The Gospel And Always Giving Up Ground

[guerreiro9]

Guerriro - your ignoring the fact that they have acknowledged that they themselves made mistakes that violated Doctrine. It is the Brthren who determined that Past Doctrines are now Racist theories. It is not a matter of defending them as right and me as wrong. On at least some of these issues, they themselves say they got it wrong

Their list of theories in which they admit to being wrong is substantially shorter than the list you have created for them. Many of the things on your list are speculation, the very thing you are chastising them for.

-guerreiro9

[DBMormon]

Their list of theories in which they admit to being wrong is substantially shorter than the list you have created for them. Many of the things on your list are speculation, the very thing you are chastising them for.

-guerreiro9

But if they are wrong sometimes, but I should follow all the time - that simply doesn't work with me and that is what the talk was suggesting.  I simply do not trust them to always be right and I simply won't follow when I am pretty sure they are wrong and the spirit doesn't condone to me what they said

Edited July 24, 2014 by DBMormon

[guerreiro9]

But if they are wrong sometimes, but I should follow all the time - that simply doesn't work with me and that is what the talk was suggesting. I simply do not trust them to always be right and I simply won't follow when I am pretty sure they are wrong and the spirit doesn't condone to me what they said

You're free to do as you please, but that doesn't change your list from speculation to fact. No matter how you feel about an issue you could be wrong, unless you are claiming you are infallible.

-guerreiro9

[DBMormon]

You're free to do as you please, but that doesn't change your list from speculation to fact. No matter how you feel about an issue you could be wrong, unless you are claiming you are infallible.

-guerreiro9

when does another person's infallibility trump my own?  My guess? ...... when the Holy Spirit and the light of Christ indicate so.  I am than free to dissent.  And I take that liberty often.  It has not bitten me in the buttocks yet.

[Nofear]

Indeed, most of us tend not hold to an opinion when we actually believe them to be incorrect. Well, unless we are the white queen.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Nofear

[guerreiro9]

when does another person's infallibility trump my own? My guess? ...... when the Holy Spirit and the light of Christ indicate so. I am than free to dissent. And I take that liberty often. It has not bitten me in the buttocks yet.

Why belong to a church claiming to be led by "prophets, seers, and revelators" if you only follow their teachings when they align with your apriori opinions?

Your unmolested backside not withstanding, you have presented long lists of speculation.

-guerreiro9

[Danzo]

But if they are wrong sometimes, but I should follow all the time - that simply doesn't work with me and that is what the talk was suggesting.  I simply do not trust them to always be right and I simply won't follow when I am pretty sure they are wrong and the spirit doesn't condone to me what they said

 

If you create the straw man of the "prefect leader" then you are claiming something for the leader the leader doesn't claim for himself.

 

In flaw will cause you to be disappointed.

[Danzo]

But if they are wrong sometimes, but I should follow all the time - that simply doesn't work with me and that is what the talk was suggesting.  I simply do not trust them to always be right and I simply won't follow when I am pretty sure they are wrong and the spirit doesn't condone to me what they said

 

Believing and following are not the same thing.  Tell me where following the prophet has lead people astray (rather than believing their speculations)

[The Nehor]

The Restoration is ongoing.

 

As we continue God will tear down more and more of our superstitions. It is going to be an exciting ride. Then one day I get to learn absolute truth and rule the Universe. Why would anyone want to leave just because we drop some barnacles from the good ship Zion and the ride gets faster and more exciting?

[Duncan]

Guerriro - your ignoring the fact that they have acknowledged that they themselves made mistakes that violated Doctrine.  It is the Brthren who determined that Past Doctrines are now Racist theories.  It is not a matter of defending them as right and me as wrong.  On at least some of these issues, they themselves say they got it wrong

 

 

so, if they disavowed why are you bringing it up over and over again?

[mfbukowski]

I'm going with Sterling McMurrin on this one:

"I have never been disillusioned, because I was never illusioned in the first place".

[CV75]

The more we know in the world the less we are able to hold the ground we once had.

For the humble, the more one knows the more he realizes he doesn't know, whether that is secular or spiritual knowledge. The humble person uses that as a basis for exercising faith, and in doing so, gains ground where it really matters, albeit in a world that is not of this one.

 

A humble person doesn't want to hold on to the fruits of what he didn't know, but seeks to progress. Nor does he disparage those former "lesser" fruits in himself or others, because that would keep him from progressing. He just keeps moving forward, which doesn't always require repentance and forgiveness but instead his own gratitude and recognition of the Lord's hand. This is reflected in his attitude in studying things out in his mind, and how he helps others to do the same. It is reflected in his attitude about the future.

