Bom Vs. Oprah / True Vs. Good

[Brian 2.0]

I have been hearing a bit recently from people in the church who have confronted some tough issue in regards to church history/BOM/Book of Abraham/whatever and have gone from thinking of things as "true" to thinking of things as "good." Basically saying to me, "Don't think of it as true or untrue, just think of is as good."

I understand that approach. I can see where it has it's merit. But for me, it make everything loose it's power.

If my belief is that the BOM is "good" and I don't care about "true", then I've basically put it in the same category as The Oprah Show. I don't think of that show as "true" or "untrue", I just watch and some stuff is good and I'll apply it to my life. But I certainly won't record the episodes and rewatch them over and over.

How can you simply think of the BOM or the Church as "good" (not caring about "true") and still sacrifice the things (time and money) that the church often requires?

Any comments appreciated, but would love to hear from anyone who is in the "don't care about truth anymore, I just take what's good" camp.

Thanks!

[orion88]

Oprah is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

http://shatteredpara...-christian.html

[thesometimesaint]

All good things are not necessarily true, and all true things are not necessarily good.

[Rivers]

I think pizza is good so I keep eating it.

[RadioFreeDeath]

To beat MfBukowski to the punch, what are we talking about as truth? (its the natural pragmatist question)

I disagree with sometimessaint, if it is true than by its very nature it is a functional and therefore good. It seems to be at best a linguistic twist to call something good instead of true but I think it probably matters very little.

[bluebell]

To beat MfBukowski to the punch, what are we talking about as truth? (its the natural pragmatist question)

I disagree with sometimessaint, if it is true than by its very nature it is a functional and therefore good. It seems to be at best a linguistic twist to call something good instead of true but I think it probably matters very little.

I don't know.

Santa can be good, but he isn't true, for example, and darkness is a true principle but it's not always good (like if you are searching for a lost child or lost in a cave).

Sometimes what is good or true is completely relative to the experience or the occassion. In that sense, something can very much be true and bad, or false and good, in my opinion.

[katherine the great]

Oprah is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

http://shatteredpara...-christian.html

Oh puhleeeze! Just because Oprah doesn't meet the criteria for Christian established by some people... I hear that LDS people aren't Christian either. That's new to me because I certainly consider myself a devout Christian.

[Rivers]

Even though Santa isn't true, he can be good for the young ones. I suppose from a non-believer's perspective, even if God isn't true, religion is good enough to give people direction in life. If it works for you, go with it.

[Rivers]

Oh puhleeeze! Just because Oprah doesn't meet the criteria for Christian established by some people... I hear that LDS people aren't Christian either. That's new to me because I certainly consider myself a devout Christian.

This reminds me of a quote form Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln which I have recently been reading:

If [Lincoln's] devotion were determined by his lack of "Faith in in ceremonials and forms," or by his failure "to observe the Sabath very scrupulously," [Leonard] Swett added, "He would fall short of the standard." However if we were judged "by the higher rule of purity of conduct, of honesty of motive, of unyielding fidelity to the right," or by his powerful belief " in the great laws of truth, the rigid discharge of duty, his accountability to God," then he was undoubtedly full of "natural religion," for "he believed in God as much as the most approved Church member."

[thesometimesaint]

RadioFreeDeath:

It is really true that Satan and his angels exist, but I find nothing good about them.

[The Nehor]

Another definition of a "good untrue statement" is a "beautiful lie".

Thinking something is good because it is helpful isn't a very stable ground for faith. What happens when it suddenly becomes unhelpful......like a mob burning down your house and driving you into the wilderness or being threatened with death if you don't deny your testimony.

[orion88]

Oh puhleeeze! Just because Oprah doesn't meet the criteria for Christian established by some people...

I remember a similar reaction from you in a past exchange - at that time, you also thought highly

of Oprah when I mentioned my concern about her New Age-ish-like teachings.

But instead of taking this stance like you did before, would you quote some things from her

that lead you to conclude she believes in the key biblical teachings about Christ?

You are derailing the OP. Get back on topic.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Minos

[bluebell]

I remember a similar reaction from you in a past exchange - at that time, you also thought highly

of Oprah when I mentioned my concern about her New Age-ish-like teachings.

