Category: Chauncey Riddle

College of Religious Instruction

The Mormon Intellectual     fix WCr date in WCrVol. II, No. 1, 28 February 1968

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who develop themselves intellectually enjoy the riches of a double heritage. Participation in that Church brings them a legacy of prophets and principles, revelation and exhortation, as well as an active program of cultural, social, and moral reformation. Intellectual development brings to them the knowledge, culture, scholarship, and technology of the world of their fellowmen. These two heritages might be characterized in Greek terms as “mantic” and “sophic”; in direction as vertical as opposed to horizontal sources; or, as “other-worldly” and “worldly.” Tensions associated with the proper relating of these two influences, both within the individual person and also within the LDS Intellectual community, create rather considerable interest and excitement, both within and without that community. That tension may be seen as a great asset or as detrimental, depending upon one’s point of view, but it is unquestionably a very real factor in the present local scene.

The religious heritage of the LDS intellectual is centered in a special concept of deity. In this heritage, Jesus Christ is the God of this earth, a personal, specific, divine being who once lived on earth as a man and who now, as a resurrected, corporeal person, controls this universe. Much of this foregoing theological commitment is shared with other Christians. The special difference is that to the LDS person, Jesus Christ is available for personal communication at all times. To be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to acknowledge that Jesus Christ has and does literally speak with and appear to prophets today. To be active in this religion, each individual member is expected to communicate with Christ daily through the Holy Spirit, receiving instruction and guidance about the practical matter of moral uprightness in daily life. The goal of every person who lives this religion is to overcome unrighteousness and evil through the guidance of the Christ, and having done so, to be allowed into the personal presence of Jesus Christ, to see him face to face, as have the prophets, both ancient and modern. This is the “mantic” heritage.

The “sophic” heritage brings to the LDS intellectual the total cultural, scientific, and social deposit of the ages. Through the processes of education, scholarship and experimentation, that total deposit is available to him, as it is to every other human being. Far from being afraid or disdainful of this heritage, as religious persons are sometimes said to be, he is anxious to inherit: “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” (13^th Article of Faith.)

As the possessor of a dual heritage, however, the LDS person cannot take either lightly. He must seek revelation constantly to be true to his religion, and he must seek the best that is in the world constantly, through study and experience. To become a master of both is his religious goal.

A problem arises, however, when the commitment to his religion runs contrary to the wisdom of his fellowmen. He may then be forced to choose between his prophet and contemporary sociology, between revelation and the opinion of his peers. He cannot give equal allegiance to both traditions. The possible solutions to this dilemma mark the tensions within the Church.

LDS persons who accept the prophets and revelation but will not study, discuss, reason and experiment are automatically excluded from the group known as “LDS intellectuals.” These, of course, do not fully accept their religion, because it enjoins them to seek learning, to be “intellectual.”

At the other extreme is the member of the Church who is well-acquainted with the heritage of the world and gives it his primary allegiance. Ordinarily he is a person who does not enjoy personal revelation on anything like a daily basis; this makes him suspect that the prophets do not enjoy much, if any, personal revelation. This type of person may be an active member of the Church, but becomes uncomfortable when Church policy or statements of the prophets go contrary to what he has learned from the world. He views the non-intellectual Church member as hopeless and suspects the integrity of any intellectual who puts faith first.

The LDS intellectual who enjoys personal revelation but insists on meeting the intellectual world on its own ground sees himself as taking the best of both worlds. He sees the non-intellectual Church member as needing to be inspired, and the intellectual who rejects revelation as one who is blind. He believes that revelation will help him to solve the problems of the world to the degree to which he himself works hard to implement those solutions. He sees the LDS Church as the nucleus of a perfect social organization that will eventually meet every human need for every human being: economic, cultural, intellectual, political, and religious.

The future of the LDS Church will be a struggle to encourage its faithful non-intellectuals to become faithful intellectuals and to encourage its intellectuals to become faithful to Jesus Christ through their own personal revelation.

President David O. McKay
Vol. II, No. 3, 20 March 1968

It is entirely fitting that President David O. McKay should receive the Exemplary Manhood Award from the Associated Men Students of Brigham Young University. Fitting though this honor is it does not begin to touch the greatness of the man. For this one is more than a man, a great man. He is a prophet of the living God. He is the personal steward representing the Creator of this universe, even Jesus Christ, to every living soul upon this earth.

If we assent to the Exemplary Manhood Award, perhaps we could also envision a greater honor to be bestowed. Perhaps we could see him as the Savior’s personal emissary, inviting all men to come and drink freely at the fountain of life, truth and righteous. Perhaps through the Holy Spirit we could believe and obey in all things as he speaks the mind and will of Christ. Perhaps through this faithfulness we could come to a unity of the faith, the perfecting of the Saints, the adornment of the bride ready for the Bridegroom. This would indeed honor David O. McKay and the Lord Jesus Christ who has sent him.

Through the years the words of President McKay have sweetly vouchsafed peace to our souls, courage to our hearts, strength to our determination. The following selection of these choice sayings is brought to your attention in the hope that all of us might rededicate ourselves to the service of Christ and that we might encourage others to do the same as we savor the prophetic, challenging words of this great man:

Christ

I know that God lives, that his Son Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, and that divine beings restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith the gospel of Jesus Christ as he established it in the meridian of time. (CR, Oct. 1967, p. 153)

The Church

Thus does the Savior and His Church become my inspiration, my ideal in life. I think it is the one great thing for which man should strive. It presents the most efficient methods for human service, social uplift and progressive steps toward universal peace and brotherhood; and in its idea of salvation it comprehends the whole of the human family. (CR, April 1963, p. 99)

Communism

The position of this Church on the subject of Communism has never changed. We consider it the great satanical threat to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God’s work among men that exists on the face of the earth. (CR, Oct. 1964, p. 92)

Force

Force rules in the world today. Individual freedom is threatened by international rivalries and false political ideals. Unwise legislation, too often prompted by political expediency, if enacted, will seductively undermine man’s right of free agency, rob him of his rightful liberties, and make him but a cog in the crushing wheel of regimentation. (CR, Oct. 1965, p. 8)

God as the Center of our Lives

When God becomes the center of our being, we become conscious of a new aim in life. To indulge, nourish, and delight the body as any animal may do is no longer the chief end of mortal existence. God is not viewed from the standpoint of what we may get from him, but rather from what we may give him.

