Truth

[Anonymous]

Question regarding “truth”: Can there be more than one truth? As an example, God is either an exalted man, or something else; he can’t be an exalted man for one religion and a spirit or something else for another. Agreed? Don’t we all want to be a member of the “church” that knows the right answer? If so, then doesn’t logic dictate that one church (not all of them, or some of them) can be correct with respect to a particular theological doctrine? And, would it not also be logical to conclude that one church has more correct answers regarding theology than all other churches on earth?

[Anonymous]

Nishka said:

Quote:

…doesn’t logic dictate that one church (not all of them, or some of them) can be correct with respect to a particular theological doctrine? And, would it not also be logical to conclude that one church has more correct answers regarding theology than all other churches on earth?

I’m not sure you can use “logic” when it comes to your faith or spiritual beliefs. At least I can’t.

For me, it isn’t logical that God would send his own begotten son as a sacrifice for me or the world as a whole.

I do take it on faith that it happened. I’ve been trying to figure out His Plan ever since I accepted Him as my Savior.

You also said:

Quote:

Don’t we all want to be a member of the “church” that knows the right answer?

For me, I want a church that points me in the right direction.

Mike from Milton.

[Anonymous]

We need to have a better definition of what truth is. This is from my blog in a posting on Truth

To be a servant of truth, is to

– accept without compromise all historical and factual truth

– act on normative truth.

– reject all speculation of the unknown proven to be false

– reject all false history

– recognize that myth and legend have positive value, as long as they are not taken to be literal history.

– suspend judgment on the unknown, the unknownable, and hope.

This means that when you’re in a conversation about the nature of god — you’re in the realm of speculation of the unknown, unknowable, and hope. Therefore, you really cannot have a meaningful argument — the best strategy is to suspend judgement on such things.

cheers!

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Can there be more than one truth?

Objective, eternal truth outside the realm of science? No – but it’s pretty much impossible for most people (if anyone) to understand that level of truth. After all, even Paul, the apostle (the Elder McConkie of his day) admitted he saw through a glass, darkly.

Quote:

As an example, God is either an exalted man, or something else; he can’t be an exalted man for one religion and a spirit or something else for another. Agreed?

God is whatever God is, but each person only can understand God in whatever way makes sense for that person. I can’t see God in impersonal terms, but others can’t see God in personal terms. It’s important to understand and accept that. Finding God is the process of figuring out what makes sense to one’s own self. Thus, God really can be different things to different people – without being any less powerful to those different people.

Quote:

Don’t we all want to be a member of the “church” that knows the right answer?

No. Frankly, I want to be a member of a chuch in which I can strive to find the answers that make sense to me and add power, meaning and peace to my life. For me, that is the LDS Church.

Quote:

If so, then doesn’t logic dictate that one church (not all of them, or some of them) can be correct with respect to a particular theological doctrine?

Sure – with respect to a particular theological doctrine, IF we are talking about objective, eternal truth – and if we admit that the same can be said of lots of different churches and religions.

Quote:

And, would it not also be logical to conclude that one church has more correct answers regarding theology than all other churches on earth?

Not necessarily. Sure, it’s a possibility, but it requires a belief that we can know what might be unknowable.

[Anonymous]

Great question Nishka! I love the deep philosophical type of discussions. Please note, we like to throw around our ideas here. There’s often a push and pull, people providing resistance to ideas to push for deeper thinking about them. None of us have the one-and-only-true answers! If you see God as an exalted man, and the LDS Church is organization with the most correct answers regarding theology … power to you! There is nothing wrong with that in this community. It’s even somewhat ideal.

We still like to kick around ideas though. I like to think of this community as the ultimate relief society or priesthood quorum class — one where I could really speak my mind without freaking everyone out @Nishka”]Question regarding “truth wrote:

Yes. I think there can be more than one truth, even truths that compete and are at odds with each other. Elder Packer infamously once said “Some things that are true are not very useful.” I actually agree with him wholeheartedly, on a philosophical level, but not from the same motivations.

