Carl Jung
Re: Carl Jung
Sorry we didn't get to talk more yesterday, James and Margaret. I didn't know you'd be leaving so soon, but at least we got to see you for a little while (hope work wasn't too crazy). I guess we can resume the discussion on here, which also allows others to participate. We'd love to hear from you when you get some time.
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: Carl Jung
Steve, I understand that you feel concerned for us, and that the big picture means something to you. I also appreciate that you consider yourself a science guy. Bill Nye actually came to UVU last week. Super cool. In answer to your question, I study Jung (among other theorists) because his contributions, especially the ideas of the psychological types, are relevant academic pursuits.
Edward, I love Mosiah 3:19. I agree with just about all you said about it, too.
Ann, I appreciate the ability to better understand those around me. I also enjoy learning about communication patterns.
One thing that I love about this family is its desire to seek out truth, wherever it may be found, and its desire to be free to do so, and to talk openly with one another about our concerns. I also love how much love and concern there is for each family member’s spiritual welfare.
It is sometimes the case that among the members of the Church especially (including myself) and people all over the earth generally there is an unwarranted fear of the ideas and beliefs of others. This fear results in shunning those we ought to embrace, and rejecting truth because it is contrary to our traditions, biases, and prejudices—the “traditions of our fathers”—or rejecting truth because it merely appears to be contrary to those traditions, or rejecting truth because it comes from an unfamiliar source, or because someone who makes us uncomfortable or who has not led a perfect life presents the idea. President Joseph Smith said, “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth. Let it come from where it may.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 313.)
We ask others to do the same—to accept the good and leave the bad. President George Albert Smith said, “Keep all the good that you have, and let us bring to you more good, in order that you may be happier and in order that you may be prepared to enter into the presence of our Heavenly Father” ( Sharing the Gospel with Others, 12–13). We are called to seek out truth wherever it may be found, from any source, and to gather it all together. President Brigham Young emphasizes this: “All truth is worthy and worth possessing” (Brigham Young JD 19:39). But where ought we to look? “Search after truth in all good books, and learn the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God, and put them together and you will be able to benefit yourselves” (Brigham Young JD 12:313). It is interesting to note that President Young says that in addition to “the wisdom of God” we ought not merely study “wisdom of the world,” but learn it. President Joseph Smith: “Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true ‘Mormons’” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 316). President Smith tells us that Mormons are not the only ones with truth. President Young again: “’Mormonism’ so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to ‘Mormonism.’ The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this church. As for their morality many of them are morally just as good as we are. All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this church and kingdom” (Journal of Discourses 11:375). President Young emphasizes that truth may come not only from the Christian world, but also from infidels of all stripes! President Young again: “It was the occupation of Jesus Christ and his Apostles to propagate the Gospel of salvation and the principles of eternal life to the world, and it is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their elder brother being at their head,) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation . . . “ (JD 7:283). President Joseph Smith: “I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed” (Joseph Smith Jr. Discourse to Saints, June 1844; DHC 6:477). I think we all share President Smith’s love of truth. President Smith:
“I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way” (Joseph Smith TPJS p. 313). I’m glad we’re all willing to reason together as a family, and not simply dismiss things without studying them for ourselves.
I have just a few more quotes I’d like to share. But in connection with the above they seem to emphasize this point: that there is truth all over the world, amongst all parties, sects, academic disciplines, and theorists, and that our job, as Mormons, is to sift through this vast ocean of information, and reason through it, looking for truth; that merely studying our scriptures will not do, but in addition to studying them fervently and regularly, we must diligently and with great effort push past the known frontiers out into the darkness and discover new vistas of knowledge and wisdom, and by doing so enlighten ourselves and the world; and that sometimes, this new knowledge is to be found in the unlikeliest of places. President Brigham Young:
"Shall I sit down and read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Covenants all the time?" says one. Yes, if you please, and when you have done, you may be nothing but a sectarian after all. It is your duty to study to know everything upon the face of the earth in addition to reading those books. We should not only study good, and its effects upon our race, but also evil, and its consequences” (Brigham Young, "Discourses of Brigham Young", pg. 256. (J of D 2:93-94)). President Brigham Young: “’Where is your code, your particular creed?’ says one. It fills eternity; it is all truth in heaven, on earth or in hell. This is Mormonism. It embraces every true science; all true philosophy” (Brigham Young JD 14:280). President Hinckley said, “You belong to a church that teaches the importance of education. You have a mandate from the Lord to educate your minds and your hearts and your hands.” (“A Prophet’s Counsel and Prayer for Youth,” Ensign, Jan. 2001, 4, 7.) "None of us can assume that he has learned enough. As the door closes on one phase of life, it opens on another, where we must continue to pursue knowledge. Ours ought to be a ceaseless quest for truth. . . . As we go forward with our lives and our search for truth, let us look for the good, the beautiful, the positive."—Gordon B. Hinckley, Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley (1997), 301. "Our education must never stop. If it ends at the door of the classroom on graduation day, we will fail. And since what we will need to know is hard to discern, we need the help of heaven to know which of the myriad things we could study we would most wisely learn."—Henry B. Eyring, “Education for Real Life,” Ensign, Oct. 2002, 19. Elder Hugh B. Brown of the Quorum of the 12 apostles: “There is not enough of the attitude of the sincere investigator among us. When we come into a new field of research that will challenge our due and honest consideration, we should be warned against coming too quickly to a conclusion, of forming a decision too hastily. We should be scientific—that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in....We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration. We must be unafraid to contend for what we are thinking and to combat error with truth in this divided and imperiled world, and we must do it with the unfaltering faith that God is still in his heaven even though all is not well with the world...We should be dauntless in our pursuit of truth and resist all demands for unthinking conformity...Science offers wonderful tools for helping to create the brotherhood of humanity on earth...We should continue to become acquainted with human experience through history and philosophy, science and poetry, art and religion. Every discovery of science reveals clearly the divine plan in nature. Hugh B. Brown, "A Final Testimony," from Edwin B. Firmage, ed., The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown: An Abundant Life, Signature Books, 1988
I have also found a series of quotes that I think illustrates the need of every member of the Church to study the personalities and temperaments of our loved ones and all mankind. One of the important consequences of our efforts as Latter-day Saints is that we become unified through our love and understanding of one another, especially of each other’s circumstances. “I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27). While keeping the more unambiguous commandments (like attending our meetings) will help us acquire united goals, it may not be sufficient to help us fulfill more open-ended commandments like charity. For that we must learn about one another. President Brigham Young said: “All men should study to learn the nature of mankind, and to discern that divinity inherent in them” (Brigham young JD 7:1 p. 257). We also need to learn about ourselves: “When we know precisely how to deal with ourselves, we know how to deal with our neighbors” (Brigham Young JD 8:334-335 Remarks by President BRIGHAM YOUNG, made in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, February 17, 1861. REPORTED BY G. D. WATT. Journal of Discourses, Volume
. And again, this: “When we speak upon education, it is not to be understood that it alone consists in a man's learning the letters of the alphabet, in being trained in every branch of scholastic lore, in becoming a proficient in the knowledge of the sciences, and a classical scholar, but also in
learning to classify himself and others” (A DISCOURSE DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG, IN THE TABERNACLE, GREAT SALT LAKE CITY, APRIL 8TH, 1852).
Ian said, “Temperament typing undermines the complex variety of individual differences. What’s my temperament type? I call my type the ian type. You can call your type anything you like. Each person is their own type. There are as many types as there are people.”
If we were to accept this idea uncritically, we would have to reject all scientific taxonomy, any attempt at classifying anything of any kind. There would be no ‘humans’ or ‘cats’ and ‘dogs.’ All would be individuals. It is our ability to see types or kinds of things that gives us knowledge which may be applied in more than one context. If we couldn’t use types, anytime we encountered an apple, it would take quite a bit of experimentation before we realized it could be eaten. An apple is a type of object. No two apples are precisely the same, and yet there are enough relevant similarities between any two individual apples that we deem it appropriate to refer to objects bearing those characteristics as a type: apples. Because of types, we need not spend our time smelling the object, noting its color, dissecting it, banging it on a rock, or sitting on it before realizing that it is a previously recognized type (i.e. ‘food’) which may be used for consumption.
