Discipl[in]e and Resolve
Posted by Wade on December 31st, 2005
I have come to believe that the virtue of discipline greatly exceeds the virtue of “natural” intelligence, or what most call “smartness”. I know this from personal experience and am also convinced by the discoveries and statements of certain authorities.
To begin, the great Brigham Young said, “It is evident that many who understand the truth do not govern themselves by it; consequently, no matter how true and beautiful truth is, you have to take the passions of the people and mould them to the law of God. Do you think that people will obey the truth because it is true unless they love it? No, they will not.” (JD 7, [June 27:1848].) Thus, it does not seem to matter whether a person knows truth; what really matters is whether a person can live the truth (related to this, it is interesting to consider how much truth Satan knows - considering he was one in authority before the creation).
Also, I am thoroughly convinced that academic and worldy achievement has virtually nothing to do with intelligence! I personally know many people in the top 10% of my class in law school and I also know some of them have very little “common sense” or “smartness” as compared to many of the other 200 members of the class. Moreover, I am ranked in the top of my class and know for a fact that there are many students below me in rank who are much smarter than me. So, how can it be that I and others who are comparatively less intelligent consistently out-perform the rest of the class? The answer in one word: Discipline.
A recent study has revealed that self-discipline correlates to scholastic achievement much greater than a student’s I.Q. A good summary of this study can be found here. Therefore, scientific evidence seems to confirm my experience at law school. There is a strong correlation between hours spent studying and performance: those in the top of the class study far more than those below them (of course there are exceptions on both sides, but I am convinced of this as a general rule).
So, once this truth is recognized, the issue is what are we to do about it and how does it relate to our lives? Going back to President Young, it does no good to know that discipline will enable us to be successful unless we can actually discipline ourselves to take action. This relates directly to the issue of New Year’s Resolutions. It has become the norm in society that most people at the beginning of every year resolve to do something different to better themselves (most common is to eat better and begin exercising), but these resolutions are not followed through with. We know we should change ourselves and make the conscious decision to do so, but we lack the discipline to actually do it.
Thus, it is my view that the greatness (virtue) of a person lies in his ability to discipline himself, i.e. his ability to “bridle his passions” (Alma 38:12) and change his natural or fallen inclinations into spiritual inclinations. It is interesting to note that the words discipline and disciple are derived from the same Latin root word disciplina - which means to learn from a teacher (pupil). But it is also interesting to note that most people associate the word discipline with pain and thus think of it as negative.
I would like to open up for discussion the issue of discipline and its necessity for success in both temporal and spiritual life and thus the obtaining of happiness. Why do we fail in disciplining ourselves and what can we do to change? What does discipline mean to you? What does it mean to be a disciple? Do you buy my arguments above? If so, or if not, why? Have you made new year’s resolutions? What are they? What can we do to ensure we follow through with them?
I’m formulating a response but my job keeps getting in the way
Comment # 1 left by Ryan on January 3rd, 2006
Why do we fail in disciplining ourselves and what can we do to change?
I have a suggestion for why we fail, but am unsure as to whether my opinion will fly in the face of the discipline definition you speak of.
I think we fail because we almost invariably attempt to “muscle it out”. Let’s take an example:
Say I have an addiction to X sin. I know that I must quit so as of Jan. 01, 200- I decide that from here on out I will no longer engage in X. So for about 2 weeks, I perfectly abstain. Then I slip up, once. I get over it and muscle it out for another week or two. Then all hell breaks loose and I give up completely. Lack Of Discipline right?! Nope. Just lack of planning.
So, let’s try again. This time I find every way possible to eliminate the temptation while I am still motivated to overcome the problem. Over time, I will probably become accustomed to a life without sin X because it is unavailable and ta-dah! I’m done.
Here’s the catch: Am I really showing discipline if I just eliminate the temptation instead of conditioning myself to resist? Am I setting myself up for failure the next time I find myself faced with the temptation? Is strategic planning for your improvement a display of discipline or a lack thereof?
Comment # 2 left by Ryan on January 3rd, 2006
“Now sanctification means, not only the purifying of the heart by prayer,and by acts of obedience to God, but it means also to purify a people, and purge from their midst that which is evil” (emphasis added by me to more fully show that I am right).
–Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses–
Comment # 3 left by Ryan on January 3rd, 2006
You (or Brigham rather) says: Sanctification is the purging from their midst that which is evil.
I don’t disagree with this statement at all - in fact it is just a simple way of saying that everyone must rid themselves of evil. Yet, I think the issue may be a bit more complicated than you might think. While I don’t disagree with your belief that one must eliminate the temptation, I think that eradicating temptation has more to do with educating our desires than it does with setting up barriers to choosing to act sinfully.
I don’t think Brigham meant that by banning saloons and the sale of liquor in SLC everyone tempted to imbibe will eventually lose that temptation (although they will ipso facto be able to be disciplined for as long as no alcohol exists).
Those inclined to imbibe will satisfy the urge by chewing tobacco etc.
Thus, I think Brigham may have meant that one must purge evil from within the individual (But, setting up the barriers may be a step in the process). In fact, he said in another discourse that it is the duty of all people to refine themselves to the point that they lose the desire for sin so that they will no longer pass the seeds of sin to their posterity in conception (See Moses 6:55).
Comment # 4 left by Wade on January 3rd, 2006
Ryan:
Will you please provide the citation for that quote from B.Y.? I’m interested in reading the discourse in context!
Also, if God is Omnipresent, (which I believe He is because the scriptures say so), then isn’t evil ever present before him? If this be the case, then I think your theory doesn’t quite work does it? He sees all evil but is not tempted by it because He has perfectly educated His desires, appetites, and passions.
Comment # 5 left by Wade on January 3rd, 2006
d’oh! It jacked up my link
http://www.helpingmormons.org/TLC_Manti/RefLibraryFolder/JournalOfDiscourses/Vol%2001/refJDvol1-13.html
Comment # 6 left by Ryan on January 4th, 2006
Journal of Discourses
Comment # 7 left by Ryan on January 4th, 2006
I agree with your statements in general. What I am asking (in line with your post) is, is it an exercise of self-discipline to conscientiously eliminate existing temptations of whatever carnal aspects of your nature that you find it nigh impossible to overcome or are you just hiding from what you will eventually have to face and learn to despise?
Comment # 8 left by Ryan on January 4th, 2006
“is it an exercise of self-discipline to conscientiously eliminate existing temptations…?”
This is a good question and the answer I think depends on how you define eliminate. If eliminate means avoiding it because of the fear of being ensnared by it and thereby discovered in one’s sin, then I think the carnality will continue to tempt the person and the person will continue to “dabble” in the sin. However, if one avoids it because one despises it already, or despises it because of the effects on him, then I think it is discipline.
On second thought, I think maybe both are discipline in both cases, but the later is the only form that will produce lasting results.
Thus, the quesiton is: how does one gain the ability to shun the sin due to his hatred of it? It seems like kind of a paradox. It is a temptation because of the love of it, if hatred were possessed for it, then it would no longer be a temptation???
Comment # 9 left by Wade on January 4th, 2006
This is where I part ways with you on the subject… that is, I would suggest that discipline, as I understand it, is better displayed by determining to avoid something you love. I am not showing any self-discipline by not gambling when we stay in Las Vegas because I absolutely loathe the idea of sitting at a slot machine with all the other pathetic souls and dumping my money into a machine (I will refrain from criticizing the particulars of every form of gambling, slot machines are just the worst in my opinion). Where I really have to show discipline is when I go to TGI Fridays and look at their appetizers, all of which (exception: Buffalo Wings) I absolutely adore as if they were my own children. Not ordering all 12 appetizer dishes is where my self-discipine says (Hey bud, your six-pack abs didn’t come from spinach artichoke dip).
I am also contending that it is a display of discipline to say, “Forget it! every freakin’ time I go to TGI Fridays I end up ordering 6 appetizers. I’m never going again.” This time my form of discipline is strategically planning to avoid the temptation, of course I don’t want to stop going to TGIF’s but I know that it’s my only chance. So it’s just discipline at a different time.
