Introduction

Both in the scriptures and in our personal lives, it is clear that when God teaches, he employs persuasion. He follows the same law that he gives to all teachers:

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by longsuffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile. (D&C 121:41-42.)

God himself teaches this way, and he instructs all teachers to apply the same methods. Guileless persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love, kindness, and pure knowledge is the only way the gospel can be preached. The only other option is “to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men.” This is strictly forbidden. When that is done, “the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” (D&C 121:37.)

We are warned in this same section that

...it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. (D&C 121:38-39.)

We should carefully discern when teachers are using persuasion and when they are using unrighteous dominion. What are the hallmarks of unrighteous dominion? We are told in this revelation that exercising control or dominion or compulsion is unrighteous dominion. A true messenger will not preach the gospel by appealing to his authority (for example, a calling in the church) or by declaring a policy or program by edict. To do so would not only prove to everyone that they were not true messengers, but would automatically annul (if a man) his priesthood commission from God. Joseph Smith proclaimed that he never appealed to his authority in teaching the gospel, but that the goodness of the truth he taught was persuasive in and of itself:

President Joseph Smith again arose & said in relation to the power over the minds of mankind which I hold, I would say it is in consequence of the power of truth in the doctrins which I have been an instrument in the hands of God of presenting unto them & not because of any Compulsion on my part. I will ask if I ever got any of it unfair. If I have not reproved you in the gate, I ask did I ever exerise any compulsion over any man. did I not give him the liberty of disbelieveing any doctrin I have preached if he saw fit, why do not my enemies strike a blow at the doctrin, they cannot do it, it is truth, And I am as the voice of one Crying in the wilderness repent of your sins & prepare the way for the Coming of the Son of Man, for the Kingdom of God has Come unto you and hence forth the ax is laid unto the root of the tree and evry tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, God Almighty (and not Jo Smith) shall hew down & cast it into the fire. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, March 24, 1844) (Original spelling)

What are the hallmarks of godly teaching? Persuasion, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, love, kindness, and pure knowledge, all without guile. Here we critically note that these characteristics inescapably connote an exchange of unaligned positions—an argument. Of what use is persuasion when two parties already agree? Of what use is longsuffering when the receiver of knowledge already understands? Why are gentleness, love and kindness required if the lesson only consists of a reminder of what is already known? Of what use is pure knowledge if the student already knows what the teacher knows? In what situation is guile employed, if not to convince? Teaching the gospel does not mean the rote recitation of what the student has already heard. This would require no persuasion. Teaching the gospel does not mean a one-way presentation of something new. This would be unrighteous dominion because a fiat demand to change does not include persuasion, longsuffering gentleness, meekness, or pure knowledge. These attributes require a two-way exchange.

Contrary to our modern aversion to the idea, argument, when done with persuasion, longsuffering gentleness, meekness, love, kindness, and pure knowledge, is actually the method for teaching the gospel.

While we ought to most readily associate persuasive argument with gospel teaching, the words argument and debate have a strong negative connotation in modern Mormonism. Modern Mormons identify rote recitation of what is already known or dogmatic assertion by those with a little authority, as they suppose, as gospel teaching. In reality, this is opposite of what it should be.

Imagine two Sunday school environments. In the first class, everyone sits quietly and listens to the teacher read the same lines from the manual that have been read in years past, or reads a conference talk that may not only be a repeat in terms of phrases and topics, but may in fact have been given in its entirety at least once before. In the second class, a class member disagrees with something that it said in the course of the lesson, citing historical evidence for her position. In which of the two classes would most modern Mormons rather be? The prevailing feeling in the first would be comfort, and in the second anxiety or perhaps annoyance and anger. The soundness of the position of the dissenter is not a factor in the reaction to her words.

