posted by Curt, on November 7, 2007 01:24 am

This is the first in a line of posts that I'll be adding about ideas/writings that have had a significant impact on the development of my own opinions. I hope they'll be interesting posts and perhaps point the occasional reader to a source that I've found helpful.

One of the many good experiences I've had at BYU Law School is the professional development seminar available to first-year students during their first semester. Some at the law school refer to this (and somewhat derisively) as the "Sunday School" class because it is often LDS focused. I, however, as LDS and a future attorney, found it a very valuable experience. One of the "talks" that we read that I remember most was a BYU Devotional given by Bruce Hafen, probably sometime during the 1980s, entitled "Dealing with Uncertainty."

Elder Hafen's talk is directed at college students, who, he notes, when confronted with (1) the ambiguity and uncertainty of life, and (2) the gap between the real and the ideal often have a difficult time in dealing with it. Elder Hafen's talk is advice to college students who "yearn with nostalgia for simpler, easier times, when things seemed not only more clear but more under [their] control."

Elder Hafen sets out three possible approaches to dealing with uncertainty--the uncertainty about how the principles of the gospel should be applied to "particular situations in our lives," especially those that are "not the subject of detailed discussion in Church manuals or courses of instruction." I'll quote from his talk in setting them out:

Approach 1: focus on the ideal and ignore the reality. These are those who have difficulty reconciling the gospel ideal with reality, and therefore simply ignore reality and live as though everything were the ideal. Elder Hafen's description of those who adopt approach one is amusing and substantially accurate:

For those in this category, the gospel at its best is a firm handshake, an enthusiastic greeting, and a smiley button. Their mission was the best, their ward is the best, and every new day is probably going to be the best day they ever had. . . . They are able to weather many storms that woudl seem formidable to more pessimistic types, though one wonders if they have somehow missed hearing that a storm was going on.

Those in this category eliminate the frustating distance between the real and the ideal by, in effect, . . . cling[ing] to the ideal so single-mindedly that they are able to avoid feeling the pain that would come from facing the truth about themselves, about others, or about the world around them. I suppose it is this category that is so frequently represented in the letters to the editor of the school papers at BYU and Ricks, where such shock is occasionally expressed that some person or some part of the institution has fallen short of perfection and the writer is aghast--"surely not at the Lord's university."

Approach 2: focus on reality and become cynical about the ideal. For this model, Elder Hafen uses law students as his example--not surprising to me after 2 1/2 years of experience :). Those who adopt the second approach confront the gap between the real and the ideal but also becomes victims of that confrontation. While "grappl[ing] with the frustration that comes from facing bravely the uncertainties we encounter" is necessary to develop the spiritual maturity necessary to endure well in the gospel, Elder Hafen warns that this confrontation of the "real" can "be so complete that the iron rod fades into the receding mist and skepticism becomes a guiding philosophy." How about this indictment of law students (yes, even at BYU):

[B]y the time our law students reach their third year of study, it is not uncommon for them to develop such a high tolerance for ambiguity that they are skeptical about everything. Where formerly they felt they had all the answers, but just did not know what the questions were, they now seem to have all the questions but few of the answers.

I find myself wanting to tell our third year law students that those who take too much delight in their finely honed tools of skepticism and dispassionate analysis will limit their effectiveness, in the Church and elsewhere, because they can become too contentious, standoffish, arrogant, and unwilling to commit themselves. . . . The dangers of which I speak are not limited to out relations with others. They can become very personal, prying into our own hearts in unhealthy ways. The ability to acknowledge ambiguity is not a final form of enlightenment. Having admitted to a willingness temporarily to suspend judgment on questions that seem hard to answer, having developed greater tolerance and more patience, our basic posture toward the Church can, if we are not careful, gradually shift from being committed to noncomittal. That is not a healthy posture.

Indeed, in many ways, a Church [member] who moves from a stage of commitment to a stage of being tentative and noncommittal is in a worse position that one who has never experienced a basic commitment. The previously committed person may too easily assume that he has already been through the "positive-mental-attitude" routine and "knows better" now, as he judges things. He may assume that being submissive, meek, obedient, and humble are matters with which he is already familiar, and that he has finally outgrown the need to work very hard at being that way again. Those are the assumptions of a hardened heart.

Elder Hafen warns those who acknowledge the gap between the way things are and the way they ought to be against becoming "so aware of 'reality' that [they become] unresponsive to the whisperings of heaven."

Approach 3: acknowledge the real and pursue the ideal. Those who follow this approach when, confronted with uncertainty or difficulty, acknowledge the reality but give "the Lord and his church the benefit of any doubts that [they] have when [the] case seems too close to call." Elder Hafen uses the LDS hymn Lead, Kindly Light as the example of the third approach:

At level one, people either do not or cannot see that there are both a kindly light and an encircling gloom, or that if there are both, there is no real difference between the two. At level two, the difference is acutely apparent, but one's acceptance of the ambiguity may be so wholeheartedly pessimistic as to say, "Remember that the hour is darkest just before everything goes completely black."

