Wednesday, December 30, 2015

ENTRY 48 TRUTH VERSUS BELIEF


What if someone mixed up the words TRUTH and BELIEF and KNOW? 

 

How many times have you or someone you’ve known confused these words and used one when they really meant the other?  For example, have you heard someone declare emphatically that they KNOW something was absolutely TRUE, when in fact it was their own opinion?  They replaced the word Belief with the word KNOW. 

 

This happens on a regular basis.  We see it all the time as people battle verbally about some subject that they have strong emotions regarding.  Both sides are just as emphatic that they KNOW the facts about the issue.  The issue could be religious, political, scientific, or even about relationships.  Especially relationships! Yet both sides are in complete opposition to each other.   How can this be?  How can two opposing sides both declare that their opinion is the correct opinion and the other is the fabrication? 

 

People instinctively understand that by declaring they KNOW something is TRUE has a lot more persuasive power than to humbly explain that they only BELIEVE something is TRUE.  They resort to the use of the word KNOW in order to make a stronger case for their cause. 

 

It’s evident that both sides cannot be TRUE.  It’s possible that one side is true.  Or it’s possible that the other side is actually true.  It’s possible that both could be wrong!  But it’s impossible that both could be correct.

 

Well, actually that’s not exactly true either.  Both sides in opposition could be correct!  From their different vantage points, they may be seeing a side of the issue that other is incapable of seeing.  The issue may be more complex than either opponents are able to recognize from their individual perspectives.  Combining their separate vantage points together may yield a new perspective that reveals further details about the debated issue and sheds further light on the subject.

 

However, that synergistic vantage point could never be achieved so long as both sides are entrenched in their pride and unwilling to acknowledge that what they declare they KNOW is nothing more than a BELIEF.  And BELIEF can be wrong.  By using the word BELIEF in our assertions, we open our minds up to the possibilities of recognizing new vantage points that may be presented to us at some future point in time.     

 

In moments of honest reconciliation, the opposing parties would admit that their stance is mere BELIEF.  This creates the scary possibility that their side might be in the wrong.  The other party might be actually correct.  However it allows the mind of the individual to begin to consider something new and to see the issue from another angle.

 

Here is one example of mixing up TRUTH and BELIEF:

 

Imagine someone gets up at the stand for the purpose of giving an inspirational speech.  Maybe it is at a Graduation Ceremony or maybe it is at a regular church service.  And they say something to the effect of “Never be afraid to stand up for your Beliefs!”  We hear this so many times that it is ingrained in our culture.  Repeating the phrase “Stand up for your Beliefs!” is an American Tradition.

 

There is a problem with that phrase.  The problem is that your Beliefs can be in error.  And my Beliefs can be in error too.  So we have everyone grandstanding for their errant beliefs because their culture has taught them to be Confident, Wish on a Star and just “BELIEVE!!!”  “You gotta stand up for yourself!”  “If you believe it than it’s true for you!”   So no one backs down.  No one reconsiders.  No one examines the evidence.  They can’t do it because pride won’t allow it.  No one shuts up and listens.  They’ve been taught that taking a stand is  a noble virtue but that listening, reconsidering and changing your mind is weak.

 

However, in all reality it takes greater strength to be humble and consider your opponents viewpoint.  It takes the greatest strength of all to admit your error and correct your ways and give acknowledgment to that group you formerly considered to be your opponent.     

 

What if the rally phrase were this: “Never be afraid to stand up for TRUTH!” 

 

What would happen if that were the battle cry?  Well, the first thing that would happen is that people would ask, “What is Truth anyway?”  Now, we begin to search and ponder and consider.  Now we begin to look at our BELIEFS and consider whether these sacred cows really measure up to Truth.  We find ourselves having to figure out what COULD even be considered in the category of TRUTH.

 

So that’s one thing to avoid.  The mixing up of words like TRUTH and BELIEF and KNOW.

ENTRY 47 DEFINITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR GRANTED


TRUTH is the way things really are, the way things really were and the way things really will be.

 

FAITH is a measurement of our internal motivation to do the Will of God.  It is not a Belief despite that common misuse of the word.  It is an attitude regarding the desire to understand and actually do that which God would have an individual do with the circumstances that God has placed the individual in. 

