Remember in the movie The Matrix when Thomas Anderson (Neo)
is going about his daily life and begins to discover glitches in the world
around him. Slowly he begins to
recognize something isn’t right and the closer he looks into it, the more he
finds that the world he believed was “real” was in fact nothing more than a
program. At one point, he is offered the
Red Pill which if he takes, he will wake up from the programming and see the
world for what it is. Or he could go
back to sleep in the dream world which is depicted as our own modern life if he
will take the blue pill. So he is given
an invitation and of course what did he do?
What you do? What would I
do? We’d do what Neo did and take the
Red Pill! Because we want to have a
correct understanding of the world around us.
Wouldn’t everyone?
Well shockingly and to my dismay, I am finding that most people do not
want to increase their understanding of the world around them. They want to keep the delusion going. They want to stay warm and comfortable in
their dream land.
How am I coming to the conclusion that most do not want to
wake up? Because they are unwilling to
engage in meaningful discussions with a genuine attempt to understand
viewpoints that are presented which are contradictory to their own. Let’s say someone believes that “X is True”; how
would that someone act if they actually had an internal motivation to learn about
True things? They would welcome and invite contradictory viewpoints. They would say to everyone, “I am really
confident that X is True. Oh you think I
am wrong, okay let’s talk about it. Let’s
use Reasoning. Let’s examine the Evidence.
Let’s put it to the Test. I am willing to discuss this as long as you would
like because I am so sure in this concept that I know you will find it as
compelling as I do. However! If you bring to me more compelling Reasoning
and stronger Evidence. And my “X” fails
the test, then I will adopt your “Y”.
And I will thank you for it because you have increased my understanding
and expounded my view. I would be indebted
to you for that.” That’s how people who
are sincerely interested in learning about Truth approach it. But that isn’t how most people approach
things. Instead, they coddle their world
view and protect it. They act
defensively. They get angry. If you can even get them to discuss it with
you at all, they use Logical Fallacies to distract others away from the real
issue. Instead of examining X, they
attack the person who wanted to test X
(Ad Hominin attack). Or they
misrepresent X to such an extreme position that of course it appears false
(Straw Man argument). Or just as the results are beginning to demonstrate that
X is indeed false, they change the definition of X to represent something else
(Begging the Question or Moving the Target).
In my limited circle of family, friends and associates, the one fallacy
I observe most commonly is the “Appeal to Authority”. X is something that someone official and bonafide
said therefore it must be true. When I am dealing with someone who uses defensiveness, personal attacks, and strange emotional overreactions, that’s when I suspect I am talking with someone who cares nothing for Truth but is only interested in maintaining their own world view. Yet when
people are willing to engage in thoughtful, meaningful discussions that’s when
I suspect I am interacting with someone who at the heart is interested in
finding Truth.
Let that Truth come at whatever consequence, just let it be
the Truth.
And so I have begun to notice glitches in my world
view. The walls are beginning to develop
cracks and I am beginning to see beyond the wall to a much wider view. And for me that world that encased me was
Mormonism. I admit that I failed to live
Mormonism as a Mormon should. I made for
a miserable Latter-day Saint, but I really BELIEVED it, all of it. And sincerely I believed it as it was
presented to me. But some of those pesky
glitches made me take a second look. So there is the ammo for those who want to engage in the ad hominine fallacy. They will tell me that "I didn't line up with commandments. I didn't try hard enough. I didn't do it right." Sincerely I tried. In fact I am still trying to live Mormonism the way I really believe it is meant to be lived. Nevertheless, wanting
to know the truth, the way things “really” are, I didn’t turn away from history
or contradictory viewpoints, or counter arguments. And one night, while studying another Mormon
Believer’s essay on scriptures, I came across a concept I had never encountered
before. What if the Book of Mormon was
written for the Latter Day church? In
other words, when the book of Mormon is talking about those of the Latter Days
polluting the church of God with fine linen, gold and harlots…it was NOT referring
to some other church…it was really pointing at the church that was given the
book itself. In other words, it was
talking about us! The more I thought
about this, the more I searched the Book of Mormon, the more I realized, “Hey
yeah! This is referring to the church
that actually publishes the Book itself.”
35 Behold, I
speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus
Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.
36 And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts;
and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride
of their hearts, unto the wearing of
very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions,
and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become
polluted because of the pride of your hearts.
37 For behold, ye do love money, and your substance,
and your fine apparel, and the adorning
of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and
the afflicted.
38 O ye pollutions, ye
hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why
have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you
the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless
happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the
world?
39 Why do ye adorn
yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and
the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not?
40 Yea, why do ye build up your secret abominations to get gain,
and cause that widows should mourn
before the Lord, and also orphans to
mourn before the Lord, and also the blood of their fathers and their
husbands to cry unto the Lord from the ground, for vengeance upon your heads?
41 Behold, the sword of
vengeance hangeth over you; and the time soon cometh that he avengeth the blood
of the saints upon you, for he will not suffer their cries any longer.
It’s our church he is talking to. It’s us. The Book of Mormon is very succinct on that point. It isn't referring to "those others" such as the Catholics or Protestants or the Agnostic or the Athiest. It is speaking directly to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Incorporated.