Isabel Myers Briggs who created the MBTI from Carl Jung's ideas had this to say about the use of “typing” with regard to “individuality”: “It is important to note that temperament type results do not try to capture individuality. Rather, they offer a broad framework which helps people move towards appreciating individuality” (The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: a critical review and practical guide By Rowan Bayne). Even Elder Henry B. Eyring recognizes that we are not completely unique: “With all of our uniqueness, we all have some things in common” (HENRY B. EYRING, Gifts of the Spirit for Hard Times fireside address was given on 10, September 2006).
Ian also said, “Temperament typing can change your life. Its descriptions are uncannily accurate. Once you are convinced that you are a particular type, you begin to see everything from that perspective. The world suddenly makes sense. You take comfort in the belief that you have a clear, firm identity that cannot change. You begin to notice confirming evidence. You tend to act according to this new understanding. You embrace your new identity. You become that type.”
I think Ian is onto something here. I think he has pointed out there is something inherently dangerous about using a particular strength or weakness as an excuse for believing that one cannot change his behavior.
But we needn’t reject the idea of temperament types for that reason. If we replace the word ‘temperament’ (which is genetically based) in Ian’s above quoted paragraph with ‘blood type’ (which is also genetically determined) we see that recognizing one’s type is not inherently or necessarily dangerous: “blood typing can change your life. Once you are convinced that you are (A+), you begin to see everything from that perspective. The world suddenly makes sense. You take comfort in the belief that you have a clear, firm identity that cannot change. You begin to notice confirming evidence. You tend to act according to this new understanding. You embrace your new identity.” But this is a good thing. It would be dangerous to NOT know your blood type. What would actually be dangerous would be to have the phlebotomist, after telling you your blood type, insist that you can change it, and that if you act like you have B- blood, then your blood (which is really A+, for example) can accept B- donor blood. In that case, believing your type is different than it is would be seriously hazardous to your health.
I believe in learning about temperament type and then self-transcending in ways which are possible. I share Robert Millet’s (a professor of ancient scripture and emeritus Dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University) sentiments: “[We must] rid ourselves of the elements in our personality or our associations that might dilute our discipleship.” This requires that we learn about ourselves, and temperament typing is a helpful way to do that.
President Brigham Young said: “The greatest and most important labor we have to perform is to cultivate ourselves. That man may know his fellow creatures, it is necessary that he should first know himself. When he thoroughly knows himself, he measurably knows God, whom to know is eternal life.” Brigham Young JD 10:2
Some apostles make use of their own understanding of personality and temperament. Elders Boyd K. Packer and L. Tom Perry: “Any of the Twelve could have effectively given this demonstration. Each would have varied his approach from the others. There is no one method that works for all teachers or situations. The Spirit is essential in guiding us to use our own preparation, experience, personality, knowledge, and testimony in any particular teaching situation.” Boyd K. Packer and L. Tom Perry, “Principles of Teaching and Learning,” Ensign, Jun 2007, 82–87
“Wherein do we differ? In the talents that are given us, and in our callings. We are made of the same materials; our spirits were begotten by the same parents; in the begetting of the flesh we are of the same first parents, and all the kindreds of the earth are made of one flesh; but we are different in regard to our calling.” Brigham Young JD 3:365
Ian said, “Temperament is not genetic. My temperament, personality, character and disposition had already existed before I was born. My genes were inherited from my parents.”
In psychology, temperament refers to those aspects of an individual's personality, such as introversion or extroversion, which are often regarded as innate rather than learned....Most experts agree that temperament has a genetic and biological basis. Twin and adoption studies suggest that individual differences in infant and child temperament are genetically influenced. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1188235/)
Extraverts and introverts use different brain pathways. Dr. Debra Johnson, a scientist, reported in the American Journal of Psychiatry that she used positron emission tomography (PET) to find that introverts’ and extroverts’ blood traveled along different pathways in the brain. The study indicates that an introverts’ pathway is more complicated and focused internally than an extraverts. Dr. Johnson also tracked the commonly fast-acting brain pathway of extroverts, showing how they process input that influences their activity and motivation. The extroverts’ blood flowed to the areas of the brain where visual, auditory, touch, and taste (including smell) sensory processing occurs. Their main pathway is short and less complicated. The extroverts attended externally to what was happening in the lab. They were soaking up sensory input. (from The Introvert Advantage, p. 69-70, Dr. Marti Olsen Laney.)
Steven Pinker, a Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author. He is also a Harvard College Professor: Studies on identical twins support the view that you are born with a temperament and identical twins share that similar temperament
Identical twins: “they are similar in verbal, mathematical, and general intelligence, in their degree of life satisfaction, and in personality traits such as introversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. The Blank Slate, p. 47, Steven Pinker, a Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author. He is a Harvard College Professor and the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University
Joseph E. LeDoux, a neuroscientist, the Henry and Lucy Moses Professor of Science, and professor of neuroscience and psychology at New York University:
“Temperament runs through bloodlines.” p. 135 The Emotional Brain. Joseph LeDoux
Ian said, “Temperament is not permanent. My temperament changes all the time. Someone asked carl jung about his own psychological type. He said: “Well, you see, the type is nothing static. It changes in the course of life.”
I think we may have a case of equivocation here—using the same term but in such a way that it means something different. This happens all the time, especially in conversations about religion and science. For example, when a Protestant speaks of “the scriptures,” he is typically referring only to the Old and New Testaments. When a Mormon refers to “the scriptures,” he means something different than the Protestant. The Mormon includes The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Thus a Protestant would be quite accurate in saying that “the scriptures” don’t ever talk about Nephi.
Sometimes the equivocations may be occurring without our knowing it. In conversations between those speaking from a religious standpoint and those speaking from a scientific standpoint, there is often overlapping terminology. The word “light,” for example, has a particular meaning in the scientific realm—electromagnetic radiation. But as used in religious discourse “light” may or may not refer solely to “electromagnetic radiation” such as that found in D&C 88 where light is asserted to be synonymous in some sense with both spirit and truth. It is doubtful that any scientist intentionally uses the word “light” with those additional meanings in mind.
Miscommunications occur all the time among ordinary people who are usually unconcerned with using their words so precisely, and fail to distinguish between various contexts in which the same word may be used, but with widely divergent meanings. As Ian can attest, in the field of law, to give an example, the meaning of an entire statute—an entire case even—may turn on the interpretation of a single word, ambiguously or equivocally expressed.
A similar thing seems to be happening in our conversation with the word “temperament.”
Alfred Whitehead, a professor of mathematics, logic, and philosophy, famously said that all of Western Philosophy is merely footnotes to Plato. In many ways the innumerable writings and flood of words in that particular academic discipline have been from individuals reacting to Plato’s own writings. Philosophy itself, as an academic discipline, gave birth to all of our modern sciences—biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, mathematics, psychology, etc. In many ways, therefore, these sciences and their attendant vocabularies rely on Plato’s use of many terms familiar to us and the meaning he intended. In almost all cases, however, the meaning of those words as Plato used them has not continued through to today. We use those words in very different ways today, and yet we are heavily dependent on Plato’s own initial use, even though there is virtually no idea of Plato’s that has gone un-criticized. The Greek word from which we get our modern English word “idea,” for example, to Plato referred to pure abstract concepts that existed in a realm beyond our own—a supernatural realm. We think of ideas as synonymous with “thoughts.” Even though we use the word “idea” today without reference to this other realm, we still study Plato and find his writings and ideas academically relevant.
Carl Jung’s writings are still academically relevant today, if for no other reason than that they heavily influenced our subsequent understanding of the mind, personality, temperament, especially in connection with the nature vs. nurture debate.
As I use the term “temperament type”—referring to those attributes expressed by brain structures which are genetically determined—I’m not sure whether temperaments are completely static. If brain structures can develop beyond what our genetic programming dictates, then it may be possible for temperaments to change. Certainly brain damage would affect the way our genes are expressed, so in that sense temperaments may change. But it may be that how one chooses to read Jung determines whether he was right, how one understands him to have been using the word “temperament.” We don’t necessarily use it the same way he intended it. As far as growth in individuals’ character, knowledge, habits, moods, and behavior, change seems inevitable. No one is saying that we do not change. However, any given person's temperament type does not change very easily.