Only in the complete surrender of our inner life may we rise above the selfish, sordid pull of nature. What the spirit is to the body, God is to the spirit. When the spirit leaves the body, it is lifeless, and when we eliminate God from our lives, spirituality languishes. (CR, April 1967, pl 134, emphasis added)

Hearts

Merely an appreciation of the social ethics of Jesus, however, is not sufficient. Men’s hearts must be changed. Instead of selfishness, men must be willing to dedicate their ability, their possessions—if necessary, their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for the alleviation of the ills of mankind. Hate must be supplanted by sympathy and forbearance. (CR, Oct. 1963, p. 89)

Love of Life

I love life! I think it is a joy to live in this age. Every morning, as I view from my window the mountains to the east and greet the sun as it ushers in these unexcelled autumn days, I feel the joy and privilege of life and appreciate God’s goodness. (CR, Oct. 1966, p. 4)

Missionary Work

It is the responsibility of every member of the Church to preach the restored gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, that the evils of the world may be met by the counteracting forces of truth. (CR, Oct. 1967, p. 151)

The Noble Life

The noblest aim in life is to strive to live to make other lives better and happier. (CR, April 1961, p. 131)

Radiate the Divine Nature

God helps us to be partakers of the Divine Nature. May the spirit of this great conference radiate from your hearts to those who you will meet when you go back to your stakes and wards, and especially may it radiate in your homes. (CR, Oct. 1960, p. 60)

Reverence

The greatest manifestation of spirituality is reverence; indeed, reverence is spirituality. Reverence is profound respect mingled with love. (CR, April 1967, p. 86)

Self-Mastery

I plead with the members of the Priesthood throughout the Church to practice self-mastery. Be master of yourselves, master of your appetites, master of your passions. (CR, Oct. 1958, p.88)

Spirituality

Spirituality is the consciousness of victory over self, and of communion with the Infinite. (CR, April 1967, p. 8)

The Test

Man’s earthly existence is but a test as to whether he will concentrate his efforts, his mind, his soul, upon things which contribute to the comfort and gratification of his physical nature, or whether he will make as his life’s pursuit the acquisition of spiritual qualities. (CR, Oct. 1963, p. 89)

Truth

The most precious thing in the world is a testimony of the truth. (CR, Oct. 1964, p. 92)

Unity

The greatest safeguard we have for unity and strength in the Church is found in the priesthood, by honoring and respecting it. (CR, Oct. 1967, p. 6)

We Must Be Born Again

Force and compulsion will never establish the ideal society. This can come only by a transformation within the individual soul—a life brought into harmony with the divine will. We must be “born again.” (CR, Oct. 1961, p. 7–8)

The Anchor
Vol. II, No. 6, 15 April 1968

President David O. McKay admonished us in his closing conference message to make the Gospel the anchor of our lives. An anchor is a device for giving a ship some freedom of motion, but setting definite boundaries beyond which it cannot go. As the wind, waves and tide force the ship in directions that lead to destruction, the anchor holds it safely in check.

So with our lives. The fierce winds of passion, the waves of confusion, the tides of the ways of men, the stealthy fog of temptation, all effectively put us in peril. If the Gospel is our anchor, then Christ is our rock. As a sure mooring he enables us to bridle our passions that we might love purely, to know the truth that we be not double-minded, to walk in the narrow path of righteousness that we might do great good to penetrate the fog of temptation with the light which leads us out of darkness to eternal life.

How joyful we ought to be that there is a god who is our God, who loves us enough to restrain us from evil, to protect us against destruction! How grateful ought we to be for that tug of conscience that tells us that we have gone far enough, that any further will sever our connection with the rock of our salvation! If we are humble and obedient to the tugs of the anchor chain, if we can resist being restive and proud, then the might and power of all eternity is extended to us to guarantee safe harbor. But if the anchor becomes a burden and the rock too restrictive, we can cut ourselves loose; but then we must depend upon our own power for any salvation we get.

The choice is simple: anchor, restraint, safety, salvation, Christ; or relativity, license, danger, degradation, destruction.

Two Kinds of Religion
Vol. II, No. 7, 22 April 1968

As we take spiritual inventory, we should understand the type which our personal pattern of religion exemplifies. There are two main types of religion. Both can be good, but one can be better.

The first kind of religion is an attempt to avoid evil. It seeks a pattern of safety among pitfalls. It seeks defense against a formidable adversary. It is essentially negative. Carried to extreme, its progressive protections and proscriptions lead the doer to inactivity. Only in doing nothing is he safe. Nirvanistic loss of personal identity and responsibility is the eternal bliss.

The second kind of religion is an attempt to do good. It seeks to establish heaven in a fallen world. It strives for an offensive against everything which deters growth, development, fulfillment. It is positive. Its culmination is in the enlargement and exaltation of the individual through laying hold of every good thing. An eternity of solving problems in blessing others is the great goal.

The first alternative will be recognized as legalistic, law-of-Moses type of religion. The second will be seen to be a more expansive, spiritual type of religion. The former breeds fear and carelessness. The latter breeds the impetuous Peter who sought good in spite of himself. We can see these two types in the restored Church today: legalistic proscribers and liberalizing expansionists. The interesting thing to note is that neither of these approaches by itself enables one to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

To live the Gospel one must enjoy both kinds of religion, both negative and positive. The negative side, as the law of Moses, is carnal; it is for the body, for the subduing of the flesh. The ultimate goal of this side of living the Gospel is to strip the flesh of identity, of autonomy, to make it humbly obedient as a passive entity, an instrument of the spirit. The spirit having gained mastery and control of the body with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit, it can then with that same help pursue positive religion, to do the works of righteousness, of charity, uninhibited by a recalcitrant tabernacle but strengthened by a body in form like that of God himself. The fulness of the Restored Gospel leads a person to mighty works of witness, of priesthood and of love as the individual participates in the warning of the nations and in the establishment of Zion.

Man is a dual being, body and spirit. He needs two religions. One of proscription, to subdue the flesh, and another of enticement to do good, to enlarge the spirit. The negative must come first, even as the schoolmaster law of Moses prepared the way for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But both must have their fulfillment. Then we shall be sons of both Moses and Aaron:

“For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.” (D&C 84:33–34)

Both of these religions must center upon Christ through the laws and ordinances of his Gospel. As the Law of Moses witnessed the sacrifice of the Savior’s body, even so does the Gospel witness his faith, his complete obedience to the Father in the spirit. Jesus Christ is both our example and our succor in living both of these religions. As we fulfill all righteousness in him, the two become one religion. This then is our hope:

And again I would exhort you that ye would come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift, and touch not the evil gift, nor the unclean thing. …

Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ, and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.” (D&C 10:30, 32–33.)

Spring, a Time of Hope
Vol. II, No. 8, 29 April 1968

On a fine spring day the surge of life as nature awakens is electric. Blooming flowers, nascent leaves, bursting buds, tireless bees, pungent fragrance, all attest the energy, the power, of life.

For one who loves Christ, every day is a fine spring day. As he feels the testimony, the love, the gifts, the comfort of Christ, his bosom swells; the power and sweetness of spiritual life cause him to be exuberant. In spite of troubles and trials, he knows no anxiety, for he knows that in Christ all things work for good for those that love the Lord. Each day becomes an exciting adventure as the Lord’s mission takes him to new places, to meet new people, to help solve new problems. He knows no failure in any venture, for the Lord prospers him spiritually no matter what happens physically or temporally. As he goes through each day, a singing happiness of self-mastery, accomplishment, benevolence and compassion rewards and nourishes him, and the anticipation and intimation of joy beckon him onward. Knowledge distills upon his soul, understanding wreathes his experience, power flows to enable him to lay hold upon every good thing. The life and light and love of Christ are his life, his hope, his love. So every day is as spring.

And when you couple spiritual life with a beautiful spring day. …

Messages to the faculty of the College of Religion, Brigham Young University, 1966

No. 1

The following ideas are submitted in the hope that each of us can more completely fill our potential as servants of the Lord in instructing the youth of Zion.