Nishka wrote:

As an example, God is either an exalted man, or something else; he can’t be an exalted man for one religion and a spirit or something else for another. Agreed?

I understand what you are saying. Something is … or is not. I think our minds feel a very strong push to simplify reality, to compress the onslaught of information we process every moment. It’s an important trait that helps us navigate reality in very practical ways. It would seem that God must ultimately have defined characteristics and attributes, or else God can not really exist, or at least there would be no way of knowing God unless there is a definition of God.

Yet … some people do in fact experience God one way, and others experience God another way. People of all cultures have had many different visions and encounters with God. So we are left wanting an explanation. Some would be tempted to say that THEIR experience must be the real finite definition of God. Everyone else is crazy or being deceived by the Devil (or some form of trickster spirit, common in mythology).

My explanation is that God is transcendent — whatever God really is, is beyond our grasp. When “the prophets” see God, they are creating the God they see. They are the blind men feeling the elephant — some see a snake (trunk), some see a spear (tusks), some see thick tree trunks (legs), etc. In fact, it seems to me that it’s even beyond that. They are in fact creating the interface. They are seeing God as they expected to see God, most often as themselves only bigger with a deeper voice. We learn more about the prophet than the god when they tell us of their encounter. The power of prophets to me now is in seeing HOW they encounter, not WHAT they encounter. I still believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet, but in a very different way than I used to.

God appears as an Greco-Roman philosopher-king with a white beard and a toga to Joseph Smith. God appears as a voice from a burning bush or a pillar of fire to Moses. God appears as a mighty warrior with a winged helmet and spear to the Norse Druids. They are all having an encounter with the real truth of God. Only some of those truths are useful to me, personally.

Nishka wrote:

Don’t we all want to be a member of the “church” that knows the right answer?

Sure. There is a certain and very real comfort to belonging to the group with the right answers. We live in a brutal, chaotic and terrifying reality. We are social creatures. A lot of our survival and thriving depends on our tribe, or group. But some things that are true are not always useful. There are people who do not thrive in the LDS faith right now. In fact, it can be harmful to them in some ways. What is more true, the concept or the experience?

My mother-in-law just went into a nursing home last week. My wife was there visiting her (lives in another state), just in case this is finally near the end. My MIL is so hyper-focused on being zealous, making sure to tell the attendants she DID NOT drink the iced tea they left on her meal tray, and so focused on the super-truthy, correct truthfulness of the LDS faith that she is completely failing to connect emotionally with any of her children at such a powerful and important time in their lives. She is driving them away, always talking about how she failed as a mother because they do not belief ENOUGH. Where did she go wrong? Why has it all been a waste (implying her children are a waste). They will all be sorry when they realize the truth one day! She has poisoned the water for so long, none of them want anything to do with it anymore. Some would rather there be no God at all, if that’s what the truth of reality is like. Her bishop even came to give her a blessing after the most recent hospitalization. He blessed her that she would live long enough to testify of the truth of the Gospel to her children. That was not very helpful, really. *cringe*

Some things that are true are not very useful… 😥

Nishka wrote:

If so, then doesn’t logic dictate that one church (not all of them, or some of them) can be correct with respect to a particular theological doctrine? And, would it not also be logical to conclude that one church has more correct answers regarding theology than all other churches on earth?

In my opinion, religion tends to work most powerfully in helping us process the vast part of our humanity that is not rational and logical. Some numbers in math are irrational and imaginary. They are also very powerful and useful. The universe is not actually rational. We only attempt to reduce the complexity of it into rational chunks in ways that benefits us.

I think one church can have more USEFUL theological answers than others. Some religions are better adapted to giving us useful answers that help us make meaning out of our lives TODAY, in the here and now. Religions that do not do that fade into the history books. Zoroastrians? Used to be the dominant religion of the civilized world under the Persian empire. There’s only a couple hundred thousand left now. It seems to have stopped answering the important questions a long long time ago.

