What Is Truth? - Mr. Uchtdorf Speaks

[Pahoran]

Is he saying that Mormons may have created their own 'truths' about Evangelicals which

are really 'lies'? If yes, would you elaborate on some of the major ones said by the

Quorum of Twelve, Seventies, or the First Presidency, and Joseph Smith since 1820?

Thanks,

Jim

Thank you for admitting that you'd like to have ammunition to use in your accusations against the Saviour's Church, but since you don't have any, you'd like us to provide it for you.

Sorry to be unable to oblige you.

However, I can tell you one I've come across: someone told me that there's a (heh heh) "discussion" forum of the EV's, for the EV's and by the EV's, where the administration are so cowardly and dishonest that they refuse to permit believing Latter-day Saints to quote the Bible in defence of the Church and its doctrine.

This must be a lie, mustn't it? Nobody who calls himself a "Christian" could possibly be so blatantly one-sided, could he?

Or could he?

Regards,

Pahoran

[canard78]

And the problem I have because of the evidence in the world is that the Holy Ghost does not teach the truth the same to people. He is a contradictory teacher who shouldn't be contradictory based upon the teachings about what kind of being and kind of thinking this Holy Ghost does. Just how do we reconcile this? I am seriously asking.

I think this is a big question. The notion that all others are deceived by an evil spirit is unpalatable to me and not an idea taught by our church leaders.

I'm very comfortable with the notion that the Holy Ghost speaks differently to different people. In a class of 30, a teacher might unfortunately have to give one lesson to the whole class, even though every student could really do with a personalised lesson for them to get the most out of the time with the teacher. My kids are currently in a private school (I'm an ex-pat in Asia). There are around 10-12 per class, with a teacher and assistant. The school's philosophy is 'student lead learning' and because of the class-size the teacher is able to let each student follow a much more adapted and personal course to reach their full potential. One of my kids is particularly encouraged to follow a different path to the rest of the class as he tends to get his work done quickly (he wrote a 20 'fact book' on Egypt last year).

I believe God gets this principle perfectly and so is happy to give the ideal teaching style - 1 teacher per student. As a Mormon I'm not entirely certain whether my learning style makes me an A+ or a C- student. I know we're quick to presume we're the A+'s, but maybe we're not. Either way, I don't mind. If being Mormon helps me get from C- to C or from A to A+, it has still been entirely fit for purpose.

I take comfort in this great statement from the First Presidency in 1978:

“The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.

“The Hebrew prophets prepared the way for the coming of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah, who should provide salvation for all mankind who believe in the gospel.

“Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all people sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

[canard78]

I don't know how contradictory it really is.

There was a conversion story in the first volume of Hartman and Connie Rector's "No More Strangers" series which illustrates this. A protestant minister related that while he was investigating the Church he was conflicted about leaving his ministry to become a Mormon. He received an interesting personal revelation that basically acknowledged the good he was doing where he was, with the reasonable suggestion that he could continue in it if he wished, or that he could "come with Me and play for higher stakes". This personal revelation seems to me to make clear that Father does not in all cases engage in black/white thinking.

What are we to make of Martin Luther? Or of Mohammed? Neither of these men were inspired to restore the Church of Christ, but both were more-or-less clearly inspired to bring men closer to the truth than they had been previously. I continue to harbor doubts about whether Mohammed actually communicated with the divine, but it remains the case that a Muslim is closer to the truth than the pagans that Islam displaced. I believe also that the Pope is fully capable of being inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is fully capable of obeying that inspiration.

The Spirit seems to have been working with mankind to the extent that mankind has permitted. I don't see that as contradictory.

I agree with you and so did President Kimball and his counselors. See my post above where I quote them saying: "The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals."

[theplains]

Have you?

If worshipping Jesus as the God who has always been God is considered worshipping

a pagan God, then I have not learned from the Israelite example.

Jim

[theplains]

However, I can tell you one I've come across: someone told me that there's a (heh heh) "discussion" forum of the EV's, for the EV's and by the EV's, where the administration are so cowardly and dishonest that they refuse to permit believing Latter-day Saints to quote the Bible in defence of the Church and its doctrine.

This must be a lie, mustn't it? Nobody who calls himself a "Christian" could possibly be so blatantly one-sided, could he?

Or could he?

Regards,

Pahoran

I haven't heard of that one. Latter-day Saints do use the Bible in an attempt to prove

some of their teachings - going to the Book of Mormon would be inadequate for some

teachings.

Jim

[Pahoran]

I haven't heard of that one. Latter-day Saints do use the Bible in an attempt to prove

some of their teachings - going to the Book of Mormon would be inadequate for some

teachings.

Jim

No-one ever claimed that the Book of Mormon contains everything we teach. So that little back-hander hit no target.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

The Israelites who perished in the wilderness failed to enter into God's rest (Hebrews chapter

3 and 4) for their lack of faith. The same is true for New Testament believers. I believe one

will lose their salvation if they worship a false god.

Jim

It seems to me that a great deal of the "false god" rhetoric (with the obligatory insulting small "g") emanating from anti-Mormon circles is based upon remarkably trivial theological quibbles. It is as if they are so determined to find something to argue about that they are willing to resort to any difference in interpretation, even down to claims that "my Jesus" has blue eyes and "your Jesus" has brown eyes, therefore I must be worshipping a "different Jesus."