One of the choice expressions of the task of teachers in the Church is given by Moroni:

… and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ who was the author and finisher of their salvation. (Moroni 6:4)

Let us enlarge briefly upon these concepts:

1. Their names were taken: We are accountable for the influence we have wrought upon each soul who has been under our tutelage. We have their names in order to insure that to each one has been extended the love, understanding, and nourishment which is the rightful heritage of the children of God.
2. That they might be remembered: This is to treat them as individuals, not as “classes” or groups. Needs are personal and particular. Optimal good is done only on a person-to-person basis.
3. Nourished by the good word of God: The prime function of a teacher in the Church is not to express his or her own ideas and opinions but to lead the flock to feast upon God’s words: first the Scriptures, both canonized and those from the living prophets; then the words of God which come by the Holy Spirit to each individual.
4. To keep them in the narrow way: There is only one way that is right, and it is strait and narrow. It is to hearken to the voice of God in all things, for by his Holy Spirit God will show us all things which we should do. (2 Nephi 32:3)
5. To keep them continually watchful unto prayer: Since one receives the Holy Spirit through the prayer of faith, it is the opportunity of the teacher to encourage and commend prayer and meditation, that each spiritually new-born son or daughter of Christ might grow continuously to spiritual maturity, ever watchful against the sophistries of the adversary and the temptation to spiritual drowsiness.
6. Relying alone upon the merits of Christ: If only we can recognize and teach that all good is of Christ, and that as intelligent beings we ought to rely solely upon Him for our nourishment, our knowledge, our health, our wealth, and our priesthood!

No. 2

The true Latter-day Saint is one who has come to terms with at least one fundamental fact: All he or she has or hopes for comes through Christ. They know that they must rely upon their Savior for every good thing –for forgiveness of sins, light to cease sinning, for knowledge of truth, for strength to do what is good, for the gifts of the Spirit to overcome all things. Such persons are humble and meek before God. They know that pride is the enemy of all righteousness. They know that but for the grace of God, they would be as the worst sinner. They know that the rewards of men are paltry compared to the peace of the Spirit. They know that the more like the Savior they become, the more they can expect to be shamed, ridiculed and despised by men. They know that acceptance by their Heavenly Father is the only real test with which they need be concerned.

How does one act in relation to his fellowmen, especially towards his brothers and sisters in the Gospel? Is one concerned to appear to be learned before his fellow man? Is one constantly concerned with one’s “image?” Does one have to be heard uttering wise sayings in all public gatherings? Does one plead and scheme for the honors of men? Does one apply all the leverage one can to up his salary? Is one offended and self-righteous and critical on the occasion of evidence of the shortcomings of his brothers or sisters or colleagues? Does one demand preferential treatment because of one’s status or callings? Does one seek the adulation of students and derogate those who disagree with him? Does one overestimate one’s ability and contribution?

All of these questions are important, and there are others even more powerful and disquieting than these. But what is needed is that everyone ask and answer each of these questions for one’s self. It will not do to fly to a loved one or friend and say, “Tell me it is not so.” These problems must be worked out in the depths of meditation, in the anguish of one’s own conscience, in the solace of one’s wilderness. The wonderful prospect is that if we can ever come to full and honest terms with ourselves, with our own conscience, then we are on that strait and narrow road to acceptance by Him who sees and knows all. If ever accepted by Him, then what of arrogance, pomposity, ego-mania, image-adoration, self-aggrandizement? All will be swallowed up in the pure love of Christ as we gain that most precious attainment. And then we can be to our fellowmen the true servants of Christ which it is our opportunity to become.

No. 3

What is our task as teachers of religion? It is to bring souls to Christ. The principal means of accomplishing that goal is to encourage everyone whom we can to do three things: (1) to have a profound respect for the Lord, (2) to hearken to the living prophets, and (3) to seek the Holy Spirit as a guide for all things in their lives. We join Isaiah and Jacob in challenging all men: “Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness and has no light?” And with those prophets we also add the solemn warning from the Lord to those who would substitute the reasoning of men for the revelations of God: “Behold all ye that kindle fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks, walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks which ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand –ye shall lie down in sorrow.” (2 Nephi 7:10-11)

What then of the mechanics of teaching? What of syllabi, curricula, facts, and programs? These are the framework of our opportunity to bring the good word of God to the children of God. Let us make no mistake: There is no salvation in these methods and tools. Only by helping people to come to a personal acceptance of the atonement of our Savior and a spiritual rebirth is there any profit.

Shall we relegate the mechanics of teaching to the realms of evil and disdain the obligations thereof? Certainly not. Only in the excellence of the academic framework can we obtain the spiritual objective. To be slothful academically would be sheer hypocrisy –pretending to be a university, then dishonoring the trust of those who come for learning. As we are masters of the techniques and disciplines, wise in the things of the world, apt in our scholarship, incisive in our insight, disciplines and in our procedures, faithful to our duties, – then can we in the power of truth and righteousness show to all the better way.

No. 4

The moans and groans from students upon the occasion of any examination might lead one to think that such tests are some form of cruelty. One might also be led to think that evaluation of teachers is a terrible evil as one listens to the rumblings of the faculty. But in our sober moments we know that testing and evaluation are an indispensable aspect of progress.

The hallmark of intelligence is action which is appropriate to the contextual situation. Understanding the situation comes only through constant testing and probing. We test our students to see what they know and thus what they need to be taught. We are evaluated as teachers to see where we can best serve and in what we need to improve. As the carpenter with his square and level, the plumber checking for leaks, the physician performing a thorough examination, the courts proving a will, so we must evaluate and be evaluated constantly. To do otherwise would be to settle for the blind and rigid determinacies of a machine.

In the Gospel, too, we are constantly being evaluated and are evaluating. The Lord judges our every thought, desire, word and act, and bestows or withdraws his blessings from moment to moment according to our heed and diligence. The essence of home teaching is to discern in love and spirituality the needs of the families we serve, then to administer the Gospel and its ordinances carefully and perceptively in accordance with the progress and problems that are apparent. Likewise we are testing our own hunger for righteousness constantly, deciding from moment to moment where to draw closer to the Lord or to shrink from Him, to have Him as our God or not.

Since evaluation is an unavoidable and indispensable aspect of this earthly probation, would it not be well to appreciate it and learn to profit fully both from evaluation and being evaluated? “For all who will not endure chastening, but deny me, cannot be sanctified.” (D&C 101:5)

No. 5

Time is of the essence.

The precious passing moments press upon us, then filter into the abyss of eternity, leaving only a residue of memory. But that memory can be of the brightness of accomplishment—of love, or sacrifice in service, of honor in defense of truth and principle; or it can be of the dull pain of waste, of aimlessness, of self-seeking or submission to the pressure of the moment. And that memory is part of the eternal “me.”

In our teaching, every moment should be treasured as a gem. We can focus our efforts so that the class we are conducting, the counseling we do, the evaluation of student papers,—all can be high quality, and achievement of real love to bless our students. With that in mind, let us review some of the pitfalls to avoid:

Going to class unprepared, forced to “play it by ear.”

Allowing meaningless digressions in class discussions, however pleasant.

Presenting material that is unorganized.

Dismissing class sessions at “the drop of a hat,” such as only giving an assignment then dismissing the class session on the first day of meeting the class, going early to assemblies, dismissing class for the day before vacation, etc.

Being “buffaloed” into releasing class five minutes early as the students start to stir, close books, put on coats, etc.

Finding it unimportant to start the class on time.

Taking role inefficiently.

