosper in it. Jewish tradition stresses the possibility of the individual mastering his work. Man is not helpless against the forces of nature or of his fellowman; God will provide, but only if man does his share. Physical mobility has likewise characterized Jewish culture. The Jews have typically urged their children to leave home if in doing so they faced better opportunities.

We are culturally similar in many respects to the achievement and independence training characteristics of Jewish society.

Posted in Educators Conference, Essay, Restored Gospel | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on LDS Ideals for Education

An LDS Answer to the Problem of Evil

Chauncey C. Riddle
Brigham Young University
c. 1984

This work was stimulated by the BYU forum address of Professor Robert Nozick of Harvard University given March 1984.

  1. Statement of the problem: If God is good and omnipotent, why is this world so evil? If God is not good, the evil is understandable. If God is not omnipotent, the evil is understandable. But if God is both good and omnipotent, surely he would have created a better world than this one.
  2. Observation about the problem: This is a genuine problem. Human beings are finite; God is infinite. It is not possible for a finite being to understand fully an infinite being. Nevertheless, it is most important for human beings to come to a finite satisfaction regarding this problem.
  3. Observation about the historic solutions to this problem: Many of the historic solutions are good in that they lend understanding to the situation. No one of them is sufficient to stand alone. The problem is to find a combination of ideas which will bring satisfaction to finite human souls.
  4. Definitions are in order to clarify this problem:

Good: To say that God is good means two things. It means that God is morally right in what he does. We shall henceforth express that idea by saying God is righteous. The other thing meant by saying God is good is that I like (love) God. We shall henceforth assume that to say God is good means I like (love) God.

God: We define God as an exalted man, which is to say he once was a human being. But having sought for and attained righteousness and truth, and having learned to act according to them, he has progressed beyond the state of man. He is now a perfect (morally righteous) being, omnipotent (he can do anything which can be done because he has all the power which exists), omniscient (he knows everything about everything, past, present, and future), is a personal being of flesh and bone, and is the literal father of the human race. His purpose in creating this earth is to provide a situation where his children can (a) choose the degree to which they desire to become as he is; and (b) learn and develop themselves to become as he, God, is to that degree which they have chosen.

The earth: The earth is the physical globe upon which the human race resides. It is governed by laws which God has ordained, and nothing happens in what we call “nature” except by his personal permission. Thus natural calamities as well as more desirable natural sequences are all manifestations of his will.

The world: The world is the dominion of Satan on this earth. Specifically, the world consists of all human beings who hearken to Satan, and includes the social institutions and accomplishments of those persons. Nearly every adult human being is or has at one time been part of the world. The opposite of the world is those people who manage to establish a personal daily association with God which enables them to detach themselves from the world and to serve God, the Father, through his son Jesus Christ, according to the instructions each receives through the Holy Spirit.

Evil: Evil is anything which is not as good as it could and should be. The standard of good is God. Whatever is created or done under instruction from God is holy and good. Whatever else exists or is done by the will of man or of Satan is evil. The commission of every godly person each day is to take something that is evil within his own stewardship and turn it into good through faith in Jesus Christ (direct obedience to the personal revelation one receives from God).

  • Why evil is allowed to exist: Evil in the world exists for three main reasons: (1) That every man may observe evil, compare it with good, and choose good or evil for himself; (2) That every man might be free to create and do evil, to see if that is what he really wishes to choose and promote; and (3) That those who choose to do good and become like God may have ample opportunity to grow towards becoming like God by many choices of good over evil and much experience in turning evil situations into good situations. Evil is not good, but the presence of controlled evil on the earth is good, because without it, man could not grow to become as God is. When the growth period for every human being has been fulfilled, then there will no longer be a need for evil on this earth and the earth will be cleansed of all evil. Then God’s will will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
  • Views of traditional answers to the problem:
  • “The world really is not evil.”

An LDS view would say that the earth is not evil, nor is any natural event that takes place on it. Storms, lightening, volcanic eruptions, floods and cold winters are all the handiwork of a good God who is reminding all of his children that he is in control of all things and that perhaps they might wish to repent so that they would no longer need such reminders. It is true that the innocent often perish with the wicked in natural disasters. For that reason God gives the innocent another, opportunity to choose between good and evil and to repent to that degree to which they so desire. That opportunity takes place in sheol, or the world of departed spirits. If every person were born and lived at the same time and could not use his agency to bring adversity on others, such as his children, then the opportunity in sheol would be unnecessary. But it is necessary.

  • “Evil is an illusion.”

The world is evil by definition, since it is the kingdom of Satan on earth. The world is no illusion, so evil really does exist, and in rather overwhelming abundance. But when people see natural events as evil, that is an illusion created by their misunderstanding of what is happening.

  • “The purpose of evil is to educate us.”

This statement is partly true. We need to see evil as a possibility that we may choose. But we do not need to do evil to know of evil. There is sufficient evil around that no one languishes for lack of observation of it. Thus we are educated as to the difference between good and evil.

  • “Evil comes from free will.”

Free will is free choice. Free agency is the power to carry out free choice. No human being is completely free, because only an omniscient being understands all the possible choices. No human being is completely an agent, because no human being is omnipotent. But to the degree which a person has knowledge, one does choose, and to the degree one has power, one does act to carry out that choice. As a person chooses other than the will of God and carries out that choice, that person creates evil in the world. If a person knows not God, then everything that person does is evil. Thus is the world created and perpetuated by the choices and acts of human beings. Yes evil comes because men are free.

  • “God is not the absolute creator.”

This statement sheds some light on the situation. God is not the absolute creator in the sense that he created everything out of nothing and all creation thus is the fulfillment of his desire. God did not create the intelligences of human beings, which is the personality, the true self of each person. God did give each intelligence a spirit body and a premortal life with himself. He gives many a mortal body, and each person who receives that body is given an opportunity to live eternally with him in the resurrection. But God did not create some human beings to be good and some to be evil. Each human being is a cocreator with God in that each determines for himself what he shall become. Thus God is not the absolute creator.

  • “God’s justice and mercy are in tension, out of which comes the problems of the world.”

This statement has an important element of truth for this discussion. God is love: he acts only to benefit the world. That righteous, pure, selfless love must abide the eternal principles which obtain, two of which are justice and mercy. Love is not pure or righteous unless it is just: God’s justice is that he is a lawgiver who cannot look upon defiance of his law with the least degree of allowance. For compliance with his law, God bestows blessing, even sharing all that he is and has with those who repent and learn to be completely obedient (who learn to love him with all of their heart, might, mind and strength.) But God’s justice also decrees an eternal damnation (stopping of blessing) for all who will not repent.

God’s mercy is that he desires to forgive all men their trespasses against his law so that he can bless each one. But he cannot forgive unless they repent of their sins, lest he become unjust and deliver blessing where none is due. All men who become accountable sin because of the fall of Adam. Once a person has sinned, the Father’s justice demands that he be cast out forever to satisfy justice. Thus all mankind would be lost, were it not for the Messiah.