As another example, imagine two different outcomes of a sustaining during sacrament. In the first, the presiding official reads the calling to be extended, and there is unanimous support out of deference to the authority of the presiding official. In the second, a member voices concern over the appropriateness of the individual. Discussion ensues. In the end, all concerns are vetted and the member is sustained. What modern Mormon would be comfortable with the second scenario? Yet, this is a scenario that repeated itself frequently in Joseph Smith’s day.¹

Having discussed how the gospel is taught through argument, we now move to a discussion of why it must be this way. If truth were selfevident, there would be no need for argument. All gospel teaching could be repetition of what we already know. However, many different groups believe many different (and opposing) things to be true, and the natural man—our best effort to know what is right of ourselves—is an enemy to God.

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. (Mosiah 3:19.)

We are told what the antidote to man’s fallacious reasoning is: the Holy Ghost. Only by yielding to God can a man overcome his innate inability to judge righteously. Men are incapable, of their own accord, to know what is right and what is wrong. We need the intervention of God, and that frequently comes through the ministry of true human messengers.

The assumption of man that he possesses sufficient wisdom to discern whether some new thing is true or not is foolhardy. It is also antiscriptural. We are given countless examples of men like Moses who, having received more revelation in a life of faithfulness than most of us can even dream of, are left in subsequent visits to admit that they had never before supposed what God had just revealed.²

Having found that, even among men and women spiritually stout enough to sacrifice and endure much more than we would today, members were generally unable to assess candidate truth properly, Joseph wrote a long editorial to the membership in the church periodical “Times and Seasons.” In it, he explained that throughout time it has been impossible to judge the veracity of acts or principles based solely on subjective personal opinion:

The Egyptians were not able to discover the difference between the miracles of Moses and those of the magicians until they came to be tested together; and if Moses had not appeared in their midst, they would unquestionably have thought that the miracles of the magicians were performed through the mighty power of God, for they were great miracles that were performed by them—a supernatural agency was developed, and great power manifested....The witch of Endor is a no less singular personage; clothed with a powerful agency she raised the Prophet Samuel from his grave, and he appeared before the astonished king, and revealed unto him his future destiny. Who is to tell whether this woman is of God, and a righteous woman—or whether the power she possessed was of the devil, and she a witch as represented by the Bible? It is easy for us to say now, but if we had lived in her day, which of us could have unraveled the mystery? It would have been equally as difficult for us to tell by what spirit the Apostles prophesied, or by what power the Apostles spoke and worked miracles. Who could have told whether the power of Simon, the sorcerer, was of God or of the devil? (History of the Church 4:571.)

Joseph goes on to say that evaluating new possible truth by comparing it to some doctrinal creed, or the status quo of what the individual currently believes, is “preposterous folly,” “sheer ignorance,” and “madness”:

“Try the spirits,” but what by? Are we to try them by the creeds of men? What preposterous folly—what sheer ignorance—what madness! Try the motions and actions of an eternal being (for I contend that all spirits are such) by a thing that was conceived in ignorance, and brought forth in folly—a cobweb of yesterday! Angels would hide their faces, and devils would be ashamed and insulted... (History of the Church 4:572.)

Note that it is quite common in modern Mormonism to measure new truth against some creed such as a quote from an authority, a citation from the current handbook, a reference to a cultural norm, or an appeal to the “Articles of Faith.”³ None of these items, according to Joseph, ought to be used as a measuring stick. In fact, he says, even the scriptures are questionable because all the different sects cite the same volume of scripture to support their opposing view.

New truth cannot be evaluated through the lens of the current beliefs of an individual. Candidate truth can only be evaluated through individual revelation from God. For example, Joseph said the devil has an “angelic form, [a] sanctified look and gesture,” and that he even feigns “zeal...for the glory of God, together with the prophetic spirit, the gracious influence, the godly appearance, and the holy garb,” and that these would cause most who are judging of themselves to assume he was a heavenly messenger.

A man must have the discerning of spirits before he can drag into daylight this hellish influence and unfold it unto the world in all its soul-destroying, diabolical, and horrid colors; (History of the Church 4:573.)

