Hugh Nibley, image from rickety.usI dislike throwing things away: Instead of throwing away the fruit salad from dinner tonight, I ate it. Instead of throwing away my son’s scuffy shoes, I put them in the Goodwill pile. Instead of tossing the cardboard packaging from the couch that arrived today, I saved it for the kids to paint on next week when it’s not raining. Moreover, when my kids wander around in the morning before school, as though they’ve never seen the house before, it bugs me that they’re wasting their time—“Go practice your piano! Start your homework! Pack your backpack,” I drill at them. “Anything but ramble around, randomly touching things.”
Despite my dislike of waste, I never thought about the possibility of waste being sinful until I read Hugh Nibley’s article “Zeal without Knowledge,” printed in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and a part of the curriculum for the advanced writing class I’m teaching this semester at BYU-Idaho. In this article, Nibley explicates the differences between God’s way of seeing and our mortal way of seeing. He argues that God doesn’t have the same mental limitations that we have; we should not assume that “if he is thinking of Peter, he cannot hardly be thinking of Paul at the same time, let alone marking the fall of the sparrow.” Rather, Nibley states, it’s important to recognize that God can see countless number of things at a time.
Why is that important? Because this recognition should force us to ask ourselves why God has limited our thoughts. Nibley argues that “this limitation is the essence of our mortal existence. If every choice I make expresses a preference, .. . then with every choice I am judging myself, proclaiming all the day long to God, angels and my fellowmen where my real values lie, where my treasure is, the things to which I give supreme importance. Hence, is this life every moment provides a perfect and foolproof test of your real character.” And, here’s the real zinger: “Sin is waste,” he says. “It is doing one thing when you should be doing other and better things for which you have the capacity.”
Strong stuff, huh? Even though I’m not a fan of waste, I’m not sure I needed that shot of guilt. If every moment and every choice is a proclamation of my values and treasure, then that’s exhausting! No kicking back to relax in front of the television, watching Modern Family? No Facebook breaks from the kids? Yet his argument rings true to me also. I believe we’ll be judged by our choices, and if that’s the case, then shouldn’t I have to believe we’ll be judged by all of them?
What do you think about Nibley’s definition? Is it more guilt-raising for you or motivating? Would you define “sin” or “waste” differently than he does?
http://www.nikeairmaxfreedom.com nike air max 2014
There's a difference between saying sin is waste, versus waste is sin. Whereas sin by nature is wasteful, it does not follow that all waste is sinful. And we must be careful what we attribute to being wasteful, much in the same way we are exact in labeling sin. We don't have to be busy in every moment to please God. In fact, we lack the capacity to feel His love or real joy if there is no room to breathe in life each day.
Brother Nibley's intentions were purely to reveal one facet of the nature of sin, not reveal some previously undiscovered method of sinning. Taking his counsel out of proportion would not be rewarding experience 🙂
Yeah, for me, it's guilt-reducing (though, I reject guilt, and so I tend to find the guilt-free readings) – the reason sin is bad is not because it means that you're a terrible person incapable of doing good things. It's because you're wasting time you could be feeling a closer connection with God. Of course, true repentance often brings us a little closer than we were before the sin, so as long as you get to that part, thumbs up. And then accept the forgiveness and don't waste time with self-recriminations after your repentance is complete!
I liked the idea that every choice expresses my preferences. I've been thinking a lot lately about how to plan goals (if it's possible) that work on our true preferences/values, rather than how we think we should feel. Paying attention to what we've already chosen shouldn't be time to berate ourselves, but rather a time of deepening our understanding of who we are.
Thanks for this!
In my mind, this idea has the potential to be shame inducing if not taught directly and specifically with the doctrine of the Atonement.
Imagine a child who has been molested and, as a result, has found subconscious coping mechanisms for dealing with that trauma. Some of those coping mechanisms might end up qualifying as sin in the absolute, but they wouldn't necessarily reflect that child's true self or character. They would reflect more that child's experience and pain.