God sends his anointed one, his only begotten son, to atone for the sins of every creature, that every’ man may become as though he had not sinned through repentance and acceptance of that atonement. Thus God is just in that he gives the law and demands an eternal satisfaction of that law, but he is also merciful in that he provides a way for a man who has sinned, and thus learned of evil first hand, to now turn from sin and become just. A man becomes just through faith in Jesus Christ, who teaches him how to live a sinless life henceforth. He becomes a just man-made perfect when he receives that merciful forgiveness of his sins from the Messiah, who has paid for his sins with his (the Messiah’s) own suffering. Thus God is both just and merciful.

But God cannot be just and merciful, give freedom to sin and reward for not sinning without both allowing sin and paying for all sin allowed. So that same God who created this world by allowing Satan to come on this earth and have a kingdom then pays personally for every jot and tittle of sin which he has allowed, that he might provide a means by which men can be forgiven and become as God is.

Evil is allowed to exist on this earth so that God can be just, and give his law by which men may be exalted. Men may choose to abide that law of their own free agency, and thus become one with God to share all that he has. But God must also be merciful to those who sin but are later sorry, that they may repent, learn to live by God’s law, and be exalted. God could not be just without giving men both law and agency, whereby they sin and create evil. He cannot be merciful without providing a Savior to show them the way out of sin and to forgive them. The tension between his justice and mercy indeed is the occasion for the freedom of man, which makes evil possible on this earth.

  • “This is the best of all possible worlds.”

Yes, this is the best of all possible worlds, if what you have in mind is the moral development of mankind. If what’ one wants is the most peaceful and physically non-threatening place which could exist, then this is not the best of all possible worlds for such an one. But if what is desired is a place of freedom, where a man must rely on his heart, his true desires, to choose between good and evil, and where those who choose good will have a virtually unlimited quotient of evil to turn to good as they progress toward becoming as God is, then there could be no better place for such an one to be than on this earth. This earth is the most wicked of all the many earths which God has created. As an incubator for gods and devils, a place where every person may seek and find exactly that pattern of moral choices which he wishes to pursue, this earth and its present world are without peer. They cannot be improved. This is the best of all possible worlds.

  • The tests for an answer to the problem of evil.
  • It must preserve the traditional view of God.

The question is, whose tradition? The view of God here presented is certainly not “traditional,” but it is scriptural, meaning that it is the same God as that of the Old and New Testaments. It does preserve the idea of a God who is perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient, but doubtless provides an out for everyone who wants one.

  • Does it help a person who is suffering?

This view does indeed help those who have found a personal relationship with the true and living God. They know that suffering, not peace and plenty, is the key to spiritual growth. They know that the Lord sends his rain on the just and on the unjust. They know that each human, good and evil, must die. But they know that God is good, and that nothing ever happens to any human being but what God will use that as an avenue of heaping blessings upon the head of that person, both in time and in eternity, if only that person will meet whatever the problem is with love of God and faith in Jesus Christ.

But how can a person who is suffering love God? There is a formula whereby any man can find God. It is to pray in his own secret place in the name of Jesus Christ and humbly to ask for wisdom as to what to do. God; who is merciful, gives wisdom to those who ask in faith. Thus can every human being establish personal contact with the true and living God, and immediately begin to know of his love and goodness as he repents and turns his life towards that light. When one has that personal, experiential (not just rational) relationship with the true and living God, he will know that God is good, for he will taste of God’s love. That love will be his assurance of things not seen, things not understood as yet. It is the assurance that he can trust that the love he feels from God is the safety he need to feel to trust that God has all of the evil of the world in hand, and that God will not allow one iota of evil more than is necessary for the salvation of mankind. Thus are some comforted in their suffering.

  • Is God affected by the evil of the world?

He most certainly is. It causes him to weep. He would that it might be otherwise. But justice and mercy cause that it may not be otherwise. So the God of heaven comes down to earth, takes upon himself the form of man, and personally pays for every sin which his justice has created. He personally teaches each human being how to avoid unnecessary suffering in this world, and how to eliminate evil from his own life. There could not be a God who is more personally concerned about the evil of this world and the involvement of each of his children in it.

  • Is the God of this explanation worth worshipping?

This answer must be the personal decision of each human being. It is plain that for some persons on this earth, the true and living God is not someone whom they care even to know, let alone worship. But each person must decide this matter for himself when he meets this God, for all do, sooner or later. Some seek him while yet in mortality and find him and worship him. Some find him, worship him, and then decide that they don’t really like him after all; he is not a good God to their thinking. Others hope against hope that he doesn’t even exist. But all will know he exists when they stand face to face before him at the bar of judgment. Then each will know of his love, his justice and his mercy. Nearly all will worship him then.

  • Does this explanation account for the magnitude of the evil on the earth?

This explanation holds that the amount of evil on the earth at any given time is simply the sum of the evil desires of the human beings who happen to live on the earth at a given moment (allowing for the sins of the fathers to be visited upon the heads of the children). In times of great evil or of natural disaster, the evil or the natural disasters are simply a function of the desires and actions of the inhabitants. Thus nations ripen in iniquity and are destroyed. Thus nations and peoples humble themselves before God and are prospered. Thus there will come a time again when the earth will be a paradise and when the gross evil of this age will be done away: the earth will enjoy a sabbath of peace and rest from wickedness, which is what evil is. That Sabbath will be brought to pass by the destruction of the wicked people who inhabit the earth, leaving only those who will serve the true and living God of love.

Note: This paper is entitled “An LDS Answer to the Problem of Evil” because there is no orthodoxy to which everyone must adhere in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are certain doctrines which are assuredly false, and there are others which are surely true. But each individual must seize the freedom to search for himself or herself. This allows one to believe false ideas, which if they are serious enough, will become an occasion for someone in authority to attempt to dissuade that individual. But this also allows a person to go beyond the boundaries of that which is commonly acknowledged as true in the church to discover truths that as yet are not known to many. Each is cautioned not to discuss these matters unless he or she is prompted by the Holy Spirit to do so. Thus every person is invited to become a profound theologian, but not so that they can profess this knowledge Rather is the intent that each would be enabled by this knowledge and thus bring forth greater fruits of repentance and love in his or her life.

The result of this situation is that two Latter-Day Saints may not agree at a given moment about a matter of doctrine. Each is working the matter out in his own mind, but the two may not be at the same point of development. The goal is that all who are faithful may come to see eye to eye. Meanwhile, the freedom to grow and be personally creative about searching for the truth about theology brings a necessary evil, a lack of agreement at times.

Posted in Definitions, Essay, Evil | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on An LDS Answer to the Problem of Evil

Letter to an Excommunicated Friend

Chauncey C. Riddle
c. 1984

Dear Friend:

I was saddened to hear of your excommunication from the Church. It is plain that my understanding of authority in the church is not the same as yours. May I share my views with you?

