ENTRY 51 BELIEF VERSUS TRUTH

                                          THE HEAVY WEIGHT BATTLE FOR FAITH: 

                                     BELIEF VERSUS TRUTH

We want to know what is true. We need to know what is really real. It is matter of survival and can make the difference between life and death.

There are certain aspects about the Universe which we cannot change as much as we would like to. Gravity is one of those aspects. I would like to be able to fly, but jumping off the Empire State Building with nothing more than a really strong belief that I can fly will only result in my death on the sidewalk below. However, knowledge about additional aspects of the universe will enable someone to construct a tool that allows us to fly up to 37000 feet off the ground and travel to New York in about three hours. Additional knowledge would allow someone else to build a similar but different tool that would be able to escape the pull of Earth’s gravity entirely and fly to some distant planet. So, consider the power of Truth versus Belief. Pixy dust and wishing on a star will get you killed, but well thought out science and sound engineering will get you safely to heights only previously dreamed about. Both methods represent an approach to testing a belief system. One is wishful thinking and the other is knowledge. Both are beliefs but which of these beliefs can be said to be true?

This isn’t a battle between science and religion. This is a discussion about Truth versus Belief. Is Faith in God something built on truth? Or is Faith in God something built on Belief?

Faith is something that needs to be built on truth. Truth is a rock to build a foundation upon. Faith built on belief is a faith built on the possibility of falsehoods and therefore it is built on a foundation of sand.

Does God care more about what you believe or does God care more about what is true?

When people talk about Faith, I hear them using the word in a context that often means Belief, not always, but often. There are plenty of scripture references that use the term Faith in a manner that means Belief. Sermons talk about the necessity of Believing in the face of opposition. High School graduation ceremonies are conducted with speeches about standing up for what you believe. Movies portray the hero and heroine overcoming trials by believing in themselves. There are philosophies that describe the power of positive thinking and bringing into reality the desires of your heart by the power of your belief. Our culture is enamored with this thing called Belief.

The idea that Belief is a virtue is a mistake and if you can give me a few minutes of your time, I’d like to explain why God does not care about your confidence in your beliefs, rather God cares more about your motivation and desire to understand Truth. Understanding the difference has a direct correlation to Faith.

First, as we try to unravel the knots of our cultural upbringing, some definitions of terms need to be clarified. One of the challenges in determining what is true is that the definitions people use are often different for different people. This is the case even if people share the same language. An agreement on definitions is going to get us a long way down the path to a common understanding. As you read this article, please keep in mind that when I use the following words, I am using them with these definitions (presented in non-alphabetical order):

TRUTH = The way things really are

BELIEF = That which we think is true, but not necessarily true

EVIDENCE = Information indicating whether a belief is valid

KNOWLEDGE = A belief proven to be true

DECEPTION = That which is not according to reality but seems to be real

LIE = A deception presented deliberately

WISDOM = Knowledge used in a practical manner for the benefit of the greater whole

UNIVERSE = All things in existence

GOD = The force or intelligence that created all things, has knowledge of all things and has power over all things

FAITH = The attitude or motivation to know God’s will and act accordingly

These are the definitions and these are the limits of the definitions. I recognize that there is a host of additions that have been attached to these words and we can argue for hours and hours about the actual meanings of these words. In a different context, those different definitions may have important nuances to increase our understanding about other topics. For today’s purposes, I am going to limit myself to these definitions and I hope that will make the distinction between belief and truth more apparent to anyone who may read this.

Another example, this time from my childhood. I used to watch more than my fair share of television. As a very young child I was impressed by a Snicker Candy Bar commercial that frequently played on TV. In the commercial, someone was enjoying eating their Snicker Bars and explaining how it gets them through the day. In the background a narrator extolled the virtues of this heavenly snack while a choir that sounded like angels sang “Snickers satisfies youuuu!” One of the sequences in the commercial showed a hand, holding peanuts. The hand closed over the peanuts and opened again revealing another Snickers bar ready for consumption.

