rodheadlee Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 Then truth must be relative and dependent on perspective, since any number of adherents to a "restoration" religion, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Christ and/or any number of offshoots of the mainstream LDS church claim that their church is the true church of Christ, restored by their respective founder with direction from Christ.Correct. Truth is jello. Nevertheless did Christ direct those other churches? How can we know?
pogi Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 What does having authority have to do with truth? Are we talking "true church" in the same way an entomologist might classify a "true spider?" Yes, I believe we are talking of truth in the same way that an entomologist might classify a spider. The true church must meet certain criteria. The most important being authority. So yes, authority has everything to do with truth. For example, anybody can make a guitar, but only those who have been hired, trained, and given authority to make Gibson guitars, produce "true" Gibson's. All others are imitations or different brands. You can go to China and buy a Gibson guitar really cheap, but is it a true Gibson if it was not authorized by Gibson? Without authority from Christ, how could it be Christ's true church? 1
canard78 Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 I'm (perhaps unsurprisingly?) not a fan of the phrase "I know this church is true." I much prefer "I know this church is an effective vehicle for helping me follow principles which I know, through living them, to be true principles."But I guess that's a bit of a mouthful.And I commend this young man (and probably his parents) for gaining an appreciation that in the Lord's kingdom on earth there are many mansions and many other sheep. It's entirely clear that the key principles of salvation and attaining eternal life, as taught from the Lord's own voice in Matthew 25, are taught and embraced in many "true" ways. Both inside of and outside of Mormonism and Christianity.
Dr.Onendagus Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 That reminds me of one of Jesus' discourses to his disciples:Mark chapter 40 38 ¶And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 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. 40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
pmccombs1 Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 Arguing what true means now?In context, of true church, it is a claim of exclusivity. It seems crazy to proclaim an apostasy of all other churches, establish your own with apostles, priesthood, and prophets, and then refrain from making the claim to be the one true church...EXCLUSIVELY. If you guys don't want to make that claim anymore that's okay by me, but it seems like it makes complete nonsense of LDS origins.Not entirely. Mormons accept that truth can be removed from the earth through apostasy. Like the Catholics, they point to certain sayings that make them believe they are immune to such a fate. I don't see it that way, and so I ask (as Pilate did), "What is truth?"
pmccombs1 Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 Yes, I believe we are talking of truth in the same way that an entomologist might classify a spider. The true church must meet certain criteria. The most important being authority. So yes, authority has everything to do with truth. For example, anybody can make a guitar, but only those who have been hired, trained, and given authority to make Gibson guitars, produce "true" Gibson's. All others are imitations or different brands. You can go to China and buy a Gibson guitar really cheap, but is it a true Gibson if it was not authorized by Gibson? Without authority from Christ, how could it be Christ's true church?Yes, we say the difference is in "authority." But whereas there may be definite ways to demonstrate the true spider from the look-alike, and definite ways to prove the true Gibson from the counterfeit, how does one discern the true authority exists in one place and not another? Is it through "fruits?" We find good fruits and ill in our church and others. Is it in miracles? We find miracles in our church and in others. Is it in charismatic experiences, visitations of the Holy Ghost, and gifts of great faith and certainty? We also find these things in various places.And how does one know that it is "authority" that is a thing that actually does distinguish a "true" church from an impostor? It seems there is consensus on the criteria when it comes to spiders and guitars, but what about churches? Who decides what the criteria is, and how do we know it?
