The seed is a versatile image and metaphor because it is the start of everything: the start of every life; the start of every endeavor; the start of every idea. The start of every being and the start of every becoming. The 32nd chapter of Alma talks about the Word being a seed, and from there we learn just what we can expect from a single seed.

[Story 1]

The Word is a seed that we must take the chance to plant first, and which, hopefully, if we do plant it, will germinate, sprout and grow, enlarging our souls and enlightening our minds.

In my last post, commenter st1305 wrote that there cannot be faith in a false idea, because faith is not simply belief. Faith, instead, is the application of a belief that enlarges the soul and enlightens the mind, as Alma 32: 34 and 35 also describe. A false idea, he argued, would not enlarge the soul and enlighten the mind. What st1305 wrote was interesting:

This is true for all of the other principles that I apply in my life – chastity, honesty, integrity, temple work, missionary work and a host of other principles in my faith. I know they are true as I have applied them and I see the fruits and they are good.

I saw a distinction between the ideas that st1305 was raising, however. Principles like honesty, integrity and service differ from ones like temple work or tithing in that the former are universal and general, but the latter are specific and particular implementations as found within the church. In some cases, they are rules that at best seek to capture a more general principle.

The LDS church does not have any sort of exclusive claim on a principle like chastity, even if they do have claims to particular stipulations of the law of chastity. But from here is the first question…what is it that enlarges our soul and enlightens our mind? The rule…or the principle?

I believe it is the principle. When we lose sight of the principles for rules, then our faith becomes Pharisaical. Hollow.

A dangerous new thought sprouted forth: wouldn’t we do best to focus on principles without relying so much on rules?

[/Story 1]

Any day now, America will (if the adoption date ever stops pushing back) migrate away from the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) that we have historically used to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

Supporters of IFRS argue that the change will increase comparability of financial statements — instead of comparing apples to oranges, we’ll all be comparing oranges. In addition, since IFRS is more principles-based, IFRS will not encourage abuse of the brightline rules that US GAAP has.

Let me try to explain the difference using a non-accounting example.

[Story 2]

When we drive, we operate under a basic principle: we want our driving experience to be safe. To satisfy this principle, we develop certain rules, such as the speed limit.

US GAAP sets clear and easy-to-understand (that is, “bright line”) speed limits with directly measurable values. A 40 mile per hour speed limit gives everyone a clear boundary — you can be ticketed for going over 40. Some cops may allow some higher speeds to slide, but if you get caught, the rules are clear.

Everyone is justified to go up to 40 mph, and can do so whenever possible with legal protection.

What could be bad about this? How could this possibly be abused? 40 miles per hour isn’t even that fast…

Let’s say that the speed limit is the ultimate rule for speed and you are driving in terrible weather. In this case, couldn’t you see how a simple, clear-cut rule could backfire and fail to establish our principle (and principal) goal of maintaining safety?

…Yet, creating exceptions for every occurrence would just create a tremendous driver’s manual (not to mention street signs!) In the case of accounting scandals, it wouldn’t even work to prevent frauds before they are perpetuated. New rules always are a step behind the crooks.

So what if instead we had no bright line speed limit numbers, but instead we were given the principle, “Drive safely given the environment”? This extreme case highlights the allure of IFRS.

Drivers wouldn’t have a rule to which they could hug close. However, rule enforcers also wouldn’t have a rule to which they could hug close. If a police officer disagreed with you on the optimally safe speed, you would have no bright line precedent of speed limit to back up your case.

In accounting, we have a bit of a different issue. Normally, in a court, you don’t easily win against a police officer. However, in a court, groups can win against the auditor. Additionally, auditors are hired by the firms they audit, so they have (at least) two incentives: 1) to make sure their clients stay in business and 2) to make decisions that are less likely to be challenged in courts. With clear-cut rules, the audit firm can at least defend its decisions both to clients and juries by saying, “We play according to the rules.” But without clear-cut rules, the courts do not have clear-cut rules with which to crucify (or protect), and auditors do not have the mechanism to challenge more fiscally aggressive clients.

So the big push against principles-based accounting is that it too does not prevent against fraud but instead gives ne’er-do-well executives even greater flexibility to report financial information aggressively. Ne’er-do-well execs can argue that really, 80 miles per hour is always safe, no matter the road conditions. In addition, supporters of GAAP note that the P in GAAP already is “principles,” and a balance of clear rules and principles (like the balance of speed limits with principles of safety in less-ideal conditions) is best.