Dean Hamer, American geneticist:“Temperament is not easy to change; it tends to endure as a person matures.” P. 13 Living with Our Genes: Why They Matter More Than You Think, by Dean H. Hamer
The issue, then, becomes whether the science behind temperament typing supports the claims I believe it does: 1) that what I have been referring to as “temperament” is genetically-based, and heritable; 2) that personality and character are parts of the individual distinct from temperament; 3) that temperament, just like any other physical attribute, describes a set of strengths and weaknesses that may be improved upon and adapted to, but always at a cost.
But these are part of an age-old debate: to what extent are you the product of nature and to what extent the product of nurture? I don’t believe there is any definitive answer in Mormonism. Certainly the doctrine that a portion of our current identity is carried by our spirits from the pre-mortal life into this world would indicate a certain amount of “nature” beyond mere genes; and certainly our parents, our past experiences, religion, education, etc., all have had an effect upon us; but I think all of these things are filtered through our physiological machinery which is genetically determined, and may be classified, or “typed.” This in no way negates our eternal possibilities, or our potential for righteousness in this life.
Edward, I love Mosiah 3:19. I agree with just about all you said about it, too.
Ann, I appreciate the ability to better understand those around me. I also enjoy learning about communication patterns.
One thing that I love about this family is its desire to seek out truth, wherever it may be found, and its desire to be free to do so, and to talk openly with one another about our concerns. I also love how much love and concern there is for each family member’s spiritual welfare.
It is sometimes the case that among the members of the Church especially (including myself) and people all over the earth generally there is an unwarranted fear of the ideas and beliefs of others. This fear results in shunning those we ought to embrace, and rejecting truth because it is contrary to our traditions, biases, and prejudices—the “traditions of our fathers”—or rejecting truth because it merely appears to be contrary to those traditions, or rejecting truth because it comes from an unfamiliar source, or because someone who makes us uncomfortable or who has not led a perfect life presents the idea. President Joseph Smith said, “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth. Let it come from where it may.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 313.)
We ask others to do the same—to accept the good and leave the bad. President George Albert Smith said, “Keep all the good that you have, and let us bring to you more good, in order that you may be happier and in order that you may be prepared to enter into the presence of our Heavenly Father” ( Sharing the Gospel with Others, 12–13). We are called to seek out truth wherever it may be found, from any source, and to gather it all together. President Brigham Young emphasizes this: “All truth is worthy and worth possessing” (Brigham Young JD 19:39). But where ought we to look? “Search after truth in all good books, and learn the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God, and put them together and you will be able to benefit yourselves” (Brigham Young JD 12:313). It is interesting to note that President Young says that in addition to “the wisdom of God” we ought not merely study “wisdom of the world,” but learn it. President Joseph Smith: “Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true ‘Mormons’” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 316). President Smith tells us that Mormons are not the only ones with truth. President Young again: “’Mormonism’ so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to ‘Mormonism.’ The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this church. As for their morality many of them are morally just as good as we are. All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this church and kingdom” (Journal of Discourses 11:375). President Young emphasizes that truth may come not only from the Christian world, but also from infidels of all stripes! President Young again: “It was the occupation of Jesus Christ and his Apostles to propagate the Gospel of salvation and the principles of eternal life to the world, and it is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their elder brother being at their head,) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation . . . “ (JD 7:283). President Joseph Smith: “I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed” (Joseph Smith Jr. Discourse to Saints, June 1844; DHC 6:477). I think we all share President Smith’s love of truth. President Smith:
“I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way” (Joseph Smith TPJS p. 313). I’m glad we’re all willing to reason together as a family, and not simply dismiss things without studying them for ourselves.
I have just a few more quotes I’d like to share. But in connection with the above they seem to emphasize this point: that there is truth all over the world, amongst all parties, sects, academic disciplines, and theorists, and that our job, as Mormons, is to sift through this vast ocean of information, and reason through it, looking for truth; that merely studying our scriptures will not do, but in addition to studying them fervently and regularly, we must diligently and with great effort push past the known frontiers out into the darkness and discover new vistas of knowledge and wisdom, and by doing so enlighten ourselves and the world; and that sometimes, this new knowledge is to be found in the unlikeliest of places. President Brigham Young:
"Shall I sit down and read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Covenants all the time?" says one. Yes, if you please, and when you have done, you may be nothing but a sectarian after all. It is your duty to study to know everything upon the face of the earth in addition to reading those books. We should not only study good, and its effects upon our race, but also evil, and its consequences” (Brigham Young, "Discourses of Brigham Young", pg. 256. (J of D 2:93-94)). President Brigham Young: “’Where is your code, your particular creed?’ says one. It fills eternity; it is all truth in heaven, on earth or in hell. This is Mormonism. It embraces every true science; all true philosophy” (Brigham Young JD 14:280). President Hinckley said, “You belong to a church that teaches the importance of education. You have a mandate from the Lord to educate your minds and your hearts and your hands.” (“A Prophet’s Counsel and Prayer for Youth,” Ensign, Jan. 2001, 4, 7.) "None of us can assume that he has learned enough. As the door closes on one phase of life, it opens on another, where we must continue to pursue knowledge. Ours ought to be a ceaseless quest for truth. . . . As we go forward with our lives and our search for truth, let us look for the good, the beautiful, the positive."—Gordon B. Hinckley, Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley (1997), 301. "Our education must never stop. If it ends at the door of the classroom on graduation day, we will fail. And since what we will need to know is hard to discern, we need the help of heaven to know which of the myriad things we could study we would most wisely learn."—Henry B. Eyring, “Education for Real Life,” Ensign, Oct. 2002, 19. Elder Hugh B. Brown of the Quorum of the 12 apostles: “There is not enough of the attitude of the sincere investigator among us. When we come into a new field of research that will challenge our due and honest consideration, we should be warned against coming too quickly to a conclusion, of forming a decision too hastily. We should be scientific—that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in....We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration. We must be unafraid to contend for what we are thinking and to combat error with truth in this divided and imperiled world, and we must do it with the unfaltering faith that God is still in his heaven even though all is not well with the world...We should be dauntless in our pursuit of truth and resist all demands for unthinking conformity...Science offers wonderful tools for helping to create the brotherhood of humanity on earth...We should continue to become acquainted with human experience through history and philosophy, science and poetry, art and religion. Every discovery of science reveals clearly the divine plan in nature. Hugh B. Brown, "A Final Testimony," from Edwin B. Firmage, ed., The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown: An Abundant Life, Signature Books, 1988
I have also found a series of quotes that I think illustrates the need of every member of the Church to study the personalities and temperaments of our loved ones and all mankind. One of the important consequences of our efforts as Latter-day Saints is that we become unified through our love and understanding of one another, especially of each other’s circumstances. “I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27). While keeping the more unambiguous commandments (like attending our meetings) will help us acquire united goals, it may not be sufficient to help us fulfill more open-ended commandments like charity. For that we must learn about one another. President Brigham Young said: “All men should study to learn the nature of mankind, and to discern that divinity inherent in them” (Brigham young JD 7:1 p. 257). We also need to learn about ourselves: “When we know precisely how to deal with ourselves, we know how to deal with our neighbors” (Brigham Young JD 8:334-335 Remarks by President BRIGHAM YOUNG, made in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, February 17, 1861. REPORTED BY G. D. WATT. Journal of Discourses, Volume
. And again, this: “When we speak upon education, it is not to be understood that it alone consists in a man's learning the letters of the alphabet, in being trained in every branch of scholastic lore, in becoming a proficient in the knowledge of the sciences, and a classical scholar, but also inlearning to classify himself and others” (A DISCOURSE DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG, IN THE TABERNACLE, GREAT SALT LAKE CITY, APRIL 8TH, 1852).
Ian said, “Temperament typing undermines the complex variety of individual differences. What’s my temperament type? I call my type the ian type. You can call your type anything you like. Each person is their own type. There are as many types as there are people.”
If we were to accept this idea uncritically, we would have to reject all scientific taxonomy, any attempt at classifying anything of any kind. There would be no ‘humans’ or ‘cats’ and ‘dogs.’ All would be individuals. It is our ability to see types or kinds of things that gives us knowledge which may be applied in more than one context. If we couldn’t use types, anytime we encountered an apple, it would take quite a bit of experimentation before we realized it could be eaten. An apple is a type of object. No two apples are precisely the same, and yet there are enough relevant similarities between any two individual apples that we deem it appropriate to refer to objects bearing those characteristics as a type: apples. Because of types, we need not spend our time smelling the object, noting its color, dissecting it, banging it on a rock, or sitting on it before realizing that it is a previously recognized type (i.e. ‘food’) which may be used for consumption.
