How does one know the truth?


Guest mormonmusic
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest mormonmusic

As you might already know, I'm an LDS person.

There have been discussions about the LDS view of determining truth from error. However it's dawned on me that I never learned how non-LDS churches say a truth-seeker should discover the truth. Can anyone share the process of discovering the truth according to your own, non-LDS demonination? If you could indicate your denomination in your post, that would be helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

"it is because they say it is" . . . . that was my Catholic backround.

While I don't doubt this was the conclusion you drew from your experience, I'm not convinced that members of other faiths would say this is the path to knowledge of truth. I suspect it's much deeper and thoughtful than that, and probably based in scripture.

However, I'm not sure what that path is, from their perspective. I'm hoping someone from another faith will provide this perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from a convert I think I would take his word since we now have a two side view, before and after. I felt the same when I was a little child.

I can say at least the Lord ensure we receive enough light in the beginning, not a member of the church, only later to bless us with individuals in finding us and help us to the light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My affiliation is with the Assemblies of God. Determining truth from error could be done in any combination of the following:

1. Prayful scripture study

2. Enquire of teachers and pastors

3. Discuss in a small group meeting (many churches now encourage small study groups to meet in homes for weekly or bimonthly prayer, study, testimony time).

4. For common theological controversies, the General Council has published around 30 "Position Papers." While these are not equivalent in authority to scripture, they do offer our most thoughtful understanding on an issue.

5. Wait on the Lord. Sometimes the answer is not immediately available.

I suppose what is different is that your church claims sole priesthood authority, and to have living prophets. So, critics find your historic writings (such as the JoD) to be fotter for apparent racism and general harshness. While some of our early pioneers had similar attitudes, they never claimed to be prophets, and taught the priesthood of all believers, with authority simply in the name of Jesus, rather than in a church government.

None of that makes all the criticism fair. Then again, for critics, objectivity isn't really the purpose. Now, if I were LDS, where would I go? See if I'm right.

1. LDS.org

2. Mormon.org

3. The BoM/D&C/PoGP/and the Bible

4. FAIR, FARMS, Jeff Lindsey, & LDS.net

5. Just ask Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC, how true...5. "Wait on the Lord. Sometimes the answer is not immediately available." There was something I truly desired to know since my childhood. It finally came two years ago but I was let down on what was given and how it was given. :lol: Though, the answer was simple and easy, but the old saying goes, "any crumbs that fell from the Lord's supper table, I am like a dog running to the crumbs..." ^_^

Thanks for your posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you might already know, I'm an LDS person.

There have been discussions about the LDS view of determining truth from error. However it's dawned on me that I never learned how non-LDS churches say a truth-seeker should discover the truth. Can anyone share the process of discovering the truth according to your own, non-LDS demonination? If you could indicate your denomination in your post, that would be helpful.

I am not a member of a denomination, so perhaps my answer doesn't count, since it is based on personal experience, but I'd say that it happens when you've prayed and studied the scriptures and you have an enlightenment of mind. Suddenly, everything fits and you see things in a new light. I believe that the Bible interprets the Bible, so when you know everything the Bible has to say on a matter, then you know the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jenda, sounds mostly like my #1 & #5, and some affirmation of the LDS reliance on personal spiritual revelation. Yes?

Out of your list, I think that #1 and #5 are key. The others might help guide and define, but the truth has to come from God. I do have to say that I don't believe that reliance on personal spiritual revelation is an LDS thing. I don't believe that anyone can be a true Christian without revelation that Jesus is the Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

My affiliation is with the Assemblies of God. Determining truth from error could be done in any combination of the following:

1. Prayful scripture study

2. Enquire of teachers and pastors

3. Discuss in a small group meeting (many churches now encourage small study groups to meet in homes for weekly or bimonthly prayer, study, testimony time).

4. For common theological controversies, the General Council has published around 30 "Position Papers." While these are not equivalent in authority to scripture, they do offer our most thoughtful understanding on an issue.

5. Wait on the Lord. Sometimes the answer is not immediately available.

Prisonchaplain -- you might not be able to answer this, but do you see patterns in truth-seeker's experiences that convince them they have found the truth in your church?

