Denying The Truth

[erichard]

...

You are not required to agree with me. You can think anything you want to think. In truth, however, if you understood what I was saying, and if what I was saying was true, then you have denied the truth even though you don’t accept that claim as the truth, which is essentially what it means to deny the truth.

Anyone care for a discussion about this while maybe offering some more truth to consider?

Hi Ahab,

I agree with the above statement you made. For instance, those who listened to Christ and then rejected his claims and teachings clearly were "denying the truth".

Remember this parable (Luke 18)

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

This parable, as I understand it, brings out what sin really is: Sin is rebelliousness against the truth. What we call sins always is preceded by rebelliousness against truth.

The Pharisee was living a fairly good life, but he continued to reject truth that would have made him realize he still needed to repent. The Publican was a sinner, but he knew he was a sinner, and he had not closed his heart to the truth that he needed to repent. So the Pharisee was the greater sinner.

Richard

[CV75]

Right. You're referring to the different degrees to which someone accepts or rejects something. It's not all full throttle or not at all, or at least not only those two extremes, because there are an infinite number of degrees in the middle, as well.

It is simultaneously both full throttle and a matter of degree.

Both perspectives fuel hope or frustration in the path toward learning about and accepting all truth. Nephi wrote about his personal struggle with this in 2 Nephi 4:17-35. As much as we think he might have accepted the truth, he still felt, with good reason, that he was denying it (verses 17-19, 26, 27). He handled these moments by applying the truth he yet could hold on to despite his shortcomings (verses 28-33) spurred him on to recommit to reliance upon the Lord (verses 34, 35).

Since both perspectives apply, and full-throttle encompasses every degree, I‘ll maintain that "denying the truth" entails knowing that some spiritual principle or work of God or His servants is true (whether by the Light of Christ or by the power of the Holy Ghost), and deciding that the will of the flesh (including the ego) is more preferable.

[Ahab]

It is simultaneously both full throttle and a matter of degree.

Both perspectives fuel hope or frustration in the path toward learning about and accepting all truth. Nephi wrote about his personal struggle with this in 2 Nephi 4:17-35. As much as we think he might have accepted the truth, he still felt, with good reason, that he was denying it (verses 17-19, 26, 27). He handled these moments by applying the truth he yet could hold on to despite his shortcomings (verses 28-33) spurred him on to recommit to reliance upon the Lord (verses 34, 35).

Since both perspectives apply, and full-throttle encompasses every degree, I‘ll maintain that "denying the truth" entails knowing that some spiritual principle or work of God or His servants is true (whether by the Light of Christ or by the power of the Holy Ghost), and deciding that the will of the flesh (including the ego) is more preferable.

Here is a case in point of what I was saying earlier, which you asked me to explain to you.

I was suggesting that you (and everyone else) take notice of how much and what some people accept and reject while realizing what people accept and reject actually makes some kind of difference in their overall outcome, and by "overall outcome" I was referring to how they are as a person at that point. Or in other words, "who" they actually are. Or in other words, "how far" they have progressed in their intelligence or their ability to see truth.

In this case I'm pretty sure one of us is saying something which is true, and I'm also pretty sure that we both understand each other, and I'm also pretty sure that one of us either rejects or accepts the idea that the other is sharing, rather than both accepting and rejecting at the same time. There might be some part of our argument that both of us both accept and reject, but on each particular point we are either accepting or rejecting each specific idea.

You do know what a lie is, right? Some truth mixed with something not true, and overall you either accept or reject that idea. The truth of course is totally true.

Now let's look a little closer at this idea you are sharing, by saying someone both accepts and rejects the truth someone is sharing, rather than one or the other.

Do you recognize the fact that accepting and rejecting are total opposites? If so, then please try to explain to me how a person can both accept and reject an idea.

Who knows, maybe at this point one of us is simply not correctly understanding the other.

[CV75]

Now let's look a little closer at this idea you are sharing, by saying someone both accepts and rejects the truth someone is sharing, rather than one or the other.

Do you recognize the fact that accepting and rejecting are total opposites? If so, then please try to explain to me how a person can both accept and reject an idea.

Who knows, maybe at this point one of us is simply not correctly understanding the other.

Nephi’s quandary in 2 Ne. chapter 4 is an example of a spiritually advanced man’s struggle with vacillating between accepting and rejecting the truth. He knows right from wrong very clearly, and knows the difference between the arm of the Lord and the arm of flesh, yet under duress relies on the arm of flesh, denies the truth that he has, and suffers for it.

This vacillation (double-mindedness) is how someone accepts and rejects an idea at the same time. As Nephi describes, it is not a comfortable place for a righteous man to find himself. Hypocrisy, dishonor, rebellion, etc. are other ways but Nephi did not exemplify these.

The higher law for accepting truth is not in its mere knowing but in its doing, and higher than that is in its becoming. This is what Nephi expressed he was determined to do, and what Christ invites his disciples to do. Referencing the fruit from the vision of the tree of life, we are what we eat.