Ball of Confusion: Part 1 – What is "TRUE"?

I agree and I also think “believe” or “feel strongly” is more appropriate than “know” in testimonies.

God ONLY knows! 🙂

Saying the church has a monopoly on truth is not only ironically false, it is egotistical.

And as M.J. Ashton said, “An egoist will never get anywhere in this world because he thinks he’s already there.”

I don’t think we are the only church that makes such claims.

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7]

The above quote came from a statement issued by the Catholic Church (and ratified by Benedict XVI). Perhaps other churches don’t use the statement “The Church is true” in quite the mantralike way that we do but belief in the truth of your position is not unique to the LDS. Even atheists offer fairly “ritual like” statements about their own philosophical positions (e.g. all religious people are deluded and ignorant). In this complex world of shifting ideologies and information surfeit, is it surprising that people of all cultures and religions want to hold on to something concrete? Maybe they are not taught the way our children are to utter their statements of belief in such a regular fashion but you can bet that, if prompted, nearly everyone could fill in the statement “The __________________ is true” with something.

That said, I do agree in part with Featherina:

I agree and I also think “believe” or “feel strongly” is more appropriate than “know” in testimonies.

God ONLY knows!

I’m not sure why we have to say “know” when what we probably really mean is a feeling of intense belief with that everpresent element of doubt. And “Doubt” in this case meaning “aspects unknown” as opposed to ” a skeptical attitude”. I’m not sure why we have to “KNOW” anyway except that human beings tend to have a hard time with “ambiguity.”

Oh, and be careful about equating the idea of “exclusive truth” with “cult-like behavior”. It isn’t. It’s part of almost EVERY religion and denomination that exists.

Think about it a little harder, and I think you’ll understand what I mean:

For example, Protestants also teach the “one true church” idea – but they draw the lines broadly enough to include most other Protestant denominations (and they exclude ANYONE who believes differently than they do). Islam does the same thing, as has Judaism (although much of Judaism has lost its focus in that regard). Pretty much all religions that believe in “one true God” also believe in “one true church / religion” to some degree.

Finally, just as an administrative note, be careful of the analogies you use. The LDS Church is not like the KKK – or the Nazis – or Jim Jones’s group – or any other “true” cults in most ways (and the ways it is are very much like the ways pretty much all religions are – with the difference being only in degree). I can’t remember where it is right now, and I’ll try to find it if I have time later, but I read an article recently by a survivor of the Jim Jones group (someone who escaped before the mass suicides) – and it is an excellent reminder of what “true cults” really are and how different the LDS Church is from them.

cult   /kʌlt/ Show Spelled[kuhlt] Show IPA

noun

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3. the object of such devotion.

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols

So what’s the big deal about the word ‘cult’? And why does the LDS church not fit the definition?

The only truth we can know is the truth that works for us. That’s a Bushman paraphrase, I think, but it has become my own mantra. Everywhere I look, this is what I find. Often I am asked why, if that is true, is there a problem with the LDS church and culture in this regard. It is, apparently, a truth that works for many people, so that should be a good thing. The problem, as I see it, is difficult for me to put into words. I think I will post about it later, but basically it seems to come down to a sense that the group needs to force individuals to conform in their beliefs in order for the organization to prosper.

BoC, I don’t disagree with anything in your last comment – except that the concept is unique to the LDS Church. As Roy says, pretty much everyone does it – but they say it in different words. A Muslim hearing a Mormon “testify” that “the Church is true” will have the exact same reaction as hearing a Protestant “witness” that Jesus is “the only Way, the Truth and the Light” – and it’s even more “strict” from a Protestant meaning, since, at least, Mormons believe Muslims can be saved and even exalted. Sure, we follow that up with “since all good, sincere people who were valiant in living what they believed” will hear the Gospel preached in purity and accept it at that point (which is just as offensive in the here and now to the Muslim as Protestantism’s more exclusive view), but at least we have that very important caveat that SHOULD blunt the exclusiveness’s inherent egotism.

Like I’ve said in other threads, it’s one of Mormonism’s greatest paradoxes, imo – the concept that we are a chosen people, but only some of us, and in the exact same way that every righteous person is chosen. Iow, we’re special – in the exact same way that everyone can be special. Iow, I am a child of God – just like every other person who ever has lived.

