Download PDF file

An unattributed online quote:

This is yet another example of elementary prose all tangled up and tripping over itself in a failed effort to inject emotion and expel clear thinking about important principles.

I much prefer attributed quotes because they enable a clearer understanding of the quote’s context. Moreover, the general quality of unattributed quotes is often lacking, as in this instance, relegating themselves to teen wall posters and blacklights. No resource I tried could locate the author of this quote. Without any defining context we can only take the statement at face value.

We assume this is a Gospel-related point since “grace” is noted. Otherwise, are we simply requiring an “elegant manner” for kindness to result? Perhaps so, but without sufficient context, we are left to wonder. This is another example of the current feminization of the Gospel, and our current society, in general. There is no cogent doctrine here, only an unclear expression meant to conjure some emotional connection to kindness. Why the necessity of banishing logic from the equation? Or is logic simply too toxically masculine for thin-skinned modern feminine sensitivities? Oh, I sincerely hope not.

The initial thought-equation detaches the understanding of people’s experiences, from the action of being kind. The equation is true in itself. (You might similarly say that you don’t have to understand geometry to pour a glass of milk. Also true.) The question then arises, how are the two things related in a useful way, or are they? Nothing to that end is presented.

Then, a similar set of unrelated items are presented as another dubious axiom. Kindness, in fact, does not require logic. But how does it, then, require grace? This connection is not made nor is there any assertion of how, where, or by whom the expressed requirement originated—scripturally or otherwise.

The initial analytical question, of course, asks: What does understanding people’s experiences have to do with being kind to them? No one ever said, “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you, but only if you understand their experiences.” Are kindness and life experiences related? Apparently, we can’t get there from here, so don’t ask.

Not only does the statement wander aimlessly through unconnected points, but there is an obvious emotional context which denies rationality and intelligence. These two are, of course, fundamental principles of the Gospel as described by Joseph Smith in the Third Lecture on Faith, para. 2: “Let us here observe that three things are necessary in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.” The “three things” mentioned, come after the two prerequisites of rationality and intelligence are met. The operating notions here are, “necessary,” “rational and intelligent being,” and “faith in God unto life and salvation.”

To paraphrase: “Rationality and intelligence is necessary for the development of faith in God sufficient unto life and salvation using the three items noted hereafter.” Or, perhaps, “Effective use of the three things necessary for life and salvation is possible only for the rational and intelligent.” Rationality and intelligence seek light and truth, often using logic. We are told here that kindness does not require light and truth, or logic, or rationality and intelligence. Is this an example of unknowingly holding Joseph in derision? He, and the Lord, were very specific in this direction. What must it feel like on the other side of the veil, when you’ve written clearly and precisely what the Lord wanted us to know, only to have it rejected as toxic?

Again, logic is, simply, rational and intelligent inquiry, and analysis, which leads to light and truth. Logic, as a course of study, has been considered and taught for centuries in Greece, India, and China. Logic seeks to ferret out error and inconsistency, and has a long history of philosophical discourse of much value to mankind. Is kindness a rational and intelligent behavior? Is kindness, in fact, logical?

For centuries, great minds, indeed, have advanced the idea that you “get more flies with honey…” (Giovanni Torriano, in 1666, and Benjamin Franklin, in 1744, expressed similar versions.) This would be a logical approach. Being kind is a product of deciding to exercise my agency for good use. When I am kind, I expect the general response will be kindness shown in return. I have overwhelmingly found that assumption to be empirically true.

The logical, rational, and intelligent decision to be kind, and the resulting behavior toward others, may well attract the attention of Heaven, but kindness certainly does not require grace. If it did, few would have the currency. Grace cannot be earned because it is not possible for man to put God in his debt. "...we know that it’s by grace we are saved, despite all that we can do." (2Ne 11:8 CE)

Grace is not a wage or entitlement. Grace is a gift, given after we exhaust and wear out ourselves in working for the betterment of mankind according to the commandments and example of God. Grace is not paid hourly, or piecemeal, as a contractor. The attempt to directly connect the acquisition, or payment, of God’s grace with being kind, fails any logical, or scriptural, test.