And it is speaking to me, I have been a part of it all.
Who could be more prideful than those who believe they are “THE ONE TRUE
CHURCH”. Of all the billions of people,
through all the generations of time.
This people who amount to less than .0001% of all the people of the
world, is the only ONE TRUE PEOPLE who have AUTHORITY from GOD? And they control all who can get into heaven
by their ordinances. HUBRIS! PRIDE!
VANITY! OKAY, OKAY, let’s say it IS that
one and only true church….what would God want us to do with it? Build an $8 billion dollar shopping mall at
the doorstep of the temple? Become the
largest land developer in the state of Florida?
Ignore the poor and needy among us as we lift men up to the status of
kings and place them on red velvet thrones and fully support them financially
to fund their business prospects as the CEO’s and Board of Trustees of for-profit
businesses? How about mind controlling
children by getting them to recite the same incantation every month? Why are we programming them to be little
robots: “I know this church is true. I
know that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet
of God. I love my family. Name of Jesus Christ. Amen.” What does a little child “KNOW” about
anything? How about teaching them to be
inquisitive and humble and reasonable and thoughtful which children are naturally
anyway. Instead of flattering them that
they are God’s chosen people and coercing them through mind numbing ryhthms of songs like "Follow the Prophet! Follow the Prophet! He knows the way!" Or how prideful can a group of people be who say those others aren’t worthy because they were born
black and don’t deserve the priesthood.
What’s with the idea that an Alpha Dog prophet can take as many wives as
he wants and that includes the wives of other men? Why are the temple rituals including the
taking of oaths before “God, Angels and These Witnesses” when the scriptures
forbid swearing by the throne of God? Why are these oaths being administered with
penalties of death when the scriptures say “Thou shalt not swear by thy head.”?
That’s what God would want with his one
and only True Church? That’s the Truth? “Oh but we fixed that now. That’s why we have living prophets that can
never lead us astray” Really? The
living prophet of yesteryear didn’t lead our grandparent’s astray? Yet the prophet of today is contradicting
that one? That’s a foundation of Truth? Right in the very scriptures that Mormons declare is from God, we find the warnings repeatedly that Men, including those titled prophet did, can and do lead people astray. The scriptures themselves warn of these things. All of these things are explicitly warned about in the very books the people say they believe are true. Yet they do not see it.
I began to wake up.
Once I saw it, I could never un-see it.
In a way, it doesn’t even matter if Joseph translated gold plates or completely
made up the Book of Mormon. Reading the Book
of Mormon and comparing the LDS Church to its own Book completely exposes the
falsehoods within the religious structure itself. If the Book of Mormon is a Fiction then the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is False and the leaders of the church have said just that themselves. If the Book of Mormon is True then the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is REALLY FALSE because it completely
contradicts its own scriptures. And that
my friend, is the kind of red pill logic that shatters forty years of mind control
and manipulation of a member who really, truly bought into it all. That is how Neo wakes up.
But having woken up, now what is the real world? What is true?
What is really real? That’s where
you currently find me. I’m
teachable. I’m willing to learn. And I have started with digging down to the
bare bone definitions of words.
Language. I am starting to
realize that people are using words in a way that is completely different than
the common definition of the word. They
do this all the time. They hijack the
word and turn its meaning into something that is more suitable to their
purpose. I won’t give a lot of examples
here because most of my blog is my attempt to show how the original words within
the Mormon religion are actually defined.
Not how most people use them today, but how the Mormon scriptures are
using them. The reason for this is
because it is how I woke up. Looking at
how the word was used in comparison to how it was written. These are different. And the differences matter.
To give you an idea of how far I am willing to go to find “Truth”
(please use whatever definition suits you), I will tell you what I have studied
this year in addition to LDS Church History.
I read the Koran and two other books about Islam from “insiders”, one
apologetics for Islam and the other completely opposed to it after having been
raised in it. I have been studying the
origins of the Bible. I have been
studying Evolution. I have been studying
Atheist reasoning. I have also been
considering the Reincarnation viewpoint as presented by Edgar Cayce. A lot
of what I do is find some documentary on Youtube about one of these topics and
listen to it while I drive to or from work or when I am stuck in some hotel
somewhere with a little time alone to eat a microwave dinner. To truly study anything would require immersion in the culture and no one has time for that. But the point is that nothing is off the
table. It’s open season and everything
is worthy of consideration. Naturally, I
have some theories about each of these and recognize that these are theories
only, nothing conclusive. I enjoy having
my world view challenged. And I am now
of the opinion that only those who won’t allow their world view to be
challenged are those who would rather stay asleep.
And yes, my dear fellow Mormons, I have prayed about. It has been constant prayer and continues to be so.
So we come to the question of defining Truth. As you said, my definition is bordering on
circular reasoning. I recognized it as I
wrote it. It is actually the definition straight out of Doctrine and Covenants. I like it because it is simple and the intent of the definition is not circular in reasoning. Though our approach to it might be.
“Truth is the way things really are, the way things really
were and the way things really will be.”
