Understanding vs. justifying

[Vort]

Lawyers are commonly represented as hypocrites, even in scripture. Though this is certainly a broad and unfair generalization, there is a good reason for this stereotype: Many lawyers first decide what outcome they want, then find a logical path to establish that predetermined outcome.

That's backward. That's wrong. That's dishonest.

I see this happen very often in religious discussions. Someone has decided that Principle X is true. As a result, he (or she -- women do this as often as men) cites scriptures that he thinks justify this idea. He quotes General Conference talks that seem to him to buttress his point. If he is capable of using logic to some degree, he will often construct logical arguments, sometimes quite intricate -- and often quite flawed -- to convince others that he is right.

This is backward, wrong, and dishonest.

We should read and study scripture, and then ask God and let the Spirit teach us what those things mean. We should listen intently to our leaders at General Conference and elsewhere, and use their words as a yardstick to determine whether our beliefs are on track or whether we're off in the weeds. We should use our logic and reason, and we should use them vigorously, even mercilessly, to critique our own beliefs and suppositions. Having a religion based on faith and spiritual experience precludes a too-rigorous logical paradigm, because we will always have too few well-established and specific premises to base a strong overall logical model on. But logic is a powerful tool, one we should be willing to use when we can, and the results of which we should be unafraid to examine -- even (ESPECIALLY) when it violates our paradigms and preconceptions.

tl;dr -- We should use our scripture study, prophetic teachings, and life experience to seek understanding, not to justify what we already believe.

[let’s roll]

Lawyers are advocates.  As such they are required to make the best arguments for their clients.  In that context, the formula you describe is accurate to a degree.  

 Doctors are duty-bound to treat patients regardless of the patient’s moral standings. Is a doctor who provides medical treatment that saves the life of a murderer any less worthy of praise then the doctor that provides medical treatment that saves the life of a child?  Both deserve the best efforts of the doctor.

In a similar manner all clients deserve the best efforts of a lawyer to use their knowledge of the law and skills in advocacy and negotiation to further the purposes of the client, as long as that purpose isn’t illegal.  There’s nothing backwards, wrong or dishonest about it.

Yes I’m a lawyer and that’s what I was taught at JRCLS.

[mikbone]

Im a doc and my wife graduated from JRCLS.  

One time she told me that to answer her legal ethics class she would ask herself, what would Jesus do in this situation?  And then she would pick the opposite answer.  

And sometimes Docs are duty bound to not treat their patients.  Some patients want things that they just dont understand.  

[let’s roll]

22 minutes ago, Vort said:

Lawyers are commonly represented as hypocrites, even in scripture. Though this is certainly a broad and unfair generalization, there is a good reason for this stereotype: Many lawyers first decide what outcome they want, then find a logical path to establish that predetermined outcome.

That's backward. That's wrong. That's dishonest.

I see this happen very often in religious discussions. Someone has decided that Principle X is true. As a result, he (or she -- women do this as often as men) cites scriptures that he thinks justify this idea. He quotes General Conference talks that seem to him to buttress his point. If he is capable of using logic to some degree, he will often construct logical arguments, sometimes quite intricate -- and often quite flawed -- to convince others that he is right.

This is backward, wrong, and dishonest.

We should read and study scripture, and then ask God and let the Spirit teach us what those things mean. We should listen intently to our leaders at General Conference and elsewhere, and use their words as a yardstick to determine whether our beliefs are on track or whether we're off in the weeds. We should use our logic and reason, and we should use them vigorously, even mercilessly, to critique our own beliefs and suppositions. Having a religion based on faith and spiritual experience precludes a too-rigorous logical paradigm, because we will always have too few well-established and specific premises to base a strong overall logical model on. But logic is a powerful tool, one we should be willing to use when we can, and the results of which we should be unafraid to examine -- even (ESPECIALLY) when it violates our paradigms and preconceptions.

tl;dr -- We should use our scripture study, prophetic teachings, and life experience to seek understanding, not to justify what we already believe.

Btw, I support wholeheartedly your invitation regarding how best to read scripture and listen to prophets, I just think your analogy regarding lawyers is misplaced...except perhaps with respect to prosecutors whose duty to seek truth trumps their duty to advocate for convictions.

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Lawyers are commonly represented as hypocrites, even in scripture. Though this is certainly a broad and unfair generalization, there is a good reason for this stereotype: Many lawyers first decide what outcome they want, then find a logical path to establish that predetermined outcome.

