Faith and Truth

[Navidad]

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. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If I said "Faith that is based on Truth is no longer faith,” how would you respond to that?

I would ask if you've been reading Alma 32.

"33...if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

 

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

 

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand."

[Navidad]

42 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I would ask if you've been reading Alma 32.

"33...if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

 

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

 

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand."

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. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

25 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Is the seed faith or is the seed truth?

From the same chapter...

"26... I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

 

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

 

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed..."

Edited July 5 by ZealouslyStriving

[webbles]

The phrase "Faith that is based on Truth is no longer faith" makes no sense to me.  Faith is based on true, untrue, or partially true things.  The trueness of those things has no affect on whether I have faith or not.  I have faith that God exists.  After I die and meet Him, I'll then know that my faith was based on a truth.  But just because it is based on a truth right now doesn't make it any less faith.  I have to have actual knowledge before my faith is no longer faith.

And if you ask me to define "actual knowledge" for a spiritual idea (like "God exists"), I can't really answer that.  I, at this time in my life, do not see how I can have actual knowledge.  If I had a vision, I probably wouldn't trust it.  I think only after I'm dead is when I'll finally be able to move past faith and into knowledge.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

The phrase "Faith that is based on Truth is no longer faith" makes no sense to me.  Faith is based on true, untrue, or partially true things.  The trueness of those things has no affect on whether I have faith or not.  I have faith that God exists.  After I die and meet Him, I'll then know that my faith was based on a truth.  But just because it is based on a truth right now doesn't make it any less faith.  I have to have actual knowledge before my faith is no longer faith.

And if you ask me to define "actual knowledge" for a spiritual idea (like "God exists"), I can't really answer that.  I, at this time in my life, do not see how I can have actual knowledge.  If I had a vision, I probably wouldn't trust it.  I think only after I'm dead is when I'll finally be able to move past faith and into knowledge.

I’m with webbles. To me faith is belief in something that is true but unproven.  

[quietcanon]

I would say the seed is truth, planted by faith. 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’m with webbles. To me faith is belief in something that is true but unproven.  

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

[InCognitus]

55 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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

I agree with Bluebell and webbles.

Here's a stock LDS answer to the question of "What Is Faith?":   "Faith is a firm belief or trust in something. To have faith includes hoping for and believing in things that are true, even when we can’t see them or completely understand them (see Hebrews 11:1; Alma 32:21)."

I think your original statement, "Faith that is based on Truth is no longer faith” doesn't make any sense unless you change the word "Truth" to "Knowledge" in that sentence:  "Faith that is based on Knowledge is no longer faith”. 

Faith in something that is true is in the mind and heart of the believer (i.e. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ), and when it becomes knowledge (in the mind and heart of the believer) it is no longer faith.

Is that what you had in mind with that statement?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

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

Yes

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I agree with Bluebell and webbles.

Here's a stock LDS answer to the question of "What Is Faith?":   "Faith is a firm belief or trust in something. To have faith includes hoping for and believing in things that are true, even when we can’t see them or completely understand them (see Hebrews 11:1; Alma 32:21)."

I think your original statement, "Faith that is based on Truth is no longer faith” doesn't make any sense unless you change the word "Truth" to "Knowledge" in that sentence:  "Faith that is based on Knowledge is no longer faith”. 

Faith in something that is true is in the mind and heart of the believer (i.e. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ), and when it becomes knowledge (in the mind and heart of the believer) it is no longer faith.

Is that what you had in mind with that statement?

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.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Lectures on Faith https://share.google/Ukn4NibUmZ6s3yYz8

 

[manol]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

Thanks for the explanation.

I'm not inclined to use the word "truth" the way you describe because it SEEMS to me to suggest a claim that "what I'm believing/doing/living is the one and only truth and therefore, by implication, what others are believing/doing/living is something other than the truth."  For me it least, that usage of the word "truth" implies a certainty I'm not willing to claim and makes an assertion I'm not comfortable making, especially not in the context of this forum.

Let me explain why I say "especially not in the context of this forum":  Back when I was a missionary, about a hundred years go, when we were in a difficult conversation (i.e. getting our butts kicked) and felt the need to bring out our "big guns" and score a win, we would bear our testimonies.  That might not have registered on the other person as "wow, the Mormons just won that round!", but in our minds it was the one un-counterable argument we could always fall back on.  

However, on this forum, my understanding is that the etiquette/rules preclude making assertions along the lines of the bearing of one's testimony.  This keeps the focus on actual dialogue instead of allowing "dueling testimonies", but it also means that devout members are not allowed to bring out their big guns, or at least not those big guns.  