Garden Girl Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 (edited) So maybe that athiest that didn't believe won't be with God but I don't believe they'll be in hell. Kind of weird I know. That's very similar to the belief in never going to hell. Why does the BOM speak of a hell, and fire and damnation? But now in our faith we don't really believe in an actual place called hell? The different changes in our church have me going, ok, what do we believe in!?!? Maybe that's why I'm sailing down the ocean on my own accord. And maybe the Lord wants me to think, wonder or even challenge?Tacenda...It's obvious from your post that you really don't have a firm understanding of certain gospel principles...1) What's weird about not believing an atheist will be going to hell? I don't believe that will happen either... never have... never have been taught that they would... Have always been taught that everyone will have an opportunity to hear the gospel and accept Christ. If they ultimately reject Christ, they will still inherit a lesser degree of glory, but glory just the same. The "hell" comes from being separated from God and Christ...2) But now in our faith we don't believe in an actual place called hell??... this is no change. The Plan of Salvation that I have been taught all my life has always included the concept of the three degrees of Glory, but never a Hell per se. The least degree... the Telestial Kingdom... is the closest thing to Hell because this will be where the liars and whoremongers, etc etc will be as well as those who after being taught of Christ still reject him... BUT... it is still a degree of glory and will be to those who inhabit it.Our current gospel principles manual has a chapter on Exaltation, pages 275 - 280. This may be helpful to you, particularly page 277 where it lists some of the blessings given to those who receive exaltation, items 1 - 5. This is what is currently being taught and it is the same as I've always been taught... No "changes" that I can see...Also, a careful review of Section 76 in the D&C will refresh or help your understanding. And I'm sure there are conference talks related to these principles, Ensign articles, etc etc that you can do some deeper studying.In regard to the Church being true... I prefer to use the word "complete" when speaking of its truth. I agree that there is truth to be found in other bible teaching denominations... and rightly so... but it is the restored CoJCoLDS that has the complete gospel with the restored priesthood and ordinances.... people can accept these as truth or not... I do..GG Edited March 6, 2013 by Garden Girl
Dr.Onendagus Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 I heard a very interesting testimony this last fast Sunday. A young boy went up to bear his testimony and started off with the usual script saying, "I like to bear my testimony I know this church is true." And then to my utter suprise and amazement he said something like, "And I know other good churches around the world are true too."This also happened to be the same day the lesson on the "The only true and living church" was taught in Sunday school.Does anybody here not agree with this boy's testimony?That sort of reminds me of a discourse Christ gave to his disciples.Mark 9 38 ¶And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 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. 40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
Damien the Leper Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 Correct. Truth is jello. Nevertheless did Christ direct those other churches? How can we know?You can't. Just as you can't be absolutely certain that Jesus established the Restoration movement through JS. It's a claim that really cannot be tested and also cannot provide verifiable evidence.
EllenMaksoud Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 I heard a very interesting testimony this last fast Sunday. A young boy went up to bear his testimony and started off with the usual script saying, "I like to bear my testimony I know this church is true." And then to my utter suprise and amazement he said something like, "And I know other good churches around the world are true too."This also happened to be the same day the lesson on the "The only true and living church" was taught in Sunday school.Does anybody here not agree with this boy's testimony?To me, according to my bias, the LDS church is the most true and all the rest are apostate; only having part of the truth. Amazing to me is the fact that the LDS themselves have said I will have to moderate my view of other churches, and over time I have in an amazing way. Certain of them subjected me to a lot of rough handling, but it is now clear to me that to take full advantage of the Atonement, then I must forgive others.
canard78 Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 Then truth must be relative and dependent on perspective, since any number of adherents to a "restoration" religion, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Christ and/or any number of offshoots of the mainstream LDS church claim that their church is the true church of Christ, restored by their respective founder with direction from Christ.One thing I find interesting from some members is the presumption that the claim to be the only church with all ordinances and principles also means we're the church whose leaders/followers have no revelation or communication with God. I can't support that belief and I don't think it's one supported by our doctrine.I had a long conversation with a friend recently trying to explain that God probably was very interested in who the next Pope was and that, if they saught it, there's no reason the Cardinals couldn't have divine guidance on which one to support. 1
rodheadlee Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 You can't. Just as you can't be absolutely certain that Jesus established the Restoration movement through JS. It's a claim that really cannot be tested and also cannot provide verifiable evidence.Correct, only through a witness of the Holy Spirit can we know the truth of these things. My witness can only be tested and verified for me. No one else can use my witness to test and verify the truth of these things for themselves. They can gain the faith to seek their own witness from my witness but they have to seek their own. 1
rockpond Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 I'm (perhaps unsurprisingly?) not a fan of the phrase "I know this church is true." I much prefer "I know this church is an effective vehicle for helping me follow principles which I know, through living them, to be true principles."Personally, I feel that our testimony meetings could be improved if we would all analyze what we actually mean when we say: "I know this church is true" and explain that instead. I know that people already naturally do that as part of their testimony -- I just think that there could be a little bit more of it. I'll commit to work on it myself. 1
ERayR Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 Personally, I feel that our testimony meetings could be improved if we would all analyze what we actually mean when we say: Personally I think testimony meeting would improve if we didn't expect everyone's testimony to measure up to our standards and just accepted them as they are and let them grow at their own pace. 1
Walden Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 Correct. Truth is jello. Nevertheless did Christ direct those other churches? How can we know?If "truth is jello", are there no eternal truths?
