“I Know The Church Is True” – What Exactly Do You Mean?

[mfbukowski]

If we've previously discussed your fondness for Nietzsche, mfbukowski, I have no recollection. As for "witch trials"--I have noticed from previous discussion you're prone to, as Colin Powell famously put it, "getting the vapors."

It merits its own thread, but there's a significant subset of the LDS population who are fans of the German. It's not just you, Peterson, and a former girlfriend of mine (back when I was LDS). His name comes up regularly w/ the Sunstone crowd. Can't think of a more popular philosopher off hand. I'll confess his name makes my eyes roll--for what typically comes next is a lot of pretentiousness followed by condescension (as you yourself so artfully demonstrated in a preceding post).

--Erik

PS. I did appreciate your inquiry regarding getting my poor thread moved back to its original forum. I’m much too abrasive to be in anyone’s “social hall.”

;0)

As usual, name calling and no substance.

[Stargazer]

We had a very nice F&T meeting this morning, and because of this thread I paid closer attention to wording. And I was happy to note that practically everyone at one time or another said "I know the Church is true". Most elaborated upon their testimony in some way to highlight some reason or other in particular. In times past I have attended some wards (or branches) where there were minutes-long gaps between "testifiers", and I guess it happens with us at least once or twice a year, but as per the usual case, today there was a constant stream. And the meeting went overtime by almost ten minutes because of it. This is not unusual.

Of particular interest was our Priests Quorum. They had gotten back from Camp Helaman two weeks ago, and they were still fired up, and fired up even more so because two of their former members had gotten their mission calls, and two more were ordained to Elder in the last couple of weeks. They dominated the middle portion of the F&T meeting, and what is neat was that their testimonies had utterly nothing to do with "Me, too" and "We were challenged to bear our testimony" -- these brethren were genuinely on fire.

I planned to bear my testimony today, but I would definitely have been swimming upstream. In the end I decided to just enjoy basking in the Spirit from others' testimonies.

[Tacenda]

We had a very nice F&T meeting this morning, and because of this thread I paid closer attention to wording. And I was happy to note that practically everyone at one time or another said "I know the Church is true". Most elaborated upon their testimony in some way to highlight some reason or other in particular. In times past I have attended some wards (or branches) where there were minutes-long gaps between "testifiers", and I guess it happens with us at least once or twice a year, but as per the usual case, today there was a constant stream. And the meeting went overtime by almost ten minutes because of it. This is not unusual.

Of particular interest was our Priests Quorum. They had gotten back from Camp Helaman two weeks ago, and they were still fired up, and fired up even more so because two of their former members had gotten their mission calls, and two more were ordained to Elder in the last couple of weeks. They dominated the middle portion of the F&T meeting, and what is neat was that their testimonies had utterly nothing to do with "Me, too" and "We were challenged to bear our testimony" -- these brethren were genuinely on fire.

I planned to bear my testimony today, but I would definitely have been swimming upstream. In the end I decided to just enjoy basking in the Spirit from others' testimonies.

My nephew did the camp Helaman and it changed his life. He was going in a different direction before, and afterwards he went on to a mission and then a temple marriage. I've never seen it done in any stake I've been in. Is it a local thing? My nephew is in the East Layton area.

[Kenngo1969]

The elders in church should not ask this question because Christ is the way, not them. But,

if by chance, they one day start preaching a false Jesus or Heavenly Father (which is contrary

to what we know of them in scripture), then I would go away from these elders because a false

Christ can lead one astray (as Jesus warned about).

Regards,

Jim

Ultimately, no one else but me is responsible for my relationship with Christ. And Joseph Smith, and Thomas S. Monson, and [insert-name-of-Church-leader-here] is of value to me only as he brings me to Christ. As for the "false Jesus" problem (Gee, Jim, we've never heard that one before! ) Christ said, "By their fruits, ye shall know them," and that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit and vice-versa. He also said, "If any man will do his will he will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself. These same test can be applied to anyone else who purports to teach something which comes from Christ. Neither Joseph Smith, nor Thomas S. Monson, nor any other leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expects me simply to take his word for something. I can apply the tests mentioned in these scriptures and come to know for myself whether a teaching really is of Christ or not. I have done so. I've found that the tests work.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

To the question of the thread title...

To me it means knowing that the authority to preach, teach, and perform the ordinances to the Gospel of Jesus Christ are currently found present in the church. It does not mean the church organization or the men leading it are incapable of teaching falsely or without proper understanding.