I see the essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be a program for perfecting our relationships with other beings. The program is simple, having only two steps. We must learn to love God with all of our heart, might, mind and strength. When we are fall of that love for Him then He can and will teach us how to love our neighbor as He loves us.

Crucial Point: We cannot know how to love others as our Father loves us in any natural way. When we feel love for others and try to help them as we see fit, that is probably a good thing but is clearly not the pattern of God’s love for us. His love for us proceeds out of a perfection of character and an omniscience that no human desire can begin to match. Thus, when we suppose that we can love our neighbor in a godly way by doing what we think is best, we are appointing ourselves to be gods, a bit of pride which is hardly justified.

The Gospel gives as a formula for loving God. It is

(1) to put our whole faith and trust in Jesus Christ,
(2) to repent of all of our sins,
(3) to make the covenant of baptism under one what has authority from Christ,
(4) to receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands of one who has authority from the Savior
(5) to endure to the end of becoming as Christ and knowing Him by following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To love God is to become as He is and to come to know Him, to be one with Him.

It is my understanding that there are three basic levels of progress through which the Holy Spirit will lead us into oneness with our Godhead.

The first level is to turn as away from being like the world. To this end are we given the Ten Commandments which are a preparation for joining the Church. If we keep the Ten Commandments and follow the Holy Spirit by joining the Church then certain other outward opportunities are given to us, such as keeping the word of wisdom, paying tithes and offerings, doing good for others, being active in and filling callings in the Church, and receiving priesthood and the temple ordinances. In all of this, we show our love for the Lord, our acceptance of Him. Through all of this, the Holy Spirit guides us as we humbly seek help in prayer.

The second level is the opportunity to unite with the Priesthood authority which the Savior has placed in His Church to help to bring as to the Father. He has appointed officers in the Church for the perfecting of the Saints. We cannot grow past the first level until we carefully support, work with, pray for and love all those whom He, the Savior, has appointed to preside over us in our families and in the Church. To love God is to love His work and the instruments by which He does His work on the earth: His priesthood authorities. We need to love and support them with all of our heart, might, mind and strength is to reject the Savior who appointed them to preside over us. If we do support them, the Holy Spirit will guide us as we humbly seek help in prayer. (Cf. 1 Samuel 26:7–12.)

Crucial point: Either this is the True Church of Jesus Christ or it is not. If it is not, then all of us should withdraw from it. If it is the true Church then every presiding authority is appointed of Jesus Christ and must be so honored loved, sustained and obeyed as such. It will not do to say that the President of the Church has the true authority but oar bishop or stake president does not; that is inconsistent because every stake president and bishop is appointed and removed under the authority of the President of the Church.

When we have found ourselves fully united, in divine love, with the priesthood authority which is over us, then and only then can we go on to the third level, perfection. It is only then that we shall be given the power to perfect every word, every thought, every feeling, every hope, every desire under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit as we seek that help through humble prayer. Then we really do love the Lord with all of our heart, might, mind, and strength. Then we achieve that oneness with the Lord.

If we are able to but do not unite with the priesthood authority which the Savior has established on the earth, that is a rejection of the Savior, a declared rejection of love for Him. In that condition we cannot keep the first great commandment; which also means that in that condition we cannot keep the second commandment. To pretend to love mankind and to try to make the world a better place while rejecting the Savior and His priesthood authority is a self-contradiction. Only through the priesthood structure of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is there any real hope for a righteous means of bringing the misery and woe of mankind to an end and to bring to all men the opportunity of true happiness, love and accomplishment.

Do you see that in my opinion when a person’s stake president or bishop asks him to repent and he will not, that is prima facie evidence he has jumped the track and is listening to the wrong spirit? The only cure that I know of is to start back at the beginning, as a little child, and to work up through level one until level two can be approached gain, to become one with the priesthood authorities over us. To me, a person who claims to have been wronged by his stake president, or that his stake president has exceeded authority in excommunicating him, has rejected this church as The Church of Jesus Christ, and in the process has rejected real love for the Savior and real love for mankind.

I plead with you to reconsider, to go back to the first works and seek the waters of baptism. I know that this is the true Church of Jesus Christ and that His power, authority, and love are in the priesthood structure of this Church.

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

C. C. Riddle

Posted in Letter, Priesthood, Religious Studies Center, Sin, Testimony | Tagged | Comments Off on Letter to an Excommunicated Friend

Self-Love

Chauncey C. Riddle
c. 1984

What is a self? A self has a body, feelings, thought processes, desires, but is probably not any of these nor the collection. Perhaps a self is a consciousness that is aware of its body, its feelings, thinking and desiring. This consciousness has the power of attention. It can focus on anything within the stream of mental events. It is an active choosing force that we call “the real me.”

A healthy self is one that is ready to meet any happening in the world with aplomb. It is never afraid (though often prudent), never angry (sometimes wary), never self-pitying (though sometimes hurting), never envious (but have real desires). In short, the healthy self never entertains negative emotions (sometimes tempted to do so, but never allowing such to remain).

The unhealthy self is afraid. It fears its body will be hurt or not nourished or rested. It fears its feelings will be wounded. It feels its thoughts to be inferior, therefore is hesitant to be open. It fears its desires will not be fulfilled. It fears its actions will be rejected as wrong or insufficient.

The fear of the unhealthy self probably has root in rejection as a child. There was an experience of real hunger that was not met until fear of hunger had lodged deeply. There were unassuaged hurts that culminated in fearful anticipation of further wounds. There were situations of “put down” embarrassment which caused the self to wonder when such would happen again. There were unfulfilled desires that left the self wondering if this were perhaps a totally hostile universe.

These fear-engendering experiences of the self have given rise to a defense mechanism—self-love. The self essentially says, “No one else loves me, so I will undertake the cause of my own welfare. I will love me and take good care of me, then I will have nothing to fear.” The only trouble with this strategy is that it doesn’t work. The love of self never fully satisfies the fears of the self. And the self feels, deep down, that this is wrong, to boot.

When the self undertakes to love and care for itself because no one else is doing so, this course embarked upon is self-destructive. It becomes self feeding upon self. For the measure of love is always sacrifice. Whatever we give up of our own comfort and benefit to help another is the true gift of love. But when the “other” is oneself, one gives up comfort and benefit to give oneself comfort and benefit.

Self-love doesn’t work well because the resources of self-love are always poor; it therefore cannot satisfy. The conscience of a person tells him it is wrong to love self, so one is discomfited. Then we add that the resources of self-love is a depletion of self resources (thus, of self) and we have classic self-destruction.

Self-love leads to self-despising. For the impetus to self-love is being despised by others. We naturally tend to think less of ourselves when others around us despise us. The fact that self-love is insufficient to satisfy the needs of self further lowers our self-respect level. The fact that one’s conscience pricks him for self-love causes further self-shame. The self-destructiveness of self-love adds a final blow. Self-respect has sunk to an intolerable low point.