How different are these responses from that calm but honest prayer at level three,

Lead, kindly light
Amid th'encircling gloom;
Lead thou me on . . .

I do not ask to see
The distant scene-
One step enough for me.

The person at level three acknowledges the difficulty or uncertainty and yet still pursues the ideal as best he or she can because of the assurances in their heart that it is both possible and right.

I remember the profound influence that Elder Hafen's words had on me two years ago when I first read them. They taught (and perhaps reminded) me that the principles of the gospel are just that -- principles -- and that the application of principles to the various situations in life is never a certain thing, as much as we may want it to be otherwise. I have since noticed the approaches to uncertainty that Elder Hafen described being played out in real life as members of the church who are certain (or what desperately to be certain) about the truths of the gospel deal with their reconciliation of this certitude with the uncertainty of life. Some abandon the certainty; others attempt to convert all of their own personal approaches to the problems of life into the principles of the gospel.

There are some things I am certain are right, there are others that I'm certain are wrong. But there are a great deal more that I am simply not sure about. I just go ahead and try and figure out the way I think the principles of truth should apply in the situations I'm confronted with and act accordingly. But, perhaps the most valuable thing I've taken away from what Elder Hafen has said is the fact that, in a great many situations, the fact that another feels differently from me is not concrete proof that either he or I have somehow gone astray.

I encourage anyone who actually reads to the end to look for Elder Hafen's talk and read the whole thing. I also appreciate any comments.

posted by Curt Bentley, on October 23, 2007 03:57 pm

The Chief Justice put in a full days work here at BYU today. He spoke at a University Forum in the morning, held a campus-wide question and answer session immediately after that, and then held an hour-long question and answer session with about 1/2 of the BYU Law School from 2:30 - 3:30. That's a big time commitment out of the Chief Justice's schedule, and I'm not sure that many people outside of the law school understood what a big deal it was to have him there.

I attended the forum and the law school Q & A. I was impressed by the Chief Justice's speech and responses to questions, and, surprisingly, was generally impressed by the questions themselves. I have been at too many question and answer session with important speakers where the questions asked devalued the whole experience. At the law school Q & A I thought the questions were ones that prompted some insights about the Chief Justice himself, as well as life on the Court, that one doesn't get from reading opinions or biographies. The only thing I was disappointed in is that there were multiple people who asked the Chief Justice is his policy preferences ever influenced his decisions. One funny moment in the session was his response to that question . . . "do you really expect me to answer yes?" He was adamant that, at least for him, it did not. Indeed, he said that one of things that surprised him most about the federal judiciary was that--despite the academic criticisms of judges as policymakers--all of the judges that he worked with genuinely tried to ensure that the law, rather than their own policy preferences, were enforced.

Another funny moment of the session came in his response to the increasing length of judicial opinions: that he thought it was a problem, but one that he didn't contribute to (he later tempered this assertion). Everyone had a good laugh at that. I thought that the most interesting theme in his responses, however, was concern (although it was always expressed in jest) that cynical law professors and other academics were poisoning law students' (and others) attitudes toward the federal judiciary. While he urged us not to be naive in thinking that a judge's policy views never impacted their outlook and opinion on the law, he also counseled against subscribing to the academic view that a judge's efforts at neutrality are nothing more than a pretense and that the Supreme Court is nothing more than a political institution. Perhaps the Chief Justice's concern was that the academic critiques, coupled with increasing political polarization and pressure, might become a self-fulfilling prophecy within the next generation: if future judges believe that the federal judiciary is only a place where the policy preferences are enforced on society, than that's how they will treat it. If that happens, then, according to the Chief Justice, the great American innovation--judicial review--will be effectively lost.

All in all, the Chief Justice was a great ambassador for the Supreme Court and it made for a very interesting day to listen to him.

Oh, and I did ask a question during the question and answer period. My question dealt with the Chief Justice's attitude toward the increased media coverage of the Court . . . it was an unremarkable question and produced a rather unremarkable answer . . . but I tried!

posted by curt, on October 10, 2007 12:12 am

Well, I just finished a research memo for a Professor here at the law school. I'm not sure that he meant it to take as long as it did, but I've worked pretty solidly on it for the last couple days. I've had about a total of 4 waking hours that haven't been devoted to it. It's such a complex memo, I'm not even sure how good it is. Still, it's a nice feeling to have it done, and I know that I've done my best.

Now, it's off to bed for me. Goodnight.

posted by Curt, on September 23, 2007 01:56 am

Well, it was a great win for BYU today. Who can figure out the MWC? I have already seen a couple of funny postings floating around the internet about Utah beating UCLA who was beat by Air Force who was beat by BYU who lost to UCLA . . . can anyone make any sense of all this? Perhaps not, but it should make for another entertaining season.