But instead of taking this stance like you did before, would you quote some things from her

that lead you to conclude she believes in the key biblical teachings about Christ?

I really don't care if Oprah is a Christian or not. I don't really get why other people get all bent out of shape about it either. I think highly of a lot of people that aren't Christian or if they are, still hold beliefs that i really disagree with.

[Calm]

Oprah is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

http://shatteredpara...-christian.html

Guess that means someone like Gandhi is a wolf in sheep's clothing as well.

Since when have only Christians qualified as good people? (assuming Oprah is not a Christian here.....I have no idea as I don't pay much attention to her, if she has said she's Christian I see her as Christian, if she hasn't identified her personal belief then no one else should take it upon themselves to do so).

Addon: read a bit more of the linked article, honestly I am so sick of the "I am so wise and wonderful of a Christian I can tell who the real Christians are and who are just pretending" that I stopped reading as soon as I saw the title the first time. She says she's Christian according to the article, nothing more needs to be said on that subject as far as I am concerned even if one wants to argue her beliefs seem to be heterical at times.

Edited January 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[katherine the great]

I remember a similar reaction from you in a past exchange - at that time, you also thought highly

of Oprah when I mentioned my concern about her New Age-ish-like teachings.

But instead of taking this stance like you did before, would you quote some things from her

that lead you to conclude she believes in the key biblical teachings about Christ?

You are derailing the OP. Get back on topic.

Okay the mods are right--off topic.

My thoughts on true vs good. All good comes from God whether we believe it or not. I think one of Jesus' most profound comments was: By their fruits ye shall know them.

Here are a couple of quotes:

Brigham Young : “All true wisdom that mankind have they have received from God, whether they know it or not. There is no ingenious mind that has ever invented anything beneficial to the human family but what he obtained it from that One Source. … There is only one source from whence men obtain wisdom, and that is God, the fountain of all wisdom; and though men may claim to make their discoveries by their own wisdom, by meditation and reflection, they are indebted to our Father in Heaven for all.” ( Journal of Discourses 13:148.)

“And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good.” (Ether 4:12.)

[Brian 2.0]

Wow... this got off topic real fast. I had no intention of a debate on Oprah being the AntiChrist or not.

To beat MfBukowski to the punch, what are we talking about as truth? (its the natural pragmatist question)

I disagree with sometimessaint, if it is true than by its very nature it is a functional and therefore good. It seems to be at best a linguistic twist to call something good instead of true but I think it probably matters very little.

For the purposes of this debate I say this:

TRUE = BOM is historical (or at least inspired directly by God). Joseph Smith restored God's Priesthood authority, which is necessary to perform the saving ordinances in order to return to God

GOOD = BOM may not be historical, but is has good principles, and may be generally "inspired". The Church provides good teachings and guidance by good people, but it may not be "the one and only true chruch" who inspires the Prophets always, and isn't the only way to return to God's presence.

Basically, I'm saying if you prescribe to "GOOD" then what power does the Church have? How is the BOM different from great literature or well written self-help books?

[The Nehor]

Guess that means someone like Gandhi is a wolf in sheep's clothing as well.

With his sexual proclivities, mean-spiritedness, and strange naivete, yes, I do think that. Gandhi was the stereotypical bad liberal. He loved humanity in the abstract but tended to be a jerk to real people.

Since when have only Christians qualified as good people? (assuming Oprah is not a Christian here.....I have no idea as I don't pay much attention to her, if she has said she's Christian I see her as Christian, if she hasn't identified her personal belief then no one else should take it upon themselves to do so).

Addon: read a bit more of the linked article, honestly I am so sick of the "I am so wise and wonderful of a Christian I can tell who the real Christians are and who are just pretending" that I stopped reading as soon as I saw the title the first time. She says she's Christian according to the article, nothing more needs to be said on that subject as far as I am concerned even if one wants to argue her beliefs seem to be heterical at times.

I don't think she is a Christian in the general sense of being a follower of the creeds or even just someone who follows Jesus's theology. Whether she follows his moral guidance I do not know.

She doesn't seem to be a bad person but I think she is misleading. I don't know if it is intentional or not. She has supported a lot of medical, spiritual, and emotional quackery.