Even within the Correlated narrative of the Mormon faith, the religion has changed a lot. It has changed for the better over time to help God’s children work towards exaltation in their mortal probation, based on the reality and context they had to deal with.

The finger points to the moon, but it is not the moon. The Mormon faith points to Truth and exaltation, but it is not the truth and exaltation. It might even be the best pointer available today, but it is not “the moon.” That’s my opinion.

[Anonymous]

@Nishka”]Question regarding “truth wrote:

Can there be more than one truth?[/b] As an example, God is either an exalted man, or something else; he can’t be an exalted man for one religion and a spirit or something else for another. Agreed? Don’t we all want to be a member of the “church” that knows the right answer? If so, then doesn’t logic dictate that one church (not all of them, or some of them) can be correct with respect to a particular theological doctrine? And, would it not also be logical to conclude that one church has more correct answers regarding theology than all other churches on earth?[/quote]

I definitely think objective truth exists but that doesn’t mean we can always know for sure what it is in most cases people really care about. That’s why I think some different explanations or interpretations of what we see and experience are equally valid at the same time for all we really know and some explanations certainly sound more likely to me than others but maybe to someone else different explanations will sound more likely. What I don’t believe at all is that truth should be treated as if it is automatically more important than other considerations like happiness, comfort, getting along with others, etc. if you ever have to choose between them.

My guess is that more overall harm has already been done in the name of truth where some groups were absolutely certain that they were right and expected others to automatically agree with them than just letting others be wrong in peace ever would have. If I wanted to belong to the church whose beliefs (or lack of specific beliefs) I actually agree with the most then I would leave the LDS Church in a second and go to the Unitarian Universalist Church instead. Even the Greek Orthodox Church would be a better fit for me personally but I’m not going to drive across town and attend some different church where I don’t know anyone simply because I like their doctrines more than the LDS Church.

[Anonymous]

I like the other responses already.

I just think there is the ideal (one answer for all), and there is reality (trying to grasp the one answer from such different perspectives).

I think Obiwan had some wise words on the subject (see tagline).

For me, it is not that I don’t want there to be one answer, or that I don’t believe there is one answer, I just think we’re all on the journey to find it. It would be no fun if it was given to us. We need to search, seek, ask, knock. God wants us to search for it, and therefore, it is never completely known, we get to keep progressing towards it. And I allow others the same privilege.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for your amazing responses. I need to have this conversation; hopefully, it will be beneficial to others.

The message I took from most of the comments is that the “eternal” or “actual” truth is not so important as the concept that meets the need of a particular individual. Is it the case that if God really wanted us to know his exact nature, he is certainly capable of getting the word out (so to speak)? And, since he hasn’t exactly done so, then should each culture (or person) develop its own ideas regarding God that match the needs of the culture or individual?

On the other hand, the case could be made that God did reveal his exact nature, but that humanity’s agency changed the truth into something it is not. In this case, there is a need for a “fact checker.” If the “choose what you like” concept is not the answer, then isn’t there a critical need for “fact checkers.” I always thought prophets were “fact checkers.” And, consequently, deserved my attention (serious attention). But, if knowing an eternal truth the way it really is, is not so important than neither are prophets?

My wrestle with this issues feels like a huge ship straining against taut moorings holding it fast to a dock. Sometimes, I think the lines should break.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The message I took from most of the comments is that the “eternal” or “actual” truth is not so important as the concept that meets the need of a particular individual.

I think objective Truth is incredibly important. I just don’t think it’s knowable outside the realm of science. We can’t even agree on the “truth” of something that happened yesterday (MSNBC vs. Fox News, for example), much less something that concerns eternal existence. Truly, we see through a glass darkly – but we want SO badly to see clearly.

Quote:

Is it the case that if God really wanted us to know his exact nature, he is certainly capable of getting the word out (so to speak)?

I’m OK with that, assuming God is how I envision God to be.