Isabel Myers Briggs who created the MBTI from Carl Jung's ideas had this to say about the use of “typing” with regard to “individuality”: “It is important to note that temperament type results do not try to capture individuality. Rather, they offer a broad framework which helps people move towards appreciating individuality” (The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: a critical review and practical guide By Rowan Bayne). Even Elder Henry B. Eyring recognizes that we are not completely unique: “With all of our uniqueness, we all have some things in common” (HENRY B. EYRING, Gifts of the Spirit for Hard Times fireside address was given on 10, September 2006).
Ian also said, “Temperament typing can change your life. Its descriptions are uncannily accurate. Once you are convinced that you are a particular type, you begin to see everything from that perspective. The world suddenly makes sense. You take comfort in the belief that you have a clear, firm identity that cannot change. You begin to notice confirming evidence. You tend to act according to this new understanding. You embrace your new identity. You become that type.”
I think Ian is onto something here. I think he has pointed out there is something inherently dangerous about using a particular strength or weakness as an excuse for believing that one cannot change his behavior.
But we needn’t reject the idea of temperament types for that reason. If we replace the word ‘temperament’ (which is genetically based) in Ian’s above quoted paragraph with ‘blood type’ (which is also genetically determined) we see that recognizing one’s type is not inherently or necessarily dangerous: “blood typing can change your life. Once you are convinced that you are (A+), you begin to see everything from that perspective. The world suddenly makes sense. You take comfort in the belief that you have a clear, firm identity that cannot change. You begin to notice confirming evidence. You tend to act according to this new understanding. You embrace your new identity.” But this is a good thing. It would be dangerous to NOT know your blood type. What would actually be dangerous would be to have the phlebotomist, after telling you your blood type, insist that you can change it, and that if you act like you have B- blood, then your blood (which is really A+, for example) can accept B- donor blood. In that case, believing your type is different than it is would be seriously hazardous to your health.
I believe in learning about temperament type and then self-transcending in ways which are possible. I share Robert Millet’s (a professor of ancient scripture and emeritus Dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University) sentiments: “[We must] rid ourselves of the elements in our personality or our associations that might dilute our discipleship.” This requires that we learn about ourselves, and temperament typing is a helpful way to do that.
President Brigham Young said: “The greatest and most important labor we have to perform is to cultivate ourselves. That man may know his fellow creatures, it is necessary that he should first know himself. When he thoroughly knows himself, he measurably knows God, whom to know is eternal life.” Brigham Young JD 10:2
Some apostles make use of their own understanding of personality and temperament. Elders Boyd K. Packer and L. Tom Perry: “Any of the Twelve could have effectively given this demonstration. Each would have varied his approach from the others. There is no one method that works for all teachers or situations. The Spirit is essential in guiding us to use our own preparation, experience, personality, knowledge, and testimony in any particular teaching situation.” Boyd K. Packer and L. Tom Perry, “Principles of Teaching and Learning,” Ensign, Jun 2007, 82–87
“Wherein do we differ? In the talents that are given us, and in our callings. We are made of the same materials; our spirits were begotten by the same parents; in the begetting of the flesh we are of the same first parents, and all the kindreds of the earth are made of one flesh; but we are different in regard to our calling.” Brigham Young JD 3:365
Ian said, “Temperament is not genetic. My temperament, personality, character and disposition had already existed before I was born. My genes were inherited from my parents.”
In psychology, temperament refers to those aspects of an individual's personality, such as introversion or extroversion, which are often regarded as innate rather than learned....Most experts agree that temperament has a genetic and biological basis. Twin and adoption studies suggest that individual differences in infant and child temperament are genetically influenced. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1188235/)
Extraverts and introverts use different brain pathways. Dr. Debra Johnson, a scientist, reported in the American Journal of Psychiatry that she used positron emission tomography (PET) to find that introverts’ and extroverts’ blood traveled along different pathways in the brain. The study indicates that an introverts’ pathway is more complicated and focused internally than an extraverts. Dr. Johnson also tracked the commonly fast-acting brain pathway of extroverts, showing how they process input that influences their activity and motivation. The extroverts’ blood flowed to the areas of the brain where visual, auditory, touch, and taste (including smell) sensory processing occurs. Their main pathway is short and less complicated. The extroverts attended externally to what was happening in the lab. They were soaking up sensory input. (from The Introvert Advantage, p. 69-70, Dr. Marti Olsen Laney.)
Steven Pinker, a Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author. He is also a Harvard College Professor: Studies on identical twins support the view that you are born with a temperament and identical twins share that similar temperament
Identical twins: “they are similar in verbal, mathematical, and general intelligence, in their degree of life satisfaction, and in personality traits such as introversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. The Blank Slate, p. 47, Steven Pinker, a Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author. He is a Harvard College Professor and the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University
Joseph E. LeDoux, a neuroscientist, the Henry and Lucy Moses Professor of Science, and professor of neuroscience and psychology at New York University:
“Temperament runs through bloodlines.” p. 135 The Emotional Brain. Joseph LeDoux
Ian said, “Temperament is not permanent. My temperament changes all the time. Someone asked carl jung about his own psychological type. He said: “Well, you see, the type is nothing static. It changes in the course of life.”
I think we may have a case of equivocation here—using the same term but in such a way that it means something different. This happens all the time, especially in conversations about religion and science. For example, when a Protestant speaks of “the scriptures,” he is typically referring only to the Old and New Testaments. When a Mormon refers to “the scriptures,” he means something different than the Protestant. The Mormon includes The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Thus a Protestant would be quite accurate in saying that “the scriptures” don’t ever talk about Nephi.
Sometimes the equivocations may be occurring without our knowing it. In conversations between those speaking from a religious standpoint and those speaking from a scientific standpoint, there is often overlapping terminology. The word “light,” for example, has a particular meaning in the scientific realm—electromagnetic radiation. But as used in religious discourse “light” may or may not refer solely to “electromagnetic radiation” such as that found in D&C 88 where light is asserted to be synonymous in some sense with both spirit and truth. It is doubtful that any scientist intentionally uses the word “light” with those additional meanings in mind.
Miscommunications occur all the time among ordinary people who are usually unconcerned with using their words so precisely, and fail to distinguish between various contexts in which the same word may be used, but with widely divergent meanings. As Ian can attest, in the field of law, to give an example, the meaning of an entire statute—an entire case even—may turn on the interpretation of a single word, ambiguously or equivocally expressed.
A similar thing seems to be happening in our conversation with the word “temperament.”
Alfred Whitehead, a professor of mathematics, logic, and philosophy, famously said that all of Western Philosophy is merely footnotes to Plato. In many ways the innumerable writings and flood of words in that particular academic discipline have been from individuals reacting to Plato’s own writings. Philosophy itself, as an academic discipline, gave birth to all of our modern sciences—biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, mathematics, psychology, etc. In many ways, therefore, these sciences and their attendant vocabularies rely on Plato’s use of many terms familiar to us and the meaning he intended. In almost all cases, however, the meaning of those words as Plato used them has not continued through to today. We use those words in very different ways today, and yet we are heavily dependent on Plato’s own initial use, even though there is virtually no idea of Plato’s that has gone un-criticized. The Greek word from which we get our modern English word “idea,” for example, to Plato referred to pure abstract concepts that existed in a realm beyond our own—a supernatural realm. We think of ideas as synonymous with “thoughts.” Even though we use the word “idea” today without reference to this other realm, we still study Plato and find his writings and ideas academically relevant.
Carl Jung’s writings are still academically relevant today, if for no other reason than that they heavily influenced our subsequent understanding of the mind, personality, temperament, especially in connection with the nature vs. nurture debate.
As I use the term “temperament type”—referring to those attributes expressed by brain structures which are genetically determined—I’m not sure whether temperaments are completely static. If brain structures can develop beyond what our genetic programming dictates, then it may be possible for temperaments to change. Certainly brain damage would affect the way our genes are expressed, so in that sense temperaments may change. But it may be that how one chooses to read Jung determines whether he was right, how one understands him to have been using the word “temperament.” We don’t necessarily use it the same way he intended it. As far as growth in individuals’ character, knowledge, habits, moods, and behavior, change seems inevitable. No one is saying that we do not change. However, any given person's temperament type does not change very easily.
