The Use Of "Know" And "True" Within The Mormon Faith.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Ahab writes:

Not from the Lord - which is a term I'm using to refer to Jesus Christ - they can't. The Lord will answer everyone with the same answer, although he may use different words to convey the same message to help everyone understand him.

No. This is nonsense.

Saying "I know the Church is true" is something anyone should be able to say if they understand what those words mean, literally, and can just read a phone book to know the organization does exist.

Exactly. And of course, no one ever uses this phrase in this way. I do agree with you - which is why in my first post in this thread I pointed out that saying "the Church is true" isn't functionally different from saying "that rock is true" or "this tree over here is true". But people aren't making this sort of ontological claim when they say "the church is true". Particularly not in testimony meetings, where such a statement and the implied meaning makes no sense in context.

For example, the phrase "I know the Church is true" literally means I am aware of the Church and I know it exists, and/or has existed, and/or will exist in the future. It doesn't mean I know the Church is what it claims to be, even though some people think those words mean that and use the phrase because they think it conveys that message.

And no one (with the possible exception of yourself) stands up in testimony meeting in Church and says "I know the church is true" and intends for us to understand him as saying "the church actually exists" - because of course, they are already in the church, in a congregation of believers, and such knowledge is not only obvious, it is shared by everyone there. So we agree on everything else I suppose, so why were you so overly concerned about the fact that I don't think its helpful to say "I know the church is true"?

Ben M.

[Ahab]

No. This is nonsense.

Would you please use a few more words to convey what you actually mean here? I think your response is nonsense if you understood what I meant.

I meant the Lord will give everyone the same answer to the same question. If you disagree, I can tell you why he would do that, but I can't make you believe it.

Exactly. And of course, no one ever uses this phrase in this way. I do agree with you - which is why in my first post in this thread I pointed out that saying "the Church is true" isn't functionally different from saying "that rock is true" or "this tree over here is true". But people aren't making this sort of ontological claim when they say "the church is true". Particularly not in testimony meetings, where such a statement and the implied meaning makes no sense in context.

'm glad we can agree on at least something.

And no one (with the possible exception of yourself) stands up in testimony meeting in Church and says "I know the church is true" and intends for us to understand him as saying "the church actually exists" - because of course, they are already in the church, in a congregation of believers, and such knowledge is not only obvious, it is shared by everyone there. So we agree on everything else I suppose, so why were you so overly concerned about the fact that I don't think its helpful to say "I know the church is true"?

That's not what I was concerned about. What caused you to think I was concerned about that?

I'm trying to help straighten out the people who don't use language correctly.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Ahab writes:

I meant the Lord will give everyone the same answer to the same question. If you disagree, I can tell you why he would do that, but I can't make you believe it.

Let's just agree to disagree. I think that it doesn't happen, and that it won't happen. And I have my reasons too.

I'm trying to help straighten out the people who don't use language correctly.

Then please forgive my misunderstanding.

Ben M.

[Ahab]

Ahab,

I believe your comments were basically about two points.

1) Knowledge v. false knowledge.

2) What is "Living"?

First "Living". As I posited earlier, many different definitions may be stated for different contexts. In this context MY definition was "That which breathes the Spirit (of Truth) into your soul is living."

Second, neither the OP, nor my previous posts have been about truth vs. error or falsehood. It was about our understanding or internal proofs or surety of that which we consider to be knowledge.

Okay, thank you for that clarification of what you meant.

My point about drawing the line was that you don't know what is in my heart, mind, and soul. So you cannot tell me what I know vs. what I believe. Nor can I do that to you. I know my heart, mind, and soul. So, I can determine where to draw the line between MY OWN knowledge vs. MY OWN belief.

But I can do that if I (also?) know what you claim to know.

Suppose for example that you say you know the Church is NOT what it claims to be... while I happen to know that it is.

Would you like me to tell you what has just happened to your credibility, in my perspective? - even if others agree with you.

I never intended to have this thread go into epistemology. It was simply a commentary on the usage of the words "knowledge" vs. "faith" or "belief" which was the topic of this thread.

Yes I know, and I was getting a little bit into how I know what I know and what it means to have knowledge.

ASIDE: That anecdote was my personal experience. I did not get that from anyone. That was me, myself, & I (and my companion).

Okay, but just because you think you know something based on some personal experience doesn't mean that what you know is true.

[CV75]

saying "the Church is true" isn't functionally different from saying "that rock is true" or "this tree over here is true"

From John 15: Jesus is the “true vine”, and the branches that abide in Him are also true (bear fruit). His disciples, servants, witnesses and friends (especially when they are called, chosen and ordained from among the true branches) form the true Church. So His Church is true and can be said to be true in a functionally different way than is conveyed in your post.