[/Story 2]

[Synthesis]

When I thought about the audit and accounting example, I began to realize that the rules are valuable for inculcating the principles. Sure, sometimes they can be abused (our rules-based accounting did not prevent Enron, and in the aftermath, some research has suggested that technically, no violations of GAAP or auditing standards took place. Enron simply worked creatively and aggressively within the legal boundaries), but in this case we need to balance re-tweak rules for the sake of the principles, not eliminate one or the other.

[/Synthesis]

The next thing I thought about, as a result of thinking about accounting standards, is the fact that there are many sets of accounting standards seeking after the same principles. What comparison can we make with seeds and the Word? You’ll have to stay tuned for next week’s entry!

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

…

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye ^aneglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ^aground is ^bbarren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the ^atree of life.

…

So there. Let it be known that it’s untrue that we never use scriptures on Mormon Matters.

That being said, I might appear to be too critical for some, so that’s my disclaimer.

Alma 32 is a curious set of scriptures for the church. In verse 27 we have the famous (at least, famous to me) admonition that if one can only desire to believe, then they should go for it. And 28 begins a rather popular analogy of faith (BIG EDIT: the word…it even clearly says it…so I don’t know why people [and even I] turn this to faith) to a seed that can be nourished and grown.

And this set of scriptures is also clever. Clever enough that it chaps my hide. I mean, obviously, I’m biased, but have you ever thought about it?

Alma 32:32 seems most reasonable. It seems a lot about what kinds of things we hear about in church. Test the spirits to know if they are true. If you have a good idea, you’ll get a burning in your bosom. If you have a not so good idea, you’ll get a stupor of thought. So, you can develop a rule of thumb for discerning ideas. And the role of faith seems clear — to begin the process. Surely, the seed (the word) might look like a dud to you, and common sense might suggest it’ll never work out, but common sense isn’t too common or sensical, so faith is the ability to take the first step and plant the seed anyway.

But 32:32 has a reasonable out: what doesn’t grow is discarded. When you get a stupor of thought, you don’t continue. You go back to the drawing board.

So far, so good.

I’ll compare with real world paradigms. In the real world, I might undertake something that I might think is unlikely. I might make a hypothesis and hope it’s true, but not know. This is faith for the real world. So far, so good. But in the real world, things that are true will manifest themselves as true regardless of anything else. I might be incredulous that flipping a light switch will turn on a light, but regardless of if I believe or not, the light will turn on with the switch (as long as the circuitry isn’t broken). The only faith is in getting over my possible initial incredulity to flipping the switch.

Yet what if something else happens?

What if your seed never sprouts? The word doesn’t “do it” for you. What if it never grows? In the real world, you try something else. Yet in the church we have so often a different cultural idea backed by certain other scriptures: such as D+C 14:7: “And, if you ^akeep my commandments and ^bendure to the end you shall have ^ceternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.” This doesn’t imply any necessity of results, so what commonly is asserted is that people just need to be more patient, continue following the commandments, continue hoping, etc.,

OK, OK, so that’s fair enough. One could make an extended argument for faith with that vein. Looking at verses 16 – 19 from the Alma 32 gets us similar things.

But here’s the question…here’s the thought experiment. What if we applied this same concept to everything in life? What if, in particular, we applied this concept to other churches? Alma 32 works reasonably if we are freely able to determine when the seed is dead and bad…but if we presuppose that a seed is good (obviously, the Book of Mormon and the church presuppose the word is true), even despite the results, and just say, “Just endure…just desire to believe…just wait…just have patience,” then how are we to discern anything? We might say that the reason we are Mormon instead of Catholic or Baptist is because Mormon tenets appealed to us more, but couldn’t it be that we needed to just desire to believe in Catholicism, exercise a particle of faith and (if we still did not having any confirming experiences), endure to the end in faith, yet we negligently failed to do so?

This is why I believe instead that some part of our belief or disbelief is not chosen (and Jeff or someone else here will probably offer a rebuttal either here or in another article, so stay tuned, folks!) We don’t just in a gungho way say, “I’m going to be Catholic, have faith, and endure to the end.” Because when we set that criteria, we strip away our ability to discern between anything — why not do that with Islam? With Buddhism? With anything else?

Rather, we are already inclined in certain directions…some people are already inclined to Catholicism…and others to Mormonism…and others to other things. When people move with their inclination, then they will find that those personal and subjective seeds will grow. But this is not forced. You don’t make a Catholic seed grow if you are not inclined to believe in Catholicism. Rather, the doctrines and theology will seem disagreeable, and you’ll regret forcing it upon yourself. But the same is true for Mormonism or anything else.