Dean Hamer, American geneticist:“Temperament is not easy to change; it tends to endure as a person matures.” P. 13 Living with Our Genes: Why They Matter More Than You Think, by Dean H. Hamer
The issue, then, becomes whether the science behind temperament typing supports the claims I believe it does: 1) that what I have been referring to as “temperament” is genetically-based, and heritable; 2) that personality and character are parts of the individual distinct from temperament; 3) that temperament, just like any other physical attribute, describes a set of strengths and weaknesses that may be improved upon and adapted to, but always at a cost.
But these are part of an age-old debate: to what extent are you the product of nature and to what extent the product of nurture? I don’t believe there is any definitive answer in Mormonism. Certainly the doctrine that a portion of our current identity is carried by our spirits from the pre-mortal life into this world would indicate a certain amount of “nature” beyond mere genes; and certainly our parents, our past experiences, religion, education, etc., all have had an effect upon us; but I think all of these things are filtered through our physiological machinery which is genetically determined, and may be classified, or “typed.” This in no way negates our eternal possibilities, or our potential for righteousness in this life.
Re: Carl Jung
James said: It is sometimes the case that among the members of the Church especially (including myself) and people all over the earth generally there is an unwarranted fear of the ideas and beliefs of others. This fear results in shunning those we ought to embrace, and rejecting truth because it is contrary to our traditions, biases, and prejudices—the “traditions of our fathers”—or rejecting truth because it merely appears to be contrary to those traditions, or rejecting truth because it comes from an unfamiliar source, or because someone who makes us uncomfortable or who has not led a perfect life presents the idea. President Joseph Smith said, “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth. Let it come from where it may.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 313.)
I totally agree with Joseph Smith's writings, and that we ought to embrace truth, let it come whence it may.
The issue for me is that I believe the principles and "science" of typing are false. They are not true, and people are NOT genetically "typed." This is no case of "shunning one I ought to embrace," no "rejecting truth because it is contrary to our traditions, biases, and prejudices," no "rejecting truth because it comes from an unfamiliar source." I have no problem with embracing truth, and if it's uncomfortable, so be it. But this very idea is NOT TRUTH. Not truth! I do not believe that the concept of typing is relevant, veritable, or real. People just aren't physically pre-disposed to be any kind of personality. And I think the introvert/extrovert concept is one of the most obnoxious, false, made-up ideas in modern ideology, no matter how much flimsy science you attach to it.
And I do believe that catagorizing people is wrong. God certainly does not see us in terms of types or attributes; he sees only the individual. If we are commanded to be like God, can we afford to waste our time looking for types when we should be investing ourselves in the individuals around us? Honestly, are people so hard to read that we need all this all this pseudo-psychoanalytical hoo-ha?
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Re: Carl Jung
Edward, thank you for taking the time to post your feelings.
Re: Carl Jung
I don't agree that temperament and temperament typing are the same thing. So when we quote general authorities using the word temperament they don't mean temperament typing in my opinion.
Temperament means - (tĕm'prə-mənt, tĕm'pər-ə-) pronunciation
n.
The manner of thinking, behaving, or reacting characteristic of a specific person: a nervous temperament. See synonyms at disposition.
Excessive irritability or sensitiveness: an actor with too much temperament.
Music. Equal temperament.
Temperament Type or typing is or (might be considered) -
"Under the "Christianization" of the temperaments, one's temperament type is determined by listing both positive and negative word descriptions describing personality traits, thereby describing one's strengths and weaknesses. The category with the most personality traits indicates the appropriate temperament type, which then, according to the theory, somehow magically opens the door to a better and deeper understanding of oneself and others, revealing the true nature of the personality with all its strengths and weaknesses, and facilitates the transformation of one's weaknesses into strengths (see Tim LaHaye's Transformed Temperaments). At this point, the temperament theory is interspersed with Scripture, specifically the Holy Spirit's power and the Fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22,23)."
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psy ... temper.htm
I don't agree that blood type is like temperament typing as mentioned by James - Yes they have the words type in it but they are two totally different concepts. My blood type does not determine my identity/character in any way. I'm Tuly whether I'm (A+) or (O-).
Temperament means - (tĕm'prə-mənt, tĕm'pər-ə-) pronunciation
n.
The manner of thinking, behaving, or reacting characteristic of a specific person: a nervous temperament. See synonyms at disposition.
Excessive irritability or sensitiveness: an actor with too much temperament.
Music. Equal temperament.
Temperament Type or typing is or (might be considered) -
"Under the "Christianization" of the temperaments, one's temperament type is determined by listing both positive and negative word descriptions describing personality traits, thereby describing one's strengths and weaknesses. The category with the most personality traits indicates the appropriate temperament type, which then, according to the theory, somehow magically opens the door to a better and deeper understanding of oneself and others, revealing the true nature of the personality with all its strengths and weaknesses, and facilitates the transformation of one's weaknesses into strengths (see Tim LaHaye's Transformed Temperaments). At this point, the temperament theory is interspersed with Scripture, specifically the Holy Spirit's power and the Fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22,23)."
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psy ... temper.htm
I don't agree that blood type is like temperament typing as mentioned by James - Yes they have the words type in it but they are two totally different concepts. My blood type does not determine my identity/character in any way. I'm Tuly whether I'm (A+) or (O-).
If we replace the word ‘temperament’ (which is genetically based) in Ian’s above quoted paragraph with ‘blood type’ (which is also genetically determined) we see that recognizing one’s type is not inherently or necessarily dangerous: “blood typing can change your life. Once you are convinced that you are (A+), you begin to see everything from that perspective. The world suddenly makes sense. You take comfort in the belief that you have a clear, firm identity that cannot change. You begin to notice confirming evidence. You tend to act according to this new understanding. You embrace your new identity.” But this is a good thing. It would be dangerous to NOT know your blood type. What would actually be dangerous would be to have the phlebotomist, after telling you your blood type, insist that you can change it, and that if you act like you have B- blood, then your blood (which is really A+, for example) can accept B- donor blood. In that case, believing your type is different than it is would be seriously hazardous to your health.
"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection,... but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." Mormon 9:31
Re: Carl Jung
Thanks, James, for taking the time to share your response. A couple of quick thoughts/questions:
1) I agree that we should embrace truth as we find it. In fact, I think we would be hard-pressed to find a member of the family that disagrees with that. The flaw I see in emphasizing this principle is that, as Edward indicated, it assumes that what we are discussing regarding temperament typing IS truth, which is exactly what some (myself included) are refuting. James said:
2) I don't mean for this to come off as harsh, but I can't help but feel that all this talk about Carl Jung is more of a front to espouse the ideas of your friend, Alex? Please correct me if I am off-base. You say that you appreciate the ability to better understand those around you and that you enjoy learning about communication patterns. But to what end? Is this to put you at some kind of social advantage, or do you feel that your communication skills have somehow improved as you have learned to type others?
James shared the quote from Robert Millet: “[We must] rid ourselves of the elements in our personality or our associations that might dilute our discipleship.” Is temperament typing truly a helpful way in helping us learn about ourselves? I have not been convinced that it is. As was shared by James, quoting Elders Packer and Perry: "The Spirit is essential in guiding us to use our own preparation, experience, personality, knowledge, and testimony in any particular teaching situation." (emphasis added). I don't feel this quote supports temperament typing in the least. Rather, I see it as an emphasis on seeking the guidance and revelation from the Holy Ghost when teaching.
I'll likely have more to add, but Abby just woke up, so I've got to run. I'm interested in continuing to read what others have to say about all this. Thanks to all participating in this discussion!
1) I agree that we should embrace truth as we find it. In fact, I think we would be hard-pressed to find a member of the family that disagrees with that. The flaw I see in emphasizing this principle is that, as Edward indicated, it assumes that what we are discussing regarding temperament typing IS truth, which is exactly what some (myself included) are refuting. James said:
I don't think we need to expend "great effort" in the "darkness" when we have so much in the light to occupy our studies and thoughts....merely studying our scriptures will not do, but in addition to studying them fervently and regularly, we must diligently and with great effort push past the known frontiers out into the darkness and discover new vistas of knowledge and wisdom, and by doing so enlighten ourselves and the world; and that sometimes, this new knowledge is to be found in the unlikeliest of places.