Oh, and the article sounds like it comes from someone of the Evangelical "Left Behind" believing crowd that expect every non-RTC (Real True Christian) will amalgamate their religious beliefs to create the false priestess prophesied in the Book of Revelation. Their opinion isn't worth much.

[Maidservant]

I have been hearing a bit recently from people in the church who have confronted some tough issue in regards to church history/BOM/Book of Abraham/whatever and have gone from thinking of things as "true" to thinking of things as "good." Basically saying to me, "Don't think of it as true or untrue, just think of is as good."

I understand that approach. I can see where it has it's merit. But for me, it make everything loose it's power.

If my belief is that the BOM is "good" and I don't care about "true", then I've basically put it in the same category as The Oprah Show. I don't think of that show as "true" or "untrue", I just watch and some stuff is good and I'll apply it to my life. But I certainly won't record the episodes and rewatch them over and over.

How can you simply think of the BOM or the Church as "good" (not caring about "true") and still sacrifice the things (time and money) that the church often requires?

Any comments appreciated, but would love to hear from anyone who is in the "don't care about truth anymore, I just take what's good" camp.

Thanks!

This is part of my challenge and struggle in seeking God and living reality and in remaining faithful to my covenants. My "disillusionments" are not, however, things like Church history surprises (although I have been) or, hm, let's see, things like patriarchalism(-ish). It's just that my entire life that I've lived and the lives that I witness in my loved ones, and the lives that I witness all over the world, and the God that I have come to know . . . I just can't quite get it all "stuffed into" nor realize that it can be encompassed by something even as amazing as the Church (and, and, and), as such. So I do find myself truncating truth into functional or, closely related, "creative". Or in other words, I've seen a LOT of good, and I've chosen or come to understand, to call all or most of that good, as also true.

I accept this challenge, I don't need things to be all pat and dry, and I know the nature of life and knowledge is a bit of a wrestle, so I can be faithful (as I understand it) and still try to continue to progress in understanding including the discarding of things I once thought I knew and thought I should believe, but can no longer maintain (because of locating something better in a new understanding) and my object is to 1) remain good (or repent and get better) (?); 2) remain with God; 3) keep my covenants; 4) remain Mormon; and 5) remain sane . . . in that order. Again, sometimes I have challenges with all of that.

You defined truth for the purposes of this thread. I should mention that for me in my definition of truth (I use words very carefully, but by the same token sometimes I am the only one with a particular definition of some) . . . truth can only be good. And truth does not correspond with fact or even with existing. Facts and things that exist of all kinds of natures (good, evil), but truth is only good and in fact, truth only resides or arises from humans and their lives, who they are is the truth (including God, he's a person too).

But in all this breaking down of belief and the creation of new, there are a few things that are my anchors that I cling to. The one most important is that I did make a covenant with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This covenant is not dependent on any church structure (although I love the church and have no problem with it, in fact, see it as a miracle). This covenant is not dependant on Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon. For some people, it may be, but for me it is not. The priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ dispensed that covenant to me (yay!), but that covenant is between me and God, and no other is between us. And the very struggle I am in engaged in is a consequence of that covenant, because my Father will not leave me as I am, or as I was when I was first brought to him in the temple, but he will create me until I am like him, and this is sometimes a brutal process!

But you are right, especially recently I have been re-asking myself a similar question. I have quested so far, and it is a good quest, and I have absorbed so much knowledge and experience that has broadened my mind and I see things so differently than I did, say, 20 years ago . . . but what is the truth? So I have more to learn, and I think I will be entering a time when I will reclaim the simple, peaceful things and turn to Jesus Christ.

As far as the Book of Mormon. My understanding of it being what Joseph Smith claimed it was (at least according to his experience) is based on a few specific things that I don't really budge from, that have satisfied me. And (surprisingly?) neither of these bases are 1) a witness from the Holy Ghost (have not had a one-time version of that as relates to the BofM); nor 2) of being convinced of historical evidence or other "external" or "scientific" props.

One main basis for me is that it is obvious that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon. Who else did, I do not KNOW (other than I have no problem with it being what it says it is internally and in terms of Joseph's experience). But it is as obvious as red is not blue, and it doesn't take a witness from the Holy Ghost, nor does it take a scientist or scientific evidence, to know that red is not blue. Any person (except the color blind, of course) can tell that red is not blue just by looking. And it is obvious that the writer(s) of the Book of Mormon is not the same as the writer of Joseph Smith-History, nor any other sample of Joseph's writing. It is plain.