bluebell Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 I'm with both rockpond and ERayR.I think our testmony meetings would definitely improve if people made sure they were actively thinking about what they were trying to convey and didn't fall into word habits that are familiar but not always (seldom) superior.But, i also think that bearing a testimony is really hard for most people, and it takes a lot of guts sometimes and that if someone feels they want to share, then as listeners we need to be as receptive to and accepting of that as possible, whatever weaknesses also come with it. We all say dumb things sometimes and i would never want someone not to bear their testimony because they were afraid someone in the audience was poised to mentally make fun of them or dismiss them if they did not do it in the 'correct' manner. 1
rockpond Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 (edited) Personally I think testimony meeting would improve if we didn't expect everyone's testimony to measure up to our standards and just accepted them as they are and let them grow at their own pace.Yes, ERayR... I didn't intend to come across sounding judgmental. I apologize for that. To say it another way... I listen to people use that phrase ("I know this church is true") and I know that it has varied and deep meaning to each individual. Sometimes they delve into that. And I love it when they offer that extra level of insight into their testimony. But I also accept that some might not be there yet or might not be able to put words to it.Believe me, as someone who has conducted testimony meetings in which there is a lot of empty "airtime" I am cognizant and extremely grateful for every individual who is willing and brave enough to voluntarily stand at that pulpit and bear their testimony. It's wonderful to hear every voice in all the varied steps of faith. Edited March 6, 2013 by rockpond
Dr.Onendagus Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 I heard a very interesting testimony this last fast Sunday. A young boy went up to bear his testimony and started off with the usual script saying, "I like to bear my testimony I know this church is true." And then to my utter suprise and amazement he said something like, "And I know other good churches around the world are true too."This also happened to be the same day the lesson on the "The only true and living church" was taught in Sunday school.Does anybody here not agree with this boy's testimony?Reminds of the Saviors reply to his disciples in Mark 9 38 ¶And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 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. 40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
Alan Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 Not trying to derail this thread, but I do not believe anyone "knows" the church is true.They believe, they believe they know, they are thoroughly convinced etc, but none of this constitutes "knowing".I therefore, cannot abide hearing people get up in testimony meeting and trot out the almost mandatory phrase "I know the church is true" because they do not. It is lazy and unthinking. They are not paying attention to what they are saying. I know, because I have done it myself. Nowadays, I make sure that what I say is what I believe, and what I believe is what I say.As for other churches, I believe they all contain some truth, but some more than others...... much more.For me, the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches are closer to the truth than most or any of the others.
bluebell Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 Not trying to derail this thread, but I do not believe anyone "knows" the church is true.They believe, they believe they know, they are thoroughly convinced etc, but none of this constitutes "knowing".I therefore, cannot abide hearing people get up in testimony meeting and trot out the almost mandatory phrase "I know the church is true" because they do not. It is lazy and unthinking. They are not paying attention to what they are saying. I know, because I have done it myself. Nowadays, I make sure that what I say is what I believe, and what I believe is what I say.As for other churches, I believe they all contain some truth, but some more than others...... much more.For me, the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches are closer to the truth than most or any of the others.Two thoughts-Why do you think you have the ability to know what other people can or cannot know and the ability to judge their use of a word as flat out 'lazy'?What do you mean, you can't abide when people say that? Do you get up and walk out? Put them in their place? Tell them later how very wrong they are? 1
rodheadlee Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 If "truth is jello", are there no eternal truths?There many eternal truths. The words we use to describe them mean different things to each one of us.
pmccombs1 Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 Not trying to derail this thread, but I do not believe anyone "knows" the church is true.They believe, they believe they know, they are thoroughly convinced etc, but none of this constitutes "knowing".I would put it differently. What constitutes knowing? I would say that people do indeed know. I would also say, just because one knows something, that knowing doesn't mean that the thing is true or real. But I take people at their word. There are those who have achieved a certainty beyond doubt, and they are to be found in every variety of belief. I have no reason to suspect any of them of being insincere, but I understand that what they take as evidence and experience as the basis for their personal knowledge is what, in epistemological circles, would be called "unreliable."There was a time when a man could stand on the solid, immovable rock of the earth and watch the celestial bodies wheeling in the heavens above his head. He had irrefutable evidence and knew beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth stood firm in the center of the universe. He had fourth-order ignorance and lacked even the tools to discover the questions to ask in order to find out that he didn't even know that he didn't know. Though a person may feel the Spirit of God, hear His voice, and even experience Him in vision, yet there are others who have received in this same manner "some other gospel." And there is no way to discern between the various competing experiences, other than to say, "This One resonates within my soul." When people say that they know the Church is true, what they mean is that they are Of the Church and have heard its voice within them.
