We Too Often Confuse Belief with Truth

The “truths” we cling to shape the quality of our societies as well as our individual characters. All too often these “truths” are based on incomplete and inaccurate evidence, and at times they serve very selfish motives.

Part of the reason for poor judgment comes from the tendency of mankind to blur the line between belief and truth. We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true. Conversely, we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it - because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences.

When the opinions or “truths” of others contradict our own, instead of considering the possibility that there could be information that might be helpful and augment or complement what we know, we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed, mentally challenged, or even intentionally trying to deceive.

Unfortunately, this tendency can spread to all areas of our lives - from sports to family relationships and from religion to politics. 

- Pres. Uchtdorf, CES Devotional, Jan. 2013

"True" Can Be Defined in Multiple Ways

"True" can be defined in lots of ways.

From dictionary.com:

— 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.

In the first chapter of the Book of Mormon, Nephi defined true as being consistent with personal experience. 

I like the definition that means "pointed in the right direction" - as with "true north". 

In a fireside at BYU in November 2009, President Uchtdorf said:

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.  (“The Reflection in the Water”)

 In this quote, he 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. The only way to "know" is through faith (and it requires faith to even believe that knowledge might be possible eventually).

There is Much Truth Outside of Mormonism, and We Can and Should Learn from It

We have multiple statements from prophets, from Joseph Smith to Gordon B. Hinckley, that say explicitly and implicitly that Mormonism embraces truth no matter its source - and that God can and does communicate with all of his children who will listen, in their own language and according to their understanding.

Collectively, we don't live up to that in the LDS Church, but it's there in our theology in spades.  We can and should "seek after these things" - and we should be open to finding it in and adopting it from other religious and faith traditions. 

Moroni's Promise: "True" Doesn't Have to Mean" "Factually Accurate in Every Detail"

Based on the wording of Moroni 10:3-5, Moroni's invitation is about gaining a spiritual witness, not an intellectual one. That is an important distinction, and it is worth considering carefully.

Verse 3 focuses intensely on looking back in time and recognizing how merciful God has been to his children throughout time - then pondering that mercy.  It doesn't ask the reader to ponder what the Book of Mormon has said up to that point; rather, it asks the reader to ponder God's long-suffering mercy.

Focusing on God's mercy puts the reader's prayer directly into the realm of asking if the Book of Mormon is "true" in a spiritual sense - more like "true north" than "factually inerrant". Given how often the book includes comments about overlooking the mistakes in it and the weakness of its writers, I think that's not accidental. Thus, the prayer request becomes less, "Tell me if this book is historically accurate," and more, "Be merciful to me, as you have been to others throughout time, and answer my prayer." It's more of a connection to the divine than receipt of a factual answer - and I believe too many members and missionaries approach it as more of an intellectual question that asks if the details in the book are "accurate / right".

I think that simple difference is more than just significant.

Seek Diligently for Truth, No Matter Where It Is Found

I believe deeply in finding truth in everything.  I think that outlook is a fundamental part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (see Moroni 7: 5-19, especially) and Joseph Smith's philosophy that animated the Restoration and his role as a prophet.

I was asked once if organized religion loses potency when it admits there is truth in everything - that a religion doesn't posses or even understand all truth and that "the fulness of the Gospel" doesn't include an understanding of all truth. My response was that it does not, according to Joseph Smith - or the notion of a process called the "restoration of all things" through on-going / continuing revelation.

Part of the grandeur I see in pure Mormonism is the audacity to believe that all truth can be circumscribed into one whole - and that striving to comprehend that whole is worth the effort. Limiting that whole to what we know now, and denying that there still is truth outside our current understanding to be included in the circumscription process (including things that others know of which we are not aware), goes against the very core of the Restoration.

A good friend of mine once wrote the following when he was asked about believing there is truth in every religion, denomination, faith tradition, science, etc.

1. If something is proven to be true, or beyond reasonable doubt, it's simply part of the gospel. As we study the creation, and the processes whereby creation occurred, I come to be in awe of the creator. Scientific discovery does not diminish my regard for god, it enhances my understanding of the absolute miracle of god's inherent power: nature. That god works entirely through nature is part of what Joseph Smith said, at least, in section 88, one of his most important and thoughtful revelations.

2. If something true is in conflict with scripture, then we need to re-evaluate our literal understanding of the scripture. I have to recognize how scripture was written in the mind and heart of the revelator, and thus, it's going to include the revelator's worldview. Obviously, this is controversial to those who believe that scripture is literally and forever true. Scripture is the milk -- it is not the meat of the gospel. As we grow up in our understanding, we sometimes need to set aside childish things.