2) I don't mean for this to come off as harsh, but I can't help but feel that all this talk about Carl Jung is more of a front to espouse the ideas of your friend, Alex? Please correct me if I am off-base. You say that you appreciate the ability to better understand those around you and that you enjoy learning about communication patterns. But to what end? Is this to put you at some kind of social advantage, or do you feel that your communication skills have somehow improved as you have learned to type others?
James shared the quote from Robert Millet: “[We must] rid ourselves of the elements in our personality or our associations that might dilute our discipleship.” Is temperament typing truly a helpful way in helping us learn about ourselves? I have not been convinced that it is. As was shared by James, quoting Elders Packer and Perry: "The Spirit is essential in guiding us to use our own preparation, experience, personality, knowledge, and testimony in any particular teaching situation." (emphasis added). I don't feel this quote supports temperament typing in the least. Rather, I see it as an emphasis on seeking the guidance and revelation from the Holy Ghost when teaching.
I'll likely have more to add, but Abby just woke up, so I've got to run. I'm interested in continuing to read what others have to say about all this. Thanks to all participating in this discussion!
Re: Carl Jung
An interesting excerpt from a book by Neal A. Maxwell:
"You made a point in your communication of so many months ago: you asked why I could believe in anything so simple. You even chided me with the reminder that I was once a student of the philosophies and the affairs of men. In this you are correct. But by looking back, I see that I was always looking beyond the mark, missing the obvious things that are so plain and so precious. God, in his love for each of us, is determined to save all whom he can; he does not want the way back to his presence to be complicated.
Intellectual embroidery is but an unreliable frill; the hardy and homely cloth of truth is to be found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The very simpleness and easiness of the way do seem to deter some from entering the gate. Perhaps that is your situation. The philosophies of the world at their best are but strands of truth, several times diminished. Some men are delighted to take such threads, weaving these inferior strands into tapestries in which they glory more than in the whole truth itself.
The harsh reality..., is that mankind must choose between opposites, between light and darkness, between truth and falsehood, between righteousness and unrighteousness, between happiness and misery. All of these choices are really simple. How delighted the adversary is when he can divert men from deciding about these first things and keep them busy with second, third, and fourth things. As I fear, my good friend..., he has so done with you!
It is not necessary for you to understand the mysteries inside the simple realities of life. The sunshine that causes your crops and trees to grow is not something you can explain. Yet you depend on sunshine. The regular coming of the rain that gives you water and that makes your crops grow is a blessing you cannot explain. Yet you accept it. You do not refuse food simply because you cannot explain the seasons or make yourself the seeds you have planted.
Repentance takes care of the past, faith the future, and the Holy Ghost helps us with today. The Holy Ghost can be our constant companion. It enlarges our conscience. It helps us to see the truth of all things, including the truth in the transactions of the marketplace. It sharpens our eyes to see the needs of others who would otherwise be obscure. It quickens our pulse of pure passion, stirs us to action to assist others whom we might otherwise pass by and notice not. With this great gift, whether one consults his heart or his mind, the precious and practical counsel that comes forth is the same: we can receive such directions daily, even hourly.
Yet, I feel for you, inasmuch as I formerly pondered many times on the seeming simpleness and easiness of the way. Belief and faith do not require a man to cease using his reason. Use the power of your mind..., but let your heart be opened to the influence of the Spirit through mighty prayer. Take the first faltering steps of faith,... and be not flattered away by falsehood.
"You made a point in your communication of so many months ago: you asked why I could believe in anything so simple. You even chided me with the reminder that I was once a student of the philosophies and the affairs of men. In this you are correct. But by looking back, I see that I was always looking beyond the mark, missing the obvious things that are so plain and so precious. God, in his love for each of us, is determined to save all whom he can; he does not want the way back to his presence to be complicated.
Intellectual embroidery is but an unreliable frill; the hardy and homely cloth of truth is to be found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The very simpleness and easiness of the way do seem to deter some from entering the gate. Perhaps that is your situation. The philosophies of the world at their best are but strands of truth, several times diminished. Some men are delighted to take such threads, weaving these inferior strands into tapestries in which they glory more than in the whole truth itself.
The harsh reality..., is that mankind must choose between opposites, between light and darkness, between truth and falsehood, between righteousness and unrighteousness, between happiness and misery. All of these choices are really simple. How delighted the adversary is when he can divert men from deciding about these first things and keep them busy with second, third, and fourth things. As I fear, my good friend..., he has so done with you!
It is not necessary for you to understand the mysteries inside the simple realities of life. The sunshine that causes your crops and trees to grow is not something you can explain. Yet you depend on sunshine. The regular coming of the rain that gives you water and that makes your crops grow is a blessing you cannot explain. Yet you accept it. You do not refuse food simply because you cannot explain the seasons or make yourself the seeds you have planted.
Repentance takes care of the past, faith the future, and the Holy Ghost helps us with today. The Holy Ghost can be our constant companion. It enlarges our conscience. It helps us to see the truth of all things, including the truth in the transactions of the marketplace. It sharpens our eyes to see the needs of others who would otherwise be obscure. It quickens our pulse of pure passion, stirs us to action to assist others whom we might otherwise pass by and notice not. With this great gift, whether one consults his heart or his mind, the precious and practical counsel that comes forth is the same: we can receive such directions daily, even hourly.
Yet, I feel for you, inasmuch as I formerly pondered many times on the seeming simpleness and easiness of the way. Belief and faith do not require a man to cease using his reason. Use the power of your mind..., but let your heart be opened to the influence of the Spirit through mighty prayer. Take the first faltering steps of faith,... and be not flattered away by falsehood.
"Music's golden tongue flatter'd to tears this aged man and poor."
Re: Carl Jung
This read is specifically for Mom, Lily, and Emma {except for the note to the family}
Mom- I agree that the way the general authorities are using that word is probably not identical with how we’re using the word. The word is being utilized in a narrow sense, but in such a way that we believe it is within the realm of the way those general authorities are using the word. The point of their statements, I believe, is to encourage us to learn as much as we can about human nature, and the individual variations we find scattered across humanity, with the hope that we will come to understand one another better, and not merely feel more love for one another, but know how to take action to love one another better.
I don’t believe in whatever kind of typing that website you quoted from mentions, so you can’t say quite yet that the kind of typing that we’re talking about and blood-typing are “two totally different concepts.” the blood-typing allegory was used to illustrate the importance of genetics, as well as catagorizing. I hope we can agree that genetics {family history} plays an important role in who we are, whether is determines personality traits, or not.
Typing someone isn't as easy as throwing dice on the floor. It is not a parlor game- what an insult it would be to turn the complexities of the human mind into a cheap game. I promise you I am not involved with any such game- though I understand that you will need much more information to really believe that. You must be willing to learn, however. I can't do this dance on my own. Something that means a lot to me shouldn't be treated as a student who is presenting a D- power-point to a panel of stern scholars.
SIDE-NOTE TO THE FAMILY: If you feel that this is a complete, gross waste of your time, I kindly ask that you keep your thoughts to yourself. James and I have sacrificed so many hours and tears on how to best address a family that we think deserves our best treatment, the least amount of fallacies, our best manners and our upright attention on this here website.
Bills- What do you understand the kind of temperament typing I’m talking about to be? How would you define it? I’m not sure we’re going to be able to have a coherent discussion about it if we don’t know what it is we’re talking about. I’ve noticed that several family members have been putting forward their own interpretations of what I’ve been saying rather than using what I have been saying {See Ian’s previous posts about the four humours, phrenology, astrology, physiognomy, and mom’s post quoting that strange website on the Christianization of temperament typing}.
We have so much light in the world- but a lot of light and truth has yet to be discovered! Don't work over-time in the depths of the dark shadows looking for it, but DO, DO exude much effort to find it in beautiful things such as people {sometimes people are philosophers}! We are all but children- inquisitive, thoughtful, and many times puzzled. But Heavenly Father is helping us little by little in learning the things we must know in order to be like him. We will have to learn sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much more than we do now throughout time…. i know you know this. I was just being overwhelmed by the universe for a second.
It is so good to use caution in determining truth. We have been so uncannily blessed with parents that have helped us find personal desire to involve ourselves with things that bring us bright joy and clarity. I could not possibly stray from that strength they have instilled in me. I understand somewhat what it's like to travel darker paths, personally, and through observing the lives of others. I am relieved at the fact that the wanting for further knowledge on people's personalities is not a dark path to tread, though my family has had me questioning it for a period of time, which, I am grateful for, because i was able to make a more thorough assessment of things. This is a good skill to learn in general. I know that at times I tend to make hasty decisions. I get it. But, boy am I glad I’m not alone! {hahahaa! Poke poke. Wink} Kay, maybe that wasn’t appropriate. Sar {sorry}.