For example, while taking the LDS missionary lessons many report a spiritual experience -- such as an event involving the Spirit. Of the people I taught as a missionary, many claimed some kind of private experience, ranging from feeling immersed in the Spirit, to having a powerful dream, or to some dramatic improvement in their lives they attribute to their exposure and practice of the principles we taught them. Still others have indicated they have been led to the missionaries and the Church and show up ready for baptism. I've also seen a small subset of people who experience events that onlookers might consider to be 'wild coincidences'; however, the truth-seeker attributes these events as intervention from God due to their attempts to obey the principles we have taught them. Some claim a process happens where they gradually accept the teachings intellectually and spiritually as their questions get answered and the doctrine settles on them.

I was wondering if the people who believe they have found truth in your church report similar experiences, or if there are other/different outcomes from your process above that trigger belief?

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the people I taught as a missionary, many claimed some kind of private experience, ranging from feeling immersed in the Spirit, to having a powerful dream, or to some dramatic improvement in their lives they attribute to their exposure and practice of the principles we taught them. Still others have indicated they have been led to the missionaries and the Church and show up ready for baptism. I've also seen a small subset of people who experience events that onlookers might consider to be 'wild coincidences'; however, the truth-seeker attributes these events as intervention from God due to their attempts to obey the principles we have taught them. Some claim a process happens where they gradually accept the teachings intellectually and spiritually as their questions get answered and the doctrine settles on them.

This is good stuff. I think it is fair to say that these experiences are common throughout the Christian spectrum. Converts from traditions tend to attribute their experience to the whole. Often converts from [insert anyone] to [anything] see themselves as authorities of what they left yet usually have no clue at to what the tradition actually taught. We often ignore that there were gems. Catholics have them, evangelicals have them, LDS have them. I see truth-seeking as a process, not just a "road to Damascas" experience. "Road to damascus" experiences are possible, but I think rare. They just happen too often in too many faiths with too many differences for them all to be "true."

To answer your question: For me, anything that is self-validating is not truth. Examples:

•The Bible validating/interpreting the Bible. Circular, self-validating, false.

•My faith is true because I know my faith is true. Circular, self-validating, false.

It is possible that I am just a "doubting Thomas." But If I am a "doubting Thomas," and I go to look at Christ's hands, there better be holes in them.

Those great "a-ha!" moments, I think, are when we see overlaps of different areas; like when logic validates scripture, history validating scripture, natural law validating church teachings, "feelings" of the Spirit validating doctrine, etc. The more overlap one observes, the more real it is to that person. That is how it was with me, though is was a 20 year long experience.

Edited by theophilus
spell n stuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mormonmusic, when it comes to conversion experiences, the normal pattern is to sense conviction of sin, combined with a sense that God is calling. With repentence comes the tremendous sense of being clean and pure before God. At this point, rather than saying they found truth, they are more likely to say they've found God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

Often converts from [insert anyone] to [anything] ..... usually have no clue at to what the tradition actually taught.

I think that was true in my case; when I was searching in my early twenties, I had a decade of experience in a mainstream Protestant church and two religiously committed parents who took me there every week. I'm not sure if the path to understanding truth was ever explained to me, from their perspective. In fact, I'm not sure if I could even articulate the major principles when I stopped living at home.

I remember asking my minister at the time why Christ was important, and he seemed more disturbed I didn't just believe it, rather than having a clear answer as to why there was a need for a Savior. When I left for university, my experience in that church, and my meetings with the minister left me with only one lasting belief -- and that was a deep testimony that God exists, but no conception of Christ and his place in the overall plan of salvation.

The only thing I remember was how to structure my prayers -- thanksgiving, repentence, intercession (prayer for the needs of others) and then petition, which you ask for things you need personally.

I'm wondering if my willingness to embrace other paths to truth was a result of a lack of clear instruction on how to find it in my church of origin. I'm sure it existed there, but I don't think it was ever transmitted to me while I was a youth.

Theyjust happen too often in too many faiths with too many differences for them all to be "true."

Interesting, this is the same argument for not accepting what the Bible alone says. People understand the same passage of scripture so differently that one starts believing the Bible alone can't be enough; a spiritual witness is necessary. And from an LDS perspective, it's that spiritual witness that points to the truth.

It's as if path-to-truth differences in philosophy are a result of what a person values more; faith in reason or faith in personal spiritual experiences.

To answer your question: For me, anything that is self-validating is not truth. Examples:

•The Bible validating/interpreting the Bible. Circular, self-validating, false.

