Navidad

I see a bit of intermingling of the terms soul and spirit in this thread. How would you all define and/or differentiate each term? Or are they synonymous terms referring to the same aspect of humanity/living beings?

Yes, I can do that tomorrow. I just came home from a trip to the US and I am exhausted. Take care, Navidad

If you are using "we" to refer to the LDS, then that is the farthest thing from my mind. This is not an LDS/non-LDS thing in my mind. It is a modern human misconception of the concept of truth has it was for centuries, if not millenia. So, the "we" in my thinking and writing is modern humanity who is collectively teaching and preaching a misconception of truth as it was, not only in our scriptures, but collectively in modern, perhaps Western understanding. We have morphed it into correct and incorrect; a possession,not a journey. Yes, I believe that modern understanding helps create the conflicts we see today across cultures. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I bring it up here to my friends; not to LDS folks.

Well, that sounds angry. I never intended to make anyone angry, just to present a new old perspective on truth. I am simply sharing something I am excited about exploring. I believe we all are operating under a fairly modern concept of truth that is inconsistent with that of the Bible and other ancient documents. I am simply endeavoring to share a concept that to me is exciting and that has great potential to improve human interaction. It is not a redefinition of truth, but a stab at understanding it as it was for a long long time. I do not believe I have a correct understanding of truth. I have been researching perspectives on truth for many years, trying to determine its meaning, in cultures and language across the world, especially in the scriptures. I don't know what I believe yet. I am trying to share something with you all that excites me. I think that the use of the original words for truth in the scripture is yes, meant to lessen the conflict in the world. That is one of the messages of Christ, is it not? In John 8, Christ says the "truth will set you free," did He not? What does that mean? Free from what? In the context of truth as revealing, it may have the power to set us free from guillt, from hiddenness, from having to remember what we said yesterday, so we say the same thing today. Some of us, me, for example tend to live under an invisibility cloak. I would be excited to take off that cloak, and say, "This is me!+ That is one way to be the truth. The potential, I think is unlimited to help our ideal self match our phenomenological sense as Carl Rogers would have said . . . it could lead to congruence, which he saw as key to mental health. I am excited about it. You are my friends. So I am sharing my new thoughts with you. Nothing more. This is not an LDS Christian/non-LDS Christian thing. This is me. . . being excited about what I have been thinking and learning lately.

I did not make myself clear. I am sorry for that. There is nothing right, wrong, correct, incorrect, or certain about the meaning of truth that I am giving it. It is to be genuine, open, honest, revelatory. Perhaps if there is anything wrong about it, it stems from that which remains hidden. Truth has nothing to do with believing or doing. It has everything to do with being. And that is uniquely personal to every individual. It is a radically different concept of truth from what we are used to, but it is that which would have been understood in ancient cultures and languages. It has nothing to do with certainty, but perhaps much more to do with uncertainty as we endeavor to walk the path of truth—to truth each other—to shed light on what we have hidden over our lives. Many humans have lived with shadows of themselves revealed to others, and more importantly to ourselves. Then the shadows become their reality, instead of that reality which they have revealed. There are many words in English for "correct," "incorrect," "right," "wrong," "true," and "false." I am trying to remove "truth" from any of those concepts and getting back to what it was to its sense of one who is revealing and not hiding, one who is consistent, reliable, and genuine in dealing with others. Of course, no one has to agree with what I am trying to do. I just believe we (collectively) have virtually all missed the Hebrew and Greek, Arabic, and early Chinese, Swahili, and Old English concepts of truth and morphed it into something we individually or collectively own, therefore creating conflict with those who do the same, but don't share the same conclusion. Thanks.