Comment # 10 left by Ryan on January 5th, 2006
You talk about sin either being completely removed from you, or to keep it present and just lose the desire for it… at least that what I have got out some of these posts.. In your opinions how does that relate with those who are forced to be humble VS those who choose it. Both are good, but certainly one is better in the eyes of God… Now the questions becomes which one is it.
Comment # 11 left by Eric on January 6th, 2006
This is a great subject.
“For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil there is one striking at the root” (Henry David Thoreau)
This subject strikes at the root.
I think that the reason we do not hold and keep our resolutions (made at the new year or not) is that we start at the wrong place or step. There is a natural order to everything. It started with the creation of the world. Matter was organized and had to be before vegetation was placed on it. Vegetation had to be on the earth before animals could live on the earth. Likewise a child must learn to walk before it can run and calculus just cannot be done before you have a understanding of algebra. I believe that overcoming sin follows much the same pattern. If someone wants to overcome the effects of pornography; they may set resolutions to stop participating in that sin over and over again and fail over and over again. That sin is one that is very hard to overcome. How can someone that cannot get out of bed in the morning when the alarm goes off or someone that cannot help but gorge himself at every meal be expected to have such control over his or her body to abstain from a much more powerful addiction? We must work on creating the earth before we can place anything on it.
I think likewise a person must excises, much like a muscle, self-control or self-discipline before some things can totally be mastered.
I love the story in the scriptures of the temptations of Christ. Even the timing of the temptations is interesting. After Christ experienced baptism and the voice of god declaring that he was a son of God in whom God was well pleased and after fasting and being in a state of weakness, Satan decides (or is allowed) to tempt Christ. The temptations come in an interesting order as well. The first is of the appetite. The Second is of knowledge or the perception of reality, and the third is of aspiration. I believe likewise we are tempted in such an order. It is interesting the order of the covenants that we make in the Temple as well. I think we must start at a place that we can be successful. Success begets success and a person with victories over themselves is on his way to many more.
Comment # 12 left by B. Cotter on January 6th, 2006
Wade
He sees all evil but is not tempted by it
Please support this claim with authority
Why wouldn’t He be? The scriptures make clear that there is nothing sinful about being tempted. This is evidenced by the story that Blaine mentioned as well as several claims made by the Savior in Gethsemane yet we know that Christ was “without spot”
Eric
Both are good, but certainly one is better in the eyes of God…
I take your comparison to mean that it is better to train yourself to not feel tempted by evil than to feel tempted and find ways to resist it. I might suggest to the contrary that in fact there is absolutely no wrong done in feeling temptation.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with either Wade or Eric’s claims claim I can just think of scriptures that might refute them and in the spirit of this Blog, would like to see more evidence to support their stance.
Comment # 13 left by Ryan on January 6th, 2006
“I think we must start at a place that we can be successful.”
I agree here! It is impossible to overcome one’s sinfullness in one day! After all, we have this probationary period (which typically lasts many years) for us to learn how to control ourselves, and then to act.
Also, I think if a person has a hard time getting himself out of bed when his alarm goes off (and this describes me lately) will have a hard time tackling the bigger issues/sins in life.
So, as I take it, Blaine is suggesting to start at the beginning. Does this mean disciplining the self at the “easiest” levels, i.e. conciously not saying words or remarks that are superfluous, mean, or wrong?
I tend to agree with Blaine here. I think one has to gain control over at least something in life in order to start gaining control over all of life. As for me, I’ve made the resolution to get out of bed by 6 a.m. every morning (5:30 when school starts next week) and run a mile, read the Book of Mormon, and then go about my day’s work. So far I’ve run the mile every day, but getting out of bed needs a little work.
Comment # 14 left by Wade on January 6th, 2006
“Wade
He sees all evil but is not tempted by it
Please support this claim with authority
Why wouldn’t He be?”
Good point Ryan! I’m assuming you don’t need support for the statement that god is omnipresent and that your’re refering to the temptation part. But, wasn’t Christ tempted only because of his “flesh” - in other words, would Christ have been tempted if Mary was not a fallen mother? Thus, if God is an exalted man, can he be tempted by the evil that tempts me? It’s a good question and one that I don’t have the time to research right now…
Comment # 15 left by Wade on January 6th, 2006
“is it an exercise of self-discipline to conscientiously eliminate existing temptations…?”
I was thinking about this question yesterday and how it relates to societies. In Plato’s Repbulic, Socrates advocates to censor certain modes of music, writing, and images etc. The reason for doing this is to train the children who grow up in this hypothetical “perfect state” to desire things that will increase their rational appetites and not be dependants hooked on their appetites for things of the body.
So, another question to add to our discussion is whether it is good to censor evil in societies? Personally, I think censorship is a very good thing, but only if done by the right people (of course this is the impossibility in current life). But, on the other hand, if censorship prevents people from ever having to face the evils of appetite, won’t they be destined to fall once they do?
I don’t think so.
Here’s why. If a person is isolated from evil (as Ryan puts it: the evils have been eliminated) then they are trained in goodness and their souls become strong in the ways of rightness. This is why most believe it is wrong to have children be exposed to a lot of violence and illicit material when they are young - because their souls will be conditioned to it. If they are innocent and trained in goodness for a long time, when they are finally exposed to evil, they are repulsed by it and want to avoid it. Isn’t this the whole reason for waiting to baptize children until they are 8? It is the duty of the parents to raise them to recognize goodness and that evil does exist but to shun it. Thus, the purpose of censorship is to train the self in the ways of goodness before being exposed to evil, and thus when the day comes evil will be shunned because discipline is engrained?
I don’t know if I’m articulating my thoughts well enough? This may sound crazy? But if my point is crazy, then why should society censor anything at all, and why don’t we just expose everyone to everything?
Comment # 16 left by Wade on January 6th, 2006
I guess what I’m trying to say is that if a person is trained in the ways of what is called delayed gratification (Defined as enduring momentary “pain” or discomfort to obtain lasting “pleasure” or happiness - as opposed to experiencing momentary “pleasure” or happiness to obtain lasting “pain” or discomfort), before the person is faced with the larger problems of life, that person will be able to solve or resolve these problems/issues because, in Blaine’s words: the earth will be created so things can be placed on it.
Comment # 17 left by Wade on January 6th, 2006
Thus, censorship - or what Ryan is calling the elimination of temptation/sin - is important to gaining discipline!?
Comment # 18 left by Wade on January 6th, 2006
I would like comment on Wade’s topic but I feel that at this point nothing more can be said about discipline and resolve. After reading the quote Wade used from Brigham a few times I see a slightly different direction for the whole truth issue in general. He talks about molding our passions to Gods law. When our passions drive us to seek and live truth we do it, why? I think that people by nature respond to pain more than any other feeling they experience. To understand this I think it is important to look at our buying habits. For example, why do you purchase a name brand shoe over a no name brand? At some point the decision was made in our minds that the brand name was better, and that if we purchase the no name brand shoe we will be less of an individual. It is this pain that drives our decisions, if you do not believe me try buying and wearing a K-Mart brand shoe. I know some of you do not care about shoes but apply this scenario to any major purchase and you will likely feel pain if you do not get the name brand whatever. For us to have a passion for truth the truth must become status quo in our minds in order for us to seek after it with passion. When we establish the truth in our minds as a, “name brand”, it become to painful for us to live any other way. Like that new laptop or a Ford Escort, we will sacrifice whatever it takes to get what we truly desire. Bottom line is the pain of living without what we want will drive us to achieve our desires. Please note that the above statements are my opinion and I have only cited myself.
BHT vol. 1
Bryan H.
Comment # 19 left by Bryan H. on January 10th, 2006
For us to have a passion for truth the truth must become status quo in our minds…”
Interesting! I agree with your idea that our actions for the most part are guided by the desire to avoid pain. Yet, being as you say, an “individual” by purchasing the status quo seems to be kind of an oxy-moron. Individuality I think is defined as being unique, and buying the status quo is following the herd.
Also, being accepted in society is all about comparing self with others - which I think is a tendancy that we all have, but one that is wrong. So, the “rightness” of the status quo is difficult to obtain in the world. Thus, seeking truth I don’t think will EVER be the status quo.
Comment # 20 left by Wade on January 10th, 2006
But, like you said, the “status quo in our minds” is possible and an interesting way to look at the subject of discipline.
Comment # 21 left by Wade on January 10th, 2006