[Nofear]

I'm going with Sterling McMurrin on this one:

"I have never been disillusioned, because I was never illusioned in the first place".

 

Reminded me of this quote (one of my little favorites):

[thesometimesaint]

Why belong to a church claiming to be led by "prophets, seers, and revelators" if you only follow their teachings when they align with your apriori opinions?

Your unmolested backside not withstanding, you have presented long lists of speculation.

-guerreiro9

 

Because I believe they are. There is only one person who is responsible for what I believe, and do. That is me.

 

The thing is that they weren't presented as speculations, but as Gospel Truth. I'm fine with people being wrong. There has been only one perfect person that has ever lived on this earth. and we ain't him.

[mfbukowski]

Well religion is mostly "manmade", but hopefully inspired "manmade".  Pretty soon I think we're going to have some "womenmade" religion too. 

Start writing....

[JLHPROF]

Well religion is mostly "manmade", but hopefully inspired "manmade".  Pretty soon I think we're going to have some "womenmade" religion too. 

 

It may be asked, where is there anything in all this [the Irvingite church] that is wrong? First. The church was organized by women, and God placed in the Church (first apostles, secondarily prophets,) and not first women; but Mr. Irving placed in his church first women (secondarily apostles,) and the church was founded and organized by them.  A woman has no right to found or organize a church - God never sent them to do it.

(Joseph Smith, TPJS pg. 212)

[Bob Crockett]

when does another person's infallibility trump my own?  My guess? ...... when the Holy Spirit and the light of Christ indicate so.  I am than free to dissent.  And I take that liberty often.  It has not bitten me in the buttocks yet.

I think you have lots of unresolved issues against the Church which present themselves as passive-aggressive attacks on the Church in the form of a list of straw-man issues raised over and over again.  We have done our best to address your individual issues, but perhaps the best thing to do is read some more, perhaps, of FAIR's explanations.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, I agree that giving up ground has a negative connotation but that is what I see.

But my point is that standing in a different ideological location grants me the power to see something else entirely when looking in the same direction. You don't have to see things the way you do. You have a choice of perspectives. You have agency. You do not have to think of yourself as having been forced to an inescapable conclusion. I can't compel you to think otherwise, but I do invite you to consider the benefits.

 

We claim God has given us our Doctrine and yet we have let much of our prior Doctrines and "historical facts" slip into something else.

Yes. God has given us specific definition of Doctrine. Here it is:

 

The "doctrine" of Jesus Christ is declared by him to consist of the following: "And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned" (3 Nephi 11:33-34). The Book of Mormon, of course, contains more information about both human and divine things than the fulness of the gospel, which is the doctrine of Jesus Christ. But the additional historical information, as well as the norms, descriptions, emblems, figures, images, tenets, categories, and instructions are never identified as "doctrine." That word is reserved for the core message that Jesus is the Christ--the Messiah, the Redeemer of mankind. Everything else is strictly subordinated to the one "doctrine of Christ," by which we may "know how to come unto Christ and be saved" (see 1 Nephi 15:14), for it is the Redeemer who is the way of salvation, the way, truth, life, light, and so forth--that being the one and only doctrine identified as such in the Book of Mormon. What we need is a commentary on the Book of Mormon--one that begins with an examination of the conception of doctrine found in the text, and not a doctrinal or doctrinaire commentary. When we get clear on exactly what constitutes the doctrine of Jesus Christ, we are able to understand the term "anti-Christ," for they who teach false, vain or foolish "doctrines" are those who deny the doctrine that Jesus is the Christ.

"Doctrine" (usually in the singular, as opposed to the plural form, as in "false doctrines") identifies the gospel understood as faith, repentance, and baptism--how to come unto Christ to be saved. It does not identify the whole range or complex of opinions, speculation or beliefs about divine and human things, or the rites, practices, and traditions that go into the making of a contemporary Mormon; it is, instead, the most primary, elementary, plain teachings of Jesus Christ.

See Louis Midgley, http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1424&index=12

 

I have been taught to follow the brethren and yet if we are honest, that has its weakness when we look with hindsight at what they have taught us.

One the ongoing themes in much of my writing has been the difference in looking for perfect inspiration and real inspiration. If you ask for evidence of perfect inspiration, only imperfection is decisive. If you look for evidence of real inspiration, not only is imperfection NOT decisive, but the field of inquiry is necessarily much broader. And I keep quoting D&C 1, which I find provides a realistic, tolerant and robust set of expectations for me, with respect to my LDS leaders. Imerfection is not grounds for crisis but a simple matter of fact of human experience.

