Truth Vs Faith Which Are We Bound To Uphold When In Conflict

[DBMormon]

 

1. God's only called AND authorized servants are only found in the LDS church.  The church has always acknowledged that other men of the earth and times have access to the Holy Spirit, and thus in that sense are certainly called to do good, seek God, serve God and man, etc.  You have entirely misrepresented and lied about what the Church teaches.

 

2. We have never claimed we have "all the truth".  We claimed we have all the truth so far revealed for out day, and that there are many truths out there, and we are to seek them, seek out of the best books. (sound familiar?)

Again, you entirely pervert and lie about our beliefs.

 

3. We have all the Key's to the Priesthood as is currently given to the earth.  Thus again you misrepresent.

 

4. Filling the earth doesn't necessarily mean everyone's going to be Mormon.....  If you understood scriptural language and context, you would understand this.  Again, you misrepresent.

 

 

1.) God's only called and authorized servants are in the Church?  I don't agree with that.  Perhaps what they are called and authorized to do is different then what the Church is.  For instance was Thomas Jefferson called and authorized by God to implement important pieces of this country's framework?  Was John Wesley called and authorized by God to contribute to the reformation in order to provide a climate that the restored gospel could come forth in? D&C 49:8 " I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of."  that sounds like called and authorized to me.

 

2.) correct the Church doesn't claim to have all truth but members do all the time in their talks and testimonies.

 

3.) yet some members intimate that we have all keys (which we don't)

 

4.) I understand what it means, I believe leaders understand what it means.  But many members think that 15 million is a high number that indicates we are eventually going to make up a large chunk of the population when it is a drop in the bucket.  Most members don't grasp how small we are relatively speaking and how we will never be much bigger in terms of % of world population.

 

You seem to miss the whole point and likely are no longer here anyway but thought I would respond for others who are here.

Edited November 8, 2013 by DBMormon

[Kevin Christensen]

Perception vs. Faith: Which are we bound to uphold when in conflict?

Preconception vs. Faith: Which are we bound to uphold when in conflict?

Ideology vs. Faith: Which are we bound to uphold when in conflict?

Desire for wider social acceptance vs. Faith: Which are we bound to uphold when in conflict?

Desire for personal gratification vs. Faith: Which are we bound to uphold when in conflict?

Desire to not have to be associated with individuals or groups whose claims or actions personally embarrass me vs. Faith: Which to uphold when in conflict?

Political Correctness vs. Faith? Which are we bound to uphold when in conflict?

Concept of Faith as Static Unquestioning Commitment in an on-the-shelf Big-Book-of-What-to-Think versus Faith as Process that requires movement, inquiry, tolerance, growth and change? Which are we bound to uphold since such polar conceptions inevitably conflict?

On several occasions in my own life, I have encountered ideas, writings, perceptions, claims, arguments, events, that conflicted with my own. Many times I have changed to accommodate such things. Many times, I have learned that those offering such challenges were themselves in error. My first published essay in Dialogue came about due to such a situation, and several of my subsequent essays have dealt with the same pattern. Sometimes the error seemed to derive from a determination to publicly demonstrate one's personal integrity by facing an unpleasant truth. And it seemed to me that the determination itself often led to failure of imagination, an inability to shift paradigms and or add information, or have a degree of patience. The attitude puts a value on unpleasant truth as such. Facing unpleasant truth becomes an end in itself. A goal achieved and an excuse to stop asking further questions. Pride blindness is one good label for it. I've also called it spiritual masochism.

Perfect knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come, that is, "Truth" versus Faith, based on publicly acknowledged, incomplete, imperfect knowledge: How can I attain truth without having endure the humiliations and frustrations that inevitably come from not having complete truth? Ian Barbour calls for Critical Realism, which I like. It's consistent with Position 9 of the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.

The Sophist's answer, as Nibley observes, is to settle for current appearances, and to then to go about learning to manipulate and control appearances and to manufacture consensus.

Joseph Smith's answer was to accept the messiness of the process and embrace it. "By proving contraries, truth [that is, knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come] is made manifest."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited November 10, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I was going to give a thorough reply to this until I read the last 4 words and realised you might be a troll.

You shouldn't take it personally. Though it is largely irrelevant. But sometimes it is fun to see if some one is a particular political stripe because sometimes they all, even us conservatives, think a like.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[TrespassersW]

You can debate my take on these but I am more concerned with the question

Is it ok to let people believe false things as long as that keeps them in the faith or does the motive of trying to dispel false teachings and teaching pure truth have more weight even at the expense of losing members form the Lord's Church????

Interesting question. I apologize if this has already been discussed (I only skimmed the thread).

 

IMO, one should use a great deal of caution when taking it upon themselves the teaching of "pure truth" to the ignorant masses. As was pointed out in one of your examples, we do not have "all truth" and it is a fallacy to think we do. I think that when we attempt to educate others, we should do so in all humility, recognizing the limits of our own knowledge and remembering that others might see things differently. Otherwise we can find ourselves on very shaky ground. In my opinion, a great deal of false doctrine has been taught in the name of "trying to dispel false teachings".

 

Personally, I'm unconvinced that most Latter-day Saints see themselves as superior than their non-LDS neighbors. Most that I know are just nice, well grounded, relatively humble folk. Just doing the best they can. I'm sure some do have opinions similar to the examples you listed (and I'm not at all sure that that is anything like a majority of LDS). But I ascribe it more to a lack of serious thought about the matter than one clinging to faith and rejecting truth. So, I don't see these as "faith vs. truth" situations.

 

I do believe that many feel, as I do, that because they are a member of the LDS church they are better off than they would have been without its influence. But that is, I think, something different.

[Stone holm]

You shouldn't take it personally. Though it is largely irrelevant. But sometimes it is fun to see if some one is a particular political stripe because sometimes they all, even us conservatives, think a like.

True, unless you are attempting to attach a political label to a list of ideas which are in the main inapplicable.

[canard78]

You shouldn't take it personally. Though it is largely irrelevant. But sometimes it is fun to see if some one is a particular political stripe because sometimes they all, even us conservatives, think a like.

I didn't assume he/she was talking politics, I thought he/she was invoking Joni Hinton liberal Mormonism.

Actually the whole time of the comment annoyed me and I though it better to not get too engaged with someone who seemed to be focused mainly on negative accusations and prodding for a reaction.