3. There are a host of things that cannot be proven, and we need to take an attitude of suspended judgment for these things. I don't know if we pre-existed. I think it's a very useful model as part of the Plan of Salvation, but I simply don't know. Is it imperative for me to say "I know we lived with god before this life"? I believe it, I trust in it, but I cannot explain it. I don't know how it works.

4. I should never be afraid of truth. If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did some pretty whacked out things, then I think it important to understand their humanity. I'm not afraid of it. I can understand how once you know that JS did a number of questionable things, that it's hard to believe that he was also a 'prophet', but I don't have a problem with it. I'm sure some people think I'm intellectually dishonest as a result. Whatever; truth is truth. Judgment is entirely another matter. I think it's true that Joseph did some pretty human things. My judgment is not affected by it -- he's still a prophet. He still facilitated the restoration. I find truth in the restoration, and therefore I can only conclude that God uses imperfect humans to do his work. This should be obvious from scripture. 

In summary, going back to my first thoughts in this post, as I am exposed to the thoughts, beliefs, discoveries, etc. of others, I try hard to make sure my initial response is:

What truth can I learn from this - no matter the source? 

Analyzing Scripture: D&C 1:30 - "The Only True and Living Church"

First, here is verse 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.

Now verse 30:

“And also those to whom these commandments were given”

Joseph was mentioned in v.29 in relation to the translation of the Book of Mormon, but this verse references others – also those to whom “collectively” the commandments within the subsequent D&C were addressed.

“might have power to lay the foundation of this church,”

Lay the foundation does NOT mean or even imply the entire construction, only the setting of the foundation; thus, there is a solid implication that others “to whom these commandments were [NOT] given [yet]” would continue the construction upon the foundation built by these first people.

“and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness”

I think “obscurity” is self-explanatory – and the Church certainly was obscured back then. In many ways, that only recently has been completed; in many ways, it still is being accomplished. I read “darkness” as describing the spiritual darkness of an apostate world – a light shining from the darkness to be set on a hill outside of that darkness, if you will. The fascinating aspect is that those who would “bring it forth out of obscurity and darkness” aren’t limited necessarily to the first group but appears to include those who later would build on the original foundation. I wonder how much of that removal process was figurative and how much was fulfilled by the literal exodus to Utah.

“–” 

I always have read this verse as if it had a dash instead of a comma. It simply makes more linguistic and grammatical sense that way.

“the only true AND living church upon the face of the whole earth,”

of all the possible meanings for “true”, I like the following – as it relates to an organization: “of the right kind; such as it should be; proper: to arrange things in their true order.” That changes the concept in very real and, I believe, important ways from what generally is assumed. In that light, I like the following definition for “living”: “pertaining to, suitable for, or sufficient for existence or subsistence” – which implies feeding in such a way that life can continue – meaning life-giving or regenerating – as in “living” water. Therefore, an altered translation might be something like, “the only proper, correctly arranged/ordered and eternal-life-giving church . . .”

Also, the use of true “and” living can imply that there are other churches that are either true “or” living, but none that are both. I don’t know for sure, but I do think there is a powerful possibility of an implicit suggestion that some other churches might be partly true (not fully false) and lack, more than anything else, the grander vision that would make them “come alive”. I’m not sure that is what was meant, but it is a conclusion with which I agree – and which can be supported by the text.

“with which I, the Lord, am well pleased,” 

From a scriptural basis, this simply means “very pleased” – as opposed to merely pleased. It draws an implicit distinction between being “well” pleased and simply being pleased. More on that later.

“speaking unto the church collectively and not individually.” 

The Church as an organization is well-pleasing unto the Lord, even though any number of individuals, with no respect to position [even the Prophet himself], may not be “well-pleasing” at any given moment.  I think this is supported by the number of times Joseph Smith was chastised and called to repentance in the Doctrine & Covenants. 

I favor a period at the end of this verse. The dash, in context, makes vs.20-30 a parenthetical comment and ties v.31 to v.19 – and I simply don’t see that as the proper connection. It just doesn’t make sense.

When we look at this verse, there are three separate and distinct classifications used to describe the “church” – which, taken together, appear to constitute the full meaning of the word “church” in God’s eyes. “The foundation of this church” and “the true church” appear to refer to the basic organizational structure and essential offices (which are properly ordered and arranged), while “the living church” appears to refer to the Restored Gospel it teaches (especially the concept of eternal life that follows faith, repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost). On the other hand, “the church collectively and not individually” appears to refer to the membership. It’s fascinating for me to think of this as one more example of the use of a “trinity” construct to describe perfection.

