Goodness vs Truth

[Anonymous]

I have posted this quote a couple of times, and each time I read it I find something else to analyze. Here it is again from Elder Ucthdorf:

Quote:

Fear not; ask questions. Be curious, but doubt not! Always hold fast to faith and to the light you have already received. Because we see imperfectly in mortality, not everything is going to make sense right now. … It’s true that ‘faith is not … a perfect knowledge’ (Alma 32:21), but as you exercise your faith, applying gospel principles every day under any circumstances, you will taste the sweet fruits of the gospel, and by this fruit you will know of its truth (see Matthew 7:16–20; John 7:17; Alma 32:41–43).”

from “The Reflection in the Water” (Church Educational System fireside for young adults, Nov. 1, 2009)

My question is about the very last part of this quote, “and by this fruit you will know of its truth.” I often don’t know how to interpret “truth” in these types of statements. It appears to me that “truth” here would mean that the gospel is truly divine. But if I substitute the word “goodness” for “truth”, the statement makes much more sense to me. The fact that something bears sweet fruits does not prove its divinity, it just confirms to me that it’s good. So, is there a difference between goodness and truth? Am I interpreting this incorrectly?

[Anonymous]

Is there a difference between goodness and truth?

No – at least, not in a common religious phrasing.

Quote:

But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. (Moroni 7:13)

I read our scriptures, and I see a common theme that what we do is much more important than what we say we believe – that our actions are a much better indication of our “true” beliefs than our words. Thus, “truth” can be defined as “what is real and good”.

We tend to over-complicate lots of things.

[Anonymous]

In all honesty, Moroni 7:13 seems like circular reasoning to me. If the existence or nature of an omnipotent God is at all in question, then proving to me that something is good does not prove to me that it’s of God. I can believe in the goodness of the teachings of Jesus Christ because I can live them and see that they bring me and those around me joy, but when it boils down to it, his divinity is just hearsay. It may seem harsh but that’s the way I see it.

[Anonymous]

Life_Journey_of_Matt wrote:

…My question is about the very last part of this quote, “and by this fruit you will know of its truth.” I often don’t know how to interpret “truth” in these types of statements. It appears to me that “truth” here would mean that the gospel is truly divine. But if I substitute the word “goodness” for “truth”, the statement makes much more sense to me. The fact that something bears sweet fruits does not prove its divinity, it just confirms to me that it’s good. So, is there a difference between goodness and truth? Am I interpreting this incorrectly?

Yes, there is a clear difference between goodness and truth. I can turn on the news and see all kinds of things that I don’t doubt are true that I wouldn’t necessarily call good at all. Saying something is true basically involves claiming it is accurate or essentially a matter of fact to the best of our knowledge and understanding but to say something is good is a subjective value judgment. If I had to choose between the two I would usually rather know what is good than what is true. For example, if some popular beliefs cannot be either conclusively proven or disproven (I.E. God and an afterlife) but giving them the benefit of the doubt makes sense to you and produces acceptable results then as far as I’m concerned that is already good enough to treat these ideas as if they are true until you see enough reasons that you shouldn’t believe them to outweigh any reasons to believe.

Personally I think the level of obsession some people have with their view of the truth is counterproductive and unnecessary. When Church members say the Church is true I think they typically mean that the Church’s claims about the restoration story and the way revelation works are true so the general idea is that if it supposedly came from God then it must be good as well. Also, there is the idea that if all these good people with good intentions feel so good about the Church then how could God let them be deceived if he didn’t actually approve of all this? The problem is that when Church members have been given the expectation that all this absolutely needs to be true then if it starts to look like maybe some of it isn’t true after all it can easily end up being a complete deal-breaker where maybe if the focus was more on what is good rather than what is true then we wouldn’t be setting so many people up for eventual disappointment.

[Anonymous]

“Truth” can be defined in lots of ways.

From dictionary.com:

Quote:

— n

1. the quality of being true, genuine, actual, or factual: the truth of his statement was attested

2. something that is true as opposed to false: you did not tell me the truth

3. a proven or verified principle or statement; fact: the truths of astronomy

4. ( usually plural ) a system of concepts purporting to represent some aspect of the world: the truths of ancient religions

5. fidelity to a required standard or law

6. faithful reproduction or portrayal: the truth of a portrait

7. an obvious fact; truism; platitude

8. honesty, reliability, or veracity: the truth of her nature

9. accuracy, as in the setting, adjustment, or position of something, such as a mechanical instrument

10. the state or quality of being faithful; allegiance

Synonyms

fact, veracity, sincerity, candor, frankness, precision, exactness.

Nephi defined true as being consistent with personal experience.

This type of discussion is meaningless if people are using radically different definitions of “truth”.

Just saying.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Synonyms

fact, veracity, sincerity, candor, frankness, precision, exactness.

Given those synonyms it is hard to say that the church is true.

Fact – Unproven, Veracity – Unproven, Sincerity – Yes, Candor – Not really, Frankness – Not especially, Precision – Religion/Spirituality don’t usually mesh well with precision. It is closer to an art than a science. Exactness – same as with precision.

1 out of 7 is not bad, but if this were a true/false test question I would answer false because the answer is more false (6 out of 7) than true (1 out of 7). OTOH I could bear my testimony that the church is true and still be technically correct under the Sincerity synonym. It all depends on what your definition of the word “is” is! :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Is there a difference between goodness and truth?

No – at least, not in a common religious phrasing.

Old-Timer wrote:

This type of discussion is meaningless if people are using radically different definitions of “truth”.