Also when I read the Book of Mormon, I am feasting upon the doctrine of Christ. That is also plain. Mosiah 15:1, Nephi's expanded vision of the tree of life where he saw the mission of the Savior, and so much more. I will never give up these words, this knowledge. They are what they are, they stand alone--true and creative--without any other reasoning for or against the page they are written on. They are written in the fleshy tables of my hearts, and I can only say where I got them . . . on the paper pages of The Book of Mormon. Call it anything else you want, that's where I got Jesus Christ.

Thirdly, Joseph Smith is a person; he's my neighbor. I know that if I sat across from him at a table, and he just said to me, "Maidservant, I saw Heavenly Father and Jesus in that woods over there." or "Maidservant, the angel Moroni gave me these gold plates and I am translating them by the power of God." I have no problem just accepting what he said, based on who he is--just himself. Again, would not need a witness of the Holy Ghost or scientific evidence. I just accept Joseph Smith's report just as if I would accept it if my brother or son shared something like that with me; call him a prophet (a label) or call him a man who simply could not deny what was happening to him; no matter to me. I can see Joseph Smith's soul, and what he struggled for in life and with God, and I accept his experience . . . and, look at the fruits we have today of that experience, of that labor (he nurtured the church like a mother!).

An explanation of or understanding or testimony of the plumbing does not make the water from the faucet taste any better, and neither do the details or final analysis on earth or in heaven, on how the Book of Mormon was produced, have on the truth of the doctrine of peace and reality in its pages. I have done a thought experiment for myself, well, what if God told me, "well, I made that Book of Mormon up, it's fiction, and I gave it to Joseph Smith, and its purpose was "creative" for the good of my children, not truth per se/fact" . . . if God ever said that to me, I'd just look at him and say, "You're really wierd." But it wouldn't change who I am, it wouldn't change my covenant, it wouldn't change anything for me, not even the Book of Mormon.

So I guess it's not just that I am putting the Book of Mormon into a "creative good" category so that I can reconcile any "problems" . . . it's that this is the way I have come to see the whole world (for better or worse) . . . that truth turns out to be the whole story of all of us, and what we came here to do on the planet, and that includes every thing Jesus Christ did for us, everything Joseph Smith did for us, everything Moroni and Mormon did for us, etc. The meaning of the entire history, present, and future of humanity (including the communities that wrote and preserved the gold plates) is becoming re-framed in my eyes, and sometimes when that happens, truth isn't exactly where I last left it, so to speak. "Oh, there you are, Truth!"

[orion88]

My thoughts on true vs good. All good comes from God whether we believe it or not. I think one of Jesus' most profound comments was: By their fruits ye shall know them.

I recall a teaching from the Book of Mormon. It likens the word of God to a seed. If the seed

produces good feelings within you, one can be assured that the seed is good (Alma 32:28-30,

41).

Since a Muslim reads the Koran and performs good works (or fruits as you referred to), does

this mean a Latter-day Saint can safely assure a Muslim that the Koran is good in the sense

that it can also be considered the word of God even when it denies the atonement of Christ?

In the overall true vs good concept ... when someone does good deeds can you assume that

everything they teach is the truth?

[thesometimesaint]

orion88:

Yes the Koran is a good book, it does lead a person closer to God than say pagan beliefs. Do I believe the Koran is the word of God even if it translated correctly? No not personally.

Edited January 1, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Maidservant]

I recall a teaching from the Book of Mormon. It likens the word of God to a seed. If the seed

produces good feelings within you, one can be assured that the seed is good (Alma 32:28-30,

41).

Since a Muslim reads the Koran and performs good works (or fruits as you referred to), does

this mean a Latter-day Saint can safely assure a Muslim that the Koran is good in the sense

that it can also be considered the word of God even when it denies the atonement of Christ?

In the overall true vs good concept ... when someone does good deeds can you assume that

everything they teach is the truth?

By the way, the teaching is the same in the New Testament (Mark 4).

I think the usual way that the Church speaks on the beliefs of others is that: you have some truth, now come to Christ, join his organization of the latter-day, and add to your truth and enjoy the whole truth. So with this, at least the way it is presently referred to, people and other systems can carry partial truth or truths (it's not just an either-or proposition).

