My Response to "The Perfect Mousetrap" -- Part 2 - McKay Platt
My Response to "The Perfect Mousetrap" --- Part 2
This talk and a portion of the Holy Order Pt2 talk appear to give opposite messages to what we have previously been given. The seemingly contradictory messages startled me . The message of “blessed are the peacemakers” is juxtaposed to “speak(ing) directly to one another” even if it results in a “spirited disagreement”. In the minds of many the difference between a “spirited disagreement” and a “fight” is a difference without a distinction. “Choosing not to dispute” is contrasted with engaging each other in “loud and lively debate”, even with yelling and cursing obscenities. (I know I am wresting Denver’s words somewhat but this is not a quote. It’s my initial reaction of the talk.)
Are these precepts incompatible or are the seemingly absurd incongruities a paradox that when investigated prove to be true.
Sorting this out is not an an intellectual exercise but critical to the community of peace we all desire. I believe the rhetoric was expanded in this talk because when it was said more kindly and more subtly in New York, WE DIDNT GET IT.
“We owe honesty and candor to one another. We are living a lie when we fail to honestly speak each other. I've observed how we deceitfully fail to speak directly to one another but instead tell our complaints to uninvolved others.“ Holy Order 2.
The way to peace and Zion, apparently, runs through "reasoning together” and not through “peacefully avoiding one another”. We do avoid each other. We shy away from conflict, and for good reasons. Conflict commonly results in hurt feelings and noses bend out of shape. Conflict can be a point at which a friend becomes an enemy.
We all have experienced conflicts that when ignored resurface. Playground bullies not confronted do not change behavior. Real peace, lasting peace, the kind of peace we hope for Zion cannot occur when disagreements needing resolution are swept under the rug.
I can now see that the apparent paradox between refusing to contend and working out our different views by reasoning together is more apparent than real. They are fully compatible precepts even if the debaters are rowdy, loud and unpersuasive.
Our ineptitude in reasoning together may well keep us from Zion.
“If you can think of the person, or people you blame the most for preventing us from achieving Zion, then you have identified who you need most to learn to love. You won't ever go to Zion without them. Unless you are of one heart and one mind with them, you are unfit for Zion. Let that idea remind you of just how unlikely it is for us to escape the devil's perfect mousetrap designed for us.”
So does the paper suggest who it is we should each be dialoging with and when we should disengage? Initially I felt this was a deficiency in the talk but after a careful second look I see this was addressed, albeit briefly.
Anger, judgmental assumptions, threats & colorful language are not justifiable reasons to “fail to speak” (as the talk advises) but this advice is given.
“Avoid those who are self-serving, proclaiming their righteousness, or claiming God is on their side and you MUST believe them.”
Also advised, “This process isn’t for everyone.” And “If you choose to stay out…”. I’m not certain what process is being referred to here.
What is clear to me is my need to see all of my fellow Covenant Christians as brothers and sisters needing my love, my ear, my feedback and my support. Learning to love is clear. We are on a treacherous journey and need each other to arrive safely at our destination. Some of us have been too quick to write folks off because their rhetoric or views are unpleasant or uncomfortable.
In the Provo talk, Denver suggested we weren’t followers of Christ if we didn’t have love one to another. Stephanie suggested https://www.denversnuffer.net/
Now I have an important question.
In the April 2025 talk in Provo it was pointed out that the Covenant Christian community, the brothers and sisters I referred to above, include people with severe personality disorders, people with past trauma, people who lack self-awareness, people who offend others with their inappropriate conduct, people who refuse to accept responsibility for our own dreadful behavior. If angry people, loud people who yell, people who misjudged you making false assumptions cannot be righteously written off then what about the other group referred to in the Provo talk.
“There are narcissists, egomaniacs, and aspiring souls who crave recognition because they're hollow inside. There are sexual deviants. We have people in our community who are marred by sin and unrepentant. There are foolish people led astray by their egos and ambitions who assert they're entitled to lead others. They ask to be supported by tithes and be given offices and positions of authority.
These people are evil, inspired by an adversary who seeks to destroy souls.”
Where do we draw the line. Have you ever tried to resolve a conflict with an egomaniacal narcissist? Can we write off evil people? Am I even in a position to decide who is evil? Nephi dialogued with his older brothers over various conflicts, but then abandoned them when they sought to take his life. Christ engaged with the Pharisees and Saducees, but said not a word to Herod.
I have a preliminary answer to my own question. Do what works. Give people what they’re prepared to receive.
If one approach to a relationship fails, be pragmatic and try another approach. If criticizing fails, try something else. Try listening, accepting them. Try “I’ll be me and you be you”.
People aren’t prepared to receive everything we offer. If you are Samuel, the Lamanite, commanded by the Lord to stand on the wall and tell people what enters your heart, then you have to do it. But I can be more practical, do what works, avoid what harms relationships and give people what I think they’re prepared to receive.
In my view, there are reasons to avoid people, but there are no reasons to not love people, as Stephanie views love. That means there is no reason to not forgive people. There’s no reason to not use every interaction to try and improve a relationship. There’s no reason to be judgy.
In the final paper, I will share my thoughts on the last two posts. Feel free to reach out if you want to discuss.
McKay