Being already wounded, the self-loving self is difficult to help. Such an one cannot openly discuss the problem because the wounds are so deep and painful. Discussion exacerbates the hurt. Nor can such brook criticism, for that is taken as further despising heaped upon deep self-despising which may well be more than one can bear.

The distraught self-loving, self-despising self has no comfort or peace. The antidote has become a torment. The tormented soul thrashes wildly, trying to find peace, comfort, and security. Typical attempts at compensatory behavior are as follows:

Stimulus of body: (I drown my sorrows.)

Overeating, High speed thrills, Seeking to be scared, Drugs, Sexual libertinism, Loud erotic music

Escape: (I’ll try to forget my sorrows.)

Television, Workaholic performance, Immersion in the peer group, Books, Professional student, Overzealous espousal of some cause

Hiding: (No one must know.)

Lying, Rejecting of help, Hypocrisy, Reclusiveness

Denigration: (I’m not worth anything.)

Constant apologies, Psychosomatic illness, Suicide, Masochism, Carelessness

Aggression: (You rejected me, world; I’ll get back at you.)

Sports (brutality), Hatred, War, Criticism of others, Strikes, Anger, Crime, Insult, Spite Terrorism

Compensations: (If I can’t have love, I’ll take….)

Money, Prestige, Fashion and clothing, Cosmetics, Arrogance, Power, Many possessions, Jewelry, Famous friends, Spendthriftiness (be the generous one)

A person who is bound down with self-love is in the bondage of sin. As in quicksand, every struggle to add more self-love takes him deeper.

The only cure for self-love (and thus for sin) is to be loved. When a person finds that instead of the usual patronizing love of another self-lover, he is confronted by an unconditional love which accepts him as he is (does not despise him), will not collude in causing him to sin or in accepting his sinning, and which sacrifices to be a friend to him, he is first overwhelmed. Then he doubts it and tries to disprove that it is the real thing. When the doubt and disproof attempts have failed, then the self-lover must make a fundamental choice. He must choose: (1) to admit that sin and self-love are not good and don’t work, therefore they must be rejected in order to become like the person who loves him unconditionally; or (2) he must choose to espouse sin and self-love as his preferred way of life, a conscious rejection of unconditional love and righteousness.

The only unconditional love in this world is the pure love of Christ as embodied in the Savior or in someone who is truly His servant. To encounter this love, accompanied by the witness of the Holy Spirit, (it always is), is the true and only full opportunity to repent, to come unto Christ, to change from sin to righteousness, that this world affords.

The person who loves himself as a desperate self-defense mechanism can relinquish self-love when he discovers that the Savior loves him unconditionally. As the Holy Spirit teaches him that the Savior knows all, and has power to control all things, he sees that to be loved by such a being means that he need fear nothing, ever again. Feeling the reality of that pure love through the Spirit, he yields himself as a little child into the care and keeping of the Savior, ready to obey every instruction the Savior gives him, willing to suffer humbly whatever the Savior sees fit to inflict upon him, ready to make any sacrifice necessary to love purely. He is again as a little child, ready to be reborn.

The lost child is reborn through the waters of baptism and in the warm spiritual cleansing of the Holy Spirit. No longer needing to love himself, this person focuses now a true and fulfilling love on the Savior. Guided by the Holy Spirit, he feasts upon the words, the feelings, the ideas, the actions of his new father, Jesus Christ. He yearns to be nearer to Him and spends his best moments in mighty prayer, striving to draw ever nearer to his father. Upon arising from prayer, he views the world with the eye of faith: it is his apple. The world is his grand opportunity to go forth with confidence to do the will of his new father: to love others unconditionally, to speak the truth in all humility, to visit the widows and the fatherless in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Self-love has given way to love of God and love of neighbor. The newness of life is indeed not of this world. But he is grateful to be yet in the world where he can reach out to other souls tormented by self-love.

Posted in Definitions, Essay | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Self-Love

A Taxonomy of Human Communication

Chauncey C. Riddle
Brigham Young University
24 February 1984

Riddle, Chauncey C. (1984) “A Taxonomy of Human Communication,” Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium: Vol. 10: Iss. 1, Article 21. Available at: http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/dlls/vol10/iss1/21

Riddle, Chauncey C. (1984) “A Taxonomy of Human Communication,” Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium: Vol. 10: Iss. 1, Article 21.
Riddle, Chauncey C. (1984) “A Taxonomy of Human Communication,” Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium: Vol. 10: Iss. 1, Article 21.

Introduction

The purpose for this paper is to further clarify understanding of human communication. The main assertion is that all human communication may usefully be seen to belong to three and only three types: disclosure, directive, and description. The support offered is rational and intuitive. What is presented here is intended to be highly consistent within itself; it is also intended to be grounded in common sense with you as hearer as witness to that. The relevance intended is that by shedding light on the situation, the possibilities of human communication may be enhanced.

A Theory of Man

Fundamental to this discussion is the image of man presumed. It is here posited that man is a three-fold being, each part making possible a separate function. Man is a feeling, thinking and acting being. Though these are analyzed as three, it is important to see that they are integrated; one performs one function only in connection with the other two. Thus, when one feels or desires, one also thinks and prepares for action. When one thinks, one also feels or desires and prepares for action. When one acts, one is also feeling and thinking.

It is the feeling aspect which is most distinctive about man. A gear chain reacts to its environment by receiving power, acting to increase or to decrease that power with a corresponding change in velocity. A computer reacts to its environment by receiving data then outputting transformed data; it may be said to think and to act, though that thinking is surely less than the human kind. A human being receives input from many feeling sources, then creates a desire which is not simply a function of that input. A human being receives data about the world from many sources, then combines these to create a special personal construct of the universe. Feeling and thinking then combine to produce action. Feeling provides the what of action, thinking provides the how of action, and action delivers what feelings desire and the mind conceives.

Man is here considered to be free. He chooses his desires, his thoughts and his actions. His environment provides limits within which he functions, but what and how he acts within those limits is his choice. The purpose of receiving communication is to become aware of the possibilities for action and the limits of those possibilities. The purpose of sending communication is to act upon the universe to transform it into a place tore compatible with one’s personal desires.

The challenge for every human being is to communicate with sufficient effectiveness and efficiency that one becomes satisfied with what he creates through his own communication. It seems that one can do this best when his feelings and thoughts correspond with the way the universe really is, and when his actions are an integrated and effective force to change the universe in the direction he thinks is better. Sometimes we desire, but our thoughts and actions cannot deliver what we desire. Sometimes we desire and then are repelled by that which we thought we desired. Human life is the attempt to create in ourselves an integrity of feeling, thought, and action which accords with the reality of the universe and which enables us to create those satisfactions which we seek.

It may be said that a human being is under control when his thinking and acting are consistent with his feeling. The possibility of that consistency is the possibility of man’s freedom. Gaining that consistency is a skill learning which men gain only through much concerted effort in correct practice.

