quotes tagged with 'paradox'

If the brain was so simple that we could understand it, then we would be so simple that we couldn't.

Author: Emerson Pugh, Source: UnknownSaved by Doc in mind knowledge intelligence brain paradox irony 11 years ago[save this] [permalink]

Poets ask only to get their heads into the heavens. 


It is scientists who seek to get the heavens into their heads


It is their heads that split.

Author: G. K. Chesterton, Source: unknownSaved by Doc in wisdom knowledge science poetry philosophy paradox 11 years ago[save this] [permalink]
Often we are required to choose between two good things. This is one of the paradoxes of the gospel. For example: there is a direct relationship between the amount of time spent on a particular calling and the amount of good one can do. A bishop does much good by visiting a needy member. He does ten times as much good by visiting ten needy members. How much time, then, should he spend visiting? We get close to the Lord by studying and pondering the scriptures. We get closer still by studying harder and pondering more deeply. How much, then, should we study? A good father spends time with his family. A better father spends more time and has a regular weekly evening out with his wife as well.

But where is the line to be drawn? When is enough, enough—and more too much? How can we tell if we are active enough, serving others enough, loving enough, home enough—or whether the balance needs to be readjusted? Aristotle once said:

“It is no easy task to be good. For in everything it is no easy task to find the middle … anyone can get angry—that is easy—or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble. (“Man and Man: The Social Philosophers,” The World’s Great Thinkers, volume II, edited by Saxe Cummins and Robert N. Linscott, New York: Random House, 1947, page 352a.)

Could a man be a better husband if he spent every evening at home with his wife? Could he be a better husband if he had no children, thereby having all of his spare time to dedicate to her? The answer is a resounding no! No one—husband, wife, children, or church—has claim on the full time of someone else. Children, given their parents’ full-time attention, would be overshadowed and become dependent. The Church, with full-time bishops, would have a paid ministry and become an end in itself rather than a divine organization designed to help perfect the individual children of God.
Author: Elder F. Burton Howard, Source: The Gift of Knowing. Liahona Feb 1989. http://www.lds.org/ldso...Saved by mlsscaress in choice motive balance goodness paradox middle specifics 12 years ago[save this] [permalink]
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
Author: Yogi Berra, Source: unknownSaved by Doc in joke paradox malapropism 13 years ago[save this] [permalink]
Our leaders urge us to be active in politics—and yet think it very important to keep the Church out of politics. Is this a contradiction? Consider:

Brigham Young encouraged the people to dance, even while proclaiming, "Dancing [is] no part of our worship."43

He says, "I labor for my own dear self," and in the same breath adds that men have no right to work for themselves.44

We practice shrewd economics even while being told to take no thought of what we shall eat or wear.

We should constantly be storing our minds with knowledge, yet take no thought of what we are to say when we teach the gospel.

We are told to be provident and thrifty—but to ask and trust our heavenly Father for our daily bread.

We are told to be industrious and independent, yet "if the laborer in Zion labor for money, he shall perish" (cf. 2 Nephi 26:31).

We are told to go to with our might—and consider the lilies of the field who toil not neither do they spin.

We are told to hold the Sabbath most sacred as a day of rest, yet it is the day on which many of us work hardest.

We are told to acquire worldly learning and told that worldly learning is nothing.

Joseph Smith said he would have nothing to do with politics and ran for president!

The Savior, speaking with the woman at the well, was thirsty and asked for a drink, and even as he was drinking she asked him for a drink, because he told her that he could give her water of which whoever drank would never thirst again.

We could go on and on, but what is wrong here? Nothing. If we were to examine each of the above apparent paradoxes we would find them all falling into the pattern of Moses' declarations, both uttered on the same occasion and as it were in the same breath. First he said, "Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed" (Moses 1:10). And then he adds: "But now mine own eyes have beheld God; . . . his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him. . . . I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten" (Moses 1:11, 13). Which is it? Is man nothing or everything? It all depends on which existence we behold him in, temporal or eternal.
Author: Hugh Nibley, Source: Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints In the Party, but Not of the Party pp. 105–37Saved by Doc in politics religion potential faith strength work knowledge industry humility learning weakness testimony sabbath temporal thrift eternal childofgod paradox dancing 13 years ago[save this] [permalink]
I have trouble understanding why people drift away from the Church. I'm sure the reasons are different and varied. I can understand if a person wants to misbehave and has to rationalize to himself. He has to think he's all right. But I also understand that people who think they have to be as smart as the Lord, understand everything, and have no contradictions in their minds may have trouble. There are all kinds of contradictions that I don't understand, but I find the same kinds of contradictions in science, and I haven't decided to apostatize from science.

In the long run, the truth is its own most powerful advocate. The Lord uses imperfect people. He often allows their errors to stand uncorrected. He may have a purpose in doing so, such as to teach us that religious truth comes forth "line upon line, precept upon precept" in a process of sifting and winnowing similar to the one I know so well in science.
Author: Henry B Eyring, Source: Reflections of a Scientist (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 47.Saved by Doc in religion truth science confusion paradox 13 years ago[save this] [permalink]

« Previous 1 » Next

tag cloud

Visit the tag cloud to see a visual representation of all the tags saved in Quoty.

popular tags