No, that isn't what I had in mind. I'm not questioning your response. I didn't take enough time this morning to explain the suppositions behind my questions. I didn't want to make the initial post one of my too-long posts. I have two things in mind (two suppositions): 1. That we only need or activate faith when it is about something that we don't know is truth or not. Faith is only beneficial or activated in the presence of uncertainty and/or doubt. Faith assumes that something may not be correct (using a binary definition of truth- true or false). Faith isn't activated in a discussion whether 2+2+4. That is knowledge and faith doesn't come into play with knowledge or certainty. I think of both faith and truth as verbs- not nouns. That leads me to #2. 2. I don't view truth in the sense of its modern definition but in its ancient definition across many cultures and languages in history. For example, truth in Greek means that which was hidden but is now revealed. In that sense the LDS Church is true, not when it is proven correct (which would cancel out the need for faith) but when it is demonstrated that the LDS Church has revealed that which was hidden. So do I truth my wife when I leave nothing hidden in our relationship. I truth myself when I eliminate my own blindspots - hence in speaking the truth in love. I don't speak what is right, correct, or provable; but that which is in the sunlight, that which is open, complete, and no longer hidden under a bushel. I live truth when I am genuine, steadfast and consistent. That leads me to the Hebrew, Swahili, Arabic, ancient Chinese concept of truth - that which is consistent, genuine, real in that it represents what is. It is reliable. More importantly, I am reliable when I truth. I am not truthing when I am correct about whether the US will win tomorrow's football (soccer) game. In some cultures truth is the community memory, consensus. When I honor that I am truthing. The gerund form of the noun becomes a verbal noun. It implies action, not true as opposed to false. Truth as a verb is not a binary thing. It is not a so and so was either a fraud or a prophet. The church is either what it says it is or it is false. Sometimes being incomplete was not truthing. I am thinking of trying to teach about Truth as a Journey We Walk; not a Possession we Own. The modern definition of truth (basically 19th century on has taken over the concept of truth in the world's, especially the western world's culture. It forces us into right or wrong, correct or incorrect, true or false. These binaries create conflicts. Worse yet, they dont' motivate us to live truth in our daily lives in the sense of revealing that which is hidden about ourselves, completing that which is incomplete, being genuine and reliable (the Hebrew 'emet). Aletheia - the Greek word for truth in the New Testament means to reveal that which was unknown. We see that all over the gospel of John. Christ says I am the way the truth and the life. He is the way (path or road), the truth (He revealed what was unknown about the Father's plan for humanity), and the life (being alive Spiritually). Plato's Cave or Lord Byron's Chillon are great examples of the older concept of truth. Sorry. . . . . . Well, now I have created a long post. I may have muddied the waters more. However I appreciate @InCognitus question and I am trying to answer it. I want to move away from the modern of truth as right or wrong; and go back to the Biblical, Arabic, Chinese, and Indigenous concepts of truth as being. Truth as living. Then I am either hidden or open, genuine or not, reliable or unreliable. Not so much right or wrong as in owner of the correct doctrine, the correct ideology, or the correct facts about the world. Faith is a similar word. That will be my next project. There are many words that we have turned into nouns that in old or middle English were verbs. Ok.....I will quit now. I bet @InCognitus regrets that he asked! Thanks to all for your patience.

Are you saying faith is believing in something as true while still unproven? I am trying to understand your perspective. Thanks.

Thanks. Now I would ask for you to interpret those verses from an LDS perspective. Is the seed faith or is the seed truth? Or" I could have added Knowledge to what I am trying to figure out as well. As a leader in school districts I always thought our task was to impart knowledge to the students. As the years progressed, it seems that imparting beliefs took over imparting knowledge in the use of resources and funds. Thanks . . . tell me more.

I respect the perspectives of the members of this forum. If I said "Faith that is based on Truth is no longer faith,” how would you respond to that? I am trying to work out in my head the differences betwen pistis and aletheia in the New Testament and more importantly, in the Christian life. I believe one kind of truth is “personal truth.” This is truth based on one's personal life experiences and beliefs. I wonder if “personal truth” and faith might be synonyms? Or does having found “the truth” cause one to no longer need faith? Bottom line, how would you describe the correlation or difference between faith and truth, especially regarding spiritual faith and truth? Thanks for your thoughts on this subject. I appreciate it.

My perspective has been and remains that humans are tripartite: body, soul, and spirit. The three often overlap and interrelate. As a young psychology professor in a conservative context, I frequently ran into those who denied the psychological, claiming that all human challenges were either spiritual (requiring a pastor) or physical (requiring a medical doctor). I still have wounds from those debates. In my tripartite view, the body is the biology; the soul is the mind, will, and emotions (psychology); and the spirit (is the God-breathed part) unique to humans. These are overlapping circles where at the center all three interact. Neither is exclusive to the other two. Related to this thread, I believe sex is fundamentally biologically (body) determined and is seen in humans along a normal distribution. The vast majority of folks are within 95% of the center, with 2.5% on either outer limit of the curve. So I think 95% of humanity is biologically male or female, with at most 5% being outliers. I don't think that perspective is non- or anti-Biblical; its writers had no concept of normal distribution or the bell curve of human reality. So yes, God formed humanity as "male and female," but that does not rule out statistical outliers within the normal distribution found in the bell curve. Having said that, I believe gender is very different. I believe gender lives in the soul (psychology). It is primarily a function of the mind, will, and feelings. Once again, I need to acknowledge the overlapping of the three. Exclusivity of each of the tripartite aspects of humanity exists, but overlap happens regularly. So, if gender lives (primarily) in the soul, then there are as many unlimited potentials for human gender distinctions as the soul (mind, will, and emotions) can create. I think that is endemic to humanity. Gender is as varied as any other "soul" trait. Therefore, I think that gender and sex are two unique and very different constructs. The personal, social, and perhaps even spiritual implications for that vary as widely as does humanity. I am reasonably sure it's not helpful to automatically label those variations as "sin," unless they are, well . . . sinful. That is another topic. As a director of counseling services at two Christian colleges, I am one who has encountered many "struggling with their gender" students. This certainly included "spiritually struggling" students, especially back in the 1960s and 1970s. Part of my work was with the struggler and part with the community. I failed more often with the latter than with the former. I don't know if any of this is important, but it is my experience and resulting perspective as a counselor in a quasi-fundamentalist/quasi-evangelical setting for numerous years. I simply offer it in that sense.

There is a growing Evangelical movement to see Genesis 1 and 2 as God making what was already existing functional. In that case, God did not necessarily create or make the universe out of nothing or "ex nihilo." He made it function out of pre-existing material that was, before Genesis 1, not operational for human existence. So, in that sense, Genesis 1 and 2 is not a creation story but an account of God taking what was there as raw potential and making what already existed functional for humans as part of His plan for us. That perspective allows for all the raw material that evolved or that came into existence over geological ages of time immemorial to have been made operational or functional for humans in the Genesis 1 and 2 text. It is a fascinating, radically new perspective, one that has been led by an Old Testament professor at Wheaton College, one of the most important Evangelical institutions of higher education.

I don't seem to be able to watch it. .

I am not so much interested in a big tent in interfaith relations as I am in a big table. It is my privilege and responsibility to make all those who are not me, who don't think or believe like me, be welcome at our table. If Christ can host the Last Supper with Judas sitting there, I can host someone with a different ideology than my own. I want to get to know the person, whether I learn about their beliefs or not. My purpose in doing so is not to persuade them to my way of thinking, but to learn who they are, where they are, what they believe, and why they believe it. That is why I ask so many questions. Once I have learned, then I may be able to affirm someone for who they are, who previously I thought I could not. My personal truth is not the end of the discussion. It isn't even the beginning. There may be an end, but I hope that will come because someone else has disinvited me from their table, not the other way around. Being disinvited hurts once the table relationship has been established, but that is life. I like the lyrics to the song "This is Me." But if I like thos lyrics when I sing them, then I must also like it when the lyrics are sung by you to me—"This is Me." That is a path, but it is not a one-way path. Best to all.

I am the original poster in this discussion. I have no time today to jump into the discussion. Sorry about that. I will do so tomorrow. I have a conference to speak at this evening, and I have to make sure I am ready. Oh, and the conference is about religious and other conflicts in the 1930s here in Chihuahua. It should be an enjoyable time (for me, at least)! Best, Navidad

I have known a few people in my life who I believe lived a life so close to God that they might indeed be considered speaking His words for Him in wisdom and in truth. One was Presbyterian, one was Anglican, one was Mennonite, one was Christian & Missionary Alliance, and one was LDS, who was at that time a local bishop. What that observation has taught me is that closeness to God and knowing His mind is not the exclusive purview of any one group. Neither is it the result of belonging to this or that group. It is a measure of the sanctification and Christ-likeness of an individual, fed by their life's journey on a path of proximity to and humility before the Savior. This is my lived experience and personal truth. I have also known some rascals in the faith. Rascaldom is also not a function of relatedness to this or that group. I would guess if we had a way to measure Christlikeness across each and every known Christian organization, we would find a normal curve of Christlikeness across the board. Each different church may make its own unique claims to Christ. However, until we can observe a significant difference of Christlikeness and fruits of the Spirit in the adherents of specific churches over others; I will continue to believe that wisdom, discernment, and judgment are individual, not group, traits.

That would be a thread on Divine Truth. Both in Greek and in Hebrew, the idea of revealing the hidden, or creating the unhidden is consistent with the respective word for truth. This continues in the lived life of every believer who focuses on truthng as a verb. Teaching and truthing may indeed be interwoven if we understand the concept of truth as being, then we understand truth as enlightenment.

There are many fine EvangelicalS who agree than Gen 1 is not a creation ex nihilo account, but an account of functionalizing that which came into existence over a very long period of time. I think organizing could be a synonym for this. When God was ready to reveal his plan, Genesis 1 and 2 happened. Such a revealing is synonymous with Hebrew and Greek concepts of truth

Is there a religious or doctrinal importance to the steeple? Will Moroni be on top? Just curious.

