You will never convince another person to abandon a position they are still using for a crutch
The Crutch
Discussing Spiritual Differences- 2 Timothy 2:14, Matthew 22:38-39, Doctrine and Covenants 121:41
Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
COMMENTARY
Strive not about words to no profit
When you find yourself needing to express a moral conviction to someone else, what is your motivation behind doing that? To get them to change their behavior for your benefit? To get what you want from them? Because if so, then you are not testifying of truth, you are having an argument or a debate. And in some circles argument and debate might be fitting, such as in academia, but as this verse makes clear they are of no use when testifying of the truth. Ultimately, when we are trying to influence the religious perspective of another person it should never be motivated by a desire to receive something from them.
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
The motivation for expressing our moral convictions and exercising an influence over another person should only ever be one of love. Rather than asking them to change for our own benefit, we should be inviting them to change for their own benefit. We should be making our case because we care for them and truly believe that their lives will be happier with this piece of enlightenment.
Recall the example of Daniel that we just examined. He was petitioning the prince of the eunuchs to let him eat a diet that conformed to his religious convictions, but he only made any headway when he illustrated how this approach was also going to help the prince of the eunuchs get what he wanted as well. When those we teach can feel that we sincerely seek their own good, and are not just trying to mold the world to our own preferences, they are far more likely to care about what we say.
Influence ought to be maintained only by love unfeigned
But remember that our display of care and concern for the person we speak with must be “unfeigned.” We must not pretend to care for someone just to coerce them into doing what we want. The account of Daniel also made clear that the compassion between him and the guards was sincere.
So do change those around you, but only do it because you sincerely love them and just want to help them.
Influence and Persuasion- Personal Example #1
Previously I spoke of the contention that arises when two egos strive together, versus the unity that arises when two hearts do. And I actually experienced a recent example of both sides of this.
The most difficult disagreements to navigate are the ones where each side feels a moral conviction. It is very easy to entangle pride and ego with your personal sense of right and wrong, and to feel insistent that your way is objectively correct.
The example I saw of this recently was when my wife and I were discussing the question of tithing. We’ve always subscribed to that practice, but there is definitely some room for interpretation within that law. Does that ten percent come before or after taxes? Does it come before or after benefits? If you realized you forgot to tithe a previous sum do you go back and cover that, or do you just let it go?
And generally I would say “do what your conscience tells you, and don’t worry if it is slightly different from someone else. So long as you are sincere in trying to follow the law, God will approve.”
And if my wife and I had separate incomes, I could tithe mine in the way that made sense to me, and she could tithe hers how it made sense to her. But we share an income, and when we received a sum that fell into that tithing-gray-area we each felt “right” about a different course of action to take.
And for the first while, each of us tried to convince the other of why we were right, and each of us felt a little ruffled about that. It did not become a very hostile situation, but there was definitely some friction in the moment. It was easy for each of us to feel unheard and judged.
Ego against ego. There was never going to be a mutual outcome from this.
Eventually we took a different approach, though. Instead of trying to “solve the problem,” we backed away and spoke about our stung feelings. We admitted to pride and frustration, to feeling unimportant and unprioritized.
We bypassed ego, and started taking heart-to-heart and spirit-to-spirit.
And then we didn’t feel like we were on two sides anymore, we felt like we were on one side together. It wasn’t important to me that we use my solution anymore, and it wasn’t important to her that we use hers. Neither of us had to be the one that won. Now, at last, we could kneel down together and ask God what to do about the matter.
And each of us came out of that prayer with a shared feeling, a warm assurance about the right thing to do.
And it wasn’t what either of us had been recommending. It wasn’t “my way” or “her way.” Nor would I say it was a compromise between our two extremes. It really felt like a third choice. A shared choice. Shared between me and she and He.
Our Own Reality- The Fifty-Two United States of America
I once spent two years in a country that was foreign to me. While I was there I encountered a bizarre example of misinformation several times, where the locals were convinced that the United States of America had fifty-two states.
Whenever I encountered this belief I tried to convince them that there were still only fifty states, but to no avail. I mentioned that there were several territories that were also a part of the USA, and that perhaps they had been hearing about a couple of those? They insisted not, it was two full-fledged states had just recently been added, and perhaps I hadn’t heard about it yet. I said that two states were added a few decades ago (Alaska and Hawaii), bringing it from forty-eight to fifty, perhaps they had heard about that and thought it was a recent event? They said no, they were sure. It was fifty before, plus two more, now fifty-two.
In the end it didn’t matter very much. I don’t feel personally offended if someone thinks there are two more states to my country than there actually are. Eventually I just stopped discussing the matter altogether.
It was a curious lesson in human nature, though. It did not matter that I was a native of the United States of America, a citizen that had been educated in its history and geography for years, and was being kept abreast of current events. For though I was a local in the USA, in this land I was the foreigner, and thus my perspective was suspect. In a case of he-said-she-said, we tend to side with the individual that we are personally closer to, regardless of whether their stance is as well-founded as the other.
And I have no delusions about the fact that my own opinions and beliefs are also molded by my culture’s biases. I am sure there are many things that I take as a matter of fact, which are absolutely wrong. In fact, I have a personal example of how I came to be corrected in one of those misconceptions just a few years ago. I’ll share that, and the lessons that I learned from it, tomorrow.
Spiritual Wanderings 