The “elegant manner” of the graceful exhibits kindness as a behavioral component, but even the churlish can be kind under the right circumstance. Kindness, in like manner, may be evidence of grace. However, to postulate that grace is a requirement of kindness, is simply shallow thinking, which is exactly the point here.

Our Lord doesn’t walk around with a grace dispenser on His belt, doling out grace tokens each time you’re kind. He expects kindness, because He has provided a unequivocal example for us to follow, and then teach to others. He’s asked us to live according to that example if we have any expectation of salvation. I have written similarly before: “I am not obedient to God because I am afraid of punishment, nor do I expect reward.

I owe an unpayable debt to Him for His actions on my behalf. I simply cry unto God that He, occasionally, notice my life’s positive efforts, and is patient while I improve the negative. My ample reward would be if He was just the slightest bit aware and, perhaps, even pleased with those efforts. That’s it. If, at some point in my existence, He deigns to provide a portion of His grace to this meager being, I am overjoyed and overwhelmed at the thought. To postulate that simply opening a door for my wife results in an automatic receipt of our Lord's grace, trivializes the very concept.

The Glossary makes our duty clear by defining the tasks set before angels, and ultimately, us as well, as God’s mortal servants and messengers: “The office of the angelic ministrant is to snap you back out of the fog of ‘indifference to the casualness in which you discharge your daily obligations’ and to awaken you to the peril that each of us face if we don’t repent and return to God…

“They use their own resources, and they wear out their lives and their time in pursuing the obligations imposed upon them, which include: the salvation of others, the crying of repentance to others, and the bringing to pass the fulfillment of the covenants that God made with the Fathers." (A Glossary of Gospel Terms; Angel, Office of or Ministry of)

By extolling the vacuous quote that began our analysis, we are engulfed in evidence of our need to “snap…back out of the fog of…casualness in which you discharge your daily obligations…” Does the feminization of the Gospel lead to an emotional embargo of light and truth? Have we rejected the ability to logically analyze anonymously presented and inaccurately assembled notions? Do we seek productive light and truth, or emotionally reinforcing hugs of unbelief?

It is an undeniable fact that there have been great thinkers in our history from whom we have gained useful knowledge and wisdom. Where are the great feelers? And what did they accomplish? Christ was the greatest thinker that ever lived. To the lawyer’s “pick-a-fight” question about the greatest commandment, He taught love God and your neighbor, thereby demolishing the lawyer’s attempt at embarrassing harassment. Our Lord did not “feel” the universe into existence. He organized it using knowledge and principles of organization about which we have yet to even guess.

Emotion is certainly an essential component of mortality. Emotion provides sublime artistic context to life and humanity gained in no other way. The haunting melody in Tchaikovsky's Pathetique Symphony No. 6 invokes my deep emotion because it is exquisitely moving and beautiful, and was a clarinet solo I performed in my youth. Those kind of emotional experiences taught me that there was more depth to life than pulp fiction allowed. That widening of my perspective led me to Hermann Hesse, Hemmingway, Emerson, Bastiat, Franklin, and many other great moral thinkers and writers. The resulting widened perspective inculcated a love for critical thinking I have never lost. And, in case you missed it, that love evolved from emotional experiences. Who knew?

When I hear Eric Clapton perform “Wonderful Tonight,” my heart transforms it into a love song of emotionally caressing gratitude to my own sweetheart. When I read certain scriptural passages my heart, alternatively breaks, or soars for those involved. These are precious experiences to be treasured.

I could continue naming movies, music, and other artistic and spiritual endeavors that evoke deep and cathartic emotion. I cherish all of it. But all the wonderful feelings in the world cannot add one plus one and get two. That’s not the purpose of emotion. It is the purpose of logic, rationality, and intelligence.

Time to snap back out of the fog.