So, to actually answer the question in the post, I think anything that makes someone a better person and draws them to God is “true” – and that is exactly the definition the Book of Mormon gives for “good” (especially in Moroni 7:12-14, 19). Sure, it has the caveat in verses 16-17 that modifies the previous verses to focus on Christ, but I chalk that up to a prophet with a specific mission focusing on the people to whom he wrote – with the previous, more comprehensive definition being the baseline definition.

Finally, our own Articles of Faith are quite clear that we don’t have all “good” or “truth” in the LDS Church – and that some of what we don’t have others do have. Again, at least, the foundation is there within Mormonism for “the Church is true” to mean something VERY different than “the LDS Church is the only source of truth” – and that really does set us apart in a critical way from the Protestant denominations. I think that’s VERY important to keep in mind, since most words have multiple possible meanings – and, thus, the same word or phrase can mean very different things. How we define things is up to us, and we have the freedom and ability to do so – no matter how others may look at it.

Well did Pilate ask, “What is truth?”, not really seeking an answer.

Because the meaning of ‘What is true?’ depends in large measure upon the definition of the term.

Honest, honourable, upright, virtuous, trustworthy (arch.); free from deceit, sincere, truthful; of actions, feelings, etc., sincere, unfeigned

Is the church “honest”? Is if ‘free from deceit’? is it ‘unfeigned’?

In a word, no. The church does not comply with this definition of ‘true’.

On the other hand, in a confessional sense, to say that the church is ‘true’ has another meaning:

Real, genuine; rightly answering to the description; properly so called; not counterfeit, spurious, or imaginary; also, conforming or approaching to the ideal character of such.

Is the church real? Does it answer to the description of a church of jesus christ? Is it counterfeit? does it conform to the character of the original church of jesus christ?

This definition is debatable, but for those who ‘believe’ that the church is legitimate, then for them it is real, not counterfeit, and in most material ways conforms to the original church of jesus christ. it is legitimate to say, as one’s opinion of the church, that it is true by this definition, while it may not be perfectly honest and free from deceit.

Then there is something that is directionally true, such as ‘true north’ or true level — that the church accurately points to good things to do are realize. From this point of view, the church is arguably true, in that many of its outcomes are good things.

There is even a definition of ‘true’ in the OED around ‘true for me’. Thus, in a confessional sense, my view of truth is that the church is true [for me], and perhaps as I have committed to it, the ‘only true church’ for me. Given that LDS do not typically reasearch all other religions, they can only reflect what is true for them, not true for the whole world. To say that the church is the ‘only true church’ is acceptable as long was we recognize that it is a personal confession, and what is true for me may not be ‘true for you’. These are valid definitions of ‘true’ in OED.

The point is that in a confessional sense, in the context of testimony, the words “know” and “true” are not held to the same standard of epistemological knowledge and truth that one might see, for example, in a court of law. Yet a confession of faith, to say that the church is the only true church for me, is a valid testimony. The ‘for me’ being dropped, causes a degree of confusion.

I’m not sure why we have to say “know” when what we probably really mean is a feeling of intense belief with that everpresent element of doubt. And “Doubt” in this case meaning “aspects unknown” as opposed to ” a skeptical attitude”. I’m not sure why we have to “KNOW” anyway except that human beings tend to have a hard time with “ambiguity.”

I hadn’t considered that, but that make sense.

I’ve come across the accusation several times that the LDS church is a cult.

In the broadest sense, cults can be sport team fans, university loyals, company employees, even families…

A group that requires a certain belief to be a part of.

In a more specific sense, according to various experts (see source below)…a cult is one that:

1) Requires UNquestioning commitment to leader

2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished

3) Leaders dictate how members should think, feel & act

4) Claims special, exalted status for itself/leaders

5) Polarized us-versus-them mentality

6) Leader is not accountable to any authorities

7) Teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary

Leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members

9) Preoccupied with bringing in new members.

10) Preoccupied with making money

11) Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities

12) The most loyal members feel there can be no life outside the context of the group & fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/uploads/CultCharacteristics.htm