[Five Solas]

... And Joseph Smith, and Thomas S. Monson, and [insert-name-of-Church-leader-here] is of value to me only as he brings me to Christ. As for the "false Jesus" problem (Gee, Jim, we've never heard that one before! ) Christ said, "By their fruits, ye shall know them," and that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit and vice-versa. He also said, "If any man will do his will he will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself. These same test can be applied to anyone else who purports to teach something which comes from Christ. Neither Joseph Smith, nor Thomas S. Monson, nor any other leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expects me simply to take his word for something. I can apply the tests mentioned in these scriptures and come to know for myself whether a teaching really is of Christ or not. I have done so. I've found that the tests work.

A solid post, Kenngo1969. Going back to my OP, I'd like to know--have you applied your test to the theology & worldview of Spencer W. Kimball has he revealed it in The Miracle of Forgiveness. If so, how did that work out for you? (Hint: If you're like a lot of other LDS on the MOF thread back in General Discussions, not so well...)

--Erik

[Kenngo1969]

A solid post, Kenngo1969.

Why, thank you! That’s certainly nice of you to say!

Going back to my OP, I'd like to know--have you applied your test to the theology & worldview of Spencer W. Kimball has he revealed it in The Miracle of Forgiveness. If so, how did that work out for you? (Hint: If you're like a lot of other LDS on the MOF thread back in General Discussions, not so well...)

--Erik

1. I don’t know how similar I am to “other LDS on the MOF thread”; I’ve never met any of them in real life (to the best of my knowledge), so I’m not sure how solid of a basis for comparison I might have. They’re them; I’m me; people are people … As humans, we all have certain things in common, but we all experience life differently, filtering it through our own previous experiences, biases, perspectives, and so on.

2. I’m not sure what you mean by President Spencer W. Kimball’s “theology and world view.” Do I put The Miracle of Forgiveness on par with the Scriptures (Holy Bible, et al, in my case ) and the words of living prophets? No; the latter take precedence over the former. I know that The Miracle of Forgiveness has been excerpted in subsequent manuals (and probably other Church publications).

3. I don’t know that I’ve ever read any of the excerpts of Miracle of Forgiveness in current publications and said to myself, as a visceral reaction, “Hey! That feels wrong!” If I were to do so, I think it would probably be a matter easily resolved by a change in perspective: I would go to The Source and say, “SWK said [x]. That feels wrong. Do I simply need to humble myself? What, if anything, might be getting ‘lost in translation’? How does SWK’s counsel apply to me? Do I need to consider it in light of what current prophets have said, and, if so, how does that change the equation (if at all)? Do I need to adapt it to my circumstances, and if so, how do I do that?” And so on.

4. Now, it’s been forever since I’ve read the book. I have a lot of other things in my reading queue, and, as I said, Scriptures and the words of living prophets take precedence over any of that stuff anyway. Having said that, here’s what I know (if you want to quibble with how well it jibes with what’s in Miracle of Forgiveness, you’ll probably have to find someplace else to do that [and someone else to do it with]).

• “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23 KJV); “All” includes me—

practically every day.

• The Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance (Doctrine & Covenants 1:31).

• Notwithstanding the second point above, while God will never make sin OK, He can always make sinners OK . . . as long as we turn to Him, and the way we do that is through repentance (Doctrine & Covenants 1:32).

• Repentance activates Christ’s Atonement, which can cleanse us (again, as long as we’re willing) from all sin (Isaiah 1:18).

[Five Solas]

Why, thank you! That’s certainly nice of you to say!

You're welcome, and I certainly meant it. I only wish you could have stayed the course you started! You'll forgive me as I skip past a few of what followed and reply to the ones that stand out in my mind.

2. I’m not sure what you mean by President Spencer W. Kimball’s “theology and world view.” Do I put The Miracle of Forgiveness on par with the Scriptures (Holy Bible, et al, in my case ) and the words of living prophets? No; the latter take precedence over the former. I know that The Miracle of Forgiveness has been excerpted in subsequent manuals (and probably other Church publications).

In hindsight, I wish I'd said "Christology" in place of "theology" (obviously these are not mutually exclusive terms--but my initial word choice was admittedly a tad ambiguous). Then it would have been obvious in light of your previous post, to wit--a prophet is a prophet only if he points to Christ (Christ as revealed in scripture, not just mouthing the name, "Jesus"). That's the "fruit" you were talking about, correct?