Shifting gears a little, when I look at what I think the verse actually says, I am left to discount what I believe it does not say – even what has been assumed by many but simply isn’t there. The following are a few of the things I believe are incorrect assumptions – things the verse simply does NOT say:

False Assumption #1) The Church’s structure was restored exactly as existed in the time of the ancient apostles. Any deviation from the ancient structure invalidates its “true” structure, and every part of the current organization was in place in the ancient Church.

Hogwash. It just doesn’t say that. We do believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church, but it clearly was only the foundation that was laid at the time of the Restoration. Furthermore, the relevant Article of Faith (#6) follows the “same organization” statement with a listing of essential responsibilities/offices, not the entire structure. Also, architecturally, since we are dealing with a “foundation” upon which a structure will be built, similar or equivalent structures can contain radically different internal components and still be the same shape or structure. This idea is bolstered by the increasing complexity of the organizational Church as it grows numerically and geographically – changing the outward appearance and internal structure, but not affecting the foundation in the slightest – as well as the differences that appear to have existed among the various congregations within the ancient Church.

False Assumption #2) All other Churches are bad or abominable.

That simply not said – here or in JSH 1:19, which I analyzed a couple of weeks ago. They might not be “of the right kind; such as [they] should be; proper: [arranged] in their true order,” but it does not say they are evil or bad. They might not make the Lord “well pleased”, but there is nothing that says the Lord isn’t “pleased” with them in some or many ways. In fact, the usage of a qualifier ["well"] generally implies that the same term without the qualifier ["pleased"] applies to the entities being compared. I know it is a radically different interpretation than the standard one, but I believe the words of the verse itself state that the Lord is not displeased with all religions other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – that at least some others do please Him to some degree.

False Assumption #3) Other churches (and members of those other churches) are spiritually dead.

That assumption is stupid, in my opinion. Their churches might not be living in the sense that they provide eternal growth [“eternal life giving"] – since they don’t even teach life eternal, as we understand it – but there is no statement saying the other churches cause their members to be separated from godliness, which is the orthodox definition of spiritual death within Mormonism. At worst, if other Christians accept their churches’ teachings fully and reject Mormonism completely, the vast majority of them still will live immortally in the presence of The God they worship – Jesus, the Christ. Nothing in verse 30 says otherwise.

False Assumption #4) Our leaders are “true” (infallible) and will never teach things that are not 100% true.

The verse itself says the Lord is NOT well-pleased with individuals in the Church, and it is followed by the numerous rebukes of Joseph, Oliver and others in the “commandments” it prefaces. The Church as a whole is well-pleasing and will continue to provide life to its members, but individual members, no matter their standing, still can incur the Lord’s displeasure.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Truth and Error, Pure Doctrine and the Prieshood Ban

The topic this month is The Apostasy and the Restoration. There are five potential lesson outlines but, due to General Conference and Easter, there are only two Sundays available to teach about that topic. Therefore, I combined two lesson concepts last Sunday: "How can I recognize the difference between truth and error?" and "Why is it important to teach pure doctrine?"

I started the class by telling everyone that I really struggled to prepare this lesson, because I had felt some impressions about structuring it around something that might be seen as controversial by some members - but which I believe is probably the best example possible of why it is important to focus on pure doctrine, why it is important not to stray into the purely / highly speculative and how we should approach understanding anything in relation to truth and error.

We then read the first scriptural passage in the truth vs. error lesson outline - John 8:31-32. I read verses 25-29 to lay the groundwork to understand the context, focusing on the fact that Jesus started by talking about doing the will of the Father and then addressing 31-32 exclusively to those who "believed on him" - a subset of those to whom he had been teaching originally. Thus, 31-32 was said to believers - those who accepted his statement that he was representing the Father and were looking for a practical answer to what they should do with that belief.

John 31-32 says:

If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

We talked about the most important words in that passage: "continue", "truth" and "free". We discussed the idea that "continuing" means nothing more than "not stopping" - but, in Mormon theology, it also carries connotations of "progress" (which includes an inherent aspect of "growth and change"). It is that continuation of growth and change that, eventually, creates a "new creature in Christ" that is free - specifically from the limitations, restrictions, bonds, etc. that existed prior to "know(ing) the truth". Thus, the ultimate end of knowing truth from error is freedom from ignorance and all of its mortal applications.