 

BELIEF is an idea or concept we think is real or true according to our perception thus far, but it has not been verified or proven to be reality.  It is a Theory or Hypothesis. Naturally it will appear to be True, otherwise we would not hold it as a Belief.  However, it is not necessarily True.  Two basic attitudes form our Beliefs.  One is Curiosity which fuels our desire to learn more and it is likened to a little child who is willing to consider or entertain new Beliefs that are presented despite the absurdity of the new idea to others.  The other is Humility which requires that we are willing to recognize our capacity to make mistakes and let go of Beliefs that are shown to be false as we receive new information.  Maintaining these two attitudes is required to continue learning and growing.   

 

KNOW (KNOWLEDGE) is the information, data or evidence an individual has personally received, collected or assembled in their efforts to determine what is real.  This information is verifiable by others by repetition of the same circumstances to receive the same experience.  Quite often through out history, what is KNOWN has been overthrown by additional information or a new perspective.  More often than not, that which is KNOWN can be relegated back to that which is mere BELIEF by additional information.  We would be wise to avoid lumping anything permanently into the KNOW category in our present mortal circumstances in which we suffer from a limited perspective. 

 

WISDOM is the practical application of Knowledge to produce the greatest benefit possible in the long term and for the greater whole.

 

TESTIMONY is the relating or telling of the First Hand, Eye-Witness account an individual has experienced.

 

WITNESS is an individual who has First Hand, actual experience regarding a matter that is set before the people for examination and inquiry.

 

GOD is that force or intelligence that knows all things, has power over all things, and created all things.  [END DEFNITION] [No, really that is the END of the definition.  Don’t add anything more to it than that. We’ll talk about why.]

Monday, December 28, 2015

ENTRY 45 CUSTOMS OF OTHER RELIGIONS




Is it acceptable to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and participate in worship services and sacrament meetings outside the halls of an LDS church or on a day other than Sunday? 

An apostle of the LDS Church, Elder Quinten L. Cook related a story in the October 2015 General Conference in which he and his wife participated in the customs and traditions of another religion.  He demonstrates by his example that it is acceptable for members of the church to participate in such services.  Here is his account:

“The early Christian Church changed observance of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday to commemorate the Lord’s Resurrection. Other basic sacred purposes of the Sabbath remained unchanged. For Jews and Christians, the Sabbath symbolizes the mighty works of God.20

My wife and I, and two of my colleagues and their wives, recently participated in a Jewish Shabbat (Sabbath) at the invitation of a dear friend, Robert Abrams and his wife, Diane, in their New York home.21 It commenced at the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath on a Friday evening. The focus was honoring God as the Creator. It began by blessing the family and singing a Sabbath hymn.22 We joined in the ceremonial washing of hands, the blessing of the bread, the prayers, the kosher meal, the recitation of scripture, and singing Sabbath songs in a celebratory mood. We listened to the Hebrew words, following along with English translations. The most poignant scriptures read from the Old Testament, which are also dear to us, were from Isaiah, declaring the Sabbath a delight,23 and from Ezekiel, that the Sabbath “shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God.”24

The overwhelming impression from this wonderful evening was of family love, devotion, and accountability to God. As I thought about this event, I reflected on the extreme persecution that the Jews have experienced over centuries. Clearly, honoring the Sabbath has been “a perpetual covenant,” preserving and blessing the Jewish people in fulfillment of scripture.25 It has also contributed to the extraordinary family life and happiness that are evident in the lives of many Jewish people.26

For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, honoring the Sabbath is a form of righteousness that will bless and strengthen families, connect us with our Creator, and increase happiness. The Sabbath can help separate us from that which is frivolous, inappropriate, or immoral. It allows us to be in the world but not of the world.” (Quentin L. Cook, October 2015 General Conference)

 
Here are some points to consider regarding his story and example:

This was a ceremony for the Sabbath which occurred on a Friday rather than on a Sunday, indicating that the particular day of the week is not necessarily a critical element.  The chosen day may have and probably should have a significant meaning to the participants.  However, we see that someone who normally observes the Sabbath on a Sunday, may participate in Sabbath observance on a different day.

The Jewish and Christian religious systems of beliefs do share some similar history and theology.  For example, both believe in a God who is Just and Merciful.  Also both believe in some common scriptures.  The Old Testament and the Torah share a common literary ancestor.

However, they are also decidedly divided on some key points that would be considered uncompromising issues for both parties.  For example, traditional Jewish belief would not consider Jesus Christ to be the Savior of the world.  Yet this is the key tenant of the Christian beliefs. 