I guess what I’ve been asking is which definition from dictionary.com would Elder Uchtdorf be using here? I’m not trying to be difficult, I just really don’t understand the use of the word “truth” in religion. Is he saying the gospel is of God? If so, this is unproven so it’s not really truth from a factual sense. The closest thing I could find that would define the “common religious phrasing” is number 4:

Old-Timer wrote:

4. ( usually plural ) a system of concepts purporting to represent some aspect of the world: the truths of ancient religions

If you look up the definition of aspect, the most applicable thing I could find was

Quote:

appearance to the eye or mind

So, should I conclude that he’s merely claiming that the gospel is part of system of concepts that make it appear to us that there is a God?

DevilsAdvocate, This speaks to me:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

if the focus was more on what is good rather than what is true then we wouldn’t be setting so many people up for eventual disappointment.

And Roy, I agree that of all those synonyms, sincerity is the only one that I can make sense of with regard to religion.

[Anonymous]

I like the definition that means “pointed in the right direction” – as with “true north”.

Pres. Uchtdorf used “truth” in reference to “the gospel” – so he wasn’t even talking about “the Church” in that passage. That is a critical distinction to make when evaluating his talk and asking what he meant. “The Gospel” is defined properly, in my opinion, quite narrowly as one of two things:

1) the principles and/or commandments that Jesus taught;

2) faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring to the end.

About the only way that “truth” can apply within that context is if it is focused on the eventual outcomes being what are claimed. There is no way to try to define it as anything related to “accurate in a quantifiable way” with that usage – and faith is all we have in that regard, since even Jesus promised trial and pain to those who followed him most closely. Thus, Elder Uchtdorf was 100% correct – that the only way to “know” is through faith (and it requires faith to even believe that knowledge might be possible eventually).

[Anonymous]

Life_Journey_of_Matt wrote:

should I conclude that he’s merely claiming that the gospel is part of system of concepts that make it appear to us that there is a God?

You could be justified in claiming that but this is not what I believe Elder Ucthdorf meant. In LDS-speak there is a fairly common concept of discovering a concept’s truth by pondering, praying, and feeling it through. If the concept makes you feel the spirit (similar but different discussion) then it is true. We use various proof texts for this: Moroni’s Promise, Fruits of the spirit, and By their fruit shall ye know them. In this regard feeling the fruits of the spirit will confirm of the concept’s truthfullness.

It can be difficult to conceptualize a concept and so we apply these truth tests to more tangable items like true scriptures, true prophets, and true churches. Applying the truth test to these items gives us physical representations – but it also stretches the definition of what we might have originally been talking about with religious and universal truths.

Elder Ucthdorf also seems to be refering to “fruits of the gospel” as actions that one may take in life and the corresponding results of that action. If they lead you and others to live happier more fulfilling lives, then they are good, effective, and true. If the fruit of a diet leads you to lose weight then it would be good, effective, and true.

Unfortunately there is something else (besides goodness or effectiveness) that we often mean when we say that the gospel is true. We often mean that we have the correct, accurate, or right schema. That our understanding of the purpose of life and how to achieve it is correct (or at least the best on the market). We also tend to link this with everything else in the church including that our priesthood ordinances are effective in attaining salvation. To look at goodness and effectiveness as proof of objective truth is not a good determinant.

Brian used to say, “true like a ham sandwich.” Is a ham sandwich true/effective/good? It might be if you are hungry and like ham. It might not be if you are Jewish…like Jesus. :angel:

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I like the definition that means “pointed in the right direction” – as with “true north”.

Excellent! Thank you. If I read it with this context I think the statement actually becomes meaningful to me.

I love the gospel of Jesus Christ and many of the teachings of other men who have lived on this earth. I like the direction that they point me, I just can’t go as far as to say I know what’s waiting for me at the end, which is what we seem to do in our meetings every Sunday. People say, “Well we know this about God, and we know that about the resurrection, and on and on.” I sit there and think, “Well I don’t. I know what I’m taught about these things, but I’ve never seen resurrection. I hope it’s really going to happen, but I surely don’t know that it is.” We fed the missionaries last night and one of them closed his spiritual thought with, “I know Jesus Christ lives.” I just wanted to shout, “How do you know!!??” I keep thinking either I’m spiritually handicapped, or these people don’t really know anything. They just really really really believe it.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

They just really really really believe it.

Yup – and that strong belief in the hoped for but not seen is the classic definition of faith, which drives their actions, combining faith with works, proving that they really do really really really believe it and aren’t just saying they believe it.

I can respect that kind of faith, even if I disagree with the details – and even if I believe the details are harmful, like, at the extreme, the case of suicide bombers. Everything about the specifics of that exact faith is abhorrent to me – except its existence. I respect someone who lives their beliefs fully and without apology, even if I don’t respect the actual beliefs – and even when I would celebrate if the actual beliefs disappeared from the earth completely – and even if I support jailing them for living according to the dictates of their own consciences – etc. It’s not the existence of faith I abhor; its the foundation and focus of the faith.

I see the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as I understand them but not as many others understand them, as “truly” pointing to the “good” end I want. Thus, since I can’t and probably won’t ever see factual evidence of that hopeful end, I am left with faith – hopefully strong enough to allow me to live according to the dictates of my own conscience.

In the end, I might or might not know if my faith was factually true – but my faith points me to where I want to go, and, therefore, is my own truth. If where I want to go changes, I will craft a new faith that will be my own truth as long as that new direction lasts. Faith won’t change; only the foundation and/or focus will.

[Author]

Posts