Islam, as you say, does not accept the necessity of a man to effect an atonement (they say that Jesus Christ is a man), that a man cannot save himself, only God can. Oddly enough, the very same idea is presented in the Book of Mormon in Alma 34, except the difference--a very crucial difference--is that Jesus Christ is God himself (Mosiah 15:1), and that makes for an "infinite atonement". Islam does teach repentance, and that God is merciful and forgives. From the point of view of Latter-day Saints who understand a greater truth (at least from our own point of view), if we see a Muslim (or anyone) repenting and seeking forgiveness from God, we would understand them as participating in the atonement that Jesus offers as a gift, even if that Muslim did not yet understand that their Savior is what provides that gift of atonement. In other words, Muslims seek reconciliation with God, but they just do not see Jesus (a prophet) as the face of that God nor the means of that reconciliation. So they are mistaken (according to my belief), but not as far as off as one might think, either. They still have plenty of opportunity to experience "fruits" from a merciful Father and Savior as they live the light they do have and were allotted (and God did give them the light of the Quran, in my view, otherwise, what else would these billions of people be believing if they did not have the truth of the Quran to be guiding them over the past centuries?).

Also it may be helpful to contemplate Mark 9:38-41. "Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part."

Edited January 1, 2012 by Maidservant

[katherine the great]

I recall a teaching from the Book of Mormon. It likens the word of God to a seed. If the seed

produces good feelings within you, one can be assured that the seed is good (Alma 32:28-30,

41).

Since a Muslim reads the Koran and performs good works (or fruits as you referred to), does

this mean a Latter-day Saint can safely assure a Muslim that the Koran is good in the sense

that it can also be considered the word of God even when it denies the atonement of Christ?

In the overall true vs good concept ... when someone does good deeds can you assume that

everything they teach is the truth?

I never said everything someone teaches is true. I quoted the Savior. He seemed to feel that we should look to the general body of works for basic goodness/badness. I certainly don't think He meant that an evil person cannot ever say anything true or that a good person is incapable of error. If you have a problem with something the Lord says, perhaps you can take it up with Him.

[Brian 2.0]

What I was really asking was less about "TRUTH" and more about "TRUE"

I know it's semantics, so I'll try to define it again, because the discussion so far has been treating "truth" almost like I'm defining "good." Truth can be found a lot of places, in most all religions, in good books, and I think everyone agrees on that. And that definition is more of what I'm talking about with "Good"

"TRUE" for the sake of of this discussion is more akin to FACT.

Mainly the "FACT" of God's One True Priesthood being restored on the Earth and it's only through that Priesthood that one can return to God.. That line is a lot more defined that the concept of "truth" that we're talking about here.

So when I'm having trouble with whatever issue I have run into people that say, "Don't focus on true, focus on good." And I can see what he's saying, and so do most in this discussion because we can find "truth" or "good" in so many places both in and out of the church, and what this guy was basically telling me is to focus on that "good" inside the church.

My issue with that is when I JUST see it at "good" and don't really care about whether or not it's "true" (i.e. That the Church has God's one true Priesthood and that Priesthood is necessary to return to God), it just seems to take away all of it's power. The Power of the church, and what drives me to be willing to sacrifice, is the idea that the Church is "true" and has that one true Priesthood. Without that... well, it's just seems like the church is simply a good institution, one of mainy.

[Brian 2.0]

I think the usual way that the Church speaks on the beliefs of others is that: you have some truth, now come to Christ, join his organization of the latter-day, and add to your truth and enjoy the whole truth. So with this, at least the way it is presently referred to, people and other systems can carry partial truth or truths (it's not just an either-or proposition).

I like this idea. It's actually the idea that helped my wife join the church. But as I said in the post just before this one, this applies to "truths" which are basically principles which can be found in a lot of other religions. But Priesthood is not like at all. God's Priesthood authority is NOWHERE in other religions and ONLY in the restored Church. Ordinances performed in other churches as not valid in getting back into God's presence. This exclusive Priesthood Authority, I think, is what a lot of people are referring to when they say, "I know the chruch is TRUE."

Edited January 2, 2012 by Brian 2.0