Edited July 31, 2012 by CV75

[Ahab]

Ahab writes:Let's just agree to disagree.

That's another phrase I don't approve of, but I think I know what you mean to convey. If you don't agree I don't have to agree to disagree with you, though. I'll simply acknowledge that we don't agree, but I won't agree to disagree. That is your choice.

I think that it doesn't happen, and that it won't happen. And I have my reasons too.

I know for a fact that our Lord will give everyone the same answer to the same question, even though he may use different words or give more elaborate answers to some people.

Then please forgive my misunderstanding.

No problem, brother, and I ask that you also forgive all of my shortcomings, for your own good.

[Ahab]

From John 15: Jesus is the “true vine”, and the branches that abide in Him are also true (bear fruit). His disciples, servants, witnesses and friends (especially when they are called, chosen and ordained from among the true branches) form the true Church. So His Church is true and can be said to be true in a functionally different way than is conveyed in your post.

Would you like to get into what he meant when using the term "vine" now?

You're trying to add in your own ideas when you try to squeeze in the idea that to be true means to bear fruit, but even those who are not true bear some kind of fruit.

Try thinking a little more about what it means to be "true" - or real - vs some kind of fake.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Ahab

[wenglund]

Would you like to get into what he meant when using the term "vine" now?

You're trying to add in your own ideas when you try to squeeze in the idea that to be true means to bear fruit, but even those who are not true bear some kind of fruit.

Try thinking a little more about what it means to be "true" - or real - vs some kind of fake.

Folks, do you see what I mean by make a man an offender for a word?

Discussions like this bring the fundamentalist/dogmatists out of the woodwork and they go all word-Nazi on us. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Would you like to get into what he meant when using the term "vine" now?

You're trying to add in your own ideas when you try to squeeze in the idea that to be true means to bear fruit, but even those who are not true bear some kind of fruit.

Try thinking a little more about what it means to be "true" - or real - vs some kind of fake.

Only that Jesus said He is the true vine: The (meaning one and only) True (always authentic, reliable, dependable, etc.) Vine (His symbolism, not mine, but the source of life for the reliant branches).

In John 15, there are only branches that bear and those that don't--this is not sqeezing in my own idea. Those that bear no fruit are not true. Those that do bear fruit di so clearly by virtue of the true vine.

If Jesus is the One and Only True Source of Life, then His Church is the only true church.

"Try thinking a little more"--LOL

[CV75]

Discussions like this bring the fundamentalist/dogmatists out of the woodwork and they go all word-Nazi on us. LOL

And it ain't too clear what the fundamentalism/dognmatism is all about!

[Ahab]

Folks, do you see what I mean by make a man an offender for a word?

Discussions like this bring the fundamentalist/dogmatists out of the woodwork and they go all word-Nazi on us. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Heh, I'm not taking offense, or saying that he meant to offend.

I'm just trying to clear up the muddy waters around here.

Heh, out of the woodwork. That's a good one.

[CV75]

I should have listened to the OP and not particpate!

[Ahab]

Only that Jesus said He is the true vine: The (meaning one and only) True (always authentic, reliable, dependable, etc.) Vine (His symbolism, not mine, but the source of life for the reliant branches).

In John 15, there are only branches that bear and those that don't--this is not sqeezing in my own idea. Those that bear no fruit are not true. Those that do bear fruit di so clearly by virtue of the true vine.

If Jesus is the One and Only True Source of Life, then His Church is the only true church.

"Try thinking a little more"--LOL

Yes, and all the fakers are members of some other Church led by someone who isn't the true vine, then, huh, Bubba.

Good elaboration, there, Bubba. Good.

[CV75]

Yes, and all the fakers are members of some other Church led by someone who isn't the true vine, then, huh, Bubba.

Good elaboration, there, Bubba. Good.

Did you know if you repeat Ahab fast enought it sounds like Hubba Bubba?

[Ahab]

Only that Jesus said He is the true vine: The (meaning one and only) True (always authentic, reliable, dependable, etc.) Vine (His symbolism, not mine, but the source of life for the reliant branches).

In John 15, there are only branches that bear and those that don't--this is not sqeezing in my own idea. Those that bear no fruit are not true. Those that do bear fruit di so clearly by virtue of the true vine.

If Jesus is the One and Only True Source of Life, then His Church is the only true church.