Most people would assume that any angelic messenger appearing with grace, godly appearance, and holy garb, would be a veritable heavenly angel. But they would be wrong. A man’s eyes, experience, and preconceived notions can certainly lead him just as astray in ascertaining truth in any other case as it could in determining whether the devil is a heavenly messenger.

Jesus taught, “Judge not according to your traditions, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24, JST.) It is not the false traditions of our fallen flesh that will teach us the truth of all things, but the Holy Ghost (see Moroni 10:5).

Now, if the only way to identify truth is to ask God, why does God view rational argument as so important in teaching that he revealed a commandment to describe it? In other words, if all that can be done to identify truth is to ask God, why bother doing anything but dictating a principle and ending with an invitation to pray? First, as any missionary who has tried the tactic knows, most people will not actually pray. Why would they, when they don’t believe what you are saying could ever be true? Second, even if they pray, their preconception of the falsehood of what you are saying will make it impossible to exercise real intent. Real intent is the belief that what is being prayed about is possible and the individual is willing to act on it if told it is true. Moroni explains that God will not answer prayers that are not offered with real intent: “And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such.” (Moroni 7:9.) Lastly, even if an individual is able to marshal real intent, the more an individual clings to his preconceived notions, the more likely he is to conflate his own ideas with revelation from the Spirit. After all, discerning the Spirit is difficult. As Joseph stated, great care must be taken to ensure that the response an individual believes comes from God is actually from God,

...for nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the Spirit of God. Thousands have felt the influence of its terrible power and baneful effects. Long pilgrimages have been undertaken, penances endured, and pain, misery and ruin have followed in their train; nations have been convulsed, kingdoms overthrown, provinces laid waste, and blood, carnage and desolation are habiliments in which it has been clothed....without a divine communication they must remain in ignorance. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 4:571-581.)

Without gospel teaching in the form described by God in D&C 121, a person will not be equipped to evaluate candidate truth with unbiased real intent, and therefore will not be able to obtain revelation from God on whether or not it is true.

From this brief overview, we can distill a few takeaways:

1. Truth cannot be ascertained except through the Holy Ghost.

To evaluate truth, a man must pray with real intent.

Real intent cannot be achieved without the individual considering that the candidate truth to be evaluated could possibly be true, and having faith that if it is true, they will reconcile their lives to it.

For these reasons, God commands gospel teaching to take the form of providing a rational argument with the qualities given in D&C 121.

Even when truth is prayed about with real intent, it requires mature discernment to distinguish between the Spirit of God and other conflicting sources, such as one’s emotions.

In context of the foregoing, it should be clear that teaching truth requires a rationally supported argument.

The Lord has said, on more than one occasion, “let us reason together, that ye may understand;” (D&C 50:10, see also Isaiah 1:18.) To reason is to consider logical arguments with the intent of coming to a conclusion. In order to be rational, the conclusion must reconcile all addressed evidences. Reasoning is a two-way process. The teacher can expect protests from the student, and must be prepared to respond to every rational reason the student might have to disbelieve the teacher’s message.

What does this look like in practice? We have a wonderful example of the Lord's persuasion of Nephi, who was commanded to slay Laban:

And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him. And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property. And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands; Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief. And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise. Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law. And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass. And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments. Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword. (1 Nephi 4:10-18.)

The exchange between God and Nephi is notable. It is a two-way conversation. God welcomes challenges to what he commands. He invites them. He is prepared to make counterarguments or, in some cases, to cede his ground.⁴ As God is, we must also “...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.” (1 Peter 3:15.)

It is not enough to be in the right. A true messenger must be able to deliver his message skillfully enough that it stands as a witness, beyond reproach. A true messenger must ensure that, should the message be rejected, it is not due to the fault of the messenger. Providing a reason for what you posit is not an abstract activity. A skillful teacher must ground each teaching attempt in the context of the hearer. Jesus showed ample examples of this skill during his mortal ministry. Perhaps it is best summed up by Paul’s description:

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake. (1 Corinthians 9:20-23.)