3. I don’t know that I’ve ever read any of the excerpts of Miracle of Forgiveness in current publications and said to myself, as a visceral reaction, “Hey! That feels wrong!” If I were to do so, I think it would probably be a matter easily resolved by a change in perspective: I would go to The Source and say, “SWK said [x]. That feels wrong. Do I simply need to humble myself? What, if anything, might be getting ‘lost in translation’? How does SWK’s counsel apply to me? Do I need to consider it in light of what current prophets have said, and, if so, how does that change the equation (if at all)? Do I need to adapt it to my circumstances, and if so, how do I do that?” And so on.

Regrettably, this is the complete undoing of your previous post. Rather than "test" what was said, now you're going to rationalize anything an LDS prophet might say and blame yourself if what he says is nonsense (and for examples of nonsense, you need only consult the MOF thread over in General Discussions). Might have hoped for a little more, Kenngo1969, especially in light of that previous post (which either I completely misunderstood or you completely did not mean).

4. Now, it’s been forever since I’ve read the book. I have a lot of other things in my reading queue, and, as I said, Scriptures and the words of living prophets take precedence over any of that stuff anyway.

Well, there's better uses of your time than to read that thing, and you don't have to be an "anti" to agree with me there (again, that MOF thread makes this abundantly clear)

Regards,

--Erik

[thatjimguy]

I used to think that by saying "I know the church is true." It would be to say that, in my own way, it was the right way to live, although I did not have more than a particle of faith of the literalness of it. So, I thought I was being honest enough by saying the words. But I never thought of it from the listeners perspective. By saying those words, I'm not really giving a "particle of faith" endorsement, I am saying it to the ears of the listener as full fledged and all the way.

[Kenngo1969]

Erik,

In hindsight, I wish I'd said "Christology" in place of "theology" (obviously these are not mutually exclusive terms--but my initial word choice was admittedly a tad ambiguous). Then it would have been obvious in light of your previous post, to wit--a prophet is a prophet only if he points to Christ (Christ as revealed in scripture, not just mouthing the name, "Jesus"). That's the "fruit" you were talking about, correct?

As valuable as ancient, Old World scripture is, as much as I revere it, I’m not limited to what Christ said 2,000 years ago in the Old World. Because, you see, and I’m sure this will come as a shock to you , I believe He also revealed Himself to prophets in the New World, and that he continues to reveal Himself to prophets today.

Regrettably, this is the complete undoing of your previous post. Rather than "test" what was said, now you're going to rationalize anything an LDS prophet might say and blame yourself if what he says is nonsense (and for examples of nonsense, you need only consult the MOF thread over in General Discussions). …

If that’s what you got out of what I wrote, you need to read it again (for clarity, this time). I was talking about having a personal, direct, revelatory experience with the Spirit in which I consider the possibilities (that I need to humble myself, that I’m not understanding what someone who purports to speak for God is saying, that I need to know how to adapt and apply it to my own circumstances, et cetera) and ask to know through the spirit what course I should pursue. Your parsing of what I wrote not only lacks comprehension, but (with all due respect) it also lacks charity

Might have hoped for a little more, Kenngo1969 …

Save the condescending “tsk-tsking” for somebody who really needs it, or for somebody who can’t see through your condescension. If you want to have a dialogue with me in the interest of increasing mutual understanding, that’s fine, but I’m not interested in a teacher/pupil relationship with you.

… especially in light of that previous post (which either I completely misunderstood or you completely did not mean).

Oh, I know exactly what I mean. And yeah, you completely misunderstood it. I’m shocked!

If all you want to do is look down your nose at Mormons, Erik, there are Boards where you’ll be a helluva lot more welcome to do that than you are here. Don’t let the door hit you in the hindparts on the way out.

[Kenngo1969]

Erik,

Well, there's better uses of your time than to read that thing [Miracle of Forgiveness], and you don't have to be an "anti" to agree with me there (again, that MOF thread makes this abundantly clear) ...

Well, shoot! Sometimes wasting my time is just what I'm in the mood for! (I don't know how else to explain my ubiquitous presence on this Board! ) I just read through Chapter 4 of Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball. As near as I can determine, the chapter is comprised solely and entirely of quotations from Miracle of Forgiveness; in fact, even the Chapter's title was taken from the book.

While, again, it's been some time since I read the book, as near as I can tell, the chapter of the same name in Teachings is comprised solely and completely of fundamental, uncontroversial LDS doctrine: that repentance is more than simply a change in behavior, but also a change of heart; that it requires abandoning sin; that serious sins must be confessed to Church authorities; that there is almost no sin serious enough that it cannot be repented of; that repentance brings peace; and so on.