rockpond Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 (edited) I would put it differently. What constitutes knowing? I would say that people do indeed know. I would also say, just because one knows something, that knowing doesn't mean that the thing is true or real. But I take people at their word. There are those who have achieved a certainty beyond doubt, and they are to be found in every variety of belief. I have no reason to suspect any of them of being insincere, but I understand that what they take as evidence and experience as the basis for their personal knowledge is what, in epistemological circles, would be called "unreliable."There was a time when a man could stand on the solid, immovable rock of the earth and watch the celestial bodies wheeling in the heavens above his head. He had irrefutable evidence and knew beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth stood firm in the center of the universe. He had fourth-order ignorance and lacked even the tools to discover the questions to ask in order to find out that he didn't even know that he didn't know.Though a person may feel the Spirit of God, hear His voice, and even experience Him in vision, yet there are others who have received in this same manner "some other gospel." And there is no way to discern between the various competing experiences, other than to say, "This One resonates within my soul." When people say that they know the Church is true, what they mean is that they are Of the Church and have heard its voice within them.Normally, I would agree with Alan -- nobody "knows" the church is true. I think that we just like the sense of certainty that it adds to our words... either for our own comfort or for the benefit of those listening to our testimony.But, pmccombs, I love your counter to that. I think you've stated it quite beautifully (and I've added your words, with credit to you, to my personal quotes file because I'm not sure that I could ever say it quite as well). Thank you.p.s. If you object to my ever quoting you in a public setting, you'd better speak now. Edited March 6, 2013 by rockpond 1
Alan Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 (edited) Why do you think you have the ability to know what other people can or cannot know and the ability to judge their use of a word as flat out 'lazy'?Perhaps I should explain my thinking.First of all I want you to know that I am one of the fortunate ones - I have received a witness from the Spirit of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, of the mission of Joseph Smith, and of the truthfulness of the church. This happened when I was a young missionary in Scotland more than 30 years ago.However, that does not mean I know the church is true. What is does mean is that I know the Spirit told me it was true. There is a difference. Could the Spirit have lied to me? Not very likely at all, but I have to concede that it is, however unlikely, theoretically a possibility. Do I believe the Spirit would lie to me?............No I do not. Therefore, my testimony is based on a belief. Ultimately, when it is stripped down to it's bare bones it is obvious that our testimonies are based on what we believe about our experience, or how we interpret what we believe about our experience, rather than an absolute knowledge.A far more accurate thing to say would be "because of my experiences, I am convinced of the truthfulness of the church" etc. Edited March 6, 2013 by Alan
pogi Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 Yes, we say the difference is in "authority." But whereas there may be definite ways to demonstrate the true spider from the look-alike, and definite ways to prove the true Gibson from the counterfeit, how does one discern the true authority exists in one place and not another? Is it through "fruits?" We find good fruits and ill in our church and others. Is it in miracles? We find miracles in our church and in others. Is it in charismatic experiences, visitations of the Holy Ghost, and gifts of great faith and certainty? We also find these things in various places.And how does one know that it is "authority" that is a thing that actually does distinguish a "true" church from an impostor? It seems there is consensus on the criteria when it comes to spiders and guitars, but what about churches? Who decides what the criteria is, and how do we know it?How do we know it? That is the question isn't it? Let me reply to your next post to help answer this.I would put it differently. What constitutes knowing? I would say that people do indeed know. I would also say, just because one knows something, that knowing doesn't mean that the thing is true or real. But I take people at their word. There are those who have achieved a certainty beyond doubt, and they are to be found in every variety of belief. I have no reason to suspect any of them of being insincere, but I understand that what they take as evidence and experience as the basis for their personal knowledge is what, in epistemological circles, would be called "unreliable."What does constitute knowing? Who are you going to believe and why? All earthly sources of truth are not entirely reliable as sources of knowledge. Even Science claims only probabilities, and religion claims unknown mysteries or continuing revelation. But, all faiths have at least one thing in common - prayer/meditation. I am of the belief that if you are 100% true to what you know to be good, true, and right through sincere prayer and contemplation, you can never be wrong, even if you are wrong. Knowledge and light evolves from obedience to what light and knowledge we have, even if it is not the full truth now, we will be guided to the full truth, wether in this life or the next. When it comes to God and his church, there is no more reliable knowledge than your own.
Recommended Posts