A Definition of Communication

Human communication is assumed to be dyadic: it may always be analyzed as the relationship between two and only two persons. Communication is here defined as the effect of A upon B. Human communication is the effect of person A upon any B, be it person, place or thing. Fully human communication is the effect person A has on person B. This communication may be isolated for a specific short time interval   or it may be summed over an extended period of time. Normally communication is reciprocal: person A affects person B, then person B affects person A. Mass communication is the effectperson A has on many persons B, but each case may be analyzed individually.

This definition allows both verbal and non-verbal forms of communication. No attempt is here made to catalog all of the possible ways in which one person may affect another, but there are two examples which are noteworthy. Person A may affect person B by not sending a message at time T. Person A may affect person B by not growing, not becoming more capable, thus not affecting person B in the manner that would have been possible had A changed as was possible.

This definition is seen to be the broadest possible definition of communication. Any not so inclusive could not be used to give a full account of the communication situation. The concepts of message and meaning are not used in it even they are important to most communication. They are elements which are projected by a speaker and constructed by a hearer, but which never are assuredly common to both speaker and hearer, as we shall see below.

A Model of the Human Communication Process

We assume for our model of human communication that we begin in medias res. We take person A as he exists in the world, having received much communication from other human beings, having decoded that with some success; having well-formed opinions about the persons who communicate with him and about the world and the universe, and having some fairly definite ideas as to just what changes he wishes to effect in the world.

Person A is seen to be doing three things more or less simultaneously and continuously. First, person A is translating the verbal messages of others. To do this he creates an hypothesis as to the intent of a given speaker, then fleshes out that hypothesis according to the verbal-cultural context which unites person A and the speaker which he is translating. This is a creative, willful act for which he is responsible. This translating or decoding is essentially but not exclusively a function of the thinking of person A. That is to say, this translating reflects what he believes the person he is translating to have said; but it does not necessarily reflect what he believes the person he is translating to have meant. True meaning comes in assessment.

Person A is also assessing the nature of the world around him. He assesses the persons whom he translates, and decides whether they are trustworthy or not, whether they speak ironically or not, etc. Thus he decides what they really mean by what they have said. He assesses the total social context, the verbal and physical messages he has received and is receiving from all persons. He assesses the physical environment as to what it was, is, and portends. All of this assessing is the creature of the imagination of person A. Though he works with abundant input, the output of his assessment is of his own making. This assessing is essentially but not exclusively a function of the feeling of person A. That is to say, it reflects his desires.

The third function which person A is continually doing is forming intents or intentions. Out of what he has translated others to have said, and out of his assessment of what they really meant and his assessment of the past, present and future of the state of the world, person A is preparing to act to affect the world, either by speaking or not speaking, or by acting physically or not acting physically. That intention reflects the desires of person A and his thinkings, but is essentially the action part of his nature. Once the intention is formed, the actions of person A begin to reflect his intent.

The translations, assessments and intents of person A are the thrust of his personality in the world. The manifestations of that thrusting are the actual actions of the person, their intentions reflected in speaking and acting. According to the best of his skill, person A translates his intentions into code or act. He may act honestly or deceitfully, selfishly or selflessly, but in any case his words and acts taken as a whole and over time reflect whatever his intentions are, be they honorable or dishonorable, skillful or artless. Speech code or action, all that person A does is relevant to a cultural context, and the translation he makes of his intent is projected into that context. The context has some physical existence, but its principal existence is in the minds of the hearers or observers of person A.

In addition to the cultural context, the speech code or action also exists in and acts in a physical   environment. Sign language in the dark or conversation by a waterfall are typical cases where communication or effect is lessened by the environment. The use of a megaphone or of video transmission are cases where the code and acts of person A are enhanced in their effect by the environment. The environment also provides referents which affect the interpretation of the code and/or act by the hearer, such as the presence of a charging bull when the cry goes out “Watch out for the bull!”

At this stage of communication, everything that retains is the responsibility of the hearer. The hearer must now perform his three functions. First he will translate any code into a message, using his understanding of the cultural context plus his personal knowledge of the speaker. Second he will assess the situation to decide what the speaker really meant, whether the speaker speaks truthfully or meaningfully, and the net import of what the speaker literally says but really means in the context of the physical environment. Third, the hearer will create out of his translations, assessments and desires his own intentions, what he will say and/or do to try to push the world in the “right” direction. As with person A, person B is creative about each of these three steps. He creates a literal interpretation of person A’s words and acts, he creates an assessment as to the true meaning and import, and he creates an intention to affect the world in some tanner so it will become more to his liking, all done as a creative reaction to the universe.

Person B then encodes his intent, using the cultural context, and projects that code into the physical environment. Another person, perhaps person A, then decodes, assesses and forms another intention. Thus the process of communication is a constant reverberation of codes and acts among feeling, thinking, acting creative individuals.

The Taxonomy of Human Communication

Having laid the groundwork which was necessary, we may now proceed to make explicit the taxonomy of human communication which is the heart of this paper,

It is posited that all human communication may profitably be classified in one of three basic types. These types match the functions of man. Thus, representing the feeling aspect of man we shall designate a category to be known as “disclosure,” Representing the thinking aspect of tan we designate a category known as “description,” Representing the acting aspect of man we designate a category known as “directive.”

Disclosures may be subdivided into four main types, these types being more representative than exhaustive. First is the subtype of expression, such as “I feel ill,” Second is the subtype of value judgments, such as “What a beautiful sunset.” Third are plans, such as “I’m going to run for governor.” Finally, we have preferences, such as “I really prefer a little less winter in the climate.”

Descriptions may also be placed in four subtypes, these here intended to be both representative and exhaustive. The first subtype is that of fact, which is a description or classification of a phenomenon which is present in the physical environment of the speech act describing it. An example of a factual type assertion would be “This dog has a broken leg,” Second is the subtype of law; a law-like assertion is one which is an induction from many related factual assertions. For example, after observing many dogs with broken legs, one might assert that “Injuries of this sort are readily healed with proper care,” The third subtype is that of theory, which is a wholly or partly fictional account created to take sense of the facts and laws of an area of thought. An example of such a useful fiction is Newton’s idea of gravity. Gravity is never perceived, and it is quite possible that no such thing exists, but until we can do better it provides a useful mental image. The fourth subtype of descriptive assertion is that of principle. A principle is a fundamental postulate of thought which aids in the construction of theories and in the explanation of laws and facts. An example of a principle is Newton’s idea that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Each kind of descriptive assertion may be used in the form of an hypothesis, which is an assertion of a fact, law, theory or principle which is seriously proposed for acceptance but which as yet lacks the necessary basis for acceptance. The basis for acceptance of a hypothetical fact is a pertinent observation. The basis for the acceptance of a hypothetical law is a series of observations of the phenomenon described by the proposed law, which series vindicates the statement as a reliable generalization. The basis for the acceptance of a hypothetical theory is its usefulness in forming a   basis for deducing the accepted laws of an area and for leading to hitherto unobserved facts and laws. The basis for acceptance of principle is the usefulness such an hypothesis shows as a fundamental postulate in a useful body of thought. Needless to say, theoretical assertions and principles cannot be proved to be true,

