In this chapter, we learn of the squabble between the Lamanites and Limhi's people, due to the priests of Noah stealing the Lamanites' daughters, and the Lamanites believing Limhi's people to be the guilty party.
There is a serious lack of communication here. If we abstract the difficulties of the Lamanites to ourselves, we learn a lot about the dangers of pre-assumptions and judgmental attitudes of others.
Had the Lamanites sought answers first before going to attack, perhaps they wouldn't have lost so many people. Nevertheless, their actions escalated the problem, and they lost. It is interesting to note that although v. 11 indicates that Limhi's people were fighting for a "better cause," namely for their families and their lives, and therefore won, it is true that the Lamanites could also have been fighting for a similar reason. The problem was they were fighting the wrong people, and they weren't first seeking a diplomatic method to solve the problem. Limhi's people didn't have the choice to be diplomatic. They were simply protecting themselves.
Understanding the choices made by the Lamanites helps us understand why they were beaten, then.
Contrast this with Limhi's choices. After the fight, when he had a choice to kill the king (and keep in mind, he had more reason to do so, since it was the Lamanites that came to kill them first, and the Lamanites would have killed Limhi if the roles were reversed), he nevertheless sought to understand the problem. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. ~Stephen Covey
Doing this allowed them to find their miscommunication. Assumptions had been made on the part of the Lamanites, which caused both sides to suffer casualties (though the Lamanites lost more).
What do I do when something adverse happens in my life? Do I make assumptions about the guilty party? Do I accuse someone without knowing all the facts or confronting them directly? What about general judgmental attitudes toward others? Do I assume what someone is thinking or the reason they're doing something? If I do, do I put it in a positive light?
Is it better to assume the best, or directly ask them why they do something? In other words, are positive assumptions better than direct understanding? An interesting question.
I think in context, we should always assume the best in people, but that doesn't mean we can set aside negative aspects of a person. A better idea is to never assume the worst in people. Negative judgments do nothing, as the anecdote of the Lamanites demonstrates. Conversely, Limhi sought understanding rather than a negative judgment of the Lamanite king. This was highly effective, and I can employ it more in my life. Never assume the worst; instead, seek understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment