Proving Contraries? What does that really mean?

[deacon blues]

Today's Deseret News Editorial was titled "Paradox and revelation." It seems to be an attempt to explain revelation in the context of the announcement from the Church about rescission of the November 15th "Pox" policy. And it uses an old Joseph Smith quote: "By proving contraries, the truth is made manifest." That quote has always made me scratch my head. What does it mean? What does "Proving contraries" mean? I'm a little skeptical of the statement itself, but I'm going to study it in hopes of "Prove(ing) all things and hold(ing) fast to that which is true, which is a phrase I do understand. God bless us every one.

Part of me suspects the whole thing is just a teaser to get more people to watch conference.

[RubinHighlander]

It will be interesting to see how the spin shakes out from the conference. I'm sure there will be much effort to further inoculate the TBMs against doubt. There will likely be much talk about how inspired RSM is as the mouthpiece of God. There will be many examples used to justify the reversal and make it sound perfectly "inspired" and okay. I would also expect some "But being gay is still wrong." to buoy up that doctrine.

[deacon blues]

I found this little tidbit on line, which attempts to address my question.

Just before his death Joseph Smith, also with prophetic perception, wrote, "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest" (History of the Church, 6:428). By "prove" he meant not only to demonstrate logically but to test, to struggle with, and to work out in practical experience. The Church is as true — as effective — as the gospel because it involves us directly in proving contraries, working constructively with the oppositions within ourselves and especially between people, struggling with paradoxes and polarities at an experiential level that can redeem us. The Church is true because it is concrete, not theoretical; in all its contradictions and problems, it is at least as productive of good as is the gospel.-- Eugene England

I don't know that I can agree with either Eugene England or Joseph Smith. Groking (meditating) is.......

Then I came upon this:

Then I stumbled onto the medieval doctrine of twofold truth, discussed briefly in this Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Averroes (third paragraph down). In a nutshell, the doctrine holds that what is false in philosophy can, at the same time, be true in theology, and vice versa. Here's a quote from the article:

Averroes advocated the principle of twofold truth, maintaining that religion has one sphere and philosophy another. Religion, he said, is for the unlettered multitude; philosophy for the chosen few. Religion teaches by signs and symbols; philosophy presents the truth itself. In the mind, therefore, of the truly enlightened, philosophy supersedes religion. But, though the philosopher sees that what is true in theology is false in philosophy, he should not on that account condemn religious instruction, because he would thereby deprive the multitude of the only means which it has of attaining a (symbolic) knowledge of the truth.
This probably rubs you the wrong way; the doctrine of twofold truth hasn't fared well in the modern era. However, it strikes me as similar to compartmentalization, a standard coping technique of educated Mormons when faced with contrary claims between religion and science, such as Book of Mormon claims about Israelites/Nephites in America versus the disturbing lack of archaeological evidence for that claim. Solution: compartmentalize. Averroes apparently advocated a sophisticated formulation of compartmentalization. For what it's worth, medieval Scholastics rejected that approach: Scotus and Aquinas would have none of that two truths stuff. Truth was truth and had to be consistent, even if there were two roads (natural reason and divine revelation) to get there. "Truth brooks no contraries" might be their slogan.

How about just "Pondering Contraries?"--- Some guy named Dave on the internet.

My gut tells me that we all have about the same access to the "divine" but we interpret it differently, based on our experiences and innate abilities. Takes me back to the "Six blind men and the Elephant." Which might be a good metaphor for Church leadership.

[Palerider]

I think Joseph had been reading or talking with someone about Aristotle and philosophy.

The concept that "contraries" makes possible is exactly what he wrote/explained to some of the women he was pursuing, that is: What seems wrong under one circumstance may be perfectly o.k. and approved by God under another set of circumstances. So it's o.k. to "marry" me and be my plural wife...

As an example:

To kill a human being is "bad".

To kill a human being in order to protect yourself and your wife and children is "good"/permitted.

To kill a human being in the defense of your country is "good"/permitted.

To kill a human being in war who has surrendered to you is "bad".

There are contraries here that are changed or "proven" by the circumstances or God's will.

However the real problem here is that a flim-flam or fraud can use this principle of contraries in a deceptive way to accomplish his ultimate goal of exploiting those around him.

For the skeptic it becomes obvious that it is a ruse. For the believer, sadly, it provides a way for them to continue believing.

ETA: Which is just the case in regards to Eugene England who is mentioned above. He was looking for a path to continue believing.

As I recall (I may be wrong) wasn't it Eugene England who received a stern warning from Bruce R. McConkie regarding his claim that Brigham Young had taught the Adam/God doctrine? And I think Bruce confessed in that warning letter that Brigham had taught it and that he was in error and that Eugene needed to shut up about it.

[RubinHighlander]

However, it strikes me as similar to compartmentalization, a standard coping technique of educated Mormons when faced with contrary claims between religion and science, such as Book of Mormon claims about Israelites/Nephites in America versus the disturbing lack of archaeological evidence for that claim. Solution: compartmentalize.

I concur; this is how I used to deal with it and I know some of my educated TBM coworkers do the same: Stick it in a box and put it on the shelf. Then there's a segment of the TBM population that stay in the shallows and never venture out or just keep their head buried in the sand on the beach. It would be an interesting to come up with a survey that could determine the breakdown percentage of TBMs where they fall on that spectrum:

clueless sand head --> compartmentalist --> zealous apologist --> NOM

[deacon blues]

Yeah, Eugene England did have a bit of a run-in with Elder McConkie. Pale Rider reminds me (as does the recent announcement) of the relativistic LDS morality- whatever the prophet says is right.