Quote:

And, since he hasn’t exactly done so, then should each culture (or person) develop its own ideas regarding God that match the needs of the culture or individual?

I don’t think it’s a matter of “should”. I think it’s a matter of “is”. It’s just what we as humans do.

Quote:

On the other hand, the case could be made that God did reveal his exact nature, but that humanity’s agency changed the truth into something it is not.

That might be the case. Objectively, it’s impossible to know.

Quote:

In this case, there is a need for a “fact checker.” If the “choose what you like” concept is not the answer, then isn’t there a critical need for “fact checkers.”

Yes, IF that is the case.

Quote:

I always thought prophets were “fact checkers.” And, consequently, deserved my attention (serious attention).

I give prophets my serious attention. I defer to them for lots of things, especially relative to things that concern the organizaitons they lead. As a temple-recommending holder, I support and sustain LDS prophets. I also respect non-LDS prophets. Anyone who can see something in a way I can’t deserves my attention and respect.

Quote:

But, if knowing an eternal truth the way it really is, is not so important than neither are prophets?

Honestly, I value BOTH termendously. I just have to decide personally how much I value specific interpretations of specific “truths” and the people who provide them. Ultimately, I have to make that decision as an agent unto myself, as the Book of Mormon says.

Quote:

My wrestle with this issues feels like a huge ship straining against taut moorings holding it fast to a dock. Sometimes, I think the lines should break.

I like the analogy of the kite. The LDS Church and its theology provide the string that keeps my natural intellectual kite from flying into the sun and being destroyed. (Please read the poem at the following link: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3098&p=38586&hilit=poem#p38586)

[Anonymous]

Nishka wrote:

…I need to have this conversation; hopefully, it will be beneficial to others…My wrestle with this issues feels like a huge ship straining against taut moorings holding it fast to a dock. Sometimes, I think the lines should break.

What brought you to StayLDS, Nishka? For example, what do you like the most about the LDS Church and what don’t you like about it and why? How long have you been a member of the Church? Did you serve a mission? Are you married or single? Based on what you have shared with us so far I worry that you might not like what you find here if you pursue these questions from the angle that most of the things the Church teaches need to be true at the same time and if not then it is all relatively worthless. Please correct me if that’s not what you meant.

Nishka wrote:

…the case could be made that God did reveal his exact nature, but that humanity’s agency changed the truth into something it is not. In this case, there is a need for a “fact checker.” If the “choose what you like” concept is not the answer, then isn’t there a critical need for “fact checkers.” I always thought prophets were “fact checkers.” And, consequently, deserved my attention (serious attention). But, if knowing an eternal truth the way it really is, is not so important than neither are prophets?

I’m not sure I can follow your reasoning here. Why is there a critical need for fact checkers? I can see why you would want to be very careful about what you are doing if making a mistake could result in a bridge collapsing or something like that but if you are wrong about the true nature or existence of God then what difference will it really make as far as we can tell and how exactly do we know this? Maybe it really is all fun and games until someone gets hurt. What if there is no God or if it turns out that God is not in the business of making sure prophets are right about details like this?

What if prophets actually receive very few (if any) revelations and sometimes have a hard time telling the difference between any legitimate revelations and their own ideas? Also, what if prophets don’t necessarily know the best way to interpret what they already consider to be existing revelations given by previous prophets? In cases like this, how could these living prophets realistically be expected to correct their own mistakes if they are already wrong about something? It seems like they could just as easily assume that their current understanding of supposed gospel truths is already acceptable to God until they receive any major new revelations to the contrary (which could never happen for all we know).

[Anonymous]

The only truth I can know is the truth that works for me … that’s how I view the world. Yes, that implies that truth is subjective, but life has taught me that I have no other choice than to embrace that idea. I know that some people like to hang on to the notion of an absolute truth, but for me that is an idea that cannot be tested, and is therefore of no value to me.