"Try thinking a little more"--LOL

On second thought, I think I don't approve of your choice of the words "one and only" if by that you mean he is the only person who is - you know, what he is.

Maybe it's the word "only" that's throwing me off a little, maybe because I'm kinda remembering how some people want to try to get us to "know" how there is only one person who is God, although they don't all seem to agree on exactly what a person is.

Eh, just a minor quibble, though, and I'm not saying that you may have meant to offend.

[Calm]

I'm kinda remembering how some people want to try to get us to "know" how there is only one person who is God, although they don't all seem to agree on exactly what a person is.

If you mean the creedal Trinity, it is three persons and one being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

[Gervin]

If you mean the creedal Trinity, it is three persons and one being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

As pointed out in this thread, Truth is beyond our ability to approach it objectively. What happens in scripture, in part, is the presentation of truth as a paradox. Probably no better example of this is the Christian doctrine that Jesus is fully divine and fully human.

[Calm]

Probably no better example of this is the Christian doctrine that Jesus is fully divine and fully human.

Which only appears as a paradox if one believes the two natures are mutually exclusive.

[Ahab]

If you mean the creedal Trinity, it is three persons and one being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

No, not those folks who believe that, which would include us since we believe that, but those who say we don't know God as if he is only one person... or as if there is only one person who is God.

[Calm]

which would include us since we believe that

CFR that LDS believe God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit are one being.

[mfbukowski]

P.S. What measures are you using to define the "average member"?

Average ones.

[Ahab]

As pointed out in this thread, Truth is beyond our ability to approach it objectively.

As pointed out incorrectly... since that isn't true.

Truth is objective - or real - and when we come to know something we approach it - or an object of it - by those objects which we come to know, thus, we know it objectively, subjectively, with both perspectives blending together at the same time.

What happens in scripture, in part, is the presentation of truth as a paradox.

What makes you think that what is being presented in scripture is a paradox?

What I experience is not a paradox. What I experience is an object and I come to know that object objectively AND subjectively.

Probably no better example of this is the Christian doctrine that Jesus is fully divine and fully human.

Just as we all are, even though not all of us have the same glory, or a fulness of the glory, that he has.

We're all still divine, though, and we're all still human, or at least those of us who have come here as mortals.

[Ahab]

CFR that LDS believe God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit are one being.

One being known as "God".

Surely you can find a reference to that idea yourself.

[Calm]

One being known as "God".

Surely you can find a reference to that idea yourself.

You made the claim, board rules you provide the reference or withdraw the claim.

However, I will find references that reject that concept:

“Other councils followed, and from their decisions and the writings of churchmen and philosophers there came a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine in which the orthodox Christians of that day lost the fulness of truth about the nature of God and the Godhead. The consequences persist in the various creeds of Christianity, which declare a Godhead of only one being and which describe that single being or God as ‘incomprehensible’ and ‘without body, parts, or passions.’ One of the distinguishing features of the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is its rejection of all of these postbiblical creeds. . . .

http://seminary.lds..../pgp-5-af-1.asp

We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings, noting such unequivocal illustrations as the Savior’s great Intercessory Prayer just mentioned, His baptism at the hands of John, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the martyrdom of Stephen—to name just four.

http://jesuschrist.l...om-he-hath-sent Edited July 31, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

I would say that those who experience the truthfulness of the gospel are inherently faithful. They do not need to understand that no scientific evidence is available or required for them to confidently assert their conclusions.

Those who waver (to whatever degree) have already accepted (to a congruent degree) the notion that other evidence is required or preferred (including where their acceptance of scientific evidence to support their religious conviction has proven to be a sandy foundation), or they have not yet accepted (to a sufficient degree) their own or a fuller spiritual experience.

The balance between serving “God (conscience) and mammon (cultural expectation)” is often a nonconscious orientation. Of course the discussion that you suggest be had with the confused and wavering (religiously- and scientifically-minded alike) would be helpful, more especially if it helps them recognize and experience the Spirit.

Basically the same sort of conversation would apply to those who have problems with history- partially because we can never know all the details of history independent of someone's interpretation and also because even objectively known historical facts- like the date of the Battle of Gettysburg - do not have religious implications. It is arguable that even the content of someone's character has nothing to do with whether or not someone's religious teachings can be valuable.

I recall a rigorous defense by many on this board recently urging us to ignore attacks on Walter Martin's credentials to be "ad hominem" attacks that had nothing to do with his arguments, while some of the same people attack Joseph Smith for what they believe about his personal life.

I wish I could say "you can't have it both ways" but unfortunately the fact is that many use this tactic well to their advantage to those who don't understand it.