But if one has a yearning to improve the opportunity of time, there are excellent strategies to employ:

Have a repertoire of choice answers to questions, so that the interest which provokes a student’s question also becomes the cement to fix a gospel principle in that person’s mind.

Highly integrate class sessions with outside study assignments.

Deliberately concentrate on building rapport with the class members during the first few meetings, and when it is established, communication and learning will increase many fold.

Be so filled with your subject that it cries out to be expressed, then measure it carefully to the needs and abilities of your group.

Artfully turn every digression into a novel approach to the intended subject matter.

Treasure the chance to bear your testimony in all humility and to impress each child of our Heavenly Father in your charge with the greatness of the simple fundamentals of the Gospel.

No. 6

It is good to avoid the very appearance of evil.

Priestcraft is the merchandizing of religion, representing to promote the work of God but doing it for hire and the honors of men. The Book of Mormon is particularly blunt in labeling priestcraft as one of the great evils of the latter days.

How then does a professional teacher of religion associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints avoid that evil? He is on the horns of a dilemma. He can avoid teaching the truth of the Gospel; in which case he denies the very reason for being hired and becomes a hypocrite. Or, he can teach the Gospel well, which can only be done through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But then he is selling the gift of God. How can one escape?

The professional teacher of religion, of all people, must tread the strait and narrow. No final prescription can be given that will answer all situations. But there are some guidelines. Consider these:

1. He or she can humble themselves in mighty prayer to receive the Holy Spirit, then do all he or she can to follow that spirit unto doing a perfect job of teaching students.
2. One can recognize that because he or she is paid to teach religion, any real good done in that capacity is simply what is expected –that which one was hired to do. To earn eternal blessings, such an one must also work out his or her heart in the Church and Kingdom of God after working hours, as a free contribution.
3. He can be careful never to take money for any activity which could possibly be construed as Church work, which others would be expected to do for nothing.
4. Salary should never be a principal consideration in his teaching. If what he is paid is insufficient for his needs, the Lord will show him other, more remunerative and less perilous occupations if he is faithful.
5. He should assume no priesthood prerogatives because of his teaching position. One prime objective of his teaching should be to encourage strongly the support of local and general priesthood authorities.
6. He can plead with the Lord to show him exactly how to escape from his dilemma, how to be a just man while teaching for hire.

What a great delight it is to teach young people the Gospel! But, oh how careful we must be.

No. 7

The typical disease of our age is materialism. Materialism is the belief that all of our important problems have a material (especially economic) causes. The changing of material (especially economic) circumstances supposedly will provide the panacea. This is the thesis of Marx. Curious, isn’t it, that western nations claim to be anti-Communist while having swallowed whole the central Communist idea. No wonder then that we only quibble with the Communists as the most efficient means to achieve the materialist utopia.

Do you lack evidence of our materialism? Consider these: Most of us live beyond our means (installment buying) in the attempt to hasten felicity. Readiness to take a handout. Concern to buy at the lowest price regardless of whom we thus support or why the price is low. (Do you support Communist governments by purchasing the products of their slave-labor?) Supposing that our problems would be solved if our income doubled. The proportion of time we spend nourishing and caring for our physical being as compared with the time we spend nourishing and caring for our spiritual being. Not to mention present political palaver.

What is the cure for materialism? It is simply to live that Gospel of Jesus Christ which we verbally and emotionally espouse. It is to heed the full message of John the Baptist. (Have you noticed how many discussions of religion are an attempt to repudiate the specifics of what John said was necessary to the repentance of his materialistic contemporaries, that they should impart of what they have to those who have less, to be honest and exact in business affairs, to be content with their wages, not to attack others nor accuse anyone falsely. Luke 3:9–14) It is to put our full trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, to be guided and instructed by Him in all things, putting first the welfare of our spirits: the purifying of our hearts, our unity with the living prophets, our service in the Kingdom; then latterly and almost incidentally seeking counsel and help for health, wealth and retirement. It is to act to show that we really believe that the best thing to do is to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, trusting that all else necessary will follow. It is genuinely to seek first for a hope in Christ before we seek for riches. It is to give our wealth away as the Lord directs. It is to begin to sacrifice all we possess, as is necessary, for the sake of righteousness.

Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then you shall be made rich. (D&C 6:7)

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? Or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? Or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the king shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matthew 25: 37–40)

No. 8

Dr. Nels Ferré, eminent Protestant theologian, visited the BYU campus last week.

After being with us for nearly two days, talking with faculty and students, reading literature about “Mormonism” which was put into his hands, he finally made what to him was a startling discovery. He found out that “Mormons” are “Christians.” Isn’t it wonderful that he found out before he left?

But there is an application of all this. How long does it take our students to find out that our master is the Lord Jesus Christ? Do they wonder what the ultimate source of value and truth is to us?

Is it obvious to them that we stand as witnesses of the divinity of Jesus Christ at all times and in all things, and are delighted to be called his people? Is there any message more crucial to our task than the following:

And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this straight and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if you shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life. (2 Nephi 31: 19-20)

No. 9

Teaching is an art. It is a “fine art” in the best sense of the term, closely related to the drama.

The teacher writes the script, selects the cast, directs the performance and evaluates the individual audience response. He writes the script as he prepares his lesson outlines, texts and objectives. He selects the cast as he himself lectures or leads a discussion, employs audio-visual aids, brings in visiting authorities, calls on students for presentations and responses. He directs the performance each day in class, suiting the action to the need, shifting the focus, tempo, devices, scenery and cast as he sees fit. And he evaluates the audience to his own satisfaction, even giving them permanent grades for their aptness or lack of attention.

Now some observations on this situation:

1. As drama is the most powerful form of art for most people, so teaching is an opportunity to wield great power.
2. The teacher is not only powerful, but very powerful; the greater his skill, the more power he has over his students.
3. The power of teaching can be used either for great good or for great evil.
4. Some disdain to teach well, thinking it beneath their dignity to communicate effectively or consistently. They limit their role to that of being the “great authority.”
5. Some confuse effective teaching with entertainment; they “ham” it up or titillate their students by name dropping, or make obscure references, or digress exasperatingly.
6. The good teacher has a nigh absolute mastery of the subject matter to start with. His principal concern in class work is to lead and guide the individual students in that field,—enthusing, correcting, enriching, nourishing, as his perception of student needs shows opportunity.
7. Of all subjects, the Gospel of Jesus Christ ought to be taught well.
8. The real test is the active response of the audience. Does the Holy Spirit operate through us as teachers to make of the students godly men and women, examples of righteousness to all the world?

No. 10

What is our task as teachers of religion?

Our task is to witness of Jesus as the Christ and to point everyone to the straight and narrow gate of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance of all sin, sincere taking of the covenant of baptism, and seeking and living by the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Everything else is ancillary.

It is not our task to teach the errors of the world. Satan is highly efficient, and none of us need to be advocatus diabolic, though we may compare truth with error to highlight the truth.

It is not our task to be “objective scholars” in the manner of the world. There is no such thing as attaining real truth through scholarship alone. But we must be as fair and objective in our scholarship as we can be.

It is not our position to cower before the onslaughts of modern science. Science today is a powerful pragmatic tool for subduing the earth, but most of its proponents make of it a pious and dedicated atheism. We can give science its due without letting it become Lord and Master.