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

My explanation is that God is transcendent — whatever God really is, is beyond our grasp. When “the prophets” see God, they are creating the God they see. They are the blind men feeling the elephant — some see a snake (trunk), some see a spear (tusks), some see thick tree trunks (legs), etc. In fact, it seems to me that it’s even beyond that. They are in fact creating the interface. They are seeing God as they expected to see God, most often as themselves only bigger with a deeper voice. We learn more about the prophet than the god when they tell us of their encounter. The power of prophets to me now is in seeing HOW they encounter, not WHAT they encounter. I still believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet, but in a very different way than I used to.

Once again, Brian hits it out of the park. The only aspect I’d like to amplify is the way the perspective of the human in a divine-human interaction impacts on the experience itself. God is whatever he is, and that is a truth. What differs is how we perceive him, either with our physical senses (i.e., what God looks like, smells like, sounds like, etc.) or our spiritual senses (how He makes us feel). So when the NT says that “God is love,” that’s a true statement (to me) in that love is how God makes me feel. He may also physically be the Greco-Roman god Brian referred to, but he is simultaneously “love” to me – that’s how I perceive him because I’ve never seen his physical form (assuming he has one).

I think comparing God to a lump of coal is useful here: I look at a lump of coal and I see “black.” Now of course coal is not the physical embodiment of the color black, but I see it as black. If I smell a lump of coal, I smell that acrid, oily smell. Again, that’s not the coal, either, it’s just how I perceive it. Then, if I burn the lump of coal, I feel warmth. So to me, coal = warmth. But of course, coal is not the physical manifestation of heat – that’s just how I perceive it.

So, too, with God. Various men and women have claimed to interact with him in various ways (including me). I know how God makes me feel, but I don’t assume that the love, warmth or joy I feel when I’m feeling His presence is the limit of His attributes (either physical, mental or spiritual). That’s just how I interact with him. So it’s “true” to me.

[Anonymous]

I was having a conversation with an Indian colleague earlier this week. I had just returned from Cambodia and was in Delhi talking with this person about some of the amazing carvings I saw at Angkor Wat. We started to talk about religion (he is Hindu). He was talking about the fact that all religions are really saying the same things about how to behave, how to treat others, what will happen as a result. Although Hindus believe in karma and reincarnation, Christians believe in the Golden Rule and the meek will inherit. Anyway, you get the point.

I asked him something I had been thinking about since seeing one of the carvings that is very pivotal to 12th century Cambodian Hinduism. Hindu GOD = 3 gods: Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the protector) and Shiva (the destroyer). These guys were big on Vishnu. In the most famous carving, the deities and demons are in a tug of war (using the Naga snake as a rope), and they are trying to turn the earth. Vishnu transforms into a turtle with the earth on his back and the tugging back and forth churns the sea of milk. All sorts of things emerge from the sea: Lakshmi (goddess of wealth and beauty), the Apsara (celestial dancers). Anyway, this is a pretty interesting mythological idea, a metaphor for how the earth is in motion between good and evil, and that motion is what creates beauty and life.

I asked my colleague (who clearly was no literalist) whether there are Hindus who take those myths literally. He said oh yes, absolutely there are people who think of Vishnu as a real being who really turns into a real turtle.

Obviously, it’s easier to see others’ myths as non-literal than our own. Even though our stories are more realistic and less fantastical, they are still supernatural. A virgin giving birth. Resurrection. Seeing the heavens opened and beings descending.

I do think also that there are a lot of “supernatural” stories that have more or less the same point, so it’s not too hard to believe they are really describing the same thing, but according to the frame of reference and context of the storyteller.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I was having a conversation with an Indian colleague earlier this week. I had just returned from Cambodia and was in Delhi talking with this person about some of the amazing carvings I saw at Angkor Wat. We started to talk about religion (he is Hindu). He was talking about the fact that all religions are really saying the same things about how to behave, how to treat others, what will happen as a result. Although Hindus believe in karma and reincarnation, Christians believe in the Golden Rule and the meek will inherit. Anyway, you get the point.