You are not in the least bit harsh for wanting a detail. Our friend Alex has, indeed, developed some of Jung's theories based off of the truths found therein.
Lily, there will never be an “end” to my personal desire to best understand the individuals in my life. It is my passion, and my joy to celebrate my interactions with people, as well as the people themselves. I used to have a hard time comprehending the meaning of the feelings and emotions that would stir inside of me as I would walk away from an exchange with someone {both positive and negative exchanges}. Here are some basic thoughts I'm sure some of us think, at times, about others: Where are these thoughts coming from? Why does she look more internally hurt than most other people who hurt? How did she just read my mind? Why can't he just read my mind? Why does this person get bored when I talk? Why aren't I making sense to this person? Why is this person overwhelmed by me? Why can't she play as long as I can {she even gets more sleep!}? Why do I always feel so personally fulfilled, and recharged after I talk with her? Why did he respond with such shortness to me? Does he not like me? But he doesn't seem mad....??? Why do I get the feeling that he wants to be my friend? What is it about him that I'm attracted to? Why does this stir my emotions so much? Everyone around me aren't feeling the same things...I can just tell! Why is she always talking nonsense? !Hm. {insert reason}. that must be it. ----------- my question is: why don't we want more detailed answers to these kind of thoughts? Are we really okay with overlooking these questions, or putting our own interpretations in for the answer?
The feelings and thoughts of others are beyond a 3D experience to me. As a child, I was always worrying about people. I watched carefully my family member's interactions with each other, and although I was a stubborn firecracker myself, I would cry for people who got into fights, and pray that people would get along better {after more ugly situations}. I always had Emma to relate to and converse with, so I wasn't so worried for my interactions at the time {Emma was really the only person in my little world}. I also watched carefully the ways in which Bryn would bring peace to certain situations with such natural ease. His capability to reason objectively, taking no sides, with such warmth helped many situations. I also paid close attention to family dynamics. Who is the first family member on {insert family member's name}'s mind when they need someone to talk to, ease their pains, or just play with? Sometimes that first person changes, depending on what they need. It is beautiful that we have such an array of people in our family, each person having a unique gift to offer, as far as aiding others goes.
I am so happy that I don't have to carry some of the same burdens I carried as a child; I am worrying less now! I am okay with differences in speech. I see new ways in which I can express my thoughts to a particular person effectively, and, although I'm still not very good at actually expressing myself to those people quite yet- I take great comfort in knowing that at least I have a basis that is different than "oh- he/she just wants me to be wrong!" or "He/she doesn't like me right now"- I am agreeing with people more than we both know! We are just moving in circles {or just stopping before any healthy conclusion} because we have different priorities of focus, different communication styles, as well as different means for our reasons. The only thing that still saddens me about all of this is that, people who are similar to me in many regards, close themselves to me; destroying the possibility of a very powerful connection that I always have sought for. It's nice to have at least a few mind-comrades in this life. But, people have their agency to do as they wish. Some are okay just being themselves, by themselves. But that's not me! I always need the people!
Lily, it is a crucial thing to invite the spirit in to aide us in our choices and judgments-- learning about temperament does not take the spirit out of the picture. The spirit heightens my understandings and experiences too much for me to not utilize it with respect and reverence. I also understand that, “Where much is given, much is required.” We have been given a treasure trove of information in our day. We have an obligation to seek out the answers to our questions using the talents and abilities the Lord has given us. So we must study it out in our minds first. Many times answers come from the scriptures. But sometimes, it comes from good books, songs, movies, television shows, newspapers, magazines, blogs, and websites. Sometimes it comes from a wise professor or teacher, or parent, or friend, or woman at the bus stop. And when it does, we thank the Lord for it. The spirit has confirmed to me {after prayer, studying, fasting, pondering} with great conviction everything i believe in. I love the Holy Ghost, and want his help with everything I do.
Our Heavenly Father knows us personally; individually; with great detail. He knows our personal needs, desires, and strengths. He wants us to be better acquainted with our own brothers and sisters, and, although we still don't have everything we need to know our siblings perfectly- he has placed in our paths ways in which we can better understand each other.
I could understand if you decide you don't want to thoroughly understand a large part of who I am, in specific- though I would not understand if you were angered by my wanting to understand you better, in specific. I'm sorry to report that that desire of mine will never end any time soon.
I can sincerely say that the greatest pursuit I hold in this life is that of unity with the ones I love the very most. I am sorry this is causing separation. I want to make it better so badly.
Love,
Margaret
Last edited by margaret on Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
How long shall i wait before it's too soon? What a vibrant violet...oh no no no no, do not be so shocked- i will be the first to believe in you. Who is that again? Ah, yes...tea time at midnight; you sweet thing! I will always say hello. Farewell!
Re: Carl Jung
How long shall i wait before it's too soon? What a vibrant violet...oh no no no no, do not be so shocked- i will be the first to believe in you. Who is that again? Ah, yes...tea time at midnight; you sweet thing! I will always say hello. Farewell!
Re: Carl Jung
Edward:
What does it mean to categorize people? Which categories do you find offensive? All categories? The male/female categories? Old/young? Pre-pubescent/post-pubescent? Diabetic/non-diabetic? Down’s syndrome/non-Down’s Syndrome? Blood types? African-American/other?
Many of these categories are useful in medicine. Some are useful for social interaction.
I would hope you would help me understand for what reason you find any of these categories irrelevant, or dangerous, or unrighteous, or false.
Which attributes do you think are wrong to take notice of? Certainly God does take notice of at least some of our attributes (wicked/righteous, happy/sad, obedient/disobedient, pure/impure, dead/alive, ignorant/knowledgeable, blind, deaf, mute, lame, sick, etc.). Do you think God would want us to ignore the fact that someone has epilepsy just because it has a genetic cause? What about someone whose body doesn’t produce enough dopamine? Does God not categorize these individuals? Does he want doctors to ignore these sorts of things? Does he want us as individuals to ignore these other individuals’ individuality?
You mentioned that you don’t believe people are physically pre-disposed to be any kind of personality. To you, what is a personality?
What is it about the extrovert/introvert dichotomy that you find repugnant? Which part of the flimsy science do you have a problem with?
You mentioned that you disagree with pseudo-psychoanalytical hoo-ha. Do you prefer psychoanalytical hoo-ha? Is it hoo-ha generally that you have a problem with?
I take it from your comments that “investing ourselves in the individuals around us” and “looking for types” are contrary activities; you can’t do one while doing the other; they are opposed to each other. Have I understood you correctly?
What does it mean to categorize people? Which categories do you find offensive? All categories? The male/female categories? Old/young? Pre-pubescent/post-pubescent? Diabetic/non-diabetic? Down’s syndrome/non-Down’s Syndrome? Blood types? African-American/other?
Many of these categories are useful in medicine. Some are useful for social interaction.
I would hope you would help me understand for what reason you find any of these categories irrelevant, or dangerous, or unrighteous, or false.
Which attributes do you think are wrong to take notice of? Certainly God does take notice of at least some of our attributes (wicked/righteous, happy/sad, obedient/disobedient, pure/impure, dead/alive, ignorant/knowledgeable, blind, deaf, mute, lame, sick, etc.). Do you think God would want us to ignore the fact that someone has epilepsy just because it has a genetic cause? What about someone whose body doesn’t produce enough dopamine? Does God not categorize these individuals? Does he want doctors to ignore these sorts of things? Does he want us as individuals to ignore these other individuals’ individuality?
You mentioned that you don’t believe people are physically pre-disposed to be any kind of personality. To you, what is a personality?
What is it about the extrovert/introvert dichotomy that you find repugnant? Which part of the flimsy science do you have a problem with?
You mentioned that you disagree with pseudo-psychoanalytical hoo-ha. Do you prefer psychoanalytical hoo-ha? Is it hoo-ha generally that you have a problem with?
I take it from your comments that “investing ourselves in the individuals around us” and “looking for types” are contrary activities; you can’t do one while doing the other; they are opposed to each other. Have I understood you correctly?
How long shall i wait before it's too soon? What a vibrant violet...oh no no no no, do not be so shocked- i will be the first to believe in you. Who is that again? Ah, yes...tea time at midnight; you sweet thing! I will always say hello. Farewell!