If any of my fellow Latter-day Saints have a problem with any of that, it's their problem, and it's not my job to try to change their hearts and minds. I'm sure you love seeing (if not fomenting) controversy among fellow members of your former faith, Erik, but I ain't playin' that game. Nice try.

[Five Solas]

Erik,

As valuable as ancient, Old World scripture is, as much as I revere it, I’m not limited to what Christ said 2,000 years ago in the Old World. Because, you see, and I’m sure this will come as a shock to you , I believe He also revealed Himself to prophets in the New World, and that he continues to reveal Himself to prophets today.

If that’s what you got out of what I wrote, you need to read it again (for clarity, this time). I was talking about having a personal, direct, revelatory experience with the Spirit in which I consider the possibilities (that I need to humble myself, that I’m not understanding what someone who purports to speak for God is saying, that I need to know how to adapt and apply it to my own circumstances, et cetera) and ask to know through the spirit what course I should pursue. Your parsing of what I wrote not only lacks comprehension, but (with all due respect) it also lacks charity

Save the condescending “tsk-tsking” for somebody who really needs it, or for somebody who can’t see through your condescension. If you want to have a dialogue with me in the interest of increasing mutual understanding, that’s fine, but I’m not interested in a teacher/pupil relationship with you.

Oh, I know exactly what I mean. And yeah, you completely misunderstood it. I’m shocked!

If all you want to do is look down your nose at Mormons, Erik, there are Boards where you’ll be a helluva lot more welcome to do that than you are here. Don’t let the door hit you in the hindparts on the way out.

I wish I could laugh

But that joke isn't funny anymore

It's too close to home

And it's too near the bone

It's too close to home

And it's too near the bone

More than you'll ever know

--The Smiths, 1985

Going to try to recover this, Kenngo1969, 'cause even though we’ve never met—I think I’d like you if I did. And you might even appreciate me.

:0)

And I’ll start by saying this—I live in a lively neighborhood in a very liberal city, Seattle. And I’m a member (a deacon, even) of a well-known (several thousand members locally) and conservative (theologically speaking) church, Mars Hill. And if that weren’t enough, sometimes our preaching pastor says things that don’t exactly encourage bridge-building in the community (his own MOF moments, if you will). I’m not shy about any of this. And there’s no shortage of people around here who see contradictions and enjoy poking fun and even making mockery, starting with Seattle’s leading and highly influential weekly, The Stranger. Critics might even have a point, now and then.

But I wouldn’t change a thing. And it doesn’t get me down. On the contrary, I find such discussions invigorating. However incompetent the presentation, if it leads to a discussion of Jesus & the Gospel (not to be confused with “restored gospel”)—IMO that’s a good thing. God can take bad and use if for good (Genesis 50:20). So your words, “don’t let the door hit you in the hindparts…” wouldn’t come from my mouth (or my keyboard). Not because I’ve mastered stoicism, but by God’s grace, I don’t feel that way about people with differing views.

Obviously I struck a nerve (posting twice to someone without waiting for reply is an indicator of agitation). Your post # 54 was a great post. I stand by that. We should test and not just take anyone’s word on the subject. Consistent with the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 18:21-22), consistent with the New (1 John 4:1-3). Well done!

So I gave you an example (Kimball’s MOF) against which to apply your test. And #54 went right out the window. Instead applying your test—you advocated introspection, e.g., you might need to “humble” yourself if Kimball’s teachings/doctrines didn’t seem right (your post # 57).

I was genuinely disappointed. You can argue I've misrepresented what you wrote--and you might even be right (it's back there for everyone to read & evaluate for themselves). But I apologize that I condescended to you. Please accept. And please continue the dialogue, as time permits.

--Erik

Edited July 15, 2013 by Five Solas

[Kenngo1969]

Do you even know what (more accurately, whom) I'm talking about when I talk about going to "The Source"? If someone purports to speak for God (on God's behalf) and tells me [x] (or tells me to do [y]), I'm going to go to God and attempt to dialogue with Him about what was said, what I heard, how it applies to me (or how it doesn't), how (if at all) it might be subject to modification given my current personal circumstances, and so on. I'm not merely being obtuse (at least, not purposefully so) when I declare, unabashedly, that I have absolutely no idea how that's inconsistent with anything else I've said. I've never said, "Oh, I'm just going to blame myself for any misunderstanding ..." or anything else of that sort. With due respect, that's you putting words in my mouth (or at least, so it seems).