It is not our task to disabuse people of all their false and naïve notions. It is sufficient to teach the truth in humility and to let the Holy Spirit guide them to see the error of their ways.

It is not our task to call anyone to repentance. That function is reserved to those who preside in priesthood authority. But we can show that repentance through Christ is a thing most desirable, the hope of all mankind.

It is our task to create an atmosphere of light and warmth where the tender plant of faith can take root and grow against the day of trial.

No. 11

Suppose evidence comes to my attention that I am not highly rated as a teacher. What should I do? I could deny that the rating has any validity. I could assess the raters evil persons who are “out to get me.” I could insist that I am really an excellent teacher but that there are few who can appreciate my talents. In short, one alternative is to become exceedingly defensive and to attempt to preserve my self-confidence and my self-image by counterattack.

But another alternative is open to me. I could set my goal to become perfect, even as my Savior is perfect. I could recognize that only as I present myself as a humble little child before my Savior can I truly progress towards perfection. I could take the specific evidence that my teaching leaves something to be desired as a stimulus for thought, meditation, and prayer –for chance to do a better and better job in all things, including my profession. I could refuse to identify the real “me” with the habits and patterns of my fallen nature. I could work to be spiritually alive and to “grow up” in the Lord, to strive for spiritual maturity. I could see spiritual maturity as the goal in which every evil thought, every untoward desire, every petty selfishness would be replaced in my new creation in Christ wherein I would become a more powerful and more humble exponent of the Kingdom of God.

I could not only teach people to have faith in Christ and to repent. I could show them the way.

Perhaps I had better do this even if I am highly rated already.

No. 12

We cannot see many important things in the universe. We cannot see God, tomorrow, yesterday, or the spiritual order of existence. We cannot tell by seeing or reasoning what true righteousness is. For a knowledge of all these things we must depend on someone other than ourselves. If we believe the Holy Ghost when it whispers to us of these things, we are beginning to exercise the kind of faith that will save us.

Everyone has faith in something or someone. Sometimes we believe other people. Sometimes we trust our own thinking. Sometimes we expect our strength or our money to save us. But the only faith that leads men to righteousness or salvation is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

For us to have faith in Jesus Christ, three things must happen:

1. We must receive the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit witnessing that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and telling us what to do.
2. We must believe the witness and instructions of the Holy Spirit. This takes courage to be true to what we know within ourselves.
3. We must act in accordance with the instructions of the Holy Spirit. If we can repent and become a disciple of Christ through obedience to the Holy Spirit, we then have faith in Jesus Christ.

No. 13 Conference Weekend

The Lord has told us that whenever:

1. His ordained servants
2. Speak for or to their stewardship
3. By the power of the Holy Ghost,

the result is scripture. It is the mind if the Lord, the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. (D&C 68:2–4)

While some wonder why the Doctrine and Covenants ends with the Manifesto [1966], true servants of God recognize that the Lord gives additional scriptures daily, through his living prophets. The true servants recognize that the words of the living prophets are as important and binding as anything in the standard works.

If there is anything more important that we as teachers of religion could do than to encourage all of our students to pay close attention to Conference, and to instill in them a desire to support and sustain the living prophets? To bring souls to Christ is to bring them first of all to accept His chosen servants. Whosoever receives them receives also the Savior and the Father.

May we all do our best to make this Conference (April 1966) and its messages the highlight of our teaching this semester.

No. 14 Repentance

The man who loves righteousness but finds himself doing evil in spite of himself knows he needs to change. But how can he change if he doesn’t know how to do so? The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the message to all men to tell them how to change to become righteous.

Men must first recognize that thoughts are the basis for all feelings and actions. “As a man thinketh, so is he.” (Prov. 23:7) To repent, men must change their thinking. First, they must believe in Jesus Christ, that He lives and is the Savior of the world. Then they must be willing to obey the Savior in all things which he commands them, The voice of the Savior through the Holy Spirit will lead them to as much truth and righteousness as they are willing to receive and live.

As men obey the Savior, they will confess their evil ways and forsake them. They will do whatever they can to right the wrongs they have done and will implore the Savior to right those things they are powerless to correct.

But the Savior will not continue to guide men nor will he right their wrongdoings unless they formally pledge to accept his atoning blood and covenant to obey His voice in all things. That formal pledge can only be made in the ordinance of baptism. Thus it is that making the covenant of baptism is the most essential aspect of repentance in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Moro. 8:25)

This then is the agency of man: to remain captive to the adversary, confirming the Fall, or to take upon us the mind of Christ, to hearken to the voice of the Lord. Every man must choose. To choose the latter is the true metanoesis.

Can we teach this so plainly to our students that they can put on the whole armor of God and effectively quench the fiery darts of the adversary?

No. 15 Book of Mormon Week

One way of looking at the Book of Mormon is to see it as the special instrument which God has given for the perfecting of the souls of men in these latter days. If a man will read, study, pray, meditate about this book, then reform his life to accord with the intelligence thereby received, he will be able to draw nearer to God and the reality of being redeemed than he can by using any other book. The Book of Mormon is the stone which whets, shapes and sharpens the mind, heart, and life of every person worthy to be called a “Latter-day Saint.”

Nothing we can do for our students can compare with leading them to Christ and to support the authorities of the Church who the Savior has sent to us than championing to them the Book of Mormon. That book is the priceless antidote for intellectual pride, for dependence on the arm of flesh, for self-centeredness, for carnality, for indifference, ignorance, poverty, tyranny—for any and all of the ills that beset mankind. Since this is Book of Mormon week on campus, we have a wonderful opportunity to bear witness and to encourage our students to appreciate this great gift from our Lord.

No. 16

One of the serious faults of our educational process is the oppression of authoritarianism. Professors act often as if they know for sure what they are talking about. Students are pressured into memorization of the opinions of the “authorities” rather than being taught to think for themselves. Non-conformists fare badly, both as students and as faculty. The hallmark of erudition for most academic matters is the paraphernalia of quoting someone.

One gem of truth which we can crystalize out of the scriptures is that no one knows for sure anything of importance unless it is through personal revelation. Science is an impressive practical tool, but singularly lacking in demonstrable truth, especially as to causation. Scholarship mines opinion, not reality. Reason reinforces prejudice, but never vouchsafes the nature of existence. Only from the Lord, who is The Truth, does one obtain knowledge of things as they are and were and will be: The Truth.

So when we teach, let us remember certain fundamentals:

1. If we teach the truth, it is by revelation. (Ye receive the spirit by the prayer of faith, and if ye receive not the spirit, ye shall not teach. D&C 42:14)
2. If our students understand the truth as we teach, it is by the Spirit. (Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know that he that receiveth the word of truth by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth? Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together. D&C 50:21–22)
3. Therefore, we are not authorities, or even teachers, in our own right. We are but messengers, bearing humble testimony to that which we have received, hoping that our hearers will believe not what we say but that they will believe the voice of the Lord.

Could we ever achieve a university which operates on these ideas, what wonders of learning, ability and technology could we attain?