I asked him something I had been thinking about since seeing one of the carvings that is very pivotal to 12th century Cambodian Hinduism. Hindu GOD = 3 gods: Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the protector) and Shiva (the destroyer). These guys were big on Vishnu. In the most famous carving, the deities and demons are in a tug of war (using the Naga snake as a rope), and they are trying to turn the earth. Vishnu transforms into a turtle with the earth on his back and the tugging back and forth churns the sea of milk. All sorts of things emerge from the sea: Lakshmi (goddess of wealth and beauty), the Apsara (celestial dancers). Anyway, this is a pretty interesting mythological idea, a metaphor for how the earth is in motion between good and evil, and that motion is what creates beauty and life.

I asked my colleague (who clearly was no literalist) whether there are Hindus who take those myths literally. He said oh yes, absolutely there are people who think of Vishnu as a real being who really turns into a real turtle.

Obviously, it’s easier to see others’ myths as non-literal than our own. Even though our stories are more realistic and less fantastical, they are still supernatural. A virgin giving birth. Resurrection. Seeing the heavens opened and beings descending.

I do think also that there are a lot of “supernatural” stories that have more or less the same point, so it’s not too hard to believe they are really describing the same thing, but according to the frame of reference and context of the storyteller.

Yes, I made that mistake one time talking to a devout hindu/vishna/krishna worshipper. He told me that his hometown in Gujarat was where Krisha died, and his father is a priest at the temple where they worship Krisha and commemorate his death. I said, “You mean where Krishna allegedly died”, tying into the symbolic meaning — it was the last meaningful conversation I had with him, because I became someone who questioned the literal nature of hindu myths. It was kind of sad, really — we had such a good friendship prior to that.

What’s really fascinating is the correspondence of the 3 gods to what ends up a lot less developed in terms of mythology in christianity. Vishnu incarnates nine times, the turtle being an early incarnation. Rama is the incarnation of the perfect king, and Krishna the incarnation of the personal savior (in a sense). Krishna becomes the closest parallel to the Christ in many, many ways, and of course, Krishna is an incarnation of the second member of the hindu godhead.

Which set of myths constitute truth? LOL. I cannot help but starting to laugh when I ask that question — it’s so…ironic to say that.. Myths are deliberately not truth by themselves in terms of literal nature, yet they point to truth more poignantly than declaritve knowledge.

So…I think i’m off to chant my salvation: hare krishna, hare krishna, krishna krisha, hare hare, hare rama, hare rama, rama rama, hare hare…(sung to the tune of this land is your land…)

[Anonymous]

Nishka wrote:

I always thought prophets were “fact checkers.” And, consequently, deserved my attention (serious attention). But, if knowing an eternal truth the way it really is, is not so important than neither are prophets?

Eternal truth is still revealed through God’s chosen servants — the prophets (Amos 3:7). For a time (perhaps our whole mortal probation), we look to other people as “fact-checkers” to give us eternal truth. We follow the prophet … until WE are the prophet. Then we must follow the prophet. HE knows The Way.

This is perhaps heresy in our contemporary LDS Mormon movement. It goes against good military discipline and order, bypassing the hierarchical authority structure of corporate middle managers. But I believe this was one of the central messages of Joseph Smith’s ministry. It is VERY Mormon. He was constantly trying to connect people to the divine epiphany he experienced. We are all to become prophets. We are all to receive a white stone, our own Urim & Thumim, the keywords and tokens to access the celestial realms directly.

We were not to simply obey the prophet and obey the commandments of Jesus Christ. These “true prophets” are always encouraging us to FOLLOW THEM, to do as they did.

I am the prophet. I follow the prophet. I am the fact checker. I am the hero in the mythical tale who travels out into the dangerous world, full of monsters and puzzles, seeking the treasure — the golden fleece, the one ring, Excaliber, the fountain of youth, etc.

[Author]

Posts