The circular reasoning trap could be sprung upon us if we try
to define really. What is “really”
anyway? If I turn to the dictionary and find the word “Real”
will it say “Truth”? And if I look at "Truth" will it say to turn to the entry on "Real"?
Real “actually existing as a thing or occurring
in fact; not imagined or supposed”
Truth “in accordance with fact or reality”
Well, there are the two definitions. And somewhat they do in fact point to each
other. In fact, they both point to the word "FACT". Now we're going to have to define "FACT" and we are still right back at the heart of the argument. What is FACT? How do we know if it is actually a "FACT"? What is the test to measure the validity of something called "FACT"?
The goal I hope is that we determine an agreeable
definition, so that we are all speaking the same language. Once we get beyond that, we still haven’t solved the deeper
problem, however are then able to place each other on an equal playing field.
So putting aside the definition game for a moment, let's just start with the assumption that whatever word you want to define TRUTH, FACT, REAL, NOT IMAGINED, NOT SUPPOSED, whatever that might be, lets start with the assumption that you and I are BOTH interested in discovering it. My belief in your sincerity allows me to consider your viewpoint. Your belief in my sincerity allows you to consider my viewpoint. We don't shake our heads at the other and say, "How deluded! How short sided! How Unworthy!" And by "You" in this context, I really do believe that has been your approach. If you have read this far without turning your head in disgust, there is a level of willingness to forgo the "I'm right-Your wrong" in favor of the "What piece did you bring to the puzzle table?"
So, now I'm probably preaching to the choir. Let's move on...
What ideas can we include in the category of Real or Truth?
And I think that is what you are saying…it isn’t so simple and it can’t
be taken for granted that just because I think it is fact today doesn’t mean
that new evidence won’t change my paradigm again tomorrow. How
certain can we be in our defined Truths?
We can’t be certain without risking the complete shut down of our
ability to learn. Once we are sure in
our own “Knowledge”, we begin to use those fallacies that we recognize in
others. We begin to ignore new knowledge
in favor of the warm cocoon of our dream land.
Well, in defining the word, there needed to be some basic
answer. Some word that hasn’t been
hijacked to mean something else. Is
there such a word? Maybe not. As soon as we say that Truth is that which is
fact or reality and then we say that fact/reality is that which is not imagined
or supposed…now we have to solve the question of what is fact? What is not imagined or supposed? It’s ALL IMAGINED and it is ALL SUPPOSED on
some level! And just as soon as we
decide that this thing is a FACT we find out that in another circumstance it is
not a FACT. So then context is a
consideration too…and I know that is another aspect you just pointed out.
So what is the basis of comparison?
Well, the ultimate basis of comparison would be knowledge of
all things. What or who could know all
things? Only that which created all
things and has power over all things. ...Drat!
Now we are talking about God. But
that definition of God is not the religious definition. That definition could be a scientific or
philosophical definition…no really, it could.
Is it electrical energy, gravity, anti-matter, quark string theory (what
did you call it?) Maybe it is. There is SOMETHING that put the universe
together and granted, it looks like whatever that force or intelligence is, it
did it by Evolution on this planet. Evolution is far more believable then the fairytale version of ADAM and EVE. Evolution...That’s still God by
the bare bones definition of God…a force or intelligence that created all
things and has power over all things.
What’s that force? What is
it? Science wisely avoids calling it God
because the word God has been hijacked by hundreds of years of abusive
religions seeking to gain control over people.
Religion turns the word God into a Holy Book or a Holy Man or Holy
Ordinance…religion sells you A God, but they can never give you THE GOD. THE GOD … the force that created all things
and has power over all things….well that’s going to do what it has always done…and
if it (whatever it is) has any interaction at all, its going to be on it’s own
terms. Maybe those terms are not warm
and loving and fatherly. Maybe they are
simply “factual” and do not interact with us on a human level that we can
relate to. I say maybe to acknowledge
that scientific viewpoints have a lot of validity to me and yet I don’t see science
as contradictory to someone maintain a worldview of God at all.
I do have experiences that lead me to believe that there is something
that is greater than human beings that is willing to interact with us on our
level coming from a higher level, that is something we could refer to as "God" or we could refer to it as "The FORCE" or "Einstein's Theory of Everything" or "The Answer was 42, wait, what was the question again?" Fine, call it what you want, but does it have anything to do with me? Does it matter to me? I personally find that it does, despite religions' failures.
And I would hope to say more about why, but that would go beyond the bare bones definition I am trying to
establish for the moment here. Especially as you pointed
out previously, how would I even know that what I was experiencing was the real
God…if that God appeared as a father figure….well, who is his father….and his
father…and his father…because if that God had to answer to another God then
that is no God at all, is it?…because by definition, that God isn’t the
ultimate source of knowledge and power of all things. But something is, whatever it is. Something made all things, because all things
are here. Well if it …whatever it is…is
it willing to interact with us, what would be the cause or reason for the
interaction? What form would it
take? How would I validate the experience? What would I measure it against?
How many layers of waking up like Neo did would you have to go
through to get to the ultimate source of Truth?
How many apparent Gods would you have to shatter to find the one that is
the real McCoy?
Hell, I don’t know!