•My faith is true because I know my faith is true. Circular, self-validating, false.

Anyone who's taken a philosophy course would agree with this, as I do.

At the risk of going off-topic, I have also heard a similar argument that I consider circular.

Faith alone is sufficient for salvation.

Works are not necessary.

However, if a person claims to be saved, but has no good works, they were never saved.

I suspect this isn't a Catholic argument, but one I've heard repeatedly when the Faith-Works question comes up. I'm not sure if anyone can explain why this isn't circular, or how to reconcile it, but at this point, it seems to fall into the circular argument camp you've articulated above. In fact, it sounds like it could be an entirely separate thread.

Those great "a-ha!" moments, I think, are when we see overlaps of different areas; like when logic validates scripture, history validating scripture, natural law validating church teachings, "feelings" of the Spirit validating doctrine, etc. The more overlap one observes, the more real it is to that person. That is how it was with me, though is was a 20 year long experience.

Ghandi said that nothing is separate; everything is part of one great whole. I think your comments above make sense and bring meaning to his quotation. Also, that validating scripture with history, for example, is NOT circular. Validating scripture against natural law is also not circular. From what you said earlier, however, I think non-LDS Christians would be cautious about validating doctrine with spiritual "feelings" though, particularly if they believe there are too many purported spiritual feelings validating too much conflicting doctrine.

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mormonmusic, when it comes to conversion experiences, the normal pattern is to sense conviction of sin, combined with a sense that God is calling. With repentence comes the tremendous sense of being clean and pure before God. At this point, rather than saying they found truth, they are more likely to say they've found God.

Amen! When I was RLDS I could not say I was saved. It was just such absolutely foreign language to me, but yet I had an experience that most Evangelical Christians would classify as a salvation event. My heart was changed from stone to flesh and I have lived for Christ since the mid 70s. I have had other such 'saving' events. Sometimes I think I'm the only person who's been saved multiple times (even though I never was unsaved inbetween). I have learned to call these events "epiphanies", and recognized that what I have experienced was when Biblical truths finally made themselves clear through the muddied beliefs and doctrine I was holding to help guide me to more Biblical truths God wanted me to know. I know I have lots more truths to be awakened to, and my prayer is that I'm always open to where God wants to draw me and not put up resistance because I like where I'm at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of going off-topic, I have also heard a similar argument that I consider circular.

Faith alone is sufficient for salvation.

Works are not necessary.

However, if a person claims to be saved, but has no good works, they were never saved.

I agree. It's like slicing a dollar bill in half and insisting that there are now 2 bucks.

Mormonmusic,

I'll try to keep the thread's theme alive while simultaneously bringing up your idea about faith.

I agree. "Faith Alone" or "Sola Fide" is a blunder, often believed by good people who have more zeal than curiosity.

One of the problems with the reformation is that there were sooo many solas! Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christus, Soli Deo Gloria, Han Solo... The inevitable result of self-interpretation.

I think Sola Fide was the worst of the solas. Luther's revelation of Sola Fide came to him while sitting on the toilet, which is where it should have remained. Though new to him, the idea had aspects that were as old as pelagianism itself.

Problems:

•Proponents of "Faith Alone" tend to be those who believe that "scripture interprets scripture." In other words, they believe that Sola Fide simultaneously exists with Sola Scriptura. The reason they tend to profess Sola Scriptura is to provide "legitimacy" to a new model of leadership. In other words, "Sola Fide" is the parasite and "Sola Scriptura" is the host. This concludes that there are two "solas" at play. Perhaps they don't know the meaning of sola? The model immediately falls to pieces.

•The error is self-evident in a biblical and sociological way.

Outside of faith being given to a person in a private way, it cannot be developed without "work." The heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 actually WORKED. Again, the model immediately falls to pieces. To be fair, it is often used as a way to argue against baptism; another blatantly clear topic.

•The ONLY time in the Bible where the words "faith" and "alone" are side by side is in James 2:24 which reads the OPPOSITE of the mantra's assumption: "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." The model, again, falls to pieces.

IMHO:

LDS and I are close to being on the same page in this arena. LDS and I have doctrine and personal revelation that act as witnesses to truth (what we believe as truth). But for those who have no witness to private interpretation, statistically, are not entertaining truth. And if anyone's private revelation reveals what Luther argued, then either the Bible's message or his revelation (or both) is in error.