Dr. Chauncey C. Riddle
February 25, 1966

We are addressing ourselves to the problem, “Can Religion be Objective?” The problem was raised, of course, by the fact that a great many people in our age think it cannot and so we’ll attempt an answer to this. But first of all we will lay some groundwork for the answer. It’s not enough to have an answer. Perhaps even more important is to know why the answer is so, which makes the answer important. To begin with, any time you have discussions on anything important, the obvious thing to do is to define your terms. Let’s first of all define objectivity. There are three definitions which are important relative to objectivity. The first, which is, you might say, the one that people probably think of the most in their minds when they think of being objective is to think that that which is objective is the absolute truth—that which is really so. The problem of this definition is that we human beings don’t have the ability to know very much absolute truth. We see through a glass darkly. We don’t really know the world around us. We don’t really know our surrounding. True, we are discovering more and more about these things, but still we see through that glass darkly, and so for a really good, practical definition we will have to reject this one. Not because it isn’t a fine thing to have, but we just don’t have very much of it.

We might define objectivity in the sense that that which is objective is that upon which people agree. Now this happens to be a very functional definition. This is actually what passes for objectivity in our society, but on the other hand, it’s a somewhat cynical definition. I don’t think it’s the best definition, simply because we all know that a hundred million Frenchmen can be wrong. We all know that people, as a group, can err. All the progress of science comes from individuals who dared to defy the rest and to prove that it’s so.

So let’s try a third definition of objectivity. Objectivity, could be construed to be doing the very best you can, using all the evidence available to you and the very best thinking that it’s possible for you to muster in your situation. Now this is the one I choose to use in our discussion today. This is the one that a man must use if he’s going to be an Einstein, and dare to let everybody think he’s crazy. Einstein was willing to run that risk because he had something that was extremely valuable, and he knew it was valuable because he had performed all the tests that he could perform on his ideas and found them to be good, and then he opened them to the criticism of others to let them test also. Time has vindicated him, and so today he is honored as a great scientist. Not so when he first brought forth his ideas. He was considered to be quite a crackpot then. But, you see, it’s awfully easy to say that Einstein is objective 50 years after he has come to acceptance. The problem is to see that Einstein is objective when he first formulates his ideas, and the problem is that the individual has to go back over the same ground and make the same examination of the evidence and the conclusions which Einstein himself made to avoid just going along with the herd. Well, science is the paradigm for objectivity in our world, not that it should be this way necessarily, but it happens to be that way. So, let’s discuss science a little bit and see wherein this good thinking, this objectivity, has come to science.

Science began as an offshoot of philosophy in ancient Greece 2,500 years ago and until just a hundred years ago or so, all science was called natural philosophy. Many discovered that as they sought to be wise, which is to love wisdom, to be philosophical, that one of the first things they had to know was, “What is the nature of the problem?” “What’s the situation in the world in which I live?” As men sought to know the nature of the problem, they found that it did not pay to take other people’s word for it. They had to find a way to discover for themselves the reality of the world, and this is where science was born. As men began to make this search, the first tool they used to try and discern reality was their own reasoning power, and so the simple cannon for objectivity in Ancient Greece was, “Is it rationally consistent?” Almost all of ancient Greek science was, what you might call, a pure rationalism. If a thing was deductively valid, it had to be true. The paradigm science for them was Euclid’s geometry—this tremendous intellectual feat where you could have taken a few fundamental axioms and tied together all the laws of geometry that had been observed and forming a beautiful, wonderful deductive system. It was thought that all sciences would eventually be formed after this same pattern. But ancient Greek science laid some very important groundwork that didn’t get very far off the ground. There were a few men such as Archimedes, who did go beyond rationalism. The monuments of their work were the beginning points of modern science, but nevertheless, the tenor in ancient Greek science, the hallmark of objectivity was simply to be rationally consistent.

Now this has remained to this day to be a hallmark of objectivity. It is not the hallmark, however, as it was then. The type of approach made in the middle ages when theology was the queen of the sciences was essentially no different from that of the Greek temper. Rationalism again was the key to objectivity, and the pursuit of theology was done almost strictly by means of a rationalistic approach, taking premises from the scripture and tradition then working out the rational involvements of these things.

Modern science, as we know it, was not really born until the 16^th century. We had the work of the early modern thinkers such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, going down to the time of Newton who pretty well set the stage, you might say. The scheme of modern science sort of climaxed in Newton, with his tremendous triumph, not only in actual scientific ideas, but in methodology. That’s the thing we’re interested in here, is the methodology of thought. Even since Newton’s time the methodology of science has continued to grow and to increase.

Let’s review some of the further postulates or guidelines which have been introduced into modern science as a help to keep these people from making grievous errors of thought, to help them evaluate evidence and come out with propositions that are highly defensible. The next proposition modern science uses is the idea of uniformity. Uniformity is basically the notion that it is reasonable to consider that the universe at other times and places is like it is here and now. Now the closest tie we have to the universe is sensory observation, but our senses are quite limited. We can’t see very far, and we’re limited, of course, to time and the moment of the present. We cannot perceive tomorrow or yesterday. We can perceive right now. We can’t perceive far away, but we can build yesterday and tomorrow and far away in our minds. We can build imaginative pictures of these things. And we do this on the basis of the principle of uniformity. It just so happens this is the only way we can think. If nature doesn’t happen to be uniform, we can never know it. And so the areas where we have progressed most, in our science, for instance, are the areas of greatest uniformity. Where the number of factors influencing something are the fewest or where we can get down to get experimental control, we thus very quickly achieving uniformity. When we have this uniformity we can project, we can predict, and our hypotheses come to be verified in this kind of a situation. Uniformity is one of the very life bloods of science. We couldn’t have thought very much without this principle of uniformity because we couldn’t have it without the necessity of being rationally consistent.

Thirdly, science postulates the need for a cause for every effect. This principle is called various names, but it doesn’t matter what you call it. It’s the same thing under any title: causality, determinism, sufficient reason—these are all names for the same idea. This is the notion that events do not happen fortuitously in the universe. Everything that happens happens for some reason. There is a sufficient reason behind every event.

Now science, from the days of Aristotle down to now, has had as one of its significant points that it’s not enough to observe the world; we must understand what we observe. Understanding comes from our way of thinking, through knowing causes. Causes are relations of things, and understanding is a matter of relating things. The more relationships we see for something, the better we understand it. In our modern terminology we tend to think of causes as the efficient cause; something pushes something. But the word cause has a much broader heritage than that. Perhaps the word because is a little closer to the historic usage. The word because suggests a reason for something and cause simply means a reason. It’s the rational cause, the intellectual explanation, that gives understanding to our observations of the physical world. And so science has said this, “You don’t really know anything until you can explain it.” Just to see the moon eclipse doesn’t give you science, but when you understand why the moon is eclipsed and you see that there is a sufficient reason for it—you see that the earth is interposed between the sun and the moon, the shadow of the earth therefore blots out the light that would otherwise be reflected from the surface of the moon, then, having the sufficient reason or the cause of the phenomenon, we can appreciate what the phenomenon is and we then have scientific knowledge of it. And so, as we pursue science in the world, we try to get this kind of understanding for everything.

A fourth postulate is the idea of naturalism. This has come since Newton. Newton believed that God was a very important part of the universe and he introduced the notion of God into his theories to account for things that he could not otherwise account for. It so happened, in the last few hundred years, that men have been able to account for all these functions that God was supposed to perform and so God is no longer necessary. No longer is God necessary in the theories of physics. In modern science, if you were to go to a convention and read a paper including the idea of God or such notions as spirits or devils or such beings of any kind, you would be laughed out. This is just not scientific objectivity anymore. Scientific objectivity now includes the idea that we must limit ourselves to what is called the natural universe. We limit ourselves because this is the only way we can be sure to avoid certain kinds of errors. The errors of ancient scientists are many and as our methodology increases and refines, we are able to eliminate more and more of these errors. By limiting ourselves to the natural universe we have been able to make greater progress in describing and accounting for the phenomena of the material world.