That's backward. That's wrong. That's dishonest.

I see this happen very often in religious discussions. Someone has decided that Principle X is true. As a result, he (or she -- women do this as often as men) cites scriptures that he thinks justify this idea. He quotes General Conference talks that seem to him to buttress his point. If he is capable of using logic to some degree, he will often construct logical arguments, sometimes quite intricate -- and often quite flawed -- to convince others that he is right.

This is backward, wrong, and dishonest.

We should read and study scripture, and then ask God and let the Spirit teach us what those things mean. We should listen intently to our leaders at General Conference and elsewhere, and use their words as a yardstick to determine whether our beliefs are on track or whether we're off in the weeds. We should use our logic and reason, and we should use them vigorously, even mercilessly, to critique our own beliefs and suppositions. Having a religion based on faith and spiritual experience precludes a too-rigorous logical paradigm, because we will always have too few well-established and specific premises to base a strong overall logical model on. But logic is a powerful tool, one we should be willing to use when we can, and the results of which we should be unafraid to examine -- even (ESPECIALLY) when it violates our paradigms and preconceptions.

tl;dr -- We should use our scripture study, prophetic teachings, and life experience to seek understanding, not to justify what we already believe.

I believe this is the essence of the teaching of Jesus (first taught from the Old Testament) concerning those that have eyes and see not and ears and hear not.  But I look at this also - what purpose is there in reading scripture if one does not intend to learn anything?  If in reading scripture and listening to the brethren - what use it it when we come away having not learned anything or changed our minds concerning some principle?  Isaiah said that we learn line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.

I also believe that we disrespect G-d if we study revelation with the intent not just to avoid learning something that we previously did not understand - but also without the intent to change our heart - especially how we view G-d, our fellow man and ourselves.  

Thanks for the reminder @Vort

 

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

On 10/24/2018 at 7:03 PM, Vort said:

Lawyers are commonly represented as hypocrites, even in scripture. Though this is certainly a broad and unfair generalization, there is a good reason for this stereotype

Personally, I think the stereotype, although broad, is a fair generalization due to the reason you have given, and my personal experience with that reason. That is just me though.

On 10/24/2018 at 7:03 PM, Vort said:

Many lawyers first decide what outcome they want, then find a logical path to establish that predetermined outcome.

That's backward. That's wrong. That's dishonest.

Agreed.

On 10/24/2018 at 7:03 PM, Vort said:

I see this happen very often in religious discussions. Someone has decided that Principle X is true. As a result, he (or she -- women do this as often as men) cites scriptures that he thinks justify this idea. He quotes General Conference talks that seem to him to buttress his point. If he is capable of using logic to some degree, he will often construct logical arguments, sometimes quite intricate -- and often quite flawed -- to convince others that he is right.

This is backward, wrong, and dishonest.

Agreed. We see this with the controversial topics (i.e. Blacks and the Priesthood, Polygamy, and others). People will automatically specify "X" as wrong. They will then provide their reasons for this through scripture and other means. This is exactly what the Adversary has done. He decided "Principle X" was true and did all he could to prove it, and sadly many believed his "Principle X" over "Truth."

On 10/24/2018 at 7:03 PM, Vort said:

We should read and study scripture, and then ask God and let the Spirit teach us what those things mean. We should listen intently to our leaders at General Conference and elsewhere, and use their words as a yardstick to determine whether our beliefs are on track or whether we're off in the weeds. We should use our logic and reason, and we should use them vigorously, even mercilessly, to critique our own beliefs and suppositions. Having a religion based on faith and spiritual experience precludes a too-rigorous logical paradigm, because we will always have too few well-established and specific premises to base a strong overall logical model on. But logic is a powerful tool, one we should be willing to use when we can, and the results of which we should be unafraid to examine -- even (ESPECIALLY) when it violates our paradigms and preconceptions.

tl;dr -- We should use our scripture study, prophetic teachings, and life experience to seek understanding, not to justify what we already believe.

This is true, particularly the highlighted summary!

I would explicitly add, although implied in your statement, the difference between a truth confirmed through study as we seek to understand (not to justify) and our ability to theorize and then search for concepts that either refute or give evidence for. As long as we don't begin with -- this is right -- now I will find scripture and other means to support what I feel is right.