The third basic type of assertion, that of directive, may also usefully be divided into four subtypes. The first subtype is non-verbal, and will be called “art.” This subtype includes all of those things which a human being may do physically to change the world around him. This area is subject to the laws of physics, wherein every effect must have a sufficient cause. Examples of this subtype are piano playing, carpentry, skydiving, sculpture and disguise. The next three subtypes are verbal forms, encompassing command, questions and definitions. In each of these verbal forms of directive the speaker is attempting to change the universe by using words only, leaving it to others to supply the force which physics requires for changes. In commands, person A tells person B what to do, how to move his muscles. In questions, person A is directing someone to make an appropriate response. In definitions, person A is directing how a certain symbol must or may be used. What all directive communications have in common is an attempt to change the nature of the world.

It is posited that every communication, verbal or non-verbal, may be formed into an assertion, which is a complete sentence expressing the hearer’s hypothesis as to what the initiator of the communication intends. Where no assertion can be formed, the observer or hearer has no understanding, correct or incorrect, to attach to the observation. Thus every communication can be interpreted in the form of an assertion.

By examining cases we observe that all assertion may be properly categorized as being primarily disclosures, descriptions, or directives. But we further observe that every assertion may also be interpreted as representing the other two types as well as its primary type. In fact, it appears that a formulation of all three forms of the assertion is necessary to establish complete meaning. Thus “meaning” is taken to be a resonance along the three types of assertions wherein each is represented in different strengths according the interpretation of the hearer. Just as intent involves feeling, thinking and acting, so interpretation involves attribution of feeling, thinking and acting as the hearer attempts to recreate the speaker’s intent.

Examples are necessary at this point. If a speaker says, “You’re all right,” after assessment we may form a disclosure assertion such as “I like you.” But also meant will be a description, such as “I believe you are a reliable person,” and a directive such as “You believe that I esteem you.”

If the original code is such as “Utah is a western state,” we have an assertion that is primarily a description. This may also be decoded and assessed as a disclosure: “I believe that Utah is a western state,” and as a directive: “You believe that Utah is a western state.” This resonance becomes more apparent when we move to the realm of theory. If the original code is “an evolved from a lower form of life,” the disclosure might be “I am convinced that an evolved from a lower form of life,” and the directive would be “You: believe also that man evolved from a lower form of life.”

If the original code is such as “Stand up,” we have a typical command form directive. But it also may be represented after assessment by the disclosure form: “I want you to stand up,” and the descriptive form: “You are a person who should stand up.”

Conclusions

1. Communication may be enhanced by understanding the resonance nature of meaning.

2. Assertions are better formed from assessments than from decodings, and that intent is more truly captured in assessments.

3. It is claimed that gods, little children and dogs understand principally by assessments, therefore interpret more effectively than those who do not recognize deceptive coding.

Posted in Communication, Deseret Language and Linguistics Society Symposium | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on A Taxonomy of Human Communication

How to Avoid Priestcraft

Chauncey C. Riddle
Honors 204R & Religion 231
(c. 1984 – Later read at BYU Women’s Conference)

The purpose of this paper is to suggest the way by which one might avoid the practice of priestcraft in this world. We shall proceed to discuss this topic under the four following main headings.

First, the basic premises. Then we shall define priestcraft and priesthood. Thirdly, we shall suggest how not to practice it in various professions, and, finally, we shall assert some conclusions.

The context of this discussion is that of Latter-day Saints in this dispensation. The question is: how shall we, knowing the fullness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, be able to avoid practicing priestcraft?

Basic Premises

We make the following stipulations as part of the basic premises.

  1. We are here on earth to become as the Savior. It is the intent of our Father that we should have the opportunity to acquire the Savior’s knowledge, skills, values and powers in this mortality with the ultimate possibility of becoming fully as He is. The work of the Lord is calculated to encourage us to become as close to Him as we wish to become, and to become as much like Him as we wish to be.
  2. The scripture warns us that the Savior is our God, and we are not to take counsel—that is to say, we are not to take wisdom,—from our fellowmen. We read the following in Section 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants which is part of a series of comments as to why the gospel has been restored in these latter days.
    “That man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh, but that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world.” (D&C 1:19)
    We see, then, that it is not good for one man to try to tell another what is wise for him to do. We may teach each other. We may explain, but we should not pretend to give counsel to our fellowmen for that is the function of God, Himself.
  3. We read in the scriptures that the Savior is the fountain of all righteousness. Quoting from Ether, chapter 12, verse 28:
    “Behold, I show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness.” (Ether 12:28)
    The Savior is indeed the fountain of all righteousness, meaning that if we wish to be righteous we must go to Him, for He is the only source from which we can draw true wisdom. The scriptures also say that the wisdom of man is foolishness before God. For man does not know the beginning from the end. Man does not know very much about the complexities even of the moment which he in the world. To know true wisdom, that is to say, to find out how truly to do the right thing at any given time, we must come to consult One who does know all, who is infinitely good and wise in all things, and this is our Savior, Jesus Christ, the fountain of all righteousness.
  4. We need to understand something about basic human roles. There are three basic human roles, one of which obtains every human relationship. In any given situation I am someone’s father, I am their brother, or I am their son. If you are a woman, in every situation you are either someone’s mother, you are their sister, or you are their daughter. Special relationships obtain between people when they have these relations. For instance, the proper relationship between father and child is that the father is to bless the child. That is to say, to help the child to grow, to develop, to come to be as the Father is. It is the glory of fathers to share with their children, to help the children to have all that they have, even as does our Father in Heaven. It is the glory of brothers to share with each other. Not to lord, not to dominate, not to be keepers, but to share one with another. To share joy and sorrow, riches and poverty, understanding, skills, possessions, whatever we might have, it is our opportunity to share with our brothers and sisters.
    Children have a special relationship with fathers: their role is to obey, for only as they obey and take counsel from those who are their fathers, either appointed by God or God, Himself, can they grow to their potential. Only in obedience to those instructions can they come to a fulness of what their Father would have them be. One of the great problems in the world is the confusion of these roles, of people assuming that they have the right to be fathers when they do not, assuming that to be a brother is to be a father, or keeper, which it is not.

Definition of Priestcraft and Priesthood

Finally, we need to point out from 2 Nephi, chapter 26, verse 29, the Lord’s definition of priestcraft as given through Nephi.

He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion. (2 Ne. 26:29)

Without commenting further on this definition of priestcraft then we shall proceed to define the roles of the priest and then to give a refined definition of priestcraft in the context of true priesthood.

