Merespective Whatcha-ma-callit????

I have been engaged in wonderful conversations with numerous individuals from various different faiths regarding a plethora of topics. It has been such a rewarding experience, one that I wholeheartedly wish upon anyone seeking truth. First let me say that there are sooooo many good people out there of many differing faiths.
In my conversations I find the same dilemma surfacing again and again and find myself giving the same explanation over and over to different parties. I therefore, am now putting it on my blog for the sake of reference. You will find this post littered with my personal bias, but hopefully you will see my attempts to convey them responsibly.

Merespective Rhetoric?
Okay, so I made this word up…I created the term merespective because I couldn’t find a word that adequately explained what I was trying to communicate. If you know a better one, I am all ears. This word has its roots in Latin. Mere comes from the Latin “Méros” meaning “partial,” or “part of a whole” and is found in words like merely, meridian, and meristem. Spective comes from the Latin Specere meaning “the look at, view”. Rhetoric means “the ability to use language effectively, especially to persuade or influence people”. I have combined the three to refer to the human tendency for opinion leaders to use language effectively to persuade or influence the audience to see their limited perspective or partial view of any given subject.
Let’s take war reporting, for a hypothetical example. We send two war journalists over to report on what they see. One is positioned with a brigade of soldiers in the south, while the other is positioned with a different brigade in the North. In addition to bringing their own experiences to the table affecting what they choose to report on, both see a completely different side to the war. The one on the south sees very little fighting and sees the soldiers primarily involved in striking alliances with the locals. The reporter in the North has the opposite experience finding himself in the midst of constant gunfire. The war rages, inhumanity is consistently paraded accompanied by atrocity after atrocity, from which the journalist feels he is looking into the very jaws of hell.
When it comes time for reporting, each of the reporters must summarize their entire experience in order to effectively communicate to those removed from the war, what is really happening. Both actually see different sides of what is happening and therefore their reports on the war may paint very different pictures. Both are seasoned journalists, and neither of them are lying, yet they contradict one another on every point and intend to persuade the viewers that their merespective is the accurate one.
This principle happens all the time with anyone who is set as a witness of something. All they can give is a testimony of their partial view. We then can add that to the many testimonies that are given to create a picture for ourselves of what is really happening.
I am always interested (not really) to hear critics of our faith outright reject the testimonies of the leading brethren of the LDS Church who give their personal witnesses of the divine, and then to see them turn around and embrace every wind of rumor, speculation, and even outright lies because it conforms with their own opinions. I have read many critics’ versions of the history of our church, sensing all along their disgust and animosity toward the subjects of the history they are giving and then hear the same history, even the same key parts told by one who champions the very things the former despised. I understand, very well that both accounts are a spin of reality, that the details of history are given in subjective bias. I can understand subjectivity, but I cannot excuse lies, sloppy care of context, or outright irresponsibility. I think there should be more of what I like to call “responsible subjectivity”.

Responsible Subjectivity
I put little faith in the elusive term “objectivity.” I feel that such a trait is spoken of far too often and is completely impossible for humans, (including myself, since I am obviously human). I have listened for years now as journalists, news writers, commentators (religious and otherwise), scientists, politicians and many others seek to convey objectivity in the presentation of their ideas… as if they were somehow detached from the human experience. They try to be neither for, nor against the things they speak of. Needless to say I have found such attempts to be absurd. No matter how we as humans try to divorce ourselves from being “interested observers” we bring to the table emotions, past experiences, ideas, and learning that combine to bias us toward or from a certain perspective of any given scenario. This is why we have opinions.
A friend of mine who is also an outspoken critic of the Church of Jesus Christ has repeatedly rejected the words from the leadership of this church on the premise that they are “bias” in their views, and then in the same breath unquestioningly accept the views and perspectives of others who speak against the Church because they are somehow untainted by association with it. I do not understand his reasoning. He rightly sees the bias of our leaders, yet is somehow blinded to the obvious bias of our critics. I see nothing wrong with bias, as long as it is responsible. Both sides carry biases, as all parties ultimately do. What we need look for is not elusive objectivity, but rather responsible subjectivity. While even my words are biased by my own life experiences, I can seek to be as accurate as possible in the bearing of my own witness of things.
I just finished reading a thesis by a Catholic monk who decided to perform a comparative analysis between the LDS doctrine of Exaltation and the Patristic teachings on Theosis. (For anyone who is interested the thesis is called “Partakers of the Divine” and I highly recommend it). The man writing this thesis came to the table with biases. He was also not a member of our church, yet his writing was so careful and so responsible and so tremendously accurate that upon finishing I felt like applauding him for the responsible manner in which he discussed a faith beyond his own. I have never seen this done with such care. More often I have been disappointed in the sloppy manner in which some discuss about my faith what they know so little about. I would rather a person ask me what I believe than try to tell me. And for you out there who feel compelled to write about the LDS faith from an outsider’s perspective, please take a step back and be a little more responsible, and accurate. Get an insider’s opinion rather than assuming your merespective is representative of the whole. Thank you.