And if you still think that something I've said on this thread is inconsistent with anything else I've said on this thread, well, that's just us human beings for you: we're charmingly (if maddeningly) inconsistent! (We'll either have to (1) agree to disagree about whether I'm being inconsistent, or (2) attribute such inconsistency to the human condition.) And no, the fact that I posted twice consecutively is not attributable to agitation (or to any other negative emotion): it's attributable to exactly what I attributed it to, my having gone back and read Chapter 4 of Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball, which is composed entirely of quotations from Miracle of Forgiveness and shares its title with that volume. Perhaps I would have saved you any worry about my state of mind if I had simply gone back and edited my original post, but the Board is doing hinky things (at least for me), and, alas, I am prevented from editing once I post.

And yes, I apologize for inviting you to not let the door hit you in the hindparts on the way out, and yes, I agree with you that that wasn't a very Christian thing to say.

[Calm]

Comes across quite consistent to me. Don't see where he's getting the inconsistency either.

[Five Solas]

And yes, I apologize for inviting you to not let the door hit you in the hindparts on the way out ...

Gladly accepted, Kenngo1969

--Erik

[Kenngo1969]

Gladly accepted, Kenngo1969

--Erik

Whew! Friends again!

(And if you'd like to enlighten me as to precisely where and how you think I'm being inconsistent, I'm all ears. If it's simply a matter of LDS doctrine [or my explanation thereof] conflicting mainstream Christian doctrine, with absolutely no offense intended, my response to that is ... .)

[Kenngo1969]

Calmoriah:

Comes across quite consistent to me. Don't see where he's getting the inconsistency either.

If we can get Erik to tell us, then we'll both know.

Well, Erik, how 'bout it?

[Five Solas]

Calmoriah:

If we can get Erik to tell us, then we'll both know.

Well, Erik, how 'bout it?

Shall I re-type post # 62 in ALL CAPS (comparing/contrasting your posts # 54 & # 57)? I've said my piece on the matter, Kenngo1969 (and I've apologized for my previous tone). You & Calmoriah (and anyone else who thinks it's worthwhile) can argue there never was any inconsistency. Obviously I read you differently. And I think any reasonable reader would--but of course that's just my opinion.

;0)

--Erik

PS. In case you're wondering why so long for me to read & respond, did a little road trip with the family to Utah & Wyoming to visit extended family. Got back Saturday. Good times (except for the warm beer in Utah's miserable state-owned liquor stores). But no time for internet...

[Kenngo1969]

... In case you're wondering why so long for me to read & respond, did a little road trip with the family to Utah & Wyoming to visit extended family. Got back Saturday. Good times (except for the warm beer in Utah's miserable state-owned liquor stores). But no time for internet...

Oh, my stars!!! Had I known you were coming to my current state of residence, I would have baked you a cake! (Or something! ) Why didn't you shoot me a PM? Truth to tell, your itinerary was probably packed with family stuff so, although we did not meet IRL, I guess I can't begrudge you that. (Sorry about the beer, but I can only offer you a limited amount of sympathy on that score since, as you know, I don't partake. Condolences, nonetheless.) I will review Posts 54 & 57 for inconsistency, but, alas, I can't promise you anything. I've never pretended to be able to see life from a religious perspective through anything but Mormon eyes. All the same, all the best. Glad you enjoyed your brief sojourn in my Home State. Edited July 31, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Alas, I don't see the inconsistency to which you're referring, Erik. I must simply be obtuse, although I assure you that it isn't intentional. Again, whatever a Church leader tells me, I am responsible for determining "if the shoe fits," and, if it does, precisely how. It's not a matter, as you said before, of my "blaming myself" for anything I don't understand, et cetera. Again, I'm not deliberately being obtuse. I'm afraid that in order to get anything else fruitful out of this discussion, I'm going to need you to connect the dots for me, e.g.: "In Post 54 you said [x], but in Post 57 you said [y]. The two are inconsistent because ..."

[Tacenda]

My ward is starting a project to get everyone to learn the Articles of Faith and will have a match between all the auxiliaries. Then, in the Primary President's words, they will be ready for anti- mormon's claims. For instance if they say Mormons don't believe in the bible, then as a member the person, child in this case, can say the article of faith that pertains to it, in this case, we believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

I wonder what is going on, is there a push for this sort of thing anywhere else?