Back to your Question:

After more thought about your original question, I thought I'd answer it in a more truly "Cathlic" manner. I remembered Paragraph 27 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will we find the TRUTH and happiness he never stops looking for." Apologetics doesn't help "find" truth. Apologetics defends truth. Finding it, is letting God draw us in. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Catholic teachings also state that religious ignorance is a rejection of God. One of our saints, Jerome, taught that ignorance of scripture is ignorance of God. IN SUM, I guess I would synthesize truth-seeking into (I do not speak officially):

•Being available to God

•Submitting to His Church

•Behavior, righteous living

•Studying

•and of course, prayer

Edited by theophilus
corrected a quote from Catechism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus is the Truth, and the Life. I don't understand why so many people try to make it all so confusing. It is my personal belief that Satan does all he can to confuse us. If he can bring that tiny bit of doubt into our hearts and minds it makes him so happy and we all know why. I choose to stand on the solid rock which is Jesus Christ refusing to budge. Yes, I am a simple man with a simple mind. I continue to go to Jesus as a 5 yr old little boy tugging at His robe asking Him to take me in His loving arms and hold me tight, and He does. He is my truth, my protection from this confusing world. I also don't understand why so many people choose to keep the "us and them" mentality. If a person feels a certain belief is wrong do they honestly think it is Heavenly Fathers wish to push them away by discouraging words? If they are truly wrong then maybe they are lost. I believe we are to still love them and to pray for them and say encouraging words showing this love. This forum says it's for all to discuss and share but I get this feeling much too often that I am part of the "them" crowd. Even still, I choose to love everyone here and refuse to let those feelings I get sometimes run me away. I feel Heavenly Father has me here for a reason. To share His love to all if for no other reason so that is what I will do. Sorry for going so far off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

. This forum says it's for all to discuss and share but I get this feeling much too often that I am part of the "them" crowd. Even still, I choose to love everyone here and refuse to let those feelings I get sometimes run me away. I feel Heavenly Father has me here for a reason. To share His love to all if for no other reason so that is what I will do. Sorry for going so far off topic.

I don't see you as the "them" crowd at all. You have spirituality and a relationship with your Savior, and appear to have charity. In this post, you aren't being offensive or misrepresenting yourself like others who come here with hidden agendas do. And you aren't coming out with anti-Mormon statements meant to detract from other's faith -- rather than invite wholesome discussion.

It's the people who come here as new members, pretending to seek the truth, and then ask the same old anti-Mormon questions hoping to "show Mormons the folly of their ways". Or making wild assertions for us to refute, without any credible sources to back it up.

I think in any crowd where a person is a minority, or where there is diversity of opinion, one needs to approach the situation with a desire to immerse themselves in the other person's perspective with a view to simply "seeing it". You might never agree, but at least you've expanded your view of the world, your ability to have meaningful discussions with other people, and to consider angles you never thought of. I can also help give advice as I look at their value system and then make comments such as "I think someone who believes X as you do, might consider this course of action because it's consistent with your values"

Understanding others' point of view, even if it's different than my own also helps me develop Christlike attributes. Undersatnding where people are coming from develops charity, empathy and compassion because then a person knows the things they shouldn't say that would be considered offensive to the other person.

People that adopt this attitude, in my view, are rarely ever rejected from this site. In fact, they become valued contributors and friends.

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi Mormon Musician,

Evangelical and Protestant Churches use Scripture alone to determine truth thanks to Martin Luther an his predecessors . The biblical bases for this is in 2 Timothy 2:15, 3:15-17 and other passages that indicates the importance of using scripture to judge the truth. For example:

The Bereans were more noble than that of the Thessalonians because they recieved him willingly but rather than just taking Paul's words for it, they searched the Scriptures daily to see if it were true (Acts 17:11).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Excellente question. Personnellement, je dirai qu'il faut faire le tri parmi toutes les religions, chose ardue certes, mais, je pense qu'assister au culte et la prière nous aide. Il faudra aller dans de nombreuses paroisses pour trouver celle qui nous parle le mieux. Nous devons ressentir quelque chose au niveau du coeur..c'est un signe. Si toutes ces églises, chapelles ou autres appelations disent être vraies, n'y aurait il sur cette terre qu'un seul Dieu ? pourquoi alors tant de guerre de religions, si nous sommes tous frères ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share