We then discussed D&C 9:7-8 (all of 7 and the first sentence of 8), after discussing the context of the section, which reads:

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind.

I mentioned to them how often we talk in the Church about the confirmation of the Holy Ghost in terms of how we feel (our spiritual/emotional/heart experience) but how little we tend to mention our minds as part of the testimony toolbox, if you will. I explained that I don't take anything as "pure doctrine" unless it speaks compellingly to BOTH my heart AND my mind - that there are things that resonate with my heart or mind but not with the other - that I try not to rely on only one of those things in constructing what I believe - that I only accept it as part of my own faith if I like how I feel and think about it. I told them that when there is a disconnect between the two, I try to dig deeper into the disconnected aspect and understand why the disconnect exists by looking more closely at it - not by ignoring it. I mentioned that problems can occur when either the heart or mind is allowed to dominate - that the heart alone can lead to emotional conclusions that aren't true, while the mind alone can lead to an intellectualism that denies feelings and can allow someone to lose sight of morality and humanity.

Focusing on "pure doctrine" is important in this process, because it explicitly is when we leave pure doctrine and move into speculation that things get all kinds of messed up and we become enslaved (not free) by our mistaken understandings.

I told them that this was the point over which I agonized in the preparation of the lesson. I wanted to use a real example of something that was not "pure doctrine" but which mutated into being seen as pure doctrine due to the mortal inability to distinguish between truth and error and the similar mortal tendency to hold on to false traditions and teachings. The best example I know of this is the Priesthood ban, so I mentioned the Joseph Smith Papers Project and the explanations of various things that the Church has published recently on lds.org in the Gospel Topics section.

First, I asked the students who was allowed to be baptized when the Church was established in 1830. They all answered that anyone of age could be baptized, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, etc. I asked who could be ordained to an office in the Priesthood and attend the temple. They said all worthy members could attend the temple and all worthy men could be ordained, except for black men. (My daughter wasn't allowed to answer, since we have talked about all of this in the past.) I told them that answer was wrong - that, originally, there were no restrictions based on race and that a handful of black men had been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood and endowed in the temple. I then summarized the lds.org explanation and talked about the prevailing "philosophies of men" and how they worked their way into our teachings - and how uniquely Mormon justifications arose when people tried to explain why the ban was in place. I mentioned the belief in a curse of Cain, the idea that the Church couldn't ordain black men in the political environment of the time, the belief that black men and women had been less valiant in the pre-existence / fence-sitters, etc. - and how those justifications allowed white people to think they were better than black people. I explained that every reference we have in our scriptures that might seem to support those conclusions to any degree occurs PRIOR to the life and death of Jesus - and that there are verses in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon that state, clearly, that, as of that time, ALL people were alike to God - including both black and white, explicitly.

We talked about how we all tend to explain rules, policies, commandments, counsel, etc. in order to justify them - in school, at work, in church and everywhere else. I mentioned Elder McConkie's statement in 1978 after OD2 and the rescinding of the ban about forgetting everything he and anyone else had said about the reason(s) for the ban - that they had spoken with limited light and knowledge and now had increased light and knowledge that repudiated everything they had said in the past. I stressed the importance of not holding so tightly to anything that they might lose the ability to let go when further light and knowledge appears, as I'm sure will happen in their lifetimes.

In the context of the lesson topics, we talked about how the entire thing might have been avoided if the early saints (including Pres. Young) could have let go of their bias against inter-racial marriage, focused solely on "pure doctrine" and been open to new understanding of truth and error. I told them that they never have to accept or believe something FULLY, without question or concern, simply because it is taught in the Church - that, ultimately, they have to receive confirmation in their hearts and minds about anything and, if necessary, hold onto hope and faith that what they can't accept or believe fully at the moment will change in the future - either the thing they can't accept or their personal understanding of it.

What Is the Truth That Shall Make Us Free? A Book of Mormon Answer

John 8:31-32 says:

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

What is the truth that shall make us free? 

In the LDS Church, we quote 2 Nephi 2:25 all the time ("Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."), but I believe we don’t quote 2 Nephi 2:26 nearly enough. This verse is beautiful and so central to the lesson taught thoughout the chapter.  (I have described verse 25 as a "bridge" from what comes before it to the most important message in the entire chapter - verse 26.)  Verse 26 says (emphasis mine):
 

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

 
I read verse 26 as saying that it is the redemption that constitutes the truth that makes us free – that “justifies” the Fall (our separation from God) and gives us the insight to know good from evil. In other words, I don’t believe we know good from evil because we were removed from God’s presence (“fell”); I believe we know good from evil because a God agreed to redeem us from that separation and allowed us to be taught “truth”.