The fifth one of these things we have mentioned is the postulate of publicity which is simply to say that we can have sciences only about things that are publicly observable. The meaning of “publicly observable”: where two people can see the thing in question and agree on its description. Science has had to introduce this postulate to get rid of certain vagaries of opinion that caused it much embarrassment over the years. What it specifically excluded in this is anything that is private or personal. My thoughts, for instance, would never be a subject matter for science because no two of you can observe them and agree with them. This includes feelings that I have; the values that I have. You could take what I say, you can ask me questions. You can take the response I give and use that as a basis for science. This is called behaviorism in psychology, and by limiting yourself to a behavioristic approach, you can get fairly reliable generalizations about things. But you can never have a science about my personal thoughts because you cannot observe them. So, anything that is not publicly observable is simply a sufficiently dangerous ground for even theorization or hypotheses. Scientists, in protecting themselves from making gross errors, delimit themselves from this area.

Now the strength of science is to take these five principles and apply them, and apply them only where they can be well applied so that what science comes out with is a defensible generalization. As a matter of fact, these principles and others that apply are applied more or less thoroughly by different individuals, but the thoroughness to which an individual applies these things, in the long run, becomes the hallmark of his worth as a scientist. I was talking with an eminent sociologist the other day, a man who is deeply engaged in research in the field and has published, I guess, a hundred articles in the journals. He stuck his neck our quite a bit, and he was telling me that one of the reasons he feels so confident about his work in sociology is because he and the men he respects in sociology have the good sense not to try to make statements about at least 95% of the questions they would like to know about. There’s only a very small area where they have tools and they can apply the methods of scrutiny with sufficient care to be sure of their results. So on the other 95% they don’t even pretend to have answers, and this is the way they obtain objectivity. This is very commendable. It’s not very commendable to make wild statements about something where one has no basis for statements, but if one can limit themselves to the area where they can be objective and then make statements in that area, this indeed is doing very good thinking and it’s the kind of thing I think we would all want to commend. I mentioned the fact that a certain study was done trying to vindicate certain of Freud’s ideas. One hundred fifty tests were made on a certain population. Only about twelve of the tests turned out to be significant. Half of them tended to vindicate Freud and half of them tended to disqualify Freud’s ideas. Probably in this particular study that he mentioned the people picked the half dozen that vindicated Freud’s ideas and published them and, thereby, completely ruined their reputation because other people went out on the same experiment, got different results, not only once but several times. This was brought to the attention of the community of sociologists and now these people aren’t listened to anymore. Why? Because they weren’t careful enough. They did not accept the data and the evidence with sufficient care to be awarded with the kindness, you might say, of being listened to. Maybe they can redeem themselves, but that is awfully hard after making that kind an error. There are a lot of lessons in that for us too. The point of all this is that scientific objectivity is obtained by highly limiting what will be studied. Don’t study and don’t make assertions on anything you can’t be reasonably sure about. That’s the net point of this great approach of objectivity on the side of science.

Now let’s turn to religion and consider objectivity on the side of religion. Religion also, I think, must come under this third definition. In religion, to be objective, we must do the very best kind of thinking that we can possibly do with the evidence available to us. So, there are postulates in religious thinking that are just as important as there are in scientific thinking. They’re not the same postulates. But let’s go through and see where they are the same and where they differ. The first postulate, the idea of being reasonable, is necessary. In science reasonableness is the thing which, shall we say, is kind of an end product. You don’t start out by being reasonable. You end up by being reasonable. Today we know that light is probably neither a particle nor a wave, because neither of these hypotheses is reasonable. In other words, it’s not consistent with all the evidence, but nevertheless, we continue to use these until we can get something better. So, as we go on, the thing we are saying is that, until this thing works out to be completely consistent, we will openly admit that this is not any kind of final hypothesis. Even if it were reasonable, science has learned enough that you have to experiment. You have to test, and you have to go on. Even then, it might be wrong. Just because it’s reasonable does not mean it’s right or true; but if it is unreasonable, you know there is something wrong; you need to gather more evidence. You need to do something more. That’s the real problem that’s involved. The same thing happens in religion. If a thing is inconsistent, you need to go on gathering evidence and not make any final pronouncements. Science and religion happen to coincide in this particular postulate.

Secondly, there is the postulate of uniformity. We need a uniformity just as much in religion as we do in science. Again, if it so happens that the spiritual universe is not uniform, we can never know it. That is because our human minds or brains are so equipped to deal with something where the same sort of thing happens again and again. Supposing that no two days were ever of the same length. How could you ever plan a day? If the days were not only not of the same length, but you could not ever know of what length they would be, you could never plan a day, could you? Similarly, if there were no spiritual uniform realities, you could never have knowledge of anything spiritual. It’s interesting as we look into the scriptures you see the statement that God makes about himself. One thing he wants to inform us of, as a hypothesis which we might personally test and find for ourselves to be true, is simply the notion that He is uniform. He tells us, “I am without variableness or shadow of turning. My course is one eternal round. I am the same yesterday and forever.” Why is that important? It’s important simply for this reason: If God is that uniform in His dealings with His children, then if we perform an experiment now and get a certain result, it is very highly likely that if we perform that experiment again we will get the same result. If it were not so, what could a person ever do to live a good life? He wouldn’t know what to do. This is the same as in science. If the sun didn’t come up every morning we couldn’t plan a thing. There has to be a uniformity in the universe for us to “know” it. So far as I can observe the uniformity in the gospel, the spiritual uniformity is at least as great as that of the physical uniformity enjoyed by the physical world. Therefore, we have at least as good a basis. How do you tell there is a uniformity in the physical universe? Only by experimenting, only by trying it to see if there is one. How would you know there is a uniformity in the spiritual universe? With exactly the same test, by trying it and seeing if it works. Only then can you say that you know what you are talking about.

Let’s go on to the third postulate, the postulate of causality. Again, this is absolutely essential to religion. In religious thinking, there is a cause for everything: there are reasons behind things; there are laws—this universe is run on the basis of law and order. This, of course raises the problem of agency. If everything is determined in the universe, and here’s a causality which is valuable both in science and religion. How does the problem of agency get solved? We don’t have time to solve that one today, but suffice it to say there is a very simple, beautiful explanation. There is such a thing as agency. At the same time there is a determinism. But we don’t have time to follow that one through.

The next postulate, which is necessary to religion and which differs from science now, is the postulate of honesty. Now, this is the one that corresponds, you might say, to the postulate of publicity in science. The way you keep a scientist honest is by forcing him to be public. As long as he is forced to publish his results in order that people can compare, you don’t have to worry about whether he is going to be honest or not because someone else will come along and check it. So you don’t have a postulate of honesty in science, although it is a fine thing to have. But you don’t need to enforce it by any rule. The social system that we are in in the scientific world enforces honesty; in other words, objectivity, if you will.