So, exactly how many Jesuses (Jesi?) are there, anyway?

I must admit that, in all my reading of the Bible, I never once came across the notion that person X was worshipping a "false god" because they thought Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, had a body, while person Y did not.

Perhaps that's because the prophets of Israel were inspired servants of the Lord, and not fanatical, censorious self-appointed zealots. What do you think?

I would point out also that this is not an argument that is particularly wise for you to start; the evidence is not exactly stacked in your favour. It is an utterly uncontroversial fact that the God of classical theology is an abstract philosophical construct that dates back to Plato, a pagan Greek. Later Christian thinkers borrowed this abstraction and claimed that all of its theoretical perfections were present in the God they worshipped. However, actually reading the Bible (instead of merely genuflecting before it) shows that the God who reveals Himself in its pages is quite different from that abstraction.

So if you insist that one or the other of us is worshipping a "false god," with the obligatory insulting small "g," then it's not likely to be those who agree with the biblical prophets that God is embodied. Try not to end up hoist with your own petard, okay?

Regards,

Pahoran

[theplains]

So, exactly how many Jesuses (Jesi?) are there, anyway?

I think you can classify 7 main types:

a) a man who is only a prophet (Buddhists, Hindus, etc).

b) an angel (Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists).

c) a spirit child of Heavenly Parents, who like his Father before him, progressed into becoming

a God.

d) someone who has always been God

e) a mythological figure (Thomas Harpur, etc).

f) a moral person but not God nor a prophet.

g) a deluded egomaniac.

Regards,

Jim

[T-Shirt]

I think you can classify 7 main types:

a) a man who is only a prophet (Buddhists, Hindus, etc).

b) an angel (Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists).

c) a spirit child of Heavenly Parents, who like his Father before him, progressed into becoming

a God.

d) someone who has always been God

e) a mythological figure (Thomas Harpur, etc).

f) a moral person but not God nor a prophet.

g) a deluded egomaniac.

Regards,

Jim

Those are just seven different explanations of the same Jesus. Some may be right and some may be wrong, but they all speak to the same Jesus.

[Stone holm]

It seems to me that a great deal of the "false god" rhetoric (with the obligatory insulting small "g") emanating from anti-Mormon circles is based upon remarkably trivial theological quibbles. It is as if they are so determined to find something to argue about that they are willing to resort to any difference in interpretation, even down to claims that "my Jesus" has blue eyes and "your Jesus" has brown eyes, therefore I must be worshipping a "different Jesus."

So, exactly how many Jesuses (Jesi?) are there, anyway?

I must admit that, in all my reading of the Bible, I never once came across the notion that person X was worshipping a "false god" because they thought Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, had a body, while person Y did not.

Perhaps that's because the prophets of Israel were inspired servants of the Lord, and not fanatical, censorious self-appointed zealots. What do you think?

I would point out also that this is not an argument that is particularly wise for you to start; the evidence is not exactly stacked in your favour. It is an utterly uncontroversial fact that the God of classical theology is an abstract philosophical construct that dates back to Plato, a pagan Greek. Later Christian thinkers borrowed this abstraction and claimed that all of its theoretical perfections were present in the God they worshipped. However, actually reading the Bible (instead of merely genuflecting before it) shows that the God who reveals Himself in its pages is quite different from that abstraction.

So if you insist that one or the other of us is worshipping a "false god," with the obligatory insulting small "g," then it's not likely to be those who agree with the biblical prophets that God is embodied. Try not to end up hoist with your own petard, okay?

Regards,

Pahoran

Interesting point. Christianity changed when it became the established Church of Rome because the Romans who had borrowed their constructs from the Greek Philosophers modified their vision of what God was like to fit their philosopher's constructs, then St. Augustine completed the conversion by destroying all dissenting opinions. That is why Mormons normally consider the Great Apostasy to have been complete by the time of Augustine, and why mainline Christianity tends to think of it really getting underway theologically at that time.

[theplains]

Those are just seven different explanations of the same Jesus. Some may be right and some may be wrong, but they all speak to the same Jesus.

Do you think it is sinful if you teach a wrong explanation of Christ's true character?

Jim

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is he saying that Mormons may have created their own 'truths' about Evangelicals which

are really 'lies'? If yes, would you elaborate on some of the major ones said by the

Quorum of Twelve, Seventies, or the First Presidency, and Joseph Smith since 1820?

Thanks,

Jim

Jim,

It is quite obvious that you are not really trying to have a good faith understanding and dialogue of each other's faith. Why don't you read that quote a few more times.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you think it is sinful if you teach a wrong explanation of Christ's true character?

Jim

No other wise there wouldbe a whole lot of people sinning. Of course if you are asking if people willing know his true character and then teach against that, that is a different question. And then that would be called bearing a false witness. That is a sin. Edited March 12, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If worshipping Jesus as the God who has always been God is considered worshipping

a pagan God, then I have not learned from the Israelite example.

Jim

Here is another none starter. Ready to have your mind blown? Let me know. I can share a simple truth.

[pogi]

Do you think it is sinful if you teach a wrong explanation of Christ's true character?

Jim

If it is, we forgive you.