What truth?

That we actually are children of God who actually can become heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ. That Jesus meant what he said, in so many places in the Bible, literally.  That simple “good news” makes us free to act upon hopes we can’t see (faith), act to change our very nature (repent), act to be cleansed symbolically (baptism) and act in an attempt to know God’s will (receive the Holy Ghost). It’s an acceptance of the Atonement / redemption in all its marvelous glory (not “denying the power thereof”) that constitutes the truth that makes us free to act and not be acted upon. 

Verse 26 says all of that, in my opinion – and I continually am blown away by how concisely it does so.

We Can Be "Wrong in Our Heads" as Long as We Are "Right in Our Hearts"

I've said multiple times in lots of places that our general inability to accept the truly "liberal" parts of our theology is the single biggest reason for much of the misunderstanding we experience from other Christians - and the idea that people outside of the LDS Church can have a "mighty change of heart" and a "true conversion" is one of those "liberal" aspects of our theology.

It's not hard to understand why other Christians get mad at us when the message they hear is,

"Your beliefs are wrong, and your conversion isn't real."

since we get upset at them when they say the exact same to us. 

I think we can believe the first part of that statement and still reject the second part - or, as Joseph Smith once said, I don't think anyone should or will be condemned for erring in doctrine. I believe, as our Article of Faith implies, that we will be judged by the intent of our heart and sincere efforts (for Christians) to "exercise faith in God, the Father, and Jesus, the Christ" - not by the specifics of our understanding of theology and doctrine. In other words, I believe we can be "wrong in our heads" as long as we are "right in our hearts" - even as I believe it is important to try, to the best of our ability, to be right in our heads, as well.

"We claim the privilege of worshiping almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow ALL men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may."

I believe we will be judged primarily by how truly we worship according to the dictates of our own conscience - and that God probably sighs in exasperation over our collective inability to be more charitable toward those who worship / believe differently than we do, especially since all of us "see through our glass, darkly".

Embracing the Truth All Around Us - No Matter Where We Find It

One of the central principles of what I call "pure Mormonism" is that God gives revelation regardless of religion or denominational affiliation. It's the "bring it with you" concept - that if someone understands truth in a different way (or even an unknown truth to the Church at large), it's accepted simply because it's truth. Hence, "seek learning out of the best books", "even by study and also by faith", etc. Truth is all around us, if we only have eyes to see it and hearts to understand.

As organizations grow, they tend to minimize this, however. There tends to be an idea that we now have it all - even if that isn't supported (and even if it is rejected) in our canonized scriptures. It's just natural calcification, and it just makes change harder and slower than when the organization was smaller. It's a security trade-off for the free-wheeling discovery mode of the early time. It just is what it is.

The last books of the small plates of Nephi are interesting in this regard. Space on the plates was running out, and, paraphrasing the words of one of the writers,
 
"It's all been said. I don't know anything new. I'm just signing this to show that I took my duty seriously." 

Our plates aren't full.  We have plenty of available space. 

Simple Truths that Resonate with Me

Every single person who ever has been born is of divine importance and worth - so much so that God cries even over those that look him in the eye and swing their fists.

My own best effort is good enough.

We are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ.

God will speak peace to my soul. (spirit and body)

Little children are alive in Christ.

 
What are some simple truths that resonate with you? 

"Doctrine" Does Not Equal "Truth"

I have learned through the totality of my experiences, in all aspects of my life, that rules, commandments, laws, doctrine, etc. are absoltuley necessary for group survival - but also that they only can be general guidelines that apply to the majority of the people in the group. Often, they apply to the VAST majority - even 99+% in some cases, but, still, they are generalities - not absolutes.  (I believe that conclusion is supported fully by our canonized scriptures.) 

The danger in this recognition is that it is easy after that realization to start rationalizing one's superiority to the rules, commandments, laws and doctrine. There is a fundamental place in any organization / group for sacrifice of self-determined individual idealism for the practical good of the collective whole. Many rules, commandments, laws and doctrines are true, good and right for the community without having to be so for every individual if s/he were isolated from that community. It is a truism in the legal world that nobody can set themselves above the law - but it also says in Romans 2:14 that those who don't know the law but live the spirit of it anyway become a "law unto themselves". Even without "doctrine", those who live righteously can become "doctrine unto themselves". Again, however, the danger is that this recognition can lead people to cut themselves off and/or set themselves apart from the community that in all other ways can provide tremendous blessings. 