 

And yes Kevin, I see a big dive between how I define "Church Doctrine" and "True Doctrine" as I don't believe all Church Doctrine is True Doctrine and I can show that holds up historically speaking

 

- blacks are cursed and inferior

- inter racial marriage is sin

- evolution is a heresy

- mentally handicapped people were less valiant in the pre existance (see below)

- Oral intimacy is a violation of gods command

- birth control is evil

- Families should never have their size limited by our choosing to not have kids

- gay is a choice

- blacks will be servants in the celestial kingdom

- Jesus was born on april 6th

I notice that none of what Jesus describes as the doctrine of Christ appears on this list. Is that an oversight, or a fact of some importance to consider in dealing with your current discomfort?

So as Cinepro pointed out how much today do we insist is the gospel and how much is not.

Consider the famous joke about Tonto and the Lone Ranger when surrounded by hostile Indians. "Looks like we're in real trouble this time, Tonto."

"What do you mean 'We' paleface!" 

For many years I have been insisting that such things are emphatically NOT the gospel of Christ.

What else will we eventually change on that was thought to be God's position but turns out not to be?

And here, I think, is the crux of the problem: the craving for absolute certainty, absolute static knowing, beyond all repentance or uncertainty, versus, what Alma describes as "cause to believe." Alma 32, I notice, declares that possession of "cause to believe" without perfect knowledge is a superior, more resilient, and safer position to adopt.

Note too that "what was thought to be God's position" is a statement in passive voice. Passive voice is a mode that conceals responsibility. Who thought and why and what difference does it make to me? What matters most? What should bind or lead me? What people thought? A binding orthodoxy? Or what I should think? Ongoing repentance and learing?

 

If I were a betting man I would venture to bet that in 100 years homosexual marriage will be accepted as not sin and Women will either be apostles or will be permitted to have a similar leadership role.  (Nemesis, can you save this quote in the archives so My grandchildren can see if I am right?)

You are already right. Many people already accept homosexual marriage and many churches have accepted women in leadership roles.

I don't care much. Those things are completely outside of the core definition of the doctrine of Christ. And such decisions have been made outside of what I personally accept as the Government of God.

Consider again these positions from the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth.

PERRY SCHEME OF COGNITIVE AND ETHICAL GROWTH TABLE OF TRAITS BY POSITION AND TRANSITION

POSITION 1 - Basic Duality. (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.)

The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them. Agency is "Out there". The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary.

Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified. (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty. But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems. It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.

(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed. It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind." When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced. When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.

Things change if and when a person approaches POSITION 5:

NOW UNCERTAINTIES OR DIVERSITIES MULTIPLY UNTIL THEY TIP THE BALANCE AGAINST CERTAINTY AND HOMOGENEITY, PRECIPITATING A CRISIS THAT FORCES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW VISION OF THE WORLD, BE IT ONE MARKED BY CYNICISM, ANXIETY, OR A NEW SENSE OF FREEDOM.

POSITION 5 Relativism discovered.

The person accepts that all thinking is relative for everyone and are much taken with this new perspective. It could be a time of profound anxiety as the person struggles to understand how to make right choices. They decide they can and must do something about this new world view, but they may spend a long time before sensing a need for commitment. They can take responsibility for a task at hand, but don't yet realize they have a responsibility to choose commitments.

THIS POSITION COULD MAKE FOR A PERSON WHOSE AGENCY FOR MAKING SENSE HAS VANISHED ENTIRELY. THEY COULD ALSO REACT BY POSTPONING DECISIONS, FALLING INTO APATHY OR GOING INTO A RAGE. IT COULD GET SO BAD IT COULD APPEAR THE PERSON NEEDS CLINICAL HELP. THE POTENTIAL FOR CYNICISM COULD BECOME EQUALLY ALARMING EDUCATIONALLY.

If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate). He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness. He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.

If the person at this point doesn't retreat, he may go into a state of TEMPORIZING. His agency for making sense has vanished, but he postpones any movement. He may reconsign agency to some possible event. If so, Guilt and shame accompany the uneasiness about a failure of responsibility they feel hopeless to cope with.

Or if not either of the above then the person may try to ESCAPE. He becomes apathetic. His agency for making sense has also vanished, but in his feeling of being alienated, he abandons responsibility and uses his understanding of multiplicity and relativism as a way to avoid commitment. He is drifting and has some sense that later he will find himself to be living a hollow life. This drifting with insecurity about "goodness" of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement. He starts to rely on impulse. THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION. "For the students reporting their recovery of care,...their period of alienation appears as a time of transition. In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world's appearance. It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith. In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside."

On the other hand, if a person continues to move through the POSITIONS (and note that Perry refers to POSITION, rather than stages of development, since he recognizes that not everyone moves forward), they can reach POSITION 9:

POSITION 9. Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.

I argued at length in "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista" in the Interpreter 7 that LDS scriptures prod us towards POSITION 9. I think it is worth the trip. It frees me from feeling that honesty compels me to cloak my life in a shroud of doubt and cynicism. Enthusiasm and optimism and faith are much more fun.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited July 25, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Bob Crockett]

I followed you and agreed with you up to that philosophic stuff.  I do wish Steve Perry would return to Journey, though.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I followed you and agreed with you up to that philosophic stuff.  I do wish Steve Perry would return to Journey, though.

He did sing a few journey songs not to long ago. He has not been seen in years on the stage and then out of no where he shows up and sings 3 songs. IT was great.

[DBMormon]

Kevin, your right that I could choose a more positive word and perspective and perhaps that change in rhetoric and perception would impact me more positively as well as the those who read this.  Yet I digress

 

Let's assume God is Real, and I might add that I am fairly certain he does as I received what I can only call divine messages.  I also have faith that this is his authorized path (at least for me) as he has made that known as well.

 

That said, religion seems to get itself in trouble when it makes truth claims.  Our faith has made a numerous amount of them, and I grant that others have as well (jehovah witness, muslims, Catholics, scientology)

 

Claims of the unknown can never be known with certainty (without an angelic visit), yet the longer we are on the earth the more things that were once unknown are now known or have more certitude.

 

Mormonism has claimed a lot of things with certainty that it has had to backtrack on and weaken its position or completely reverse its position.

 

I agree looking at Perry's scheme one can see this as a product of human development.  That we are all prone to overreach or underreach as we try to interpret the divine.  That said I still wanted to have an honest discussion about the those thing that we did indeed overreach on.  Why would I do such a thing?

 

Because for me it is common sense that if we have overreached a 1000 times before and had to let go and readjust of many of our absurd claims.  Once we come to grips that we have been wrong about a lot of things it might soften us up to recognize that we are likely still overreaching on many issues and that some of our practices and beliefs today are perhaps worthy of considering.   We can easily say that this is pointless as the Brethren are in charge  and changes are top down  but is it really that black and white

 

I am not saying God wasn't in charge of the change but that it also coincides with a cultural angst about the issue as well

- Polygamy between living people goes away as persecution over the issue hit it's height

 

- 1978 occurs after the culture was more prepared to handle such a change

 

-  Women have increased roles in the midst the discussion on such becoming heightened

 

-  Word of Wisdom gets many changes in the midst of prohibition

 

- We now allow more interpretations of BOM translation and especially BOA translation as more and more info and knowledge comes forth

 

- Church has put forth many changes when confronted people leaving over faith crisis 

 

So for me to back off and say as a people we should completely leave these issues alone as change is top down is both inaccurate as an absolute and also foolish and overly defensive.

 

I want us as a faith to be more open to talking about the possibility that we got some things wrong.  Repentance involves both confession and restitution, If the Church is imperfect as it is run by imperfect humans it too has need to acknowledge when it falls short (for example while acknowledging it was wrong on race theories.... cough cough... that were once Doctrine... it has not really apologized for doing so.)   Doing so (acknowledging imperfections and mistakes) rids ourselves of the blind obedience found so strongly in many members and wards and leaders at times.  Helping us see we as a church are on learning curve just like a normal human being, creates a more realistic environment.  Frankly, One I think if done right, Faith might flourish rather than be dismissed in favor of doubt.

Edited July 29, 2014 by DBMormon

[mfbukowski]

Kevin, your right that I could choose a more positive word and perspective and perhaps that change in rhetoric and perception would impact me more positively as well as the those who read this.  Yet I digress

 

Let's assume God is Real, and I might add that I am fairly certain he does as I received what I can only call divine messages.  I also have faith that this is his authorized path (at least for me) as he has made that known as well.

 

That said, religion seems to get itself in trouble when it makes truth claims.  Our faith has made a numerous amount of them, and I grant that others have as well (jehovah witness, muslims, Catholics, scientology)

 

Claims of the unknown can never be known with certainty (without an angelic visit), yet the longer we are on the earth the more things that were once unknown are now known or have more certitude.

