Should God Make Sure That Stuff Stays "true"?

[trim]

I was having a conversation with my wife after some show about archaeology that featured 10,000 year old humanoid fossils. This discussion led to 6,000 year old Biblical history and how to rationalize the scripture with science.  I did my best to offer my views that reconcile apparent contradictions.

 

A bit surprisingly to me, my wife was not bothered by the doctrinal explanations, but by the fact that many of the manuals, institute teachers, church culture, etc. seem to perpetuate young earth concepts and interpretation that mislead the youth (and adults) into falsehoods and faith crises.  "If this is the true church", she asked "then why does the Lord permit the continual teaching of untruths?"  The word "true" is among the most used words in the LDS vocabulary and her concern was that the word had no validity, or that we could not rightly claim to be "true" if there is no attempt to correct or at least stop perpetuating teachings that weren't ... well... true.  If we don't see some guidance or direction in these types of things, then what prevents our eventual apostasy?  What makes us any more true than any other church?

 

These are the types of questions that came up.  I am working through my thoughts on answering them, but I would welcome some insights.

[thesometimesaint]

The answer lies within our own Articles of Faith.

Article of Faith #9: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[cinepro]

The answer lies within our own Articles of Faith.

Article of Faith #9: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

 

I think the point of the OP is that it would be cool if God would at least reveal to us the stuff the science already has.

[Damien the Leper]

Perhaps "true" is one of the most misused, misunderstood and falsely defined words. Especially where christological issues are concerned.

[Buckeye]

This will sound harsh, so I apologize in advance.  Rest assured it applies equally to me.

 

The church teaches that you and your wife have authority to receive revelation for your family.  You also have the eternal responsibility to guide your family towards God.  So, in asking why church leaders did not catch these errors, you should also ask why you and your wife did not catch them.  Too often we hold church leaders - including the Prophet - to a standard that we would not want applied to ourselves. 

 

As to "truth," you may consider changing from a view that truth is a fixed point or location, to a view that truth is a direction.

[Damien the Leper]

If history tells one story that has physical evidence and documentation to support it and religion tells another story there exists 2 truths. One actual truth and one figurative truth. Be little concerned with the figurative truth...it reads like an awful Shel Silverstein book.

[trim]

Perhaps "true" is one of the most misused, misunderstood and falsely defined words. Especially where christological issues are concerned.

I am working down this path as well.  How would you define it around christological issues?

[cinepro]

This will sound harsh, so I apologize in advance.  Rest assured it applies equally to me.

 

The church teaches that you and your wife have authority to receive revelation for your family.  You also have the eternal responsibility to guide your family towards God.  So, in asking why church leaders did not catch these errors, you should also ask why you and your wife did not catch them.  Too often we hold church leaders - including the Prophet - to a standard that we would not want applied to ourselves. 

 

As to "truth," you may consider changing from a view that truth is a fixed point or location, to a view that truth is a direction.

 

Just to be clear, a husband and wife do not have authority to receive any revelation that goes against their Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church.

 

So my wife and I can receive revelation about whether or not we should move to Kentucky, or whether the kids should be homeschooled or go to public school.  But we can't receive revelation about the location of Ward boundaries, who the Elder's Quorum President should be, whether Saturday or Sunday should be the "Sabbath", or whether or not the Apostles and official Church publications are correct in their teachings, including those about the age and origin of mankind.

[Damien the Leper]

I am working down this path as well.  How would you define it around christological issues?

 

Subjective and not necessarily rational assertions.

[ERayR]

From Obi Wan Kenobi - It is true from a certain point of view.

[ERayR]

Just to be clear, a husband and wife do not have authority to receive any revelation that goes against their Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church.

 

 Just to be clear, a husband and wife may receive revelation, for they and their families, that goes against their Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church as long as they do not try to usurp the authority of their Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church. 

[Buckeye]

 Just to be clear, a husband and wife may receive revelation, for they and their families, that goes against their Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church as long as they do not try to usurp the authority of their Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church. 

 

Agreed.  In one of his recent interviews, Teryl Givens said that on Sunday evenings he and his wife would have dinner with their kids, ask what they were taught in church, and correct anything that was not right.  That feels right to me.

[trim]

This will sound harsh, so I apologize in advance.  Rest assured it applies equally to me.

 

The church teaches that you and your wife have authority to receive revelation for your family.  You also have the eternal responsibility to guide your family towards God.  So, in asking why church leaders did not catch these errors, you should also ask why you and your wife did not catch them.  Too often we hold church leaders - including the Prophet - to a standard that we would not want applied to ourselves. 

 

As to "truth," you may consider changing from a view that truth is a fixed point or location, to a view that truth is a direction.

First, I did catch them. These are pretty simply dealt with in my mind. 

 

Second, I don't consider them errors.  I consider them misinterpretations that are perpetuated all too often.  That said,  the explanations can be difficult for those that don't have any background in the scholarship.  I believe that some if not all of the "church leaders" may have caught these errors and can respond to them perfectly well.  That isn't the point.  My wife's concern was:  Why isn't the perpetuation of false or misunderstood doctrine important enough to address on a church wide basis or at least be a priority that we deal with at local levels.  Doesn't this at some point start to interfere with the claims of being "true" as in the "true church".