Therefore, to me, "doctrine" is whatever the prevailing wisdom outlines as the best collective vision for the group at the time. I simply don't equate "doctrine" always with "truth" - and that makes all the difference to me. In the end, I'm willing to accept a lot of "group doctrine" that doesn't match my own "individual understanding" - for two reasons:

1) My own understanding might be wrong, so I like to keep an open-mind;

2) I don't live alone. What works for the group (my tribe, if you will) is very important - and I have a social and familial responsibility to support and care for and protect my tribe. I won't do so in ways that I feel are destructive (careful choice of words) to others outside my tribe, but I will do so in ways that others might not understand easily.  

Much of life is a balancing act of competing demands - a practical application of the idea that there MUST be opposition in ALL things. I think that applies to "doctrine" as well - and that only can be if doctrine does not equal Truth.

I'm totally fine with that.

The Church's Flaws Make It True

A friend of mine wrote the following a while ago, and I want to comment about it here:

For me, the whole process of becoming aware of the imperfections and human frailties in the operations of the church (historically etc.) has been a tremendous opportunity for personal growth. It has helped me remove some of my pride, become somewhat less judgmental, hopefully a little more forgiving, focus more fully on love and the essentials of what Jesus taught. For me, becoming aware of the humanity has helped me progress out of a spiritual plateau that I didn’t know I was in (yes, first by crashing down but that is another topic).

If the purpose of the church is to help us progress spiritually - to help us grow personally, I can’t think of anyway that I could improve on its current composition to help it fulfill that goal (at least for me personally) more effectively than it is currently doing for me.

One big step was realizing that in learning to forgive all men (D&C 64:10 - not condone but forgive) I needed to forgive those in the Church who came before me for any mistakes they may have made.

It is the resistance we encounter that makes us stronger – wherever it may exist.

I want to add only that we sometimes lose sight of how radically different the stated goal of Mormonism is than any other Christian religion. (Buddhism's ultimate objective is similar, but that's another topic.) We talk of a literal and extensive conversion of character - of becoming fully something we now are only partially. Compared to the more "mundane" goal of mainstream Christianity, we really are radicals and extreme liberals theologically. I think that's important to recognize and admit openly - that we have a radically liberal theology, taught within a generally conservative organizational structure (mixed with quite liberal elements, like a lay local leadership).

The things that bother me most about the Church are the more mundane aspects of organization and the interpersonal conflicts that inevitably arise when people with different perspectives interact and strive for unity. The things that inspire me the most are the visionary aspects that still blow my mind on a regular basis - the fact that such flawed people still could articulate such a mind-blowing theology and cosmic paradigm. It reminds me of the founding of the United States in some ways - some really flawed people who couldn't live the ideals they wrote (e.g., in theory "all men are created equal" [except in practice for slaves, who only count as part of a man for census calculations - and the women, who aren't even mentioned directly]) but who still created something great and incredibly liberating.

I'm not sure if I would phrase it like my friend did when he sent the message ("The Church's Flaws Make It True") - but I absolutely would say that the Church's flaws make it real and powerful. Maybe, in the end, that is the same thing as "true and living" - perhaps defined as "not artificial and able to grow". In the end, I still define "true" as "pointed in the correct direction" (like "true north") - and, since no other major religion (other than Buddhism) of which I am aware posits what we posit as the ultimate objective and purpose of life, I feel fine using the word "true" in that sense.

My Truth Shall Make Me Free

We live in a post-rationalist age, when we define "truth" and "knowledge" in absolute terms. I love Nephi's definition of "true" - essentially, "it is according to my experiences and understanding, and I am not lying about it". In other words, if someone is expressing something they believe sincerely due to their own experiences, it is "true" for them.

I really like that, since it allows everyone to discover "truth" in the context of their own lives. I understand the issues involved with this view, but I think the benefits outweigh the danger - and "the truth shall make you free" resonates more fully in that context for me than in any other.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe in Absolute Truth, and I strive to understand it whenever possible. I just am not confident I see through my glass clearly enough to tell others they must reject what works for them and accept what works for me - especially when Mormonism teaches that we will be judged largely on what we do and become and how valiantly we follow the dictates of our own consciences.

Charity: What is the Truth in which We Should Rejoice?