By grounding his argument in the context of the beliefs of his audience, Paul was able to anticipate and address the concerns his audience would express that prevented them from believing his message could be true. This required Paul to know his audience. Ideally, this always consists of a two-way exchange. In practice this is not always possible, and gospel teachers have to anticipate—hopefully with the guidance of discernment through the Holy Ghost—what concerns their audiences have.

While new truth will sometimes be compatible with that which is already understood, it frequently opposes the extant beliefs of the hearer. In this case, before new truth is expounded, contrary false tradition must be addressed. Without incompatible ideas in the mind of the receiver, teaching the gospel would be easy and comfortable. However, because they almost always exist, preaching the gospel almost always consists primarily in disabusing the recipient of false tradition. This is both difficult and unpleasant. The prominent reticence towards direct confrontation with ideas comes at a great loss. Without uprooting false tradition, the individual’s ability to have faith on the Lord unto repentance is greatly limited.

And behold, ye do know of yourselves, for ye have witnessed it, that as many of them as are brought to the knowledge of the truth, and to know of the wicked and abominable traditions of their fathers, and are led to believe the holy scriptures, yea, the prophecies of the holy prophets, which are written, which leadeth them to faith on the Lord, and unto repentance, which faith and repentance bringeth a change of heart unto them— (Helaman 15:7.)

This scripture does not overstate the importance of helping people (including yourself) realize that many of their preconceived notions are wicked and abominable. As the scripture states, false traditions prevent belief in the scriptures, belief in the prophecies of the prophets, faith in God, and repentance. It is not enough to skip over the false traditions people hold. False traditions will damn anyone who holds them. There are not other, more readily acceptable gospel truths that can be taught in hopes that the false traditions will work themselves out.

How can one directly address false tradition in the beliefs of others? God has commanded us not to contend with each other:

For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. (3 Nephi 11:29.)

Yet, not all argument is contention. The word “argue” sometimes connotes anger and disrespect, and not just in modern context. Lehi explained to Laman and Lemuel that they were incorrect in assuming that Nephi's arguments towards them were motivated by anger:

And I exceedingly fear and tremble because of you, lest he shall suffer again; for behold, ye have accused him that he sought power and authority over you; but I know that he hath not sought for power nor authority over you, but he hath sought the glory of God, and your own eternal welfare. And ye have murmured because he hath been plain unto you. Ye say that he hath used sharpness; ye say that he hath been angry with you; but behold, his sharpness was the sharpness of the power of the word of God, which was in him; and that which ye call anger was the truth, according to that which is in God, which he could not restrain, manifesting boldly concerning your iniquities. And it must needs be that the power of God must be with him, even unto his commanding you that ye must obey. But behold, it was not he, but it was the Spirit of the Lord which was in him, which opened his mouth to utterance that he could not shut it. (2 Nephi 1:25-27.)

Arguments, then, are not contentious by definition, but only when they are motivated by anger. Even here, we have to separate the subtle difference between anger and “sharpness.” Arguing truth for the purpose of persuasion can include sharpness (D&C 121:43). In fact, Jesus frequently employed sharpness. In one typical example, he said:

And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you. But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them. Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. (Luke 11:39-48.)

How would you react if someone called you a fool, full of wickedness, a hypocrite, and a murderer? Would you consider that contention? Yet, Jesus’ example shows it is not. While it is true that Jesus was gentle with the meek, he was also very sharp with the prideful. Joseph Smith said,

“I have not the least idea, if Christ should come to the earth and preach such rough things as He preached to the Jews, but that this generation would reject Him for being so rough.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:423–25.)

Jesus is the perfect example to follow. You can't emulate Jesus without arguing and, at times, with sharpness. Sharpness is often the only way to crack through false tradition, an ideological film that is almost always based on an inherited position (by definition, one not based on reasoning or evidences, but an emotive connection). It is very difficult to reason with someone who is arguing from an emotive position.