This commercial made a strong impression on me. “What if?!!” What if I could conjure up a Snickers Bar? Determined to try, I looked for a handful of peanuts. The only source I had available at the time was a Salted Peanut Roll bar. Which was perfect because I really enjoyed eating those too. So I picked all the peanuts off the surface of the roll and ate the candy bar minus the nuts. Then armed with all the remaining peanuts and a strong belief in miracles, I hid myself in the basement and engaged in a battle of belief versus truth. I may have begun with a prayer, but I distinctly recall holding the peanuts in one hand and closing my eyes and willing them to transform into a Snickers Bar. The first attempt proved to be inconclusive when I opened my eyes and still held a handful of peanuts and no candy bar. Perhaps I didn’t have a strong enough desire or belief. Perhaps it was because I was working by a faulty premise. Maybe it was a mistake to employ the use of Salted Peanut Roll Peanuts in an attempt to create a genuine Snickers Bar. Maybe it was the wrong kind of nuts. I put all of the doubts aside and began again, giving more energy to the effort of imagining the Snickers Bar in my hand.

I will spare you a long story and just skip to the end. The peanuts did not transform into a Snickers bar that day. However, over the years I have discovered how to transform a dollar bill into a Snickers bar. If you would like to know how, send me a message in the comment section below and I’ll share with you how this is accomplished. For now, I just want to point out that choosing one methodology over another one does make a difference.

I suppose in retrospect, you really can’t blame a little kid for trying. Every week I went to Sunday School and learned about Jesus transforming water into wine, healing the blind and raising the dead. All by his spoken word. As it was explained to me, it is our belief in Jesus that brings the miracles into our lives. That is what faith is you see, “The assurance of things which are true, the evidence of which is not yet seen.” In other words, faith is belief supported by a really strong conviction. This is how most theologies use the words faith and belief. Unfortunately, this definition and application of the words has created an incredible error. Faith is really not the same thing as Belief. And Belief is really not the same thing as Truth. Errors in theology grow exponentially the more these words get confused.

Here’s why…

God created everything and therefore God set the laws by which the universe operates. So if it is a fact about the universe then it is an aspect of the universe set in motion by God. Which means if it is true about the world we live in, it is true because God made it so. This means that God not only has an invested interest in Truth, actually God is Truth itself. God is that which generates Truth. If we have any hope or desire to connect with God, we ourselves must have a complete desire for truth. We must seek out truth and never ignore it. We must not cling to falsehoods. As soon as a falsehood within us is revealed, we must quickly discard it and replace it with truth.

Belief on the other hand, is that which we think is true from our perspective. Nevertheless, a Belief is not necessarily true. A different perspective often expands our view and opens our understanding to reveal that what was previously a convincing belief is not actually what it once appeared to be. Therefore, any belief must always be held in humility. That is to say, we must have the humility to recognize that our beliefs might be in error.

And so what is Faith? Faith is having a desire to transition from a mere belief in God to having an actual and true knowledge of God. Faith is acting upon the knowledge of things which we currently know to be true.   When you act upon that which you know to be true, that is pleasing to God. God is truth after all, so aligning yourself with truth only means that you are aligning yourself with God. Faith is an internal motivation to know and do the will of God.

Faith is not belief because belief can be mistaken. You cannot please God standing up for your beliefs because such an act is an act of pride. In the “standing up for your beliefs”, you are demonstrating that you think you have perfect understanding and have no more need to be taught nor to repent. Therefore it demonstrates a lack of faith because it lacks a willingness to learn truth.

However, being quick to listen to opposing views and ability to consider and reconsider one’s own system of beliefs is a sign of humility. This demonstrates the willingness and capacity to learn new truths as these may present themselves. Embracing new truths is the heart of repentance. That’s why faith is not belief. Faith is acting upon that which we know to be God’s will. Faith is living life according to facts. In short, Faith is accepting God’s Will. If God’s will happens to include the miraculous gifts that we requested in prayer, then Halleluiah! But what if God’s will does not include that requested blessing? Be it according to thy will Oh Lord, for thy wisdom exceedeth all. Accepting the Will of God in good times and in bad is Faith.

Facts are verifiable truths describing the world and the universe. These are made known by the evidences we find in the framework which God established. Human beings observe and experience the world around them and draw conclusions in attempt to understand the universal laws of God. Facts are those things which are established by God.  Facts are a description of the universe according to how God designed it.  So too are universal laws.  These laws of God are unchangeable and these are laws which man could not break even if he tried. Universal laws are the universe as God has made it to be. Searching for facts increases a man's awareness of the world as God created it. Knowing and living in harmony with universal laws gives man an increased capacity to act with wisdom.