We will assert then that the true characteristics of a true priest are as follows. The priest is a righteousness person, he is a saint. A priest is called of God. He is a true light unto the world. That is to say, he dispenses truth and wisdom from God the Father and from our Savior, Jesus Christ, through the instrumentality of the Holy Ghost. The true priest does not speak of himself or his own wisdom, but he delivers to his fellow beings the wisdom that comes from God. To those who accept his message, he administers the ordinances of salvation. He also does suffering for the sins of his people; for in their weakness, in their ignorance, for they will sin, and the priest suffers with them and for them.

The Savior is our model in this matter of being a true priest. He, indeed, was righteousness and without sin. His Father sent Him into the world. The Savior did not call Himself but His Father sent Him and testifies to men of that sending. The Savior is the Light of the World. He is the Source of all Wisdom and all Righteousness to this world. He came and ordained and blessed and healed, thus administering the ordinances of salvation, both temporal and spiritual, to those who could profit from His blessings. He suffered for the sins of His people, indeed, for He performed the atonement in which He took upon Himself pain for the sins of all human beings, whoever had lived or would live on the face of the earth. In doing all this, He gave the glory to His Father, accepting none for Himself.

A true priest, one appointed after the order of Christ, will have similar characteristics to the Savior. The true priest strives to be righteous. He confesses and forsakes his sins. He loves his brothers and his sisters. He is one with his file leader and is a saint. He does not call himself or set himself up but is ordained and set apart by his file leader in the priesthood. He teaches the commandments of God, not his own wisdom. He helps people to be wise by delivering to them wisdom from God and thus helps them to come to happiness which is the fruit of true wisdom. He administers the ordinances of salvation. The power of God flows as the true priest administers the saving ordinances as he heals and blesses. He forgives all men their personal trespasses and against himself suffers the indignities and evils that men heap upon him because he is a servant of Christ, thus helping to bear their sins. He gives the glory to the Savior.

The false priest, in contrast to the true priest, covers his sins, gratifies his pride. His love for men waxes cold. He is an apostate: he stands apart from those who hold the true priesthood, and will not accept their counsel. He is not called of God but sets himself up to be a light unto the world. He pretends that his light is good and teaches men that they should do as he says, but he does not teach the commandments of Christ. He teaches doctrines of man and of devils and sorrow results. Sometimes, of course, he mixes what he teaches with the statements of the scriptures, giving some good along with the bad, thus confusing people. He administers empty ordinances: most of the ordinances he performs, if they are saving ordinances, have pretended efficacy in the next life only. By this he shields himself from having to pay the consequences of ordinances performed without power. Should he heal, he likely will do so by Satan’s power, surely not by that of Christ. When he has opposition, he will not suffer it, but he seeks to punish the opposition and thus brings persecution upon his enemies (as the history of religion has so many examples to offer). He gladly accepts praise and/or gain for his priesthood functions.

Having thus defined the true priest and the false priest, we can now say particularly what it is we are talking about. When any person has every characteristic of the true priest then he is a true priest. Should he partake of any one characteristic of the false priest, then that person is a false priest. Priestcraft is one subdivision of being a false priest. It is that subdivision wherein one sets one’s self up as a light unto the world and takes praise or gain for doing so. Having thus defined priestcraft we will now proceed to show some examples of both priestcraft and the possibility of not practicing priestcraft.

How to Avoid Practicing Priestcraft

Let us posit first of all the worst possible case. Let’s take an LDS man who has grown up in the Church but rejects many of the teachings of the gospel and rejects the Brethren as his file leaders. Because he does not accept the gospel, he has not repented of his sins and he is selfish and unrepentant. He lies about his sins, perhaps even accepting the priesthood for social reasons. He goes to a university and there he gets what he considers to be “real authority” in this world, a Ph.D. and a M.D., and becomes a psychiatrist. As he goes out to practice psychiatry, he teaches and uses the theories of men. He perhaps teaches permissiveness, situational ethics, humanist doctrines, all of which are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. He conducts therapy sessions to relieve persons of guilt and of shame for sin by telling them there is no such thing as guilt and there should not be shame. He attacks and belittles faithful people and priesthood authority in the true Church, and perhaps becomes wealthy and famous from his priestcraft.

Let us show now how this same person with the same occupational opportunity could proceed not to practice priestcraft. If the psychiatrist were a humble LDS person who fully accepted the priesthood authority in the Church, if he repented of all his sins, and sought to serve the Lord with all of his heart, might, mind and strength, then he might go to a university and learn much of the theories and practices and skills of man, receiving his Ph.D. and his M.D. Having learned all the good that he could from the wisdom of men he would search also into the things of God and would become skilled and knowledgeable in all the way of godliness. Then when people came to him with their problems, he would teach them both the understanding of the world and the understanding of the gospel; he would allow them to take their choice and select the kind of treatment they would like to have. He would make no pretense to cure. He would help people to repent, if they choose the Lord’s way. He would administer appropriate therapy if they chose the world’s way. He would not do anything that would be contrary to the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He would be fully respectful of all persons, including his client. If someone were to abuse him for his faith in Christ or for any of his professional notions, he would accept that abuse without retaliation. He would charge modest fees, and those only for teaching and for administering therapy; never for telling people what they should do. He would reject the praise of man, giving the glory to God.

Let us now proceed to discuss a series of occupations showing how people in each of these occupations would act so as to avoid priestcraft. We shall assume that in all cases the person is a righteous LDS person and has received sufficient training from the world to be able to understand and practice the ways of the world.

Let us take then the case of the lawyer. The lawyer would learn the ways of law and then would teach his clients the ways and words of the law. He would teach probable options, probable outcomes, and possibilities that the client might choose. Then he would assist the client in executing whichever choice the client makes in preparation of documents, in trial procedures, etc. The lawyer would take money only for teaching and for applying his skills, never for telling people what they should do for that is the role of the true priest.

How would the M.D. act? The M.D. would learn all he could about the functions of the human body and the nature of the diseases which are common to human beings. When someone came to him with a malady he would teach them the ways of their body and the options for treatment and probable outcomes. When the patient had made a choice that seemed to the patient to be wise, then he would help the patient execute the choice, performing surgery or therapy according to the patient’s instructions. He would take money for teaching and performing professional skills, but not for telling people what they should do.

Let us then take the case of the teacher, say a teacher in a university. The teacher would learn and then teach skills and knowledge. He would never force his values or any values on students, leaving them the honor of being agents unto themselves to make their own choices. But he would teach them the knowledge and skills which they came to him to receive and requested of him. He would teach parents and students options for education so that they could understand the various possibilities and then would proceed to help them implement those options as chosen. He would take money for teaching, never for telling people what they should do or what they should believe, leaving that to their own personal agency.

How would a financial counselor operate? A financial counselor would make himself very much aware of the possibilities available for his clients, and then would teach his clients the options for investment plus probable consequences. He would assist his clients to understand what they needed to know to make wise decisions. When the clients had decided what to do, then he would assist them to execute their choice, if requested. He would take money for teaching and for executing choices, but never telling them what they should do.