The definition of argue is to give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view. When argument is used in the literal sense of the word, the intrinsic motivation will always be persuasion. Argue is the best word to describe how one persuades: producing evidence; reasoning. In contrast, to contend means to strive in order to prove one's position is correct; to defend one's position in order to preserve it, or to oppose. All of these senses have at their heart the intent to remain in one's former position—not, as in the case of argument or debate, to seek out truth, even if it means letting go of one's former position. Contention, then, is not the presence of argument, but the lack thereof, where an individual refuses to give or receive reasons supporting a position.

Contention is about who is right, whereas debate is about what is right. Two persons who are unwilling to change their current position are unable to argue—unable to present evidence to determine what is right, they must take turns asserting who is right. They can only contend with one another.

Contention is enmity: the state or feeling of being actively opposed or hostile to someone or something. It is a feeling, not a position informed by reasoning or evidences. It is a non-neutral, non-objective, emotional, irrational practice. It is a reaction against a position rather than a defense against the evidences or reasons behind that position.

Persuasive argument, as instructed in D&C 121, should consist in pure knowledge, that is, true facts. A person should be able to expound a position using scripture and, as Jesus did, common sense.⁵ Persuasive argument ought not to employ guile. Guile is sly craftiness. It is dishonest— not a lie, but an attempt to distract rational reasoning by distraction and device that draws attention away from a simple analysis of the issue at hand. There is a long list of these devices (called logical fallacies) that everyone interested in truth should be aware of. Among them are appeal to authority, appeal to common practice and appeal to tradition. None of these devices ought to be considered when evaluating truth. However, let’s address one example of guile in detail due to the frequency of its use: ad hominem.

An ad hominem is when someone dismisses a group of evidences or reasons because of their impression of the person who is giving the evidences or reasons. By labeling the person as incapable of possessing truth, they can be ignored without objective consideration of their evidences or reasons. Ad hominem is libel by label—an avoidance of the issue via an upfront dismissal of the person connected to the issue. In the church, this is done by labeling the person an apostate. For example, Michael Quinn was perhaps the greatest LDS historian of all time at the time of his excommunication. A professor of history at Brigham Young University, he had a lifetime of church service under his belt, was an associate and advocate of the brethren and close friend of Spencer W. Kimball who, in a blessing, promised him he would one day be an apostle. Yet, his two volume history on the church is openly dismissed as inadmissible, despite the fact that that the books are so well documented that around half of the text consists of footnotes to minutes of the meetings of the Quorum of the Twelve, First Presidency minutes, journals, and other official sources. Ironically, due to Quinn’s access to and diligence in studying those unavailable sources, his volumes continue to be the best source for their content. By ignoring Quinn due to his excommunication, an individual can completely avoid having to present evidence suggesting a position alternative to what Quinn's historical sources suggest without the burden of providing a rational argument for doing so.

For some reason, it is particularly easy to derail a modern Mormon from honest inquiry by employing ad hominem. It ought to be more difficult. After all, no one suggests that Ghandi’s movement was not as beautiful as it was effective, despite the fact that he was racist against blacks. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—whose entire program of peaceful resistance was borrowed from Ghandi—could evaluate the efficacy of Ghandi’s precepts on peaceful protests independently from Ghandi’s racism. Many, in turn, see the value of Dr. King’s teachings on civil rights despite his serial adultery. God holds us accountable to our acceptance of truth regardless of whether or not it is provided by an imperfect messenger.

Some may seek to avoid opportunities to argue truth with others. It is definitely difficult and unpleasant. Joseph described it as trying to split hemlock knots with a wedge made of corn bread and a pumpkin for a sledge hammer.⁶ However, it is not optional for a disciple of Christ who has covenanted “to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places” (Mosiah 18:9). Beyond an obligatory condition of the covenant, refraining from sharing truth brings penalties upon one's head:

When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul....Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul. (Ezekiel 3:18-19,21.)

Though fear can be a motivator, the better reason for willingly attempting to help another overcome false tradition is love. Jesus taught that the greatest demonstration of love is to give one’s life for another, suggesting that love can be measured by what one is willing to sacrifice for the benefit of another.