bobandlogan.blogspot.com

The problem is that philosophy has, the past few centuries, tended to look at truth in terms of fully determined propositions. If you move away from that rather limited perspective then I think the use of “truth” in the LDS faith makes far more sense. I mentioned Peirce, who’s philosophy intrinsically involves levels of indeterminacy. But one could just as easily turn to many other philosophers.

If there is a problem with “truth” it is because we have lost “truth” and replaced it with merely the “true.”

Aware of the accepted meaning of this phrase, those desiring to base their testimony on something like “firm principles” avoid the typical formulation.

I expected “Truth” would attract more discussion. Maybe everyone is out standing in line for Return of the King.

Churches aren’t true, only statements about churches are or can be true. To say “the Church is true” makes as much sense as saying the weather is true or the chair I’m sitting on is true.

I think the group testimony meeting usage of “I know the Church is true” is really people making the assertion “I am true to the Church,” which is a statement of commitment and loyalty. No problem with that.

Except that loyalty to organizations often requires a degree of untruthfulness. Sometimes being “true” or loyal to an organization requires a degree of untruthfulness: selling a product, electing a candidate, even proselyting for one’s denomination. It’s the tension between true = loyal and true = truthful that makes Mormon use of the word “true” problematic.

LDS leadership, the beneficiaries of institutional loyalty, place a lot of emphasis on loyalty (have you noticed?). Being true (= loyal, speaking in view of the interests of the organization rather than by any independent consideration of the truthfulness of one’s statements) seems to become rather more important than being truthful. That appears to be the yardstick that is being applied in excommunicating intellectuals and chasing professors out of BYU these days, a practice that has really only gained momentum in the last ten or fifteen years. I find the practice troubling, although few other Mormons seem to share my concern.

Dave said something I want to focus on though. “Churches aren’t true, only statements about churches are or can be true.” This seems quite difficult to assert. Consider the following rather common English sentences:

“He was a true friend.” “He was true to his vows.” “Stand fast and true.”

Those are ones still in the common venacular. If we move to venacular that has become more uncommon, such as the truing of wheels, then we see the sense of truth can be quite wider. Given its religious use I personally believe that these earlier but more uncommon uses have been preserved in church. However they can also be found in the connotation of truth still popular where it means upright, faithful, and loyal.

This isn’t really an issue of what we mean by truth in a testimony. Rather it is a simple semantic point regarding truth. Most complaints about testimonies I’ve heard really are focused on the semantic issue rather than deeper philosophical ones.

Maybe I’ve been reading too little into people’s testimonies, but my guess is that you’ve been reading too much.

There’s hardly a more important question to church members than whether the church is what it claims to be: God’s only church and the sole conduit to heaven. Because 99% of the world rejects this claim, it is natural for members to affirm to one another that, despite the contrary views of the world, they believe the church is what it claims to be. The short hand expression for this thought is, “I know the church is true.”

To avoid being misunderstood by their listeners, those trying to express a more nuanced statement about the truth of the church should avoid this formulation.

As for loyalty, it seems to me that loyalt has to be an integral part of believing we are led by a modern prophet and apostles. It seems we can’t be very truthful to the claims our church makes without being true in a loyalty sense. Just look at the many who fell away from the church who were at one point key figures in the restoration, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, etc. They lost out on blessings because they could not remain true. The Church did not leave them, they left the church. Why. Because the Church was led at the time they left by God’s chosen spokesman. If we honestly believe we are led by prophets and apostles who hold the keys of God’s kingdom on earth, then in order to be truthful (i.e. honest) we must be true (i.e. loyal).

I don’t have time to say much to it, but perhaps I’ll write up something a tad more substantial on my own web site. Please understand, I’m not disagreeing with what you are claiming is entailed by the sentence. I am saying that it entails far more, however.

I’ll watch for more extended comments on your web site, but it seems like a fairly straightforward inquiry. It’s the kind of question that can easily be overanalyzed.

Two different contexts. First, I think when people are speaking one-on-one they are generally using “the Church is true” as Matt describes it, as shorthand for “I accept and affirm every claim the Church makes.” I think we all have a fair understanding of what that usage is intending to convey substantively. Even so, that blanket affirmation is also a statement of trust. The speaker is acting as a character witness for the Church (or those speaking on its behalf) at least as much as the speaker is affirming specific propositions.

Second context: When a Mormon makes that statement in front of a meeting, the trust and commitment component is stronger and the substantive component is weaker or irrelevant. That’s okay–it’s a religious service, not a graduate seminar. It’s designed for people to show their faith, draw faith from others, and build commitment and conviction. Other denominations have similar devices (Catholics and high-church Protestants march up publicly to partake of their sacrament emblems, while other Protestants and fundamentalists have their own “me too” rituals).

I admit your twist on a “true Church” is clever, and it resembles the idea of measuring used elsewhere. Two that I can think of are the plumb line metaphor used in Amos 7:7 and the famous writing on the wall in Daniel 5 which declared that the king had been weighed in the scales and found wanting. Great Sunday School lesson material, but I don’t think people are actually using the term that way in relation to their opinion of the Church.

Now leaders might use that term as applied to wayward members who are not being “true” as you suggested, meaning upright, faithful, or loyal. That’s where I find the use of the term “true” confusing or even misleading; better to stick with the terms upright or loyal if that is what’s being addressed.