Humility Begets Truth

Cliff's Notes Version for those of you like me who want to skim through and get the main idea: if you are extreme and passionate in your views and can see no wrong, YOU are wrong. Sorry.

I catch myself saying "The truth is . . ." then telling an opinion that I have, which I think is pretty funny. My thoughts or opinions in my mind are categorized as True. There you go, just come and ask me. So, I've been thinking about truth, and after reading some of 1776, Fire in the Bones, The Chosen and considering my own religion, how bothered I am that good people (even really good people) can be on the wrong or un-true side. And how the "wrong" side often isn't recognized for a long time, if ever.

Then I should take the next step and question if and when I am/have been on the wrong side (which won't be included in this post), instead I'll hypothetically ask:

• Would I have been converted to the cause of liberty in 1776, seen the vision of America which was a far cry from what it was, or would I have wanted to stay passionately loyal to the king?


• Would I have promoted the bible being translated into English, and hidden or been killed for this belief or would I have agreed with the passionate majority that English was a vulgar language and not fit for scripture.


• Would I have accepted Joseph Smith as a prophet if I were alive in his time and been mocked and scorned or would I have done the popular thing and been a part of the passionate anti-Mormon mob?


• Would I have accepted Jesus Christ as a son of God and a personal savior if it meant that my life were at risk or would I have rejected him and asked with the passionate crowd that Barabas be freed.

I am absolutely converted to each of these causes, but in it's time, when many many people were passionately opposed, sometimes with seemingly strong cause, would I have recognized and fought for what was right? Would I have recognized that

Passion is often wrong.

I had to decide whether to put that sentence in. I wrote it and had an internal debate because it sounds so harsh--but I really think it's true. Anyone who is so passionate about something often
(from here on out, when I use the word often I really mean always, but I just can't bring myself to making that extreme of a point) often doesn't have the bearings to recognize other truths. Anyone who is so emotionally connected is not intellectually open to being wrong. And passion is often selfish, and selfish is often wrong. This may not be appreciated by a teenager in love. Or by any extreme political advocates. (Are those two of the same?) You have to be able to question yourself. Often. Sincerely. Being open to being wrong. Moroni 10:3-5 says to ask if something is not true. I love that it says to ask if it's not true rather than if it's true. I need to ask myself often if the path I am on is wrong. We need to recognize when we are not right by questioning it--by being open to being wrong.

(Viki, plug your ears for bit). I don't like talk radio. Almost every time I listen to a right wing republican (I am a republican) I want to become a democrat. Anytime I hear someone say anything so entirely negative about "the other side" I quickly discredit them because.

There is no straw man.

If you cannot recognize good in the other side then you are too emotionally connected and can not have a strong argument. If you are so passionatly one-sided that the other side is always wrong, you, my friend, are sadly wrong.

I remember reading a book by Andy Rooney, and one chapter (the only one I remember) was about religion. Very negatively about religion. His point (and it really tested my faith) was that so many awful, destructive, horrible things have happened in the name of religion or of God. These people (the leaders of the horror) were passionate about their God-driven-cause. Passionate--not open to being wrong. Because of that passion, they were very wrong and very destructive. I'mputting in a thought that my sister Lisa left in a comment, I think it goes perfectly: Our understanding is seldom complete, so we must humbly move forward to learn and understand more and more. It is extreme commitment without open mindedness and self questioning that is so dangerous.

Often I think that those most passionate, most extreme are almost always the most wrong. But I recognize movements (American independence, Mormon Church, Bible translation) that need(ed) passion to move forward and was (in my ever so true opinion) directed of God. As much as I like to stand in the middle and nod at both sides, there are times when extreme action and sacrafice are required, but it is always (always, not often--I'm daring to be bold) the humble, the sincerely questioning, the meek, the selfless (both Joseph Smith and William Tyndale sacrificed themselves for their work. Oh yea, and so did Jesus Christ) that truly see God's work forward. How can we know if we are in the right side? Paraphrasing Moroni 10, we must receive (and all that that implies) ponder and ask sincerely if it is not true. I like that as a definition of humility. And we have to keep doing this. We can look at previous answers with sweetness, but we have to continually, humbly look to God for truth and for what is wrong in us.

(Hm, could humility be an antonym to passion? Can you be humbly passionate? Am I digressing too far . . . . should I press Publish Post. I'm questioning that . . .)