Here are four works of art. I’ll let Gary C. Barton of the BYU college of Fine Arts describe them:

“The first work was executed in blue-black ink on paper and is entitled Six Persimmons. It was painted by the Chinese monk Mu Qi (Chi) in the thirteenth century. Mu Qi was a Zen monk who lived during the Song dynasty and worked toward a highly reduced form of brush painting. It is said that Zen Buddhism—a school of thought that highly valued meditation as an avenue for enlightenment—was the most stripped-down form of Buddhism and greatly influenced the artist’s views. This painting became famous for its skilled and minimal brushstrokes and its painterly simplicity and was considered an unprecedented artistic innovation.

 

 

 

 

 

“The second work is a seventeenth-century Italian baroque watercolor painting on parchment entitled A Bowl with Peaches and Plums. In the baroque period, naturalistic and highly detailed painting flourished, and still-life painting was often symbolic, teaching moral lessons. This work is by the artist Giovanna Garzoni. The fact that Garzoni was a very successful female artist made her quite unusual for her time. She was also one of the first women to focus on still-life painting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The third work is by the French artist Paul Cézanne. It is an oil painting entitled Ginger Pot with Pomegranate and Pears and was completed sometime around 1890. Cézanne was considered a Postimpressionist and was one of the most important painters of the second half of the nineteenth century. His brushwork, planes of color, and explorations of geometric simplicity laid the foundation for the transition from nineteenth-century artistic ideas to a new and very different twentieth-century art world.

 

 

 

 

 

“The fourth and final work is an oil painting entitled Still Life Portuguese. It was painted in 1917 by Robert Delaunay, a French artist who with his artist wife, Sonia, and others cofounded the Cubist-influenced art movement called Orphism, which emphasized the optical characteristics of bright and bold colors. Delaunay played a key role in establishing abstraction as a stylistic expression and was one of the earliest nonrepresentational painters.” (Gary C. Barton, “The Light Through the Dark Glass” http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2129 retrieved 6/11/2014)

 

 

 

 

Now I ask you this question:

Which painting is the True Painting?

Here we have 4 very different still-life paintings of fruit. Surely they can’t all be true. There must be one of them that is the capital-T “True” painting. Right?

Of course, insisting on one of these paintings as being More True than the others is absurdity. Yet in the Gospel framework, we often find ourselves comparing the ideals of others to our own and judging them to be false, wrong, incorrect, mistaken, etc. When sharing our perspectives on our common and uncommon beliefs, we often discover, much to our surprise, that people who we respect have different interpretations than ourselves. It is tempting to think that they must be wrong, or that perhaps they haven’t seen the full picture. When in reality, we are instead being granted precious access to the cherished perspective of another – a perspective which is just as valid, just as important, and possibly even more accurate than our own.

Each of these artists was brought up in different circumstances, in different times, in different cultures. Each examined the same basic idea and created beautiful, but totally unique perspectives on that concept. Each work of art is a True representation, and offers new insight to the greater Truth that inspired it.

Elder Uchtdorf talked about different Truths by sharing a the story of The Blind Men and the Elephant:

“Well over one hundred years ago, an American poet put to rhyme an ancient parable. The first verse of the poem speaks about:

“Six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

“In the poem each of the six travelers takes hold of a different part of the elephant and then describes to the others what he has discovered.

“One of the men finds the elephant’s leg and describes it as being round and rough like a tree. Another feels the tusk and describes the elephant as a spear. A third grabs the tail and insists that an elephant is like a rope. A fourth discovers the trunk and insists that the elephant is like a large snake.

“Each is describing truth.

“And because his truth comes from personal experience, each insists that he knows what he knows.

“The poem concludes:

“And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!¹

“We look at this story from a distance and smile. After all, we know what an elephant looks like. We have read about them and watched them on film, and many of us have even seen one with our own eyes. We believe we know the truth of what an elephant is. That someone could make a judgment based on one aspect of truth and apply it to the whole seems absurd or even unbelievable. On the other hand, can’t we recognize ourselves in these six blind men? Have we ever been guilty of the same pattern of thought?