Re: Carl Jung
the problem with temperament typing is that it doesn’t work. it doesn’t give you knowledge, it doesn’t improve your relationships, it doesn’t bring you happiness, and it doesn’t draw you closer to God. it is not supported by scripture or science.
general conference is approaching. we can learn more truth this weekend than we would learn in a lifetime of studying temperament typology. the "hardy and homely cloth of truth" is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
the vain and foolish philosophies of the world will fade away. they do not come from God, and they cannot withstand intelligent scrutiny. truth, however, “will weather the worst.” truth is eternal.
“Oh say, what is truth? ’Tis the fairest gem
That the riches of worlds can produce,
And priceless the value of truth will be when
The proud monarch’s costliest diadem
Is counted but dross and refuse.
Yes, say, what is truth? ’Tis the brightest prize
To which mortals or Gods can aspire.
Go search in the depths where it glittering lies,
Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies:
’Tis an aim for the noblest desire.
The sceptre may fall from the despot’s grasp
When with winds of stern justice he copes.
But the pillar of truth will endure to the last,
And its firm-rooted bulwarks outstand the rude blast
And the wreck of the fell tyrant’s hopes.
Then say, what is truth? ’Tis the last and the first,
For the limits of time it steps o’er.
Tho the heavens depart and the earth’s fountains burst,
Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,
Eternal, unchanged, evermore.”
-- John Jaques
general conference is approaching. we can learn more truth this weekend than we would learn in a lifetime of studying temperament typology. the "hardy and homely cloth of truth" is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
the vain and foolish philosophies of the world will fade away. they do not come from God, and they cannot withstand intelligent scrutiny. truth, however, “will weather the worst.” truth is eternal.
“Oh say, what is truth? ’Tis the fairest gem
That the riches of worlds can produce,
And priceless the value of truth will be when
The proud monarch’s costliest diadem
Is counted but dross and refuse.
Yes, say, what is truth? ’Tis the brightest prize
To which mortals or Gods can aspire.
Go search in the depths where it glittering lies,
Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies:
’Tis an aim for the noblest desire.
The sceptre may fall from the despot’s grasp
When with winds of stern justice he copes.
But the pillar of truth will endure to the last,
And its firm-rooted bulwarks outstand the rude blast
And the wreck of the fell tyrant’s hopes.
Then say, what is truth? ’Tis the last and the first,
For the limits of time it steps o’er.
Tho the heavens depart and the earth’s fountains burst,
Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,
Eternal, unchanged, evermore.”
-- John Jaques
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: Carl Jung
Indeed, truth, unashamed, will always be able to bear scrutiny and study, and will stand up to honest scholarship.
Hence:
If it is true that "temperament typing" is a viable science and valuable study,
I would expect no hesitation in allowing it to be scrutinized and evaluated for its accuracy and worth.
I would therefore like to have a thorough "typological profile" of ME posted
here on the thread to further educate me as to its form, function, and value.
Am I an introvert, or an extrovert? What are my inherent traits, and which have I, instead, earned through faith, repentance, and hard work?
What specific significant or helpful things about me, have you or could you learn through "typing" that you could not learn
in more, shall I say, conventional ways (viz. conversation, experience, or revelation)?
How will this knowledge improve our relationships more effectively than would these more plain, common approaches?
I would urge from others of you thoughtful, careful, kindly and nonprejudicial responses to the profile.
Hence:
If it is true that "temperament typing" is a viable science and valuable study,
I would expect no hesitation in allowing it to be scrutinized and evaluated for its accuracy and worth.
I would therefore like to have a thorough "typological profile" of ME posted
here on the thread to further educate me as to its form, function, and value.
Am I an introvert, or an extrovert? What are my inherent traits, and which have I, instead, earned through faith, repentance, and hard work?
What specific significant or helpful things about me, have you or could you learn through "typing" that you could not learn
in more, shall I say, conventional ways (viz. conversation, experience, or revelation)?
How will this knowledge improve our relationships more effectively than would these more plain, common approaches?
I would urge from others of you thoughtful, careful, kindly and nonprejudicial responses to the profile.
"Music's golden tongue flatter'd to tears this aged man and poor."
Re: Carl Jung
the "color code" was trendy a few years ago. as we have seen in other forms of typing, it has four basic elements. in this case, they are called red, blue, yellow and white.
From Deseret News archives:
'Color Code' helps Mormon author deal with others
by Judy Fraser
Published: Friday, May 7, 2010 12:16 a.m. MDT
Taylor Hartman couldn't have known he would discover innovative theories of personality that would influence millions of people.
He just knew he had to dig deeper to find the core motives behind people's behavior.
Hartman is the founder of "The Color Code" personality theories.
His first book, which he had no inclination to write and the manuscript for which was left behind in an airport for a week, has influenced millions of people.
Hartman began thinking about the field of psychology while serving a Mormon mission.
As a missionary, he found that he loved people and wanted to help them resolve their relationship problems.
Later, as a practicing therapist, he knew that the behaviorism that dominated the field of psychology in the 1970s didn't go far enough to effectively help him treat his clients.
Hartman concluded that all people are born with one of four personality types, to which he assigns a color. "Reds" are motivated primarily by power, "Blues" by intimacy, "Yellows" by fun and "Whites" by peace.
Each personality type has its potential strengths and weaknesses.
As Hartman began seeing his clients through this new paradigm, he felt he could discern their motives more clearly and help them see what they needed to change.
"It cuts therapy in half," he said. "You can get better with these tools so much quicker."
His wife and university colleagues urged him to write a book about his innovative ideas.
But as a social, fun-loving "Yellow," Hartman said he "had no interest in writing books. They're very hard to (write)."
It was only when his "Blue" wife, Jean, told him he would have to write a chapter a week before they could go out on the weekends.
"The best decision I ever made in life was to marry my wife," he said. "I'm so grateful for her."
His first book was called "The Color Code."
Because computers were scarce at the time, he wrote the entire manuscript by hand.
He took his only copy on a 1986 Hawaiian vacation and lost it on the way home. A full week passed before he realized it was missing and called the airport. Luckily, the ticket agent he called found it sitting on the chair where he'd left it.
He would never have been willing to rewrite the book. Hartman attributes the recovery to divine providence.
Hartman invites his clients and readers to overcome the weaknesses associated with their personality type and develop strengths not native to their personality type. He then encourages individuals to develop character and have the greatest motive of all: selfless contribution and service.
"You get to know yourself so you can get over yourself," Hartman believes.
Hartman's mother was a "Red." In order to get her approval, he believed that he, too, was a "Red" and tried to live his life as one.
"I was living a lie," he said.
He believes that no matter how "charactered" (able to gain the strengths of non-native colors) one becomes, it's essential to remain true to one's own core personality. He compares this to the joy of coming home after a vacation. Those who are not congruent, he says, "give up the divine gift of themselves."
A father of five and grandfather of nine, Hartman enjoys relating to his family members, who include all the personality colors.
In addition to "The Color Code" (1987), he has written "Color Your Future" (1991), about becoming more charactered; "Sandcastles" (2001), about becoming more loving; and "Playing Life to Win: A Game Plan for Self Development" (2008).
He has also updated "The Color Code" under a new title: "The People Code: It's All About Your Innate Motive" (2007).
Hartman said the personality theory helps him to be more forgiving. He doesn't take things as personally as he once did, now that he better understands where others are coming from.
"I love learning other colors' languages," he said. "And I just love God for his ability to embrace us on all our different levels."
"The Color Code" also helps Hartman in his calling.
Currently serving as his Salt Lake City area ward's Young Men president, Hartman picked counselors with personalities of different "colors" than his so they "can have balance." The code helps him understand the young men he works with, and he doesn't take offense if they seem rebellious or have a different perspective from his.
"I feel 'The Color Code' is a gift from God to help us live the gospel more abundantly," Hartman said. He also finds it interesting that different "colors" struggle with different commandments.
Hartman finds the teachings of the gospel invaluable in his work with clients.
"I cannot imagine being a therapist without a gospel background," he said. "Psychology is so unrooted. The gospel roots me. It's better, deeper, richer and more true than psychology."
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: Carl Jung
Ha ha ha ha HA ha haa, hooo hoo hoooo! ye...ssss! Edward I love this comic! yes!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest