Navidad Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 Definition of true – Mirriam-Webster (Entry 1 of 4) 1a(1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs true description (2) : conformable to an essential reality (3) : fully realized or fulfilled dreams come true b : ideal, essential c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed the true dimension of the problem d : consistent true to character 2a : properly so called true love the true faith the true stomach of ruminant mammals b(1) : possessing the basic characters of and belonging to the same natural group as a whale is a true but not a typical mammal (2) : typical the true cats 3a : steadfast, loyal b : honest, just c archaic : truthful 4 : legitimate, rightful our true and lawful king 5a : that is fitted or formed or that functions accurately b : conformable to a standard or pattern : accurate 6 : determined with reference to the earth's axis rather than the magnetic poles true north 7 : logically necessary 8 : narrow, strict in the truest sense 9 : corrected for error true adverb Definition of true (Entry 2 of 4) 1 : in accordance with fact or reality 2a : without deviation the bullet flew straight and true b : without variation from type breed true true noun Definition of true (Entry 3 of 4) 1 : truth, reality —usually used with the 2 : the quality or state of being accurate (as in alignment or adjustment) —used in the phrases in true and out of true true verb trued; trueing also truing Definition of true (Entry 4 of 4) transitive verb : to make level, square, balanced, or concentric : bring or restore to a desired mechanical accuracy or form true up a board true up an engine cylinder ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I am very interested in the use of the words true and truth. I find the number of definitions and examples of the use of these words quite exhaustive or perhaps exhausting. My observation is that one of the most often repeated phrases in our ward is “I believe the church is true.” When used, it seems self-evident that the person is referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not to the church as representative of the Christian community as a whole. What I can’t quite put my finger on is what the folks who use this phrase are really saying about the COJCOLDS? They seem to begin using it when taught by their parents or in primary around age 3 or 4. They then use it, especially in testimonies as a kind of requisite aspect of a proper testimony. Having said that, I don’t remember anyone ever explaining what they mean by that. It is apparently self-evident to the faithful church member. I have a couple of questions about it: 1. What is the essence of what a member is saying when he or she says “the church is true?” Is it a kind of a correlation to D&C 1:30, therefore it is the “only” true? Does the use of the word true in that context fit into one or more of the above Merriam-Webster definitions? 2. In regard to the greater Christian community, in this day and age, what does “I believe the church is true” say about other churches? Are they false? From the LDS perspective, may I say, and be correct that “I believe the Mennonite church (to draw a comparison) is true, or “I believe the Catholic church is true?” Is it a true and truer question? A true or false question? Years ago it seems to have been true and false. It seems to have officially changed or softened. 3. I have always been interested in archery. When we say someone has a “true” aim, we mean their own aim is quite accurate (see definition 2 and 3). This doesn’t say anything about another archer’s aim, it could also be equally or more “true.” It speaks only to the fact that the archer under consideration has a true aim. In that context his or her aim is not perfect. He might score an 8, or a 9, as well as scoring his share of 10s, and still be said to have a true aim. Again, it says nothing about any other archer’s aim which might also be “true.” In this context, does the statement “the church is true” say anything about any other church? 4. In my interpretation I see a distinction between saying “I believe the church is true” and “I believe the church is truth.” Is that a distinction without a difference for a faithful COJCOLDS member? One of my observations from being in my fourth year of faithful attendance at a ward, is that we often use the same words in different ways, with different meanings. There is such diversity on this board. I am also wondering if the phrase might mean something different to different folks? Thanks for any help with this. 3
Amulek Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 40 minutes ago, Navidad said: What is the essence of what a member is saying when he or she says “the church is true?” That the church is what it claims to be. 3
Fether Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 1 hour ago, Navidad said: Definition of true – Mirriam-Webster (Entry 1 of 4) 1a(1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs true description (2) : conformable to an essential reality (3) : fully realized or fulfilled dreams come true b : ideal, essential c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed the true dimension of the problem d : consistent true to character 2a : properly so called true love the true faith the true stomach of ruminant mammals b(1) : possessing the basic characters of and belonging to the same natural group as a whale is a true but not a typical mammal (2) : typical the true cats 3a : steadfast, loyal b : honest, just c archaic : truthful 4 : legitimate, rightful our true and lawful king 5a : that is fitted or formed or that functions accurately b : conformable to a standard or pattern : accurate 6 : determined with reference to the earth's axis rather than the magnetic poles true north 7 : logically necessary 8 : narrow, strict in the truest sense 9 : corrected for error true adverb Definition of true (Entry 2 of 4) 1 : in accordance with fact or reality 2a : without deviation the bullet flew straight and true b : without variation from type breed true true noun Definition of true (Entry 3 of 4) 1 : truth, reality —usually used with the 2 : the quality or state of being accurate (as in alignment or adjustment) —used in the phrases in true and out of true true verb trued; trueing also truing Definition of true (Entry 4 of 4) transitive verb : to make level, square, balanced, or concentric : bring or restore to a desired mechanical accuracy or form true up a board true up an engine cylinder ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I am very interested in the use of the words true and truth. I find the number of definitions and examples of the use of these words quite exhaustive or perhaps exhausting. My observation is that one of the most often repeated phrases in our ward is “I believe the church is true.” When used, it seems self-evident that the person is referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not to the church as representative of the Christian community as a whole. What I can’t quite put my finger on is what the folks who use this phrase are really saying about the COJCOLDS? They seem to begin using it when taught by their parents or in primary around age 3 or 4. They then use it, especially in testimonies as a kind of requisite aspect of a proper testimony. Having said that, I don’t remember anyone ever explaining what they mean by that. It is apparently self-evident to the faithful church member. I have a couple of questions about it: 1. What is the essence of what a member is saying when he or she says “the church is true?” Is it a kind of a correlation to D&C 1:30, therefore it is the “only” true? Does the use of the word true in that context fit into one or more of the above Merriam-Webster definitions? 2. In regard to the greater Christian community, in this day and age, what does “I believe the church is true” say about other churches? Are they false? From the LDS perspective, may I say, and be correct that “I believe the Mennonite church (to draw a comparison) is true, or “I believe the Catholic church is true?” Is it a true and truer question? A true or false question? Years ago it seems to have been true and false. It seems to have officially changed or softened. 3. I have always been interested in archery. When we say someone has a “true” aim, we mean their own aim is quite accurate (see definition 2 and 3). This doesn’t say anything about another archer’s aim, it could also be equally or more “true.” It speaks only to the fact that the archer under consideration has a true aim. In that context his or her aim is not perfect. He might score an 8, or a 9, as well as scoring his share of 10s, and still be said to have a true aim. Again, it says nothing about any other archer’s aim which might also be “true.” In this context, does the statement “the church is true” say anything about any other church? 4. In my interpretation I see a distinction between saying “I believe the church is true” and “I believe the church is truth.” Is that a distinction without a difference for a faithful COJCOLDS member? One of my observations from being in my fourth year of faithful attendance at a ward, is that we often use the same words in different ways, with different meanings. There is such diversity on this board. I am also wondering if the phrase might mean something different to different folks? Thanks for any help with this. Frankly, I Think most people, when they say that phrase, don’t qualifying what exactly they mean. They could be referring to any number of the things you mentioned above. The phrase Has become such a heavy platitude and cliché within the church. A long time ago, I chose to stop using that phrase simply because it no longer had meaning for me when I said it aloud. It’s an oversimplification of what the church claims to be… but it’s a necessary over simplification when teaching children and converts. As for the many different possible meanings it could have, I think the church is true in virtually all those meanings. As to how it affects what it means on other churches, I think today it just means we are the truest church 2
Popular Post smac97 Posted July 27, 2021 Popular Post Posted July 27, 2021 47 minutes ago, Navidad said: I am very interested in the use of the words true and truth. I find the number of definitions and examples of the use of these words quite exhaustive or perhaps exhausting. My observation is that one of the most often repeated phrases in our ward is “I believe the church is true.” Perhaps this helps: "I believe the Church is 'true' in that I believe it is what it claims to be." What it "claims to be" is a divinely-restored organization led by prophets and apostles who have priesthood authority restored through angelic ministrants. What it does not claim to be is a pristinely perfect and fully-formed organization, led and populated by infallible and flawless men and women. D&C 1:30 has the Lord describing the Church as "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually." Critics seem to think that this passage can be rebutted/negated by pointing to flaws and errors of the Church's leaders and members. This has never worked for me, particularly given the subsequent description: Quote 30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually— 31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; 32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven; 33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts. The Church being "true" is not equivalent to the Church and its members being perfect and without flaw. 47 minutes ago, Navidad said: When used, it seems self-evident that the person is referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not to the church as representative of the Christian community as a whole. Yes. Again from D&C 1: Quote 1 Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose eyes are upon all men; yea, verily I say: Hearken ye people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea, listen together. 2 For verily the voice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to escape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be penetrated. 3 And the rebellious shall be pierced with much sorrow; for their iniquities shall be spoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed. 4 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days. 5 And they shall go forth and none shall stay them, for I the Lord have commanded them. 6 Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, and my preface unto the book of my commandments, which I have given them to publish unto you, O inhabitants of the earth. 7 Wherefore, fear and tremble, O ye people, for what I the Lord have decreed in them shall be fulfilled. 8 And verily I say unto you, that they who go forth, bearing these tidings unto the inhabitants of the earth, to them is power given to seal both on earth and in heaven, the unbelieving and rebellious; 9 Yea, verily, to seal them up unto the day when the wrath of God shall be poured out upon the wicked without measure— 10 Unto the day when the Lord shall come to recompense unto every man according to his work, and measure to every man according to the measure which he has measured to his fellow man. 11 Wherefore the voice of the Lord is unto the ends of the earth, that all that will hear may hear: 12 Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come, for the Lord is nigh; 13 And the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven, and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth. 14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people; 15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant; 16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall. 17 Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments; 18 And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets— 19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh— 20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world; 21 That faith also might increase in the earth; 22 That mine everlasting covenant might be established; 23 That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers. 24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. 25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; 27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; 28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time. 29 And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon. "The Church" pertains to that which was established by Joseph Smith. 47 minutes ago, Navidad said: What I can’t quite put my finger on is what the folks who use this phrase are really saying about the COJCOLDS? They seem to begin using it when taught by their parents or in primary around age 3 or 4. They then use it, especially in testimonies as a kind of requisite aspect of a proper testimony. Having said that, I don’t remember anyone ever explaining what they mean by that. It is apparently self-evident to the faithful church member. I don't think we stray too far from the normative, from-the-dictionary meaning of "true." But I agree that the statement seems pretty broad. I therefore construe "the Church is true" as essentially a declaration of belief that "the Church is what it claims to be." 47 minutes ago, Navidad said: I have a couple of questions about it: 1. What is the essence of what a member is saying when he or she says “the church is true?” Is it a kind of a correlation to D&C 1:30, therefore it is the “only” true? Does the use of the word true in that context fit into one or more of the above Merriam-Webster definitions? Yep. 47 minutes ago, Navidad said: 2. In regard to the greater Christian community, in this day and age, what does “I believe the church is true” say about other churches? Are they false? I think we previously had some negative perspectives on "the greater Christian community," the early Saints having been mistreated by that community over and over again. Later, we had leaders that created dichotomous notions that sort of linger to this day (Elder Bruce R. McConkie comes immediately to mind). Another influence is the concept of the Great Apostasy. We may cumulatively have a facile and substantially inaccurate perception of it. From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Quote Latter-day Saints see a historical "great apostasy" and subsequent loss of authority beginning in the New Testament era and spreading in the centuries immediately following that era. Though Latter-day Saints have not emphasized the great apostasy as much as they have the concept that the Church is a revelatory restoration, the need of a restoration implies that something important was lost after the departure of the primitive Christian church. ... All through their history, Latter-day Saints have written and theorized about historical events involved in the "great apostasy," a theme discussed in several Restorationist writings of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (see Restorationism, Protestant). In 1833, referring to Mark 16:17-18 and 1Corinthians 12, Joseph Smith stated: "By the foregoing testimonies we may look at the Christian world and see [that] the apostasy there has been from the apostolic platform" (TPJS, p. 15). Oliver Cowdery wrote on the apostasy in the first issue of the messenger and advocate (1834). In 1840 Orson Pratt spoke of "a general and awful apostasy from the religion of the New Testament" (Listen to the Voice of Truth, 1.1). He particularly emphasized a lack of binding ordinances because of the absence of priesthood authority; baptism was a key example. In Pratt's view all churches before the Restoration were wrong in some ways, doctrinally and ritually, even though they might be right in others. Benjamin Winchester, an early LDS pamphleteer, wrote an extensive treatise using New Testament sources to demonstrate that an apostasy had been prophesied (A History of Priesthood, Philadelphia, 1843, pp. 72-96). In the 1850s and 1860s many references were made to "the great apostasy" (O. Pratt, JD 12:247) and "the great falling away" (W. Woodruff, JD 8:262) in Latter-day Saint sermons. This idea-breaking off from established religion because it seems out of tune with New Testament Christianity-has obvious Protestant overtones, but the LDS view differs from typical Protestant attitudes in its emphasis on the loss and restoration of exclusive, clear-cut priesthood authority, correct ordinances, and continuing revelation. In contrast, Protestants typically rely primarily on biblical reinterpretation. There were plenty of good and decent believers in Jesus Christ on the earth subsequent to the loss of the priesthood and prior to its restoration. There was much light and truth given during this period. Nevertheless, we believe the authority to act in God's name and officiate in saving ordinances was lost for a great while. That does not mean, however, that many of the core doctrines and precepts of Christianity did not continue. 47 minutes ago, Navidad said: From the LDS perspective, may I say, and be correct that “I believe the Mennonite church (to draw a comparison) is true, or “I believe the Catholic church is true?” Is it a true and truer question? A true or false question? Years ago it seems to have been true and false. It seems to have officially changed or softened. I think if you construe "true" with restored priesthood authority, with having living prophets and apostles, then it becomes easier to understand. Latter-day Saints and Mennonites share many beliefs, yes? Many, but not all. The distinctive doctrines and practices of the Latter-day Saints generally trace into the concept of the restoration of things that were lost or previously unrevealed. The priesthood. Living prophets and apostles. The Book of Mormon. Temple work. 47 minutes ago, Navidad said: 3. I have always been interested in archery. When we say someone has a “true” aim, we mean their own aim is quite accurate (see definition 2 and 3). This doesn’t say anything about another archer’s aim, it could also be equally or more “true.” It speaks only to the fact that the archer under consideration has a true aim. In that context his or her aim is not perfect. He might score an 8, or a 9, as well as scoring his share of 10s, and still be said to have a true aim. Again, it says nothing about any other archer’s aim which might also be “true.” In this context, does the statement “the church is true” say anything about any other church? I don't think that comparison works very well. There is an exclusivistic element in the Church being "true" that is absent here. That element is . . . priesthood authority. 47 minutes ago, Navidad said: 4. In my interpretation I see a distinction between saying “I believe the church is true” and “I believe the church is truth.” Is that a distinction without a difference for a faithful COJCOLDS member? Well, sorta. "True" as an adective helps define and describe the Church. The Church as "truth" is more of a metaphorical comparison, and one that doesn't quite work for me. It has notes of infallibility that I'm not quite comfortable with. 47 minutes ago, Navidad said: One of my observations from being in my fourth year of faithful attendance at a ward, is that we often use the same words in different ways, with different meanings. There is such diversity on this board. I am also wondering if the phrase might mean something different to different folks? Thanks for any help with this. Good questions. They made me think a lot. Thanks, -Smac 7
bOObOO Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 Generally, when someone says something is true I think they mean it is what their words imply. So when someone says The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true I think they mean The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the church of Jesus Christ and of Latter-day Saints, just as they were saying it is. And when someone says the Book of Mormon is true I think they mean it is the book of Mormon, just as Mormon was saying it was within its pages. Consider taking a test with True or False answers after each statement. When you check True as your answer I think what you mean is that the statement reflects reality, at least in your perspective. Whether or not it is true depends on reality. So True means "it is" (at least in your opinion) and False means "it is not" (also at least in your opinion). Also consider the idea that most words have more than one meaning or definition, and true is one of those words that does. "It is" a word with more than one meaning.
mfbukowski Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Perhaps this helps: "I believe the Church is 'true' in that I believe it is what it claims to be." What it "claims to be" is a divinely-restored organization led by prophets and apostles who have priesthood authority restored through angelic ministrants. What it does not claim to be is a pristinely perfect and fully-formed organization, led and populated by infallible and flawless men and women. D&C 1:30 has the Lord describing the Church as "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually." Critics seem to think that this passage can be rebutted/negated by pointing to flaws and errors of the Church's leaders and members. This has never worked for me, particularly given the subsequent description: The Church being "true" is not equivalent to the Church and its members being perfect and without flaw. Yes. Again from D&C 1: "The Church" pertains to that which was established by Joseph Smith. I don't think we stray too far from the normative, from-the-dictionary meaning of "true." But I agree that the statement seems pretty broad. I therefore construe "the Church is true" as essentially a declaration of belief that "the Church is what it claims to be." Yep. I think we previously had some negative perspectives on "the greater Christian community," the early Saints having been mistreated by that community over and over again. Later, we had leaders that created dichotomous notions that sort of linger to this day (Elder Bruce R. McConkie comes immediately to mind). Another influence is the concept of the Great Apostasy. We may cumulatively have a facile and substantially inaccurate perception of it. From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism: There were plenty of good and decent believers in Jesus Christ on the earth subsequent to the loss of the priesthood and prior to its restoration. There was much light and truth given during this period. Nevertheless, we believe the authority to act in God's name and officiate in saving ordinances was lost for a great while. That does not mean, however, that many of the core doctrines and precepts of Christianity did not continue. I think if you construe "true" with restored priesthood authority, with having living prophets and apostles, then it becomes easier to understand. Latter-day Saints and Mennonites share many beliefs, yes? Many, but not all. The distinctive doctrines and practices of the Latter-day Saints generally trace into the concept of the restoration of things that were lost or previously unrevealed. The priesthood. Living prophets and apostles. The Book of Mormon. Temple work. I don't think that comparison works very well. There is an exclusivistic element in the Church being "true" that is absent here. That element is . . . priesthood authority. Well, sorta. "True" as an adective helps define and describe the Church. The Church as "truth" is more of a metaphorical comparison, and one that doesn't quite work for me. It has notes of infallibility that I'm not quite comfortable with. Good questions. They made me think a lot. Thanks, -Smac Good one! That was a question waiting for an attorney to answer ! 2
mfbukowski Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 34 minutes ago, bOObOO said: Consider taking a test with True or False answers after each statement. When you check True as your answer I think what you mean is that the statement reflects reality, at least in your perspective. Whether or not it is true depends on reality. No, reality depends on what we think it is. "True" means "I agree". We cannot know more than that. 1
bOObOO Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: No, reality depends on what we think it is. "True" means "I agree". We cannot know more than that. We do not agree on this, obviously, but which of us has told the truth is not up to either you or me. I do see how you could think true means "I agree" rather than "it is" though, if that is of any consolation to you. Close but not quite the same.
mfbukowski Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 6 minutes ago, bOObOO said: We do not agree on this, obviously, but which of us has told the truth is not up to either you or me. That's the point. 1
CV75 Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Navidad said: Definition of true – Mirriam-Webster (Entry 1 of 4) 1a(1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs true description (2) : conformable to an essential reality (3) : fully realized or fulfilled dreams come true b : ideal, essential c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed the true dimension of the problem d : consistent true to character 2a : properly so called true love the true faith the true stomach of ruminant mammals b(1) : possessing the basic characters of and belonging to the same natural group as a whale is a true but not a typical mammal (2) : typical the true cats 3a : steadfast, loyal b : honest, just c archaic : truthful 4 : legitimate, rightful our true and lawful king 5a : that is fitted or formed or that functions accurately b : conformable to a standard or pattern : accurate 6 : determined with reference to the earth's axis rather than the magnetic poles true north 7 : logically necessary 8 : narrow, strict in the truest sense 9 : corrected for error true adverb Definition of true (Entry 2 of 4) 1 : in accordance with fact or reality 2a : without deviation the bullet flew straight and true b : without variation from type breed true true noun Definition of true (Entry 3 of 4) 1 : truth, reality —usually used with the 2 : the quality or state of being accurate (as in alignment or adjustment) —used in the phrases in true and out of true true verb trued; trueing also truing Definition of true (Entry 4 of 4) transitive verb : to make level, square, balanced, or concentric : bring or restore to a desired mechanical accuracy or form true up a board true up an engine cylinder ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I am very interested in the use of the words true and truth. I find the number of definitions and examples of the use of these words quite exhaustive or perhaps exhausting. My observation is that one of the most often repeated phrases in our ward is “I believe the church is true.” When used, it seems self-evident that the person is referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not to the church as representative of the Christian community as a whole. What I can’t quite put my finger on is what the folks who use this phrase are really saying about the COJCOLDS? They seem to begin using it when taught by their parents or in primary around age 3 or 4. They then use it, especially in testimonies as a kind of requisite aspect of a proper testimony. Having said that, I don’t remember anyone ever explaining what they mean by that. It is apparently self-evident to the faithful church member. I have a couple of questions about it: 1. What is the essence of what a member is saying when he or she says “the church is true?” Is it a kind of a correlation to D&C 1:30, therefore it is the “only” true? Does the use of the word true in that context fit into one or more of the above Merriam-Webster definitions? 2. In regard to the greater Christian community, in this day and age, what does “I believe the church is true” say about other churches? Are they false? From the LDS perspective, may I say, and be correct that “I believe the Mennonite church (to draw a comparison) is true, or “I believe the Catholic church is true?” Is it a true and truer question? A true or false question? Years ago it seems to have been true and false. It seems to have officially changed or softened. 3. I have always been interested in archery. When we say someone has a “true” aim, we mean their own aim is quite accurate (see definition 2 and 3). This doesn’t say anything about another archer’s aim, it could also be equally or more “true.” It speaks only to the fact that the archer under consideration has a true aim. In that context his or her aim is not perfect. He might score an 8, or a 9, as well as scoring his share of 10s, and still be said to have a true aim. Again, it says nothing about any other archer’s aim which might also be “true.” In this context, does the statement “the church is true” say anything about any other church? 4. In my interpretation I see a distinction between saying “I believe the church is true” and “I believe the church is truth.” Is that a distinction without a difference for a faithful COJCOLDS member? One of my observations from being in my fourth year of faithful attendance at a ward, is that we often use the same words in different ways, with different meanings. There is such diversity on this board. I am also wondering if the phrase might mean something different to different folks? Thanks for any help with this. I am pretty sure the phrasing was originally adopted / adapted from D&C 1:30 and passed along. As to what someone means when they say it is like asking someone "What is love?". But I think most would agree it means they believe/know by the Spirit that the Church is the organization created when Jesus restored the keys to the earth through Joseph Smith. Since there is no corresponding verse describing other denominations as "false and dead," we might look at JS-H 1: 19, which simply describes them as "wrong" -- as in denying the power godliness, which are the keys. That still allows quite a bit of leeway in how much truth they do profess. I haven't heard the expression, "the Church is truth," and I would think anyone using it would explain what they mean. "God is truth" and "The Lord is truth" so their churches would be true according to the keys they were given. Edited July 27, 2021 by CV75 2
bOObOO Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: That's the point. Glad you can see that now. Truth does not depend on people who agree with each other. Truth is independent of people agreeing or disagreeing and instead is based on what is or was or will be, regardless of any person's agreement or disagreement/
mfbukowski Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I don't think that comparison works very well. There is an exclusivistic element in the Church being "true" that is absent here. That element is . . . priesthood authority. For the record, I agree. But of course others will disagree. THAT I think is the crux of the question. We do not believe in the "priesthood of all believers" ( in Christ). 2
mfbukowski Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, bOObOO said: Glad you can see that now. Truth does not depend on people who agree with each other. Truth is independent of people agreeing or disagreeing and instead is based on what is or was or will be, regardless of any person's agreement or disagreement/ Uh no. You read it wrong. The truth is not " up to" anyone, we see through a glass darkly, but THEN face to face. Til then only God sees "the truth". Now it is up to us to find the answer to the test. If we knew (without revelation) the answers, there would be no test. Now we argue which answer is right, and that won't stop. THAT'S the POINT of the test. Edited July 27, 2021 by mfbukowski 1
bOObOO Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Uh no. You read it wrong OKay. So you still don't agree. But what is true still is anyway even though you do not agree
Navidad Posted July 27, 2021 Author Posted July 27, 2021 Thanks so very much for all the helpful replies so far. I want to emphasize that my question is strictly about what you all think or opine about the issue. What I think is completely irrelevant to the context and discussion. Actually my questioning comes from my trying to figure out about truth in general in this sense . . . It seems to me that there are truths (small t) that are experiential in nature. They are extremely true to the one who experiences them, but not to others. Experiential truths can be conflicting while still quite profound (important and true) to the believer. These type of truths can widely differ and still be true for the believer. Then as a person of faith I also believe in a few absolute Truths (with a capital T). Here folks differ because they differ in what to them, is absolute. I think a person's certainty about something impacts his or her concept of absoluteness. Much religious conflict is about differing and competing absolute Truths. Perhaps as was used by someone, these are even exclusive Truths. Certitude about these often move doctrine to dogma. This dogmatism kicks in and Katie-bar-the-door (whatever that means) Then, of course I think both experiential and absolute (truth with a small t and a capital T) come down to personal perception. Even our experience of the Holy Spirit goes through a self-imposed and maintained set of filters. Of course as a person of strong faith, I am interested in all of this; I am also writing a book right now about a big current issue in public education in which all parties claim to have truth about the the issue. Methinks most all of us sometimes confuse experiential and absolute truth; some acknowledge that and others don't. My goodness, historians can't even come to agreement about basic historical events and personages in Mexican history! Move that into a context of conflicts due to religion and that multiplies things by ten-fold. Perhaps a bit more on this later if it seems to be of interest. Thanks.
rpn Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 (edited) I'm not sure why we say it either. We get testimonies of principles, not of buildings, or people, or programs or history. Edited July 27, 2021 by rpn 4
Navidad Posted July 27, 2021 Author Posted July 27, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, smac97 said: I don't think that comparison works very well. There is an exclusivistic element in the Church being "true" that is absent here. That element is . . . priesthood authority. I find this part of your reply especially interesting. Several years ago, one of the things I used to regularly get in trouble on this forum for, was saying that I thought the LDS church was exclusive. So I returned a short while back with a list of things I should not say this time around. So now you say it ("an exclusivistic element") and I doubt anyone will disagree with you! I guess it is a matter of the outsider better not say it until he or she becomes an insider! Perhaps some folks are a bit stuck in a model where the outsider can only be either an investigator or a critic. I think then the outsider somehow often conforms to one or the other paradigm. Unconsciously, I probably did with no intent to do either! My bad. Sometimes I really get confused by the triangle of my associations with the church - my ward, this forum, and those I interact with in the LDS community, that is mostly in the historical arena. Each gives me a very different perspective. I have learned to enjoy all three. Perhaps there is now even a fourth in that I am doing interviews and interacting more with the Mexican fundamentalist Mormon communities. I find them especially interesting. I also find the concept of priesthood authority to be very interesting, but that is a dialogue for another thread . . . I want to live to post another day! Edited July 27, 2021 by Navidad
CV75 Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 1 hour ago, Navidad said: Thanks so very much for all the helpful replies so far. I want to emphasize that my question is strictly about what you all think or opine about the issue. What I think is completely irrelevant to the context and discussion. Actually my questioning comes from my trying to figure out about truth in general in this sense . . . It seems to me that there are truths (small t) that are experiential in nature. They are extremely true to the one who experiences them, but not to others. Experiential truths can be conflicting while still quite profound (important and true) to the believer. These type of truths can widely differ and still be true for the believer. Then as a person of faith I also believe in a few absolute Truths (with a capital T). Here folks differ because they differ in what to them, is absolute. I think a person's certainty about something impacts his or her concept of absoluteness. Much religious conflict is about differing and competing absolute Truths. Perhaps as was used by someone, these are even exclusive Truths. Certitude about these often move doctrine to dogma. This dogmatism kicks in and Katie-bar-the-door (whatever that means) Then, of course I think both experiential and absolute (truth with a small t and a capital T) come down to personal perception. Even our experience of the Holy Spirit goes through a self-imposed and maintained set of filters. Of course as a person of strong faith, I am interested in all of this; I am also writing a book right now about a big current issue in public education in which all parties claim to have truth about the the issue. Methinks most all of us sometimes confuse experiential and absolute truth; some acknowledge that and others don't. My goodness, historians can't even come to agreement about basic historical events and personages in Mexican history! Move that into a context of conflicts due to religion and that multiplies things by ten-fold. Perhaps a bit more on this later if it seems to be of interest. Thanks. As you point out, both "Truth" and "truths" come down to personal perception. What else do we have to work with? Thus, “Truth” a subset of “truths”… 😊 which is OK in my book. Regarding advocacy for public issues, truth and facts are often two different things, and I think we should begin with facts and then interpret and then convince by understanding any opposing paradigm or bias. 2
Calm Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Navidad said: Several years ago, one of the things I used to regularly get in trouble on this forum for, was saying that I thought the LDS church was exclusive. There is exclusive in the sense of being unique…the only one offering something. There is exclusive in limiting who has access. Iow…the difference between a private country club that only lets anyone into the dining area to eat if they have a certain level of income and are wearing expensive clothing that shows off their income and a restaurant offering a one of a kind speciality, but inexpensive dish to anyone willing to walk through the door and pay for it. And the restaurant may require shoes and shirt for service, but hands them out to anyone who shows up without if they ask as long as they put them on. And the restaurant will help you find a job so you can buy their food if you lack money. I may have made the analogy too cluttered by trying to make it closer to the church experience of “exclusive”…yes, we have something no one else has; yes, everyone is invited to join us; yes, we require a few behaviors before joining; yes, those behaviours are possible for almost anyone (exceptions generally made for those who want to behave a certain way, but can’t). Edited July 27, 2021 by Calm 1
smac97 Posted July 27, 2021 Posted July 27, 2021 28 minutes ago, Navidad said: I find this part of your reply especially interesting. Several years ago, one of the things I used to regularly get in trouble on this forum for, was saying that I thought the LDS church was exclusive. So I returned a short while back with a list of things I should not say this time around. So now you say it ("an exclusivistic element") and I doubt anyone will disagree with you! I guess it is a matter of the outsider better not say it until he or she becomes an insider! "Exclusive" in what sense? "{The Lord} doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (2 Nephi 26:33.) We are putting tremendous time/money/effort in "invit{ing} all to come unto Christ" (D&C 20:59), which doesn't jibe us being "exclusive" in a cliquish or exclusionary way. We are also trying hard to work ecumenically with other religious groups. However, if you were to say that "the LDS Church was exclusive" in terms of its claims to priesthood authority, then yes, we are. 28 minutes ago, Navidad said: Perhaps some folks are a bit stuck in a model where the outsider can only be either an investigator or a critic. Not really. It shouldn't be that way. There are plenty of people who are not interested in joining our faith, but who like and respect us, and/or who want to work with us in areas of common interest and belief, etc. Thanks, -Smac
Navidad Posted July 28, 2021 Author Posted July 28, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Not really. It shouldn't be that way. There are plenty of people who are not interested in joining our faith, but who like and respect us, and/or who want to work with us in areas of common interest and belief, etc. Edited July 28, 2021 by Navidad -1
Bernard Gui Posted July 28, 2021 Posted July 28, 2021 3 hours ago, Navidad said: I also find the concept of priesthood authority to be very interesting, but that is a dialogue for another thread . . Why not start one?
Calm Posted July 28, 2021 Posted July 28, 2021 (edited) Navidad, I think the experience of someone consistently attending our meetings without being interested in joining outside of part member families is rare enough that most members will assume that someone not coming to support a family member is an investigator. Is it that common in other faiths for uninterested in joining nonmembers to attend services on a regular basis? Quote Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is that way. "That was a nice prayer, but I wish they wouldn't let non-members pray." "I wish they wouldn't let non-members take the sacrament, they are just pretending." Terribly hurtful comments. I can imagine that would be indeed terribly hurtful, but isn’t the fact you were invited to give the prayer and I am assuming the bishop has not stopped you from partaking of the sacrament demonstrating that there are some members who don’t class everyone attending in that way? (though perhaps the bishop assumes you are going to convert one day and sees it as part of the process?). And the policy being not to stop nonmembers when visiting from taking the sacrament…would suggest that leadership does not see it as pretending given how sacred we believe the Sacrament to be and how easy it would be to simply ask nonmembers to abstain (which iirc they did in my distant youth). Edited July 28, 2021 by Calm
Navidad Posted July 28, 2021 Author Posted July 28, 2021 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Calm said: Is it that common in other faiths for uninterested in joining nonmembers to attend services on a regular basis? Hi Calm: In my personal experience it was very common. As the pastor (bishop) I would not have given a second thought to whether someone wanted to join or not. We never required folks to join to take any position in the church except on the deacons board. Many of our faithful attendees kept their membership back in their home church some states away. Membership in our church had no correlation with salvation. These folks were already committed, baptized Christians. That was enough for us. Of course there was one caveat. The local church baseball league required that to play for a church in the church league, one had to join that church. This was to prevent "ringers" playing for different churches. That and the deacon board were the only exceptions I can think of. We have a new bishopric now so it is a bit scary for us to see what the new rules might be. I don't want to exaggerate or be a pain; I really don't. But I don't think that many of the folks realize how painful it is to receive the "go away closer" messages that we often get. It is hard on me, but it is terribly painful on my dear wife who is so kind, sweet, and godly. The majority of the ladies are also kind, sweet, and godly and I don't think they know exactly how to relate to her. They love her for the same reasons I do, but there is a barrier that I guess will simply never be overcome. Sorry for being a pain. I didn't mean for that to happen when I came back here. Edited July 28, 2021 by Navidad
Navidad Posted July 28, 2021 Author Posted July 28, 2021 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Not really. It shouldn't be that way. There are plenty of people who are not interested in joining our faith, but who like and respect us, and/or who want to work with us in areas of common interest and belief, etc. I agree it shouldn't be that way. But unfortunately for us it is. We don't want to "work with you in areas of common interest and belief, etc." We want to worship, fellowship, and enjoy supporting the sick and needy, and minister to the unreached with you. That is a huge difference. There simply is no way to do that in LDS polity without joining. There is no way to join without submitting to rebaptism, which in your tradition is an acknowledgment that ours was somehow deficit. You have most likely never been outside of the LDS church looking in. With all due respect to all your wisdom and knowledge, you have no idea what it is like. But you are right, it shouldn't be that way! Thanks for your really great answers to my questions. They are very helpful. I need to get back to my list of what I am not supposed to talk about here!
Recommended Posts