So this applies only to me; I am NOT applying this to you:  My usage of the word "truth" as a verb would, to me, indicate a claim of certainty and exclusivity that I wish to neither make nor imply. 

Edited July 6 by manol

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, manol said:

Thanks for the explanation.

I'm not inclined to use the word "truth" the way you describe because it SEEMS to me to suggest a claim that "what I'm believing/doing/living is the one and only truth and therefore, by implication, what others are believing/doing/living is something other than the truth."  For me it least, that usage of the word "truth" implies a certainty I'm not willing to claim and makes an assertion I'm not comfortable making, especially not in the context of this forum.

Let me explain why I say "especially not in the context of this forum":  Back when I was a missionary, about a hundred years go, when we were in a difficult conversation (i.e. getting our butts kicked) and felt the need to bring out our "big guns" and score a win, we would bear our testimonies.  That might not have registered on the other person as "wow, the Mormons just won that round!", but in our minds it was the one un-counterable argument we could always fall back on.  

However, on this forum, my understanding is that the etiquette/rules preclude making assertions along the lines of the bearing of one's testimony.  This keeps the focus on actual dialogue instead of allowing "dueling testimonies", but it also means that devout members are not allowed to bring out their big guns, or at least not those big guns.  

So this applies only to me; I am NOT applying this to you:  My usage of the word "truth" as a verb would, to me, indicate a claim of certainty and exclusivity that I wish to neither make nor imply. 

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. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

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. 

It sounds like you are saying that you believe many of us have an incorrect understanding of what truth is, that you have the correct understanding of truth, and that if everyone believed the same about truth as you do, we wouldn’t have so much conflict in the world.

Is that right?

 

[Navidad]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It sounds like you are saying that you believe many of us have an incorrect understanding of what truth is, that you have the correct understanding of truth, and that if everyone believed the same about truth as you do, we wouldn’t have so much conflict in the world.

Is that right?

 

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. 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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. 

Sorry, I didn't mean it angry or snarky.  I just wasn't sure if I understood you correctly and wanted confirmation.  You said-"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."

To me it sounded like--in that statement--you were saying that you believe we have an incorrect understanding of what truth is, and are therefore creating unnecessary conflict.  If we understood truth in a similar way that you understand it, there would be less conflict.

Edited July 7 by bluebell

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Sorry, I didn't mean it angry or snarky.  I just wasn't sure if I understood you correctly and wanted confirmation.  You said-"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."

To me it sounded like--in that statement--you were saying that you believe we have an incorrect understanding of what truth is, and are therefore creating unnecessary conflict.  If we understood truth in a similar way that you understand it, there would be less conflict.

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. 

[Nofear]

Linguistically faith has a fair bit of subtlety. In the KJV the word faith is only used twice (other versions have more instances). The concept of trust, loyalty, belief, confidence, etc. are ideas that are trying to be captured. I personally don't see "faith" as some mystical cosmic energy or anything like that. I usually conceptualize it closest to trust. (Gemini commentary on this.)

If my trust is in a belief that correlates to reality or truth, then my faith in that thing is efficacious.
If my trust is in a belief that correlates to that which is not reality or true, then my faith in that thing is not efficacious.

Faith in God that He will respect my moral agency and support me in righteous endeavors = really good.
"Faith" in God that He will solve all my problems without effort from my part = vanity and false.

I put quotes in the second line because culturally we like to say that only "faith" that is in that which is true is faith and all other instances are not really faith. The scriptures (e.g. Alma) or the Lectures on Faith tend towards that approach and it has pedagogical merit. But pedagogical merit does not make faith a cosmic, primal force. That's God. And (correct) faith in God can bring His power into our lives.

Edited July 7 by Nofear

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

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. 

I wasn’t referring to we to mean Latter Day Saints. I used “we” because you did in the statement I quoted. 

[Anakin7]

Faith - Pistis = Allegiance, Commitment, Confidence, Dedication, Devotion, Discipleship, Faithfulness, Fidelity, Follower, Loyalty. Obedience, Trust, and in the Saintly, Christian Biblical context it is to the person, walk, work, journey, quest of Christ Jesus on our behalf. Amen, Amen, Amen.

 

Edited July 8 by Anakin7

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

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. 

Thanks for clarifying. Can you explain why you think that using truth to mean “correct” to be a misunderstanding and why a more philosophical approach is actually the right approach?

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for clarifying. Can you explain why you think that using truth to mean “correct” to be a misunderstanding and why a more philosophical approach is actually the right approach?

 

 

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for clarifying. Can you explain why you think that using truth to mean “correct” to be a misunderstanding and why a more philosophical approach is actually the right approach?

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