But you see the thing that we deal with in religion is a different universe; we are not even talking about the same sort of thing, at least in large measure. The universe and the area we are talking about in religion is what is going on inside my mind. The important thing to know in religion is: What things do I do that make me happier and what things do I do that make me less happy? This can’t ever be possibly studied by science until we can someday learn to interpret brain waves or something like that. At the present time this can’t be done. But this is the area that is central to religion. It is what makes up my relationship to the rest of the universe—not physically speaking, but within my own mind, my thoughts, my feelings, my values, my hopes, my desires, my fears. Before I can do some kind of good, clear thinking in this area, I can never be a stable person; I can never grow and develop as I ought to; I can never become a religiously mature person; I can never have the blessings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ until my thinking is objective. So the first thing I’ve got to do is to be sure that I’m honest. Specifically, if I perform an experiment and I discover that a certain thing leads me to be happier and then I perform the contrary experiment and find that this leads to unhappiness, I’ve got to be honest enough to admit that the one thing led to happiness and the other didn’t. If I can’t be that honest, you see, since there’s no one that can check—there’s nobody outside that can know my thoughts and my experiences and my happiness—the only salvation I have is to be absolutely and rigorously honest. And as soon as I start kidding myself and telling myself that maybe I enjoy this little bit of sin and I’ll pretend that it leads to happiness, we destroy ourselves religiously right there. There’s no hope for us. It’s no wonder that when the missionaries go out, they look for whom? The honest in heart. They’re the only ones they can possibly help religiously. Unless people have that they just can’t get off the ground, religiously speaking.

The next postulate in religion is the postulate of courage. This isn’t really a postulate, I guess; this is a way of acting. But it figures very importantly in being objective religiously. Why is courage important? Simply for this reason: When you study psychology you know that social pressure has a tremendous effect on people’s thoughts, beliefs and values. Maybe you’ve seen the experiment where the teacher draws a straight line on a board and asks everybody how long it is. They go around the room saying how long it is. Just guessing, from a distance. What they do is they have everybody except two or three in the back who have been planted to tell them all to say 45 inches long. Well, by the time you get around to the people who don’t know what’s going on, they tend to make a judgment somewhere between what they really think and what the group has said. Almost nobody is strong enough to call a spade a spade the way he sees it. Now, there’s some good in this because we frequently find that we are wrong and other people are able to help us temper our judgment. But you see, in the area of religion you can’t afford to do that. Why not? Simply for this reason. The data you are dealing with in the area of religion is your own personal consciousness. You are not the same as another individual. You never have the same experiences and experiments as another individual, so you can’t afford to depend on what other people say. You’ve got to perform the experiment for yourself and then have the courage to stand by it when you have made the evaluation of the data within your own mind. Religion is thought out in the inside of the individual. It is not a public thing. Every individual has come to his own testimony, to his own light. Don’t mistake me—this is not saying you pay no attention to anybody else. You do. But what you receive from other people is hypotheses, not conclusions. You receive structures of experiments to perform yourself, to be evaluated and to form conclusions on your own. You can’t get a testimony from any other human being. You can’t know right from wrong or what makes you happy or unhappy from any other human being. Now you can go along with other people but that will never make you an individual. That just makes them your master, as it were, and makes you their slave. But the purpose of God is to free all men from every other man. Read Section 1 of Doctrine and Covenants where the Lord tells why He restored His Gospel. Why? So that man would not have to counsel his fellow man, so that every man might speak in the name of the Lord God from his own personal knowledge. Now, that’s freedom, that’s the freedom from tyranny that every human being needs. But he’s got to have the courage to perform his own experiments, he’s got to have the honesty to call a spade a spade and then he’s got to stand forth before the world and bear his testimony to what he thinks is true.

In religion we don’t have the same kind of thing that we have in science. Science is a community project and the thing that really counts is the consensus of the community in science. And that’s good, that safeguards science. But it also limits science to those things which can be publicly observed.

Religion, too, by delimiting itself to the consciousness of our own conscience, our own personal feelings, thoughts and desires, it gets strength and we avoid certain kinds of errors that come from letting other people influence us too much. But at the same time, all that we can then assert is that I believe this—on the basis of my experiments, this is what it seems to be. And that’s why the missionaries from this church don’t go forth in the world saying, “I’m right and you’re all wrong.” The missionaries from this church go forth and the only righteous thing they can say is, “I know for myself that this thing that I’m telling you is true. Won’t you please perform an experiment for yourself and see if you find this is true for you.” Personal testimony is the hallmark of our religion. It has to be.

Well, let’s make a few concluding remarks about objectivity. The important thing about objectivity is not to be concerned with the subject matter. I hope it is clear from what I said that objectivity is not a function of subject matter or discipline. Objectivity is a function of people. It’s meaningless to say that science is objective because science doesn’t even exist. That is a generalization or a platonic idea in our minds which doesn’t have any real existence; it’s just a generalization. The thing that exists is people who act as scientists. Those people who act as scientists have a great need to be objective but because they are pretending to be scientists doesn’t mean they are objective; they must meet the canons and if they meet the canons, they are objective. If they don’t, they aren’t. By the same token, in religion the important thing is to be an objective thinker; to do the very best we can in analyzing, thinking, experimenting so that when we come out with some notions that for our own experience, for our own area of life, we are justified in making the statements that we make.

So—let’s answer the question, “Can religion be objective?” Well, religion is a thing again that doesn’t exist. The question is, “Are you objective in the religious matters of your life?” That’s the real question, isn’t it? It has nothing to do with whether or not you are thinking about religion. If you are a scientist, you need explanations. As a matter of fact, every human being has a pattern by which he makes his decisions in his life. That is his religion. The question is, “Are you objective about your religion? Do you do the very best kind of thinking you can do?” One of the wonderful and delightful things to know about the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the fact that this kind of thinking is encouraged in this church and in this gospel. The Lord wants every one of us to have our own light and stand upon our own light. He doesn’t want people to follow blindly. He has His prophets tell them, “Don’t listen to just the president of the church. Get down on your knees and pray to find out for yourself.” That’s the only way you can seize upon the truth. That’s the only way you can be objective. And only if you are doing the best you can, can you oppose the adversary.

The adversary would love to have us fall into all kinds of error and the best defense that we have against him is to know whereof we speak, for our own selves, for our own lives. It’s to know that Jesus is the Christ. It’s to know for ourselves on the basis of our own experiments that God can be trusted. We need to know for ourselves that if we rely on the Holy Spirit it is a sure and unerring guide, a rod of iron that leads in the path of righteousness that leads us to the good things of this life, that it leads us to love, it leads us to kindness, it leads us to peace, to comfort, to all the things that we so desperately need in this world. But that comes only if you’ve tried it. That comes only if you know what you’re talking about, only if you are doing some very fine objective thinking in the area of your own religion.

So, can religion be objective? The answer is plain. Religion is an abstraction, a figment of our imagination, like unto “science,” another abstraction. But scientists can be objective if they follow the rules for objectivity. And persons can also be objective about their own religion if they follow the rules of careful thinking. Let us think carefully and we will do well. The results show how carefully we have thought, both in science and religion. We can be objective about our religion.

I bear you my testimony the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true. It works in my life. I am acutely conscious that my unhappiness comes only when I defy the principles of the gospel and that all the good things that I have ever received in my life have come as I have done what is right in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I bear you that testimony in His name. Amen.