I ended my New Year's Resolution post last week, focusing on the idea that charity "rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth" with the following concluding paragraphs:

The foundation of the joy / rejoicing we seek in this life, if it is grounded in "truth" can be found in the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ - that he has gone unto the Father, that our hope in his illuminating and enabling journey is not in vain, that where he has gone we can follow. (see the full message of 1 Cointhians 13:12)

I believe that "rejoicing in truth" is elevated, if you will, by this hope, while "rejoicing in iniquity" is grounded by those things / ideas / philosophies / actions that keep such hope at bay. I will delve more deeply into specifics next week, but I felt that it was important to delineate the difference carefully in this post first.

I want to complete my resolution posts this month by delving further into the foundation of what I believe to be the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I was tempted to post several links to posts I've written in the past, but I feel like I need to try to write a new post that ties all of the central thoughts from those posts into one post. I hope and pray I can do so in a relatively concise and fluent stream of thought.

In 3 Nephi 27, Jesus gives a sort of "farewell speech" to his disciples. Verses 13-22 are of particular relevance to my resolution regarding charity this month, since I believe they contain not only the "what" of the truth in which we should rejoice but also the "how". Normally, I do not quote extensively from long passages of scriptures on this blog, but I am going to do that tonight - with my own thoughts following each verse:

13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

The heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that His Father lives and sent him to do something specific - His will.

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil —

The Father's will is to draw all unto the Son to receive a "judgment", based on the lives they have lived - whether they have become good or evil. (That is taking slight liberty with the text, but I believe it is consistent with the entirety of the scriptural canon in our possession.)

15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

Jesus will do the will of the Father. He will "fulfill the measure of his creation" in mortality.

16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

As I have written in multiple posts, "to repent" means "to see with a fresh view" - so those who are able to see with a fresh view and, because of that new view, are baptized in the name of Christ will be "filled". I believe this refers to the Holy Ghost, which gift brings insight into the personal path one must walk in order to be "drawn to Christ" and "do the will of the Father" in one's own life.

Being "filled" does not guarantee being held guiltless at the last day. That comes only to those who "remain filled" by enduring to the end - or, in the words of Matthew 5:48, become "perfect (complete, whole, fully developed) even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect".

17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.

Quitting in the process of becoming (stagnating and not continuing to grow) is what damns (makes of no worth).

18 And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

God keeps his word.

19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

We all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) Therefore, none of us, in and of ourselves, are "clean" and worthy of entrance into the kingdom. Our cleanliness is a direct result of our willingness to be washed in his blood - and that occurs at the practical level by believing so deeply and strongly that we change ("exercising faith unto repentance" - Alma 34: 15-17) continually and constantly until the very end, when we reach completion, wholeness and full development and change no longer is necessary.

20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.

Communing with God occurs through the sanctifying presence of the Holy Ghost, so, in a nutshell, we are drawn to the Father by accepting the Son and communing with the Spirit without ceasing (even amid our stumbling and falling and temporary failing).

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;

Our charge is simple: Do what Jesus did. How that plays out exactly in our own lives is to be directed by the Holy Ghost, but, at the heart, our purpose simply is to emulate the life of Jesus to the degree that it is possible for us and in the ways we fell led to embrace as we commune with the Holy Ghost.

22 Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be lifted up at the last day.

Surely, this is our hope and the "goal" of our faith.

This, I believe, is the "truth" in which charity rejoiceth - that even though death and iniquity affect and are a part of all who have lived, ALL have the opportunity to repent (change) and rise above that "natural man" and be drawn to the Father through the Son. Charity rejoiceth in this truth, I believe, when we recognize the universal application and reach of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, grant him the power to embrace and reach all, and, in turn, embrace and reach out to all throughout our lives - until the end - as he did in his own life.

We cannot give up on ourselves, and we cannot give up on others. We must rejoice in the truth that God loves all his children and sent Jesus to live, be lifted up and draw all his children back to him. There will be some who choose to reject that plan, but we must avoid acting as Judge or jury by loving and serving all with whom we come into contact - to some degree, as our own circumstances allow and promptings motivate.

Whether in Iniquity or Truth, Life Should Be About Rejoicing

As I contemplated further this week the idea in 1 Corinthians 13:6 that charity "rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth", I leaned toward writing about something that I will end up addressing next week. This week, instead, I want to emphasize a simple thought that struck me again today - that life is meant to be about rejoicing. Therefore, one of our central efforts should be to find something in life in which we can rejoice - ideally something that can be classified as "truth" and not "iniquity".

There are a few quotes that sprang to mind while I considered this, the first of which is obvious to any Mormon who reads this post.

First, 2 Nephi 2:25:

Adam fell that men might be, and men are, that they might have joy.