I am responding to my own message. I don't think I have ever done that before. I just thought I would post a link to the talk that Patrick Mason gave that was used in an above post. It is a powerful and well-thought out talk, by someone who has at times been of great help to me. Here we go: Patrick Mason “The Courage of Our Convictions” Extended Transcript | Thoughts on Things and Stuff

Might you possibly have a citation for this quote? I am not questioning it; I would simply like to use it. I know Patrick and have utmost respect for him. If you don't happen to have a source, I can contact him directly and ask him. Thanks for the quote. I really like it and want to use it in my new book. Ok. I found it. It appears to be from a 2016 FAIR talk. Thanks.

I am uncertain as to where to start. I woke up this morning to several posts from you. I value and appreciate them all, as I value and appreciate you. It is interesting you mention David Bebbington. He is a peer (we were born within months of each other), a colleague (we both focus on the study of religion, not theology or faith), and I studied religion at the graduate level at the institution where he now has his center, and I earned my doctorate at a peer British institution to where he taught for years. In some areas, he and I will probably think alike. I would simply suggest that Evangelical is an adjective, not a noun—although it can be used as a noun, of course. In that sense, I consider it to be a trait, a psychological/theological/sociological trait. It does not fit on a taxonomy or religious hierarchy. It is often intermingled in a lazy sort of way with its cognate words: evangel, evangelism, and evangelistic. It fits perfectly with its cognate Evangelicalism as the noun with which it aligns. But then again, Evangelicalism is not comfortable in a taxonomy. It is a descriptive noun more than a categorical noun. Evangelical is best used without a definite article. I am Evangelical; not I am an Evangelical. Obviously, being rushing and being finite, I have probably used it with the article on my zillions of posts here. Trait, or descriptive word, is an excellent way to refer to Evangelicalism or Evangelical. You asked me if people here say I am wrong in how I define Christian. Yes, I believe they do. But let me try to say this clearly, lovingly, and accurately (not necessarily in that order). It seems to me (with incertitude) that my LDS friends have increasingly (over time) mastered the ancient art of thrust and parry. I may say, “So-and so is not an Evangelical.” Then one of you finds a website where he is identified as an evangelical, and triumphantly returns to me in a reply, saying, “See? This website says he is Evangelical.” Implicitly thrusting and parrying what I said—saying you are mistaken, without saying it. Does that make sense? I am corrected on this forum constantly by Wikipedia, ChatGPT, or some source to inform me of the error of my ways or statements. That is why I have simply grown accustomed to anticipating the thrust by saying, “Sure, you will find a website that indicates such and such” in advance, to spare me the frequency of being corrected. So, my answer to your question is simply, “yes.” I believe many of my LDS Christian friends are stuck, or perhaps better, “caught in between.” What I am describing is my personal truth based on observations in various LDS settings. I do not present it as fact; perhaps my observation of a “trait” since we are using that word. In my experience, I hear a declarative statement, followed by a softening of the blow. Something like this: “The ladies in the ladies' relief society really love and respect your wife.” It is a shame she does not have the Gift of the Holy Spirit.” Oh, but that is nothing personal. It is just our doctrine (silently implying—so I have to say it). I deem this a thrust and parry. It hurts. Some of our Catholic friends here sort of scold me at times by stating that I simply shouldn't be offended. I don't agree, so just walk away. The problem is I have nowhere to walk away to. I live in a dominantly LDS closed culture. In part we moved here to learn from that. I am not sure if I would do that again. At any rate, we are here, and here is the grocery store, the rodeo grounds, the hardware store, the restaurant, the ice cream shop, the doctor's office ( he describes himself as a Jack Mormon!). , and the pharmacy. I came here by choice, not by chance. So I must accept the constant thrusts and parries. At times they hurt more than other times. When my dear wife is impugned because of a doctrine, that tells me that doctrine has shifted to a dogma (in a non-Catholic sense). Ok, I very much appreciate the time you spent online seeking to understand my perspective. Again, as you have discovered, Evangelical is not a place on a taxonomy. It is an identifier/adjective to differentiate the person from others on his or her same taxonomical (I made up that word) position on a chart. It is a frame of mind, a way of thinking. It is predominantly found in Christianity, but I would suggest the trait is found across religions. It is a "breakaway" descriptor. Those who are Evangelical have “broken away from,” have left, abandoned, or migrated from, sometimes at great cost to their relationships, the angry world of Fundamentalism (also a trait and adjectival noun). Evangelical, also around the 1970s, became a preferential word among conservative Christianity. So many institutions, and churches took upon themselves the descriptor “Evangelical.” However, they did so without the concomitant traits that being Evangelical includes. I gotta run. I am trying to respond to several posts. My wife just called me to eggs and corned beef hash (with ketchup). Now that is a Mennonite (non-Protestant) non-Evangelical breakfast! Add green jello and funeral potatoes, and it just might be LDS! Ha! Seriously, I appreciate all the time folks took to try to figure me out. My wife has been trying for 56 years now!

