Math is learned in stages, from one principle to the next. The child does not begin with calculous, but rather simple arithmetic. Students learn sets of rules in order to understand how numbers work together. As they continue to learn, they find that some of these rules must be broken, and even that some of these rules were utterly false.
For example, the student who first learns math will begin with positive whole numbers. They will learn to add and subtract these numbers. As they stack numbers, one above the other, in order to add or subtract, the teacher will probably tell them that the larger number should go on top, and the smaller number on the bottom. This is to ensure that students learn to subtract a smaller number from a larger number, making the result a positive number. During this phase, if there ever is a case in which a larger number must be subtracted from a smaller number, they will instruct the learner to simply write zero. During this phase of instruction, negative numbers don’t exist, neither to decimals, nor fractions – only whole, positive number.
Obviously, the next phase of learning will require the student to grasp that there is such a thing as negative numbers. This introduces a level of abstract thinking, that contradicts a few of the previous rules established about how numbers and math work. From there the student learns that there are more numbers than whole numbers. There is actually an infinite number of numbers between any two numbers. This is a mind-blowing concept to the new student, who realized that numbers go high, even to infinity, but now an infinite number of numbers lies everywhere. These new concepts break the original thinking of positive, whole numbers, as primarily established. Further along, the student will earn that there is such a thing as imaginary numbers. Whereas before, the rule was that the student could not find the square root of a negative number, now the student can use imaginary numbers to do what was once impossible.
Math must be taught by starting with a basic set of rules and principles and then a more complex set of rules and principles. In several cases, this newer set of rules and principles will reveal that parts of the former rules and principles were in fact false, or can, and should, no longer be taken as absolute. The reason for this is self explanatory. There must be a sequence from simple to complex to grasp math in its sophisticated form. It is a complete waste of time trying to teach a brand-new student the concept of imaginary numbers, infinite numbers within numbers, and negative numbers, when they do not grasp the basics.
In fact, explaining higher level math prematurely could easily appear silly to an underdeveloped mathematician. Picture the skeptic teaching math to a new student, “can you believe they say there is such a thing as imaginary numbers!? They have to make up numbers in order to make their theory make sense. How can you have negative of something? I either have it or I do not. You mean to tell me that I can fit an infinite number of apples between these two apples? One day they say you can’t take the square of a negative, and the next they say you can, they constantly change their laws.” The unlearned would begin to build resistance to some of these concepts because they were presented as ludicrous. However, despite their presentation, the mathematical reality of negative numbers, infinity, and imaginary numbers is true. The “contradictions” taught to students is easily understood due to the necessity of establishing rules and principles before exploring how these rules and principles break. Only a self-assured fool would believe sophisticated mathematical principles are silly evidence of contradictory and naïve teachings. All sophisticated teachings, which rely on solid foundations of other primary principles seem this way to the simple-minded.
But what does this have to do with the LDS church and its teachings? Everything! The gospel mirrors math in this way precisely. The gospel must be taught from simple to complex, it must present the commandments and principles by phases. It is sometimes the case that a more sophisticated teaching will reveal that a lower principle is not absolute, or not as important as previously mentioned. The honest student will grow from precept to precept, line upon line, until they grasp eternal principles in their sophistication.
In like manner, critics, as well as those who haven’t taken the time to understand, view the gospel as contradictory, and silly. They present some of its profound doctrines as does the math skeptic. “How crazy it is to believe ‘X’” they sneer. Honestly, it is difficult to chastise them for thinking this, after all, the untrained mind – such as theirs – views complex and profound principles as crazy, it is beyond their mental and spiritual capacity.
The profound nature of eternal doctrines demands a sophisticated mind and devoted time to learning and understanding. It is inappropriate to profess proficiency in profound principles while avoiding the preliminary process. One might as well try building the roof of a house first before either the foundation was laid, or the walls erected. Most critics of the LDS faith arrive at their cynical conclusions because they omit the founding principles, willingly or unwillingly. The Latter-Day Saint should take wisdom. When being introduced to a new doctrine, or professed teaching, from a non-Latter-Day Saint, one should not give much credibility to the source. If the honest seeker of truth wishes to learn these doctrines, they may do so properly by consulting the scriptures, the words of God’s authorized teachers – the prophets, and the revelations of the Holy Spirit. All other self-proclaimed experts on “what Mormons really believe” should be taken as seriously as Disney’s Goofy “How To” series, where a cartoon character demonstrates the correct way to do some complex task.
In summary, the doctrines of the gospel are to be taught line upon line, precept upon precept. The improper order of learning principles will leave the learner bewildered. Opportunists sometimes attempt to shed light on the absurdity of the profound doctrines of which they know so little. In so doing, they scare the ignorant, but reveal themselves as foolish to the wise.
Comments