Study of the Gospel versus Study of Behavior

These are really good quotes. They show the importance of counterbalancing the sometimes extreme statements of

GA’s with comments from other authorities. I like the idea that no one perspective has it all. Great post Nibbler.

Thank you for the original reference Nibbler. I was still in primary when that talk came out but I have read the quote a few times in manuals. The most recent time was in a marriage and family class. The takeaway was that we do not need to be overly concerned with whatever new finding children and family psychologists come out with. Base your family life on gospel/church principles and you will come out on top (and with an eternal reward to boot).

The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior. Preoccupation with unworthy behavior can lead to unworthy behavior. That is why we stress so forcefully the study of the doctrines of the gospel.

I see this quote as part of a larger Modus Operondi of dismissing or minimizing outside information. One way that this plays out is to assume that the gospel will be a cure all panacea for whatever ails you. Suppose a young person comes to a priesthood leader with problems of SSA or M. Social science research might suggest that these “problems” are actually normal components of sexuality and human development. Whatever the circumstance, the leader need not spend much time listening, talking about it, or even understanding it. They can merely bare testimony and invite/challenge to live according to gospel precepts and watch problems tend to disappear (Full disclosure: some problems might not disappear fully until the next life).

From the same Elder Packer talk comes the following:

Secular doctrines have the advantage of convincing, tangible evidence. [They] seem to do better in gathering data on things that can be counted and measured.

Doctrines which originate in the light, on the other hand, are more often supported by intangible impressions upon the spirit. We are left for the most part to rely on faith.

But, in time, the consequences of following either will become visible enough.

Overall I perceive a sense of arrogance that gospel knowledge trumps any other knowledge. If we take our understanding of the plan of salvation as the key to interpret all other information, then whatever does not support our position can be safely dismissed or at least set aside until we can better understand how it all fits harmoniously into the great plan of happiness.

The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior. Preoccupation with unworthy behavior can lead to unworthy behavior. That is why we stress so forcefully the study of the doctrines of the gospel.

There’s no doubt that if there’s one thing the Church is fairly good at it is controlling the behavior of its followers at least in terms of a few expectations like the WoW, no pre-marital sex, full-time missions, temple marriage, tithing, garments/modesty, etc. Maybe that’s what Packer was thinking about when he made this claim but if so I think he was giving way too much credit for this to the idea that the study of the doctrines will supposedly lead to a “mighty change of heart” and “no more disposition to do evil” on an individual and personal basis and not enough credit to simple family/social pressure where members often go along with these things in large part because other Mormons around them expect them to and will be very disappointed with them if they don’t. And as it turns out, most of these items on the checklist are typically externally visible to at least one or two other Church members most of the time for members that don’t ever deviate too far from the path for very long if at all.

All you have to do is look at the relative lack of success of the Church’s disapproval of porn and masturbation to see that it’s not nearly as simple as Church members being told, “do this, don’t do that” because God supposedly said so and then their behavior will follow suit when no one is looking. And it’s not like most active members were once chain-smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. and then gave up these habits; in many cases it’s more like the Church helped prevent them from ever getting caught up in these habits in the first place or alienated and excluded many Church members that already drink, smoke, and/or had sex before they were married which gives an illusion of a higher rate of success on this front than there really is. But maybe the biggest question of all about this claim is whether it’s really fair to call much of this behavior the Church has pushed a clear improvement over the alternatives in the first place. To me it looks like many of these points are more about perpetuating LDS Mormonism and its established traditions than anything that actually benefits the individual members, society as a whole, etc. that much if at all in this life which for all we really know could possibly be the only life we will ever have.