The Jewish Sabbath custom includes the preparation of two loaves of bread representing the double manna that God would provide on the day before the Sabbath so that the people of Moses would not have to work and collect manna on the Sabbath.  Wine is always served alongside the bread. Elder Cook who is Mormon would certainly be unable to partake of the wine. This would be a contrast made obvious to both the host family and the guests at this particular occasion.

Yet, these two very different religious parties can welcome one another into each other’s services and ceremonies with participation for the purpose of putting aside differences and allowing the other to approach God in the manner most meaningful to that individual.  They can do this while side by side with other seekers of God who may not view the ritual with the same understandings.  For example, Elder Cook as a participant would be acknowledging the offered prayers made by the host to God, yet these prayers would not be conducted in the name of Jesus.  Likewise, he would be partaking of the Jewish bread which to the Jewish family would have the same reverence that his own sacramental bread would have to him if he were at one of his regular LDS services.  Yet he would not have partaken of the wine, demonstrating that both he and the host family were willing to make allowances for the other’s differing views.  The Jewish family did not see Elder Cook as an unworthy participant despite his lack of full acceptance of both their religious beliefs or of their own sacred ordinances.  And Elder Cook did not see the Jewish family as unworthy priests despite their administration of holy ordinances that did not correspond fully with his own religious practices. 

No one need be excluded based on their different approach to God.  Oaths of loyalty to an organization need not be attached to the symbolic ceremonies as prequalifying factors.  Rather the ceremonies are intended to turn ones heart to inner reflection and toward our relationship with God while allowing others freedom to do the same.  Each may do this in a manner most acceptable to an individual’s conscientious effort to approach God.  We may accept the sincerity of others as genuine and by doing so, we are allowed the same courtesy by them.

Finally notice the conclusion which Elder Cook derived from his experience.  He remembered the centuries of Jewish persecution and noted that this practice by the Jewish people was a “covenant” acceptable to God on their behalf and a “fulfillment of scripture”.  This is curious as we understand that Elder Cook being a Mormon apostle would view covenant making with God as only valid if the covenant is made under the correct authority.  Cook’s acknowledgement that they were blessed by God for their manner of sacramental-type observance on the Sabbath is an admission that the Jewish people had permission from God to do such things.  In other words, they had authority from God to do such things, elsewise God would not have blessed them for it. 

This is not inconsistent with Elder Cook’s teachings nor with the scriptures ascribed to the LDS Church.  A careful review of the LDS scriptures does indeed reveal that true authority can only be received directly from God to any one particular individual.  The reception of that authority may come to an individual within a specific church, such as was the case for Alma the younger for example.  Or the authority may come to an individual from without the church, such was the case for Samuel the Lamanite for another example.  In other words, the authority to perform ordinances and observances comes directly from the source who is God. 

The Jewish people would not have been blessed by God if they did not have God’s permission or authority to repeat such behavior on the Sabbath.  God is the source of all things and may provide to whomsoever God chooses.  This of course is self-evident.  The permission to perform such things comes from God and is not necessarily limited to one particular organization.  God can bless individuals who turn to God through the observances which they find most meaningful to them as they reach out to God.  Elder Cook provides this by his example and conclusions as he participates in a Jewish observance that would be the equivalent to a Christian Sacrament (equivalent in terms of the depth and sacredness by which they, the Jewish family would have viewed the service).  Elder Cook shows that LDS members may participate in holy ordinances outside of the LDS organization if both the participant and the host find edification and union through the experience.  It would certainly be fair and only make sense, if others were allowed the same courtesy to participate in LDS ceremonies without necessarily embracing the full LDS religion or necessarily having to agree with everything espoused by the LDS religion.

Elder Cook noted “The Sabbath can help separate us from that which is frivolous, inappropriate, or immoral”.  The example he provided was a Jewish Sabbath as an example for the LDS people.  In other words, he found nothing “inappropriate” in their practice nor anything “immoral” in participating in their rituals.  Elder Cook found joyful meaning in his participation in a Jewish Service.  I agree whole heartedly with his example.  It is a “wonderful” way to reach out to others who believe differently and act differently.  It is a way to bridge the gaps by placing ourselves in their world view for a moment and considering the merits of their approach to the divine.  What can we learn from them? 
 
What a humble approach to religion.  I am grateful for Elder Cook’s example in this thing.