 

Mormonism has claimed a lot of things with certainty that it has had to backtrack on and weaken its position or completely reverse its position.

 

I agree looking at Perry's scheme one can see this as a product of human development.  That we are all prone to overreach or underreach as we try to interpret the divine.  That said I still wanted to have an honest discussion about the those thing that we did indeed overreach on.  Why would I do such a thing?

 

Because for me it is common sense that if we have overreached a 1000 times before and had to let go and readjust of many of our absurd claims.  Once we come to grips that we have been wrong about a lot of things it might soften us up to recognize that we are likely still overreaching on many issues and that some of our practices and beliefs today are perhaps worthy of considering.   We can easily say that this is pointless as the Brethren are in charge  and changes are top down  but is it really that black and white

 

I am not saying God wasn't in charge of the change but that it also coincides with a cultural angst about the issue as well

- Polygamy between living people goes away as persecution over the issue hit it's height

 

- 1978 occurs after the culture was more prepared to handle such a change

 

-  Women have increased roles in the midst the discussion on such becoming heightened

 

-  Word of Wisdom gets many changes in the midst of prohibition

 

- We now allow more interpretations of BOM translation and especially BOA translation as more and more info and knowledge comes forth

 

- Church has put forth many changes when confronted people leaving over faith crisis 

 

So for me to back off and say as a people we should completely leave these issues alone as change is top down is both inaccurate as an absolute and also foolish and overly defensive.

 

I want us as a faith to be more open to talking about the possibility that we got some things wrong.  Repentance involves both confession and restitution, If the Church is imperfect as it is run by imperfect humans it too has need to acknowledge when it falls short (for example while acknowledging it was wrong on race theories.... cough cough... that were once Doctrine... it has not really apologized for doing so.)   Doing so (acknowledging imperfections and mistakes) rids ourselves of the blind obedience found so strongly in many members and wards and leaders at times.  Helping us see we as a church are on learning curve just like a normal human being, creates a more realistic environment.  Frankly, One I think if done right, Faith might flourish rather than be dismissed in favor of doubt.

Let me be frank with you- perhaps more than I should be.

 

You are far advanced in your understanding of what "truth claims" are and are not, but you are not (yet?) at the end of the Perry path, whatever that would imply.

 

At the end of that path the term "truth claims" really has no meaning at all.

 

Yet you are light years ahead of many in the church and outside the church who are extremely literalistic and fundamentalistic, and who want to put God on a scale to determine his BMI and find out what he had for breakast, and are ready to leave the church because we don't have those answers.  "The prophet should have known that my Aunt Tessie lives in Timbuktu, and needs the gospel, and now my son gets a mission call.... to NEBRASKA?"

 

I am exaggerating, of course, but not by much.

 

The brethren are piloting a very very large ship in a relatively small pond.  15 million members, for a worldwide church, is nothing.

 

All 15 million of us are on the same boat and some want us to turn to the left, others want us to turn to the right, and others want us to back up. 

 

Whatever move the ship makes, some along the railing will surely fall off.

 

You can't please all the people all the time, especially when the needs of each of them are vastly different, and some even contradictory.  And the bottom line is, in the long run, any course they choose will still be better than taking on the sharks myself.

 

I am fine sitting somewhere in the middle and letting the captain worry about the course, and know whatever he decides, I will pull out my own compass anyway and decide if I head for the lifeboats or simply jump overboard and start swimming with the sharks.  It's dang nasty out there.

 

So far, I think the captains have done a great job with the tools they have at their disposal, and occasionally we even catch a shark or two.

 

It sure beats feeding them.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

At the end of that path the term "truth claims" really has no meaning at all.

 

 

I am at a loss.  What does that mean?  Is this some kind of nihilist philosophy? 

[Kenngo1969]

I followed you and agreed with you up to that philosophic stuff.  I do wish Steve Perry would return to Journey, though.

Don't stop believin'!

[mfbukowski]

I am at a loss.  What does that mean?  Is this some kind of nihilist philosophy? 

Not at all, it is a philosophical theory of truth which puts a religious statement like "I know the church is true" on an equal footing with a scientific statement, because each statement is talking about completely different things.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

 

The gospel teaches that truth is knowledge of things as they ARE.

 

When we know things as they are, there is nothing more to say.  Saying they at "true" becomes superfluous.

Edited July 30, 2014 by mfbukowski