 

I am interested in some perspectives for these kinds of concerns.

[trim]

This will sound harsh, so I apologize in advance.  Rest assured it applies equally to me.

 

The church teaches that you and your wife have authority to receive revelation for your family.  You also have the eternal responsibility to guide your family towards God.  So, in asking why church leaders did not catch these errors, you should also ask why you and your wife did not catch them.  Too often we hold church leaders - including the Prophet - to a standard that we would not want applied to ourselves. 

 

As to "truth," you may consider changing from a view that truth is a fixed point or location, to a view that truth is a direction.

I like your concept of truth.  I am looking into providing context to that type of definition for the usage in the D&C.

[ksfisher]

 Just to be clear, a husband and wife may receive revelation, for they and their families, that goes against their Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church as long as they do not try to usurp the authority of their Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church. 

 

Why would God reveal something to me that would contradict the Bishop or Stake President, etc?  That would seem as though God was not sustaining the leaders he's chosen.

 

Edler Oaks speaks about the need to balance and use both personal and priesthood revelation here:

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng

[ERayR]

Why would God reveal something to me that would contradict the Bishop or Stake President, etc?  That would seem as though God was not sustaining the leaders he's chosen.

 

Edler Oaks speaks about the need to balance and use both personal and priesthood revelation here:

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng

 

Why do you insist on your Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church being infallible? 

[Damien the Leper]

Why do you insist on your Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church being infallible? 

 

They are just human after all and not angelic or divine messengers.

[ksfisher]

Why do you insist on your Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church being infallible? 

 

No, I'm not at all insisting that they are infallible.  I've worked with bishops and stake presidents enough to know that they make mistakes.  However, the Lord does sustain those whom he calls.  

 

Perhaps I just don't understand what you mean by revelation that "goes against" a priesthood leader.  Could you explain please?

[Damien the Leper]

How does one "know" God sustains these leaders? Or is it more like people have faith that God sustains these leaders? There is an absolutely HUGE difference.

[ERayR]

No, I'm not at all insisting that they are infallible.  I've worked with bishops and stake presidents enough to know that they make mistakes.  However, the Lord does sustain those whom he calls.  

 

Perhaps I just don't understand what you mean by revelation that "goes against" a priesthood leader.  Could you explain please?

 

If your Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church were to teach something that you, through your own study, prayer and personal revelation, knew was in error do you not think it incumbent on you to teach your children the truth instead of letting them believe the error.  You could teach them another true principal, That the leaders were humble sincere people doing their best but were not infallible.

[Buckeye]

First, I did catch them. These are pretty simply dealt with in my mind. 

 

Second, I don't consider them errors.  I consider them misinterpretations that are perpetuated all too often.  That said,  the explanations can be difficult for those that don't have any background in the scholarship.  I believe that some if not all of the "church leaders" may have caught these errors and can respond to them perfectly well.  That isn't the point.  My wife's concern was:  Why isn't the perpetuation of false or misunderstood doctrine important enough to address on a church wide basis or at least be a priority that we deal with at local levels.  Doesn't this at some point start to interfere with the claims of being "true" as in the "true church".

 

I am interested in some perspectives for these kinds of concerns.

 

I guess it would help to understand what the misinterpretations are.  Are you talking about lousy lesson analogies (e.g., young women's virtue compared to a cupcake) or misleading pictures (e.g., Joseph translating the plates wearing the breastplate and urim & thummim) or harmful teachings from the past that just won't die (e.g., blacks less valient in the pre-existence) or something else?

Edited September 26, 2013 by Buckeye

[JLHPROF]

If your Bishop, Stake President, or the General Authorities of the Church were to teach something that you, through your own study, prayer and personal revelation, knew was in error do you not think it incumbent on you to teach your children the truth instead of letting them believe the error.  You could teach them another true principal, That the leaders were humble sincere people doing their best but were not infallible.

 

I agree with this, but it does lead to questions concerning prophetic conflicts.  If older and current prophets taught different truths (and they did) as required doctrine, do I get to go with the one I agree with and think is error free?  Or do I have to "sustain the living prophet"?

[Buckeye]

I like your concept of truth.  I am looking into providing context to that type of definition for the usage in the D&C.

 

I can't think of anything from D&C at the moment.  There is a famous quote by Joseph to the effect that "truth cuts its own path" - basically analogizing truth to a river that flows in the proper (crooked) direction towards the sea, regardless of the course we think it should take.

[ERayR]

I agree with this, but it does lead to questions concerning prophetic conflicts.  If older and current prophets taught different truths (and they did) as required doctrine, do I get to go with the one I agree with and think is error free?  Or do I have to "sustain the living prophet"?

 

It is a marvelous opportunity to receive personal revelation.  The choice should not be based on the prophets place in line but own your revelation or confirmation, maybe neither one.  We must remember prophets are also products of their time.

[CV75]

The word "true"

I think a thorough, good-faith (and perhaps even prayerful) exploration of the many meanings of "true" is in order, and then how this understanding can be applied in considering various matters.