Once again, Gravity is the example. The law of gravity cannot be broken. Airplanes do not break the law of gravity. Airplanes make use of other laws like the laws of fluid dynamics, the laws of opposing forces, and the laws of heat energy exchange in conjunction with the law of gravity to produce an effect that appears to break the law of gravity but actually works with the law of gravity. Knowing the laws of God gives man an increased capacity to act in the universe. Ignorance of those laws only results in breaking yourself against the facts. Why risk the perpetuation of ignorance by insisting that your belief is the causal factor of God’s pleasure when it is abundantly evident in the natural world around you that God is a factual God, a God of truth and the universal laws of nature don’t care if you believe or not? Your capacity to survive life and your capacity to please God are only conditional on your willingness to accept truth. The laws of the universe honor the individual who lives by those laws by allowing the individual to continue on in life.

Faith is not and cannot be a measurement of Belief. As we have discussed, your belief means nothing ultimately if it is not a belief in that which is true. Truth means everything. So faith is only a measurement of your willingness to accept truth as it is presented to you.

Defining Faith as believing in something without evidence is one of the most deceived positions you can accept. Believing without evidence is the essence of saying you have no valid information to back up your postulation. It is declaring that you have no reasonable way to demonstrate the accuracy of your assertions. It is the open declaration that you are willing to accept deception at all costs in order to maintain that which you believe.  Remember that it is written "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).  This does not exclude all evidence, but merely the evidence of sight.  An "assurance" implies that evidence of some type has indeed been given, even if it is the evidence of a still small voice or the evidence of a heart filled with light.  These may provide the beginning of the search for sure knowledge and though it may be small in degree compared to a visible confirmation, it is still an evidence.  Nevertheless, acting on that assurance is still different than acting on a belief.

This is difficult to recognize in one’s own self, but abundantly easy to see in others. For example, imagine you have a friend who is participating in a religion you are absolutely certain is a false cult that will ultimately lead to their ruin. You want to save this friend. How do you approach them and how would you expect them to respond? You would approach them by respectfully and kindly laying out the facts, both the good and bad of the situation. And they would respond by carefully considering everything that you told them. They would study it out. They would pray about it. They would do some follow up investigation and they would be doing this while recognizing all along that the things they are studying and considering are in complete and total opposition to the teachings of the cult. When they perceived the reality of what you had warned them about, they would begin to make changes. They would repent. It might take some time, but they would make every effort to weed out the falsehoods and embrace the good truths that you shared with them.

Now imagine you are that friend in the cult? If you happened to be trapped in such a situation, how would you ever get yourself out of it if you were so confident in your beliefs that it wouldn’t allow you to even question the system of beliefs itself? You couldn’t escape the faulty religion because doubting the belief system is portrayed as the sin itself! If you can’t give yourself the freedom to reconsider what you think you know then you can never allow a message of repentance to take hold within your heart. That is why Belief is NOT the basis of Faith!
  
Are you going to let others create a list of rules for you to live by, what you can eat, what you can read, who you can associate with all based on a myth? The thought is unthinkable, which means you should have a compelling love for truth and you should have a high motivation for increasing your capacity to discern what is real. You should be able to explain why you believe what you believe and give plausible reasons for it. And you should be able to leave the door of belief unlocked and allow new evidence in at any time to allow yourself the freedom to change whenever new information is received.

Keep in mind that none of this discounts the marvelous gifts of God. None of this excludes the spiritual insights or promptings that religious people seek for and attempt to follow. There are experiences which many people have had which they can only attribute to a power outside the natural world. When these accounts are related to us in a first hand, eye witness setting, we have an opportunity to consider one of the most compelling evidences of an all knowing, all powerful intelligence that just might have a desire and motivation to interact with human beings.