“I suppose the reason this story has remained so popular in so many cultures and over so many years is because of its universal application. The Apostle Paul said that in this world the light is dim and we see only part of the truth as though we are looking “through a glass, darkly.” And yet it seems to be part of our nature as human beings to make assumptions about people, politics, and piety based on our incomplete and often misleading experience.” (Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “What is Truth?” https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/print/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng retrieved 6/11/2014)

As we compare our version of truth with others, it’s tempting to place ourselves in the right, and others in the wrong. But the reality may be that we’re simply seeing the same truth in different ways. Perhaps sometimes it may be that the Lord has given each of us a little different piece of the truth, so that we work together to discover the whole.

Joseph F. Smith said: “We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.”

In respecting the perspectives, the “truth” of others, we must be cautious, though. Elder Oaks has said: “We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God and the right and wrong established by His commandments.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Truth and Tolerance.” http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2036 retrieved 6/11/2014) And he suggests that we must be cautious that as we tolerate the perspective of others, we do not find ourselves falling into moral relativism. That is to say, that while there are many perspectives on truth, there are some perspectives which ARE bad, or add nothing good to our understanding of Truth.

To use our painting analogy, Elder Oaks might be saying that we don’t accept that Degas’ “Dancer on the Stage” is a still-life of fruit under any circumstances.

Now, some people may wonder “if we’re supposed to be tolerant of the perspectives of others, and if they might have some portion of truth, why do we see things like excommunications? Aren’t these people merely they who have different views than the norm? Will I soon face excommunication for my unorthodox views?”

The metaphor of the Art Gallery:

Think of the church as an art gallery. There are as many paintings as there are doctrines, policies, and principles. Now some of them you love, and some you think are terrible. Over time, the curator has been selecting some paintings to be removed, and some to be put in greater prominence, as art galleries do.

But then you show up one day with your own watercolor that you made at home. You love it. It’s the greatest work you’ve ever created. Maybe the curator himself helped you with some advice and encouragement. And lots of your friends have said “Wow, this is good enough to go into the art gallery!”

How do you get it put up in the gallery?

Do you approach the curator and offer it to him? Or do you walk in and try to remove the more offensive piece to replace with your own?

Of course, if you did that, you’d be asked to leave. Perhaps forcibly!

What if you approached the curator with your painting first, and he said “yes, this is good, and I think it does deserve to hang in this gallery.” But he doesn’t change the exhibit. Do you take things into your own hands and start removing other paintings? Again, no. You wait till the curator takes your painting and hangs it where it belongs, when it belongs there.

The issue at hand isn’t the art (meaning the “issues” raised by the members). The issue is whose gallery is it.

The problem is not necessarily with the perspective of the member. As Elder Uchtdorf said, “regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church. Come, join with us!” (Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng retrieved 6/11/2014) Clearly he intends that all perspectives are welcome so long as our goals are for repentance and salvation in Christ.

No, the problem is not the member’s unique perspective of truth. Instead, excommunication results when a member decides that their own perspective of truth must supplant that of the church for all members. When the member says, in effect, “My painting is True. This painting is not.” And they try to put their own painting up in the gallery. It’s not their perspective that’s the problem. It’s their intolerance for the Truth as presented by the church.

Elder Maxwell spoke about this tendency this way: “some murmurers seem to hope to reshape the Church to their liking by virtue of their murmuring. But why would one want to belong to a church that he could remake in his own image, when it is the Lord’s image that we should come to have in our countenances? (See Alma 5:19.)

“The doctrines are His, brothers and sisters, not ours. The power is His to delegate, not ours to manipulate!” (Neal A. Maxwell, “Murmur Not.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/10/murmur-not?lang=eng retrieved 6/11/2014)

Just as we hope that our own individual, cherished perspectives of truth are tolerated by others, we must respect the perspective provided by the Lord through his authorized servants. We know there have been and will be mistakes, but we also know that the Lord is in control. His promises are sure, and someday the full TRUTH will be revealed to us. But it may come line upon line, precept upon precept, and requires us to tolerate mistakes, strange interpretations, and resistance to change. Though we must endure seeing through a glass darkly now, we will someday see Him face to face. Then, on that glorious day, I believe we will not only understand why He did what He did in guiding this church, but we will come to see just how flawed our own perspectives were all along.

Let us be patient and loving with each other, and with our wonderful church. We’ll get there, as long as we can hang on together.

Onward, together.