How would an architect operate? The architect would learn the possibilities for beauty and utility in buildings. When a client came to him, he would make proposals showing the client various options. When the client was prepared to make a choice and did make one, then he would prepare specifications and detailed drawings and assist with architectural supervision in the construction of the building as the client desired. He would apply his skills and teach, but would never take money for telling people what they should do.

The engineer would learn and teach cost-effectiveness options in accomplishing various kinds of practical projects in the world. He would acquaint his clients with options available, possible costs, and the probable effectiveness of various projects. When the client had made a choice of a system, he would design and perhaps build the system to fulfill the client’s choice. He would take money for teaching, designing and building, but not for telling his clients what to do.

As a scientist, a person would learn all he could about the current sciences of his time, about the hypotheses on which people were working. He would then propose to various people projects where he might further explore these hypotheses to either add to their confirmation or to try to falsify them, to add somehow to the store of human capability. He would use the very best of hypotheses available for experimentation. He would take money only for teaching, for his technical accomplishments, and for his ideas in creating new hypotheses. He would never take money for propounding truths or for telling people what they should do or what they should believe.

The farmer would operate by learning the options for effective farming. Then he would farm effectively and would take money for produce, not for telling people what to do. The case of the farmer is relatively a simple one, and is matched by that of the artisan in many professions.

The senator is a more difficult case. The senator would learn and teach the options and probable outcomes for public policy. He would make it his business to inform his public as fully as possible on the problems that face them and the possible options for action. When called upon to make a decision as to what policy to follow, he would either execute the people’s choice or if delegated to make the choice himself would go before the Lord and seek from the Lord that which was most wise and would vote for or enact that which the Lord asked him to do. He would take money for teaching and for implementing, but never for telling people what they should do.

Admittedly, this problem of the senator is more complex than most of the rest. There is much yet here to be explored. For the senator gets into moral difficulties because he must vote to force people to do and not to do certain things. He thus begins to act in the role of the priest or in the role of God, which is, of course, always a dangerous business. We will leave that exploration to another time and place.

The final case that we will draw is that of the salesman. The salesman will learn all he can about the options available to his buyer, to fill to buyers needs. Then he will help his client to understand all the options available and will help the client to procure the clients choice. This would involve sometimes, of course, featuring the goods of some other person rather than the goods the salesman might be wishing to sell himself. This means that salesmen might have to become buying agents rather than representatives of particular products if they were to avoid unrighteousness in being salesmen. They would take money for teaching, not for psychologically forcing someone into what they did not want or need, nor for telling them what they should do.

Conclusions

Now, let us sum up and conclude on the matter that we have been discussing. The pattern shows up plainly. It is the glory of mankind to share with one another, to teach one another both skills and knowledge. But men should not try to counsel one another, nor to pretend to be one another’s keepers or priest, unless we have been personally appointed by God to the true priesthood to preside. Everyone might thus see the importance of becoming a highly skilled learner and teacher since this is what the professional life of many people would consist of doing. It seems then that to love God is to take His counsel, never the counsel of man, and to learn all of God’s thoughts and ways that we can. To love our neighbor is to share our learning and skill with our neighbor but never to force or lord it over our neighbor by practicing priestcraft. To be a good neighbor is also not to demand or even to submit to priestcraft.

We Latter-day Saints give glory to God and hearken carefully to the voice of his true priests who are the presiding authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For they truly represent Jesus Christ, who is the fountain of all wisdom and all righteousness. By our own revelation, each of us can know that what they say is the word of the Lord. Because of the goodness of our Lord, who gives liberally to all who ask for wisdom in faith, each of us can be wise.

1 This was a class handout for several years when I helped Chauncey teach a 6 credit Honors class from 1981 to 1988. The course number changed a few times during those years. Chauncey presented a revised version of this paper sometime later at a BYU Women’s Conference. (Monte F. Shelley)

Posted in Class Notes, Definitions, Womens Conference | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How to Avoid Priestcraft

Why We Are Here

Chauncey C. Riddle
c. 1984

Because we are blessed with knowing the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, we understand that there are five basic irreducible purposes of our mortal existence. Only the first is absolutely essential. To fulfill the others makes a fulness of blessing. The five are as follows:

  1. To gain a mortal tabernacle for our spirit. This is the necessary prelude to immortal life in a tabernacle of flesh and bone, which is the heritage of all human beings.
  2. To develop a Christ-like character. To learn to act righteously, responding to the spiritual influences from the Savior and learning not to be controlled by the physical forces around us is our goal. Every human situation is rich with opportunity to learn to be honest, true, chaste, benevolent, and to do good to all men. Either sex, any race, any age, any educational level, any economic level, affords an almost overwhelming opportunity to add good habit to good habit, correct preference to correct preference, true idea to true idea, all done following the Savior. Each soul is given the light of Christ to guide him or her in this quest for perfect character. But one cannot finish the task except one receives the fulness of the Restored Gospel and the ordinances of the new and everlasting covenant.
  3. To relieve suffering. The world is full of sorrow and suffering because of the sins of men. But that sorrow and suffering becomes an opportunity to those who have learned the unselfishness of the Savior. With heart, might, mind, and strength, they labor to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to heal the sick, to comfort the tormented, to assure the bereaved, to plead for the unjustly accused, to teach the unlearned. All of this is done under the Savior’s direction, never by using their own or any other man’s wisdom. Their goal is to be sure that they produce more good in this world than that which they consume, and that they share their surplus.
  4. To pass on the seed. To marry in the Lord’s covenant and to bring the souls of men and women to this world is the fourth task. To forebear having children by artificial means subverts both character and the plan. “Children are an heritage of the Lord. Blessed is he who has his quiver full.”
  5. To pass on the gospel. To bring up our children in the nurture of the Lord, transmitting the faith which is precious above all other ideas or messages in this world, constitutes the fifth great opportunity. We are not limited to sharing with our children, but sharing our faith fully with them is essential.

When our lives are finished, only these five things will be important for eternity:

  1. We gained a mortal tabernacle, and therefore can be resurrected to immortality, becoming just and true in all things.
  2. We gained a Christ-like character, and therefore can be trusted with the same glory the Savior has.
  3. We relieved suffering. We showed that as with our Master, we lived to serve and to help, not to “lord” it over anyone.
  4. We sacrificed to bring others into mortality and therefore we can be trusted to continue to bear souls in eternity.
  5. We taught and showed the way of the Savior in all things to all who would listen.

Because we will have done these five things faithfully, we can be trusted with stewardship over all that the Father has, becoming joint heirs with our Savior.

The name of 2, 3, 4, and 5 is “charity,” the pure love of Christ.

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth, Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail—(Moroni 7:46)

Posted in Essay, Restored Gospel | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Why We Are Here