The most compelling form of evidence that may validate the idea that the force that created all things, has knowledge of all things and has power over all things has taken on the express form of a being that we can relate to on a human level is the eye witness accounts. There are miraculous experiences that people of all religions report about. A google search using the words, “God healed me” will provide dozens of video testimony accounts of people who prayed to God and received sudden relief from physical pain. Notice their religious affiliations are multiple and various. They are Catholic, they are Protestant, they are Baptist, they are Seventh Day Adventist, they are Jehovah’s Witness, they are Mormon, they are Jewish, they are Islamic, they are Hindu, and they are Buddhist, and so on. God answered their prayers. They have submitted their witness statements to the world. So we have an abundance of evidence in the form of witness statements that God answers prayers irrespective of religious affiliation.

Well that challenges some claims doesn’t it? There are those who claim to be the only authority of God on earth and yet here is God going about the world impudently healing people without getting permission from those men who sit in their red seats of authority. Maybe God answers prayers not because of their religions but despite their religions.

And try google searching “I saw God” and you will find additional witness statements of people who have had some kind of experience with the divine. Granted some are not so credible. Nevertheless, some are reasonable enough accounts for us to stop and consider just how accessible is that force which governs all things? Once again, is that universal force or intelligence accessible by our beliefs? Or is it accessible by our willingness to accept truth?

Well that is the conclusion of this essay. God is accessible by our willingness to accept truth.
Please note, I did not spend any amount of time in discussing how to recognize truth nor how to deal with the challenge of confronting contradictory evidences and so on.  Though I had intended to do exactly that, I am discovering the complexity of the topic will take more effort than a short essay such as this.  I hope to be able to provide a presentation on how to determine what is true at a later date.  For now, this essay is laying the foundation for such a discussion.  Also, I avoided selecting examples that are at the forefront of our religious debates. We can pick those subjects up at a different time. But I did not want the main point to get sidetracked on hot button issues. I am well aware of the many scriptures that directly link faith and belief.  You may quote them anew and I will reconsider my position anew if it appears to be warranted.  At this time, in my mind, such scriptures do not contradict what I have laid out here.  I find the case for a God of Truth much more compelling than the case for a God of Belief. In fact, as I read many of those scripture references, I see a context that is much more supportive for such a God. Which is exactly why I have written this essay. Nevertheless, if you have a more compelling case to make and you can change my mind, I would consider myself indebted to you for increasing my understanding.

For now, my only hope is that if you were able to make it to the end of this essay, that the conclusions you will walk away with are the following:

God is a God of truth.

We please God by our acceptance of truth.

Belief is not necessarily truth.

Faith is not belief.

Faith is our desire to do the will of God.

Faith is exercised by actually doing what we know we should be doing right now.

The result is that we ought to be slow to declare that we KNOW anything and we ought to be willing to listen openly to differing viewpoints, ever ready to accept new understanding from any source that may teach us a little something more about truth.

ENTRY 50 ARE WE BLESSED OR CURSED?

Did God accept the Nauvoo temple as an acceptable fulfillment of his commandments by our Fathers?  In Doctrine and Covenants 124, there is a promise from God if they fulfilled the commandment on God's terms.  There is also a warning of the conditions to follow if they did not fulfill His commandments.  Which case occurred?  Which inheritance did we receive from our fathers?

"If the congregation will give me their attention, I will detain them but a short time. Our history is too well known to render it necessary for me to enter into particulars on the subject this morning. Suffice it to say, to this congregation, that we shall attempt to build a temple to the name of our God. This has been attempted several times, but we have never yet had the privilege of completing and enjoying one. Perhaps we may in this place, but if, in the providence of God, we should not, it is all the same."
(Brigham Young, J of D 1:277
Feb. 14, 1853.)

ENTRY 49 WAKING UP

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!

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.]

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.     

ENTRY 44 COUNSEL FROM ELDER BEDNARD

"Brothers and sisters, share the gospel with genuine love and concern for others. Be courageous and bold but not overbearing in sustaining and defending our beliefs, and avoid contention. As disciples our purpose should be to use social media channels as a means of projecting the light and truth of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ into a world that increasingly is dark and confused."

ELDER BEDNARD AUGUST 2014

This is why I have written the entries that I post to this blog site.  It is an opportunity to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to my family and friends.  It is a forum that eliminates contention by providing a place where anyone can consider these entries if they like or simply ignore them if they are not interested.  I welcome everyone's feedback and responses and I am willing to consider your words and reflect on the truthfulness of the ideas that you present.  I hope you will do the same for me.