I don't want to reply to individuals because I really don't want any contention, misunderstandings, etc with any friends here, LDS or not. Let me quote for you all from talk given by Robert D Hales of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. His topic is "Being a More Christian Christian." I am not suggesting that because of his position, his talk is authoritative for the church. but I find it helpful, especially since we may be talking about differing definitions. Here we go: What does it mean to be a Christian? "A Christian has faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He is the literal Son of God, sent by His Father to suffer for our sins in the supreme act of love we know as the Atonement. A Christian believes that through the grace of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, we can repent, forgive others, keep the commandments, and inherit eternal life. The word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ. We do this by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those holding His priesthood authority." The talk goes on a long way, but the above is the gist of the definitional part of the talk. It certainly seems evident that for Elder Hales, an apostle of the Church that "the word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ." Fair enough. How do we do that? He answers, "We do this by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those holding His priesthood authority." I, Navidad have never been baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laving on of hands by those holding HIs priesthood authority. Therefore, according to Elder Hales, I have not taken upon myself the name of Christ at this point of my life. Therefore, for Elder Hales speaking to the faithful, I do not have what it means to be a Christian. This is once again a theological definition, not a dictionary definition. It reflects the theology of the LDS Church. Fair Enough. However, it seems to settle the question, "Is Navidad a Christian?" Has he taken upon himself the name of Christ? Nope! I don't know how else to approach this wonderfully important question, but to do so theologically. It is after all, a theological question. Hence my comments earlier today that non-LDS Christians who have never taken upon themselves the name of Christ in a manner approved by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are indeed not Christians according to the Church, regardless of my claim to be one. My only point is that it seems that sometimes my LDS friends have a blind spot. They understand and insist on the genuineness of their experience when they are denied the name of Christ by non-LDS Christians but fail to see the opposite when it happens the other way around. I wish it never happened either way, but that does not seem to be possible at this time. I hope this helps. I am posting the link to Elder Hales' talk. Thanks to all. Being a More Christian Christian – LDSminds

Ok. Thanks. I would simply suggest that the understanding of the impact of Vatican II documents on the Catholic Church is not universally understood, accepted, or embraced by worldwide Catholics of every doctrinal and cultural background. That has been strikingly evident within the Catholic Church here in Mexico and other parts of Latin America. Just in our little village every few years, priests come and go, some representing different factions, priorities, training, teachings, and understanding of Catholic doctrine and orthopraxy. Oh, and yes you will find Anabaptists who believe they are Protestant. There is significant diversity, especially in the past seventy years in Anabaptism, depending on many factors that may supersede strict adherence to doctrine conformity. Cultural differences are giant factors in how the Anabaptist faith is understood and practiced. Ditto for Catholic interpretation of Vatican II and other factors. Hitchcock's works on Catholic history are well-written and informative. He once wrote: “In order to understand what the Catholic Church is and what it means to be a Catholic, one has to understand the evolution and development of dogma, the various kinds of spirituality, the relationship between the Church and cultures, and religious art and music.” Good stuff.

Hi bluebell: I think you are making my point for me. People 'who profess to be Christian" are not always so - by their fruits you may know them. A claim many not be real in substance. I would however suggest that if you are talking about Missouri, the vast number of "Christians" in Missouri were not creedal. I believe I am correct that Primitive Baptists were the largest Protestant group in Missouri in those years. Primitive Baptists certainly were not creedal. They didn't do bad things because of their creeds. They did bad things to protect their land, their access to natural resources, and their way of life as they knew it. These things combined with their faith were their patrimony. Throughout human history people have done bad things to protect what is their understood patrimony. The Saints threatened each of these, just as they did here in Mexico. Much conflict that is blamed on religious beliefs is often a result of a very complicated stew of factors. Religious doctrine is often just the seasoning in the stew.

OK, perhaps that is the best outcome of all. Never knowing is better than knowing before knowledge, especially when based solely on a priori doctrine or dogma (used in a non-Catholic sense of the word). Take care.