I'll use my own example of struggling with an eating disorder for over a decade of my life. I knew somewhere in me that not being able to control my eating (I would binge and then exercise) was wrong (I HATED myself for it), but all the more so now that I can look back and see and understand my real self, those choices did not reflect my true character. They reflected my true weakness and need for healing and lack of understanding about my true character.
Don't get me wrong. I know there are sometimes willful things we do that are wasteful. But even then are they wasted experiences? I personally feel like this life is called a probationary period for a reason. I am coming to feel grateful for the way my weaknesses and sins help me understand the Atonement.
p.s. I did nothing with that particular weakness to 'fix' those sins of mine that lingered with me for a decade. In fact, the more I focused on trying to fix my eating disorder (because I knew my behavior wasn't healthy — I remember even wondering if I should refuse the sacrament) the worse I felt. I was healed of my disordered relationship with food and with my body image in God's time and way in my late 20s. Now in my 40s God is helping unpeel some of the layers to my understanding of what beliefs drove my eating disorder. My relationship with food was changed, but my relationship with God and with myself and others (one definition of repentance) is still being healed. The sins of those days helped me come to know the taste of grace, and now I lean on that reality as I continue to face more of my layers. Sin to me is not waste. I do not encourage deliberate sin, but I am grateful for the depth and breadth of mercy available as we seek Christ. Even time rejecting Christ can be turned to good when people eventually come to themselves.
I agree completely. I live my life this way.
I call it "living life deliberately."
It doesn't mean I never relax or never have fun. I just intentionally choose to spend my time doing things that align with my priorities and who I want to be. If I want to be someone who is happy and not stressed so I can do good in the world and in my family it means I take breaks to relax and think. If I want to have a good marriage or good relationships with my family it means I take time to communicate and enjoy each other.
I would never get mad at my kids at wandering around the house thinking. I consider that a positive thing. However, if they are wasting their time with way too much screen time or if they are bugging someone I tell them to stop. Or if it is time to work on something then I make them work.
Liked CJane's thoughts on agency and sin. http://www.cjanekendrick.com/2014/01/the-parable-of-fruit-snacks.html
Goes along with my firm conviction that we focus too much on the to-do list, that being a human doing rather than a human being and that Mormonism attracts task oriented workaholics who frequently try to put their Nazi-ist tendencies on others. I don't know very much about Hugh Nibley and like what jks says about living deliberately, although I think it's very different than being constantly busy (in mind and body). Only God determines what we're wasting and he knows our heart. I also have the firm conviction that my time spent sleeping is never wasted. I would put this in my "turn the but around category" which would read something "do what you can, trying not to waste your time, but Jesus is going to cover our weaknesses, so don't hate yourself if you spend all day reading Amy Tan books."
A very thought provoking post. Two scriptures come to mind–the one that talks about how we will be judged for everything we do, say AND think (Alma 12:14). And the one that says we should not run faster than we have strength (Mosiah 4:27). I abhor waste too, and yet I know I am guilty of it every day. Oh well. The main thing is I am doing my level best to follow God and His prophet to the best of my (current) understanding. And that includes realizing that not every moment is good for every activity–there is a time to laugh, a time to cry, etc.–a time to kick back with my husband and relax watching something on TV. I like the idea that we are limited to see what we will do, to see who we are. Generally I try to be a frugal, non-wasteful individual. But this week I took my five year old to the store and bought him a new pair of shoes even though he had a perfectly functional pair. Why? The ones we replaced were so hard to put on and tie that it brought both of us to the point of extreme frustration and/or tears each time we had to go somewhere. That was when I came to the (wasteful?) conclusion that the thing that was important here was not "use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without" but preserving my sanity and our relationship. Many of our choices are the same–kind of like Elder Oak's "good, better, best" idea. Thankfully we have the atonement that buys us space and time as we wrangle with these issues.
Paradox, you're right about the danger of labeling and of the importance of not misreading Nibley's intent. Thanks for posting!
Michelle, thanks for the link. Love the thought that there are not wasted experiences.
Annegb, I like your "human being" rather than "human doing" emphasis. I loved that Nibley's ideas made me think more about my choices and, like jks said, be more deliberate about them. I think that's the value in what he says, not using his words as a judgment on self or others.