This is one of the clearest and most straightforward declarations regarding the **practical** purpose of mortality in all of canonized scripture. For this post, I don't want to get into a semantic discussion of the meaning of the word "joy". Rather, I simply want to reiterate that we are created to "have" joy.

I see a huge difference between "having" joy and "feeling" joy. I wrote almost exactly two years ago about this exact topic at least twice (Feelings vs. Actions and Pursuing Joy), and I don't want to revisit the entire concept in this post. Suffice it for now to stress that feeling something can be transitory, while having something implies internalization or ownership that lasts. Another way of phrasing "to have joy" might be "to be joyful continually" - and that is a worthy desire indeed.

Second, Doctrine & Covenants 93:36:

The glory of God is intelligence - or, in other words, light and truth.

Without going into great detail, intelligence is defined in this verse as being able to see clearly what "is". I wrote tangentially about this definition earlier this year (Spiritual Intelligence & Humility), but what I want to highlight here is that there is an important element of being able to see one's way ahead in the undertaking of a journey.

In Exodus 3:14, Moses is told by the Lord:

I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

If the eternal purpose of life is to walk a pathway back to the prescence of God (to be able to say "I AM" - see Romans 8:17 & 1 John 3:2) - to travel to His destination, if you will (see Revelations 3:21) - it is critical to strive to see that pathway as clearly as possible (even if, as Paul says, we still see through our glass, darkly).

Third, John 14:27-28 and 1 Corinthians 15:19:

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

The foundation of the joy / rejoicing we seek in this life, if it is grounded in "truth" can be found in the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ - that he has gone unto the Father, that our hope in his illuminating and enabling journey is not in vain, that where he has gone we can follow. (see the full message of 1 Cointhians 13:12)

I believe that "rejoicing in truth" is elevated, if you will, by this hope, while "rejoicing in iniquity" is grounded by those things / ideas / philosophies / actions that keep such hope at bay. I will delve more deeply into specifics next week, but I felt that it was important to delineate the difference carefully in this post first.

Learning from Other Religious Texts

I can choose to read a Zen Buddhist text, and thus potentially open myself to that world-view and the richness of that perspective that can strengthen my testimony of Mormonism, or I can forgo that experience, trusting my own experiences which confirm LDS points of view but rob myself of the insight I received from the Buddhist text.

I'm not saying one approach is always right and the other is always wrong. I'm just saying that the outcome depends more on the attitude and perspective I take into the study than the actual text being studied.

The Myth of "the Whole Truth"

Teaching social studies is an exercise in deciding what to teach and what to ignore - whether you are talking about religious history in a church class or any other type of history in a school classroom. In the practical reality of actual classrooms, there is no such thing as "the whole truth". If there was, there would be no need for theses and dissertations and college-level courses. Furthermore, everything that is written comes from some limited perspective; each story is told through the lens of the teller. As a teacher, the only legitimate argument is over what specific part of the "whole truth" to present.

For example, Joseph Smith was commanded to repent in order to continue to be able to translate. Why would I speculate about exactly which sins Joseph had to overcome to continue the translation? He lists various weaknesses and sins in the JSH; he is chastised repeatedly in the D&C; why is it of any value to start listing specific sins when the lesson isn't about that - and when the portrayals we have of him do not come close to presenting him as infallible and sinless? Why do some people think it is critical (or even a worthwhile exercise) to take limited time and spend it trying to cram everything possible into that time?

I have a hard time biting my tongue when the Church is accused of teaching "half-truths" and not teaching "the whole truth". That simply can't be done, especially in one-hour lessons taught once a week. Under those circumstances, those who correlate the lessons and those who teach them simply must choose what to include and what to leave out. There is no other way.

I'm not saying I would craft the manuals the exact same way they are published now. I wouldn't. There are any number of things I would do differently. The reality, however, is that my effort would be my subjective effort - not any closer to "the real truth" than what we have now.

A Favorite Quote

One of my favorite quotes of all time is from Hugh B. Brown, when he spoke at BYU in 1958. The speech is entitled "The Questing Spirit", and an excerpt is linked with the title. My favorite part of the speech is:

“I hope that you will develop the questing spirit. Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones of progress. You will of course respect the opinions of others but be unafraid to dissent—if you are informed.

…Now I have mentioned freedom to express your thoughts, but I caution you that … in that search you will need at least three virtues; courage, zest, and modesty. The ancients put that thought in the form of a prayer. They said, ‘From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth—O God of truth deliver us’.”