Mormonism...is It True? Is It Useful?

[Jason]

So I ran across this mini-epistle from a Bishop of the Liberal Catholic Church (which for you theology historians is an Old Catholic Church in the tradition of +Matthews and the Dutch Church) who makes a point I think can be applied to Mormonism generally speaking.

Much ado is made by anti-Mormons about how the Book of Mormon is not real history, about how Smith erred in some of his prophecies, etc, etc. Well, Bishop Bennett makes an argument that I believe gives the silent doubters in the LDS Church some reason for sticking around. Here it is:

Hi, all...

As I was breezing through my message summaries, I noticed two threads

I thought I'd comment on, as mentioned in the subject line of my post.

Interestingly, atheist Bertrand Russell asked what I think are two of

the most important questions we can ask when evaluating the value

of "religion" (or spirituality, though I'm sure he was using them in

reference to what we call "organized religion"):

1) Is it true?

2) Is it useful?

Now, Mr. Russell answered both of those questions in the negative (1 -

he thought it was all just an invention of the human mind, through

our fear of death, etc, etc, etc, and 2 - it was a force for ill in

the world, i.e. the Crusades, intolerance, etc, etc, etc).

But he also posited that an affirmative answer to EITHER question

would be enough. In other words, if something is absolutely true,

it's not really relevant if it's useful - it simply IS true, and

therefore of value. Or, if it's not "true," but the help is greater

than the harm, then it's also of value, even if it's fiction.

In my own atheist years (yes, I was once Saul before the road to

Damascus, after leaving the R.C. Church in my teens), I agreed with

Mr. Russell's negative answers to both questions. Now, I answer both

questions in the affirmative, as least as it relates to the LCC and

what I've found in my ministry, in the lives that have been changed

in our faith community, and so on.

BUT - I still think those are two of the best questions we can ask!

And we can ask them not just about organizations, but about our own

individual practice of religion/spirituality. Or, to slightly

rephrase them - am I seeking truth? Am I finding some true things on

my path? And is my path useful? Is it useful to me? Is the growth

I'm experiencing useful to my brothers and sisters? And to combine

the two - is the truth I'm finding opening me to greater love of God,

and greater love of, and service to, all of God's children? Am I

deepening my authentic relationships with both God and His creatures,

and is the net effect a positive one?

In summary, Bertrand Russell helped me confirm my atheism as a young

man. Now, whether he'd like it or not, he gives me the right

questions to ask along another path - the path of my faith. And

personally, regarding the "organized religion" offered by the LCC, I

answer both questions with a resounding "YES!" Hope the rest of you

find you can answer them this way, too!

Peace...+Bennett

[Ray]

Have any of you seen a movie called "Second-hand Lions"?

There's a little talk I like to give to every man... when I think they are ready to hear it.

That's not an exact quote, but it's conveyed in the movie.

Here are some more thoughts from that movie that I like:

"Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good. That honor, virtue, and courage mean everything; that money and power mean nothing. That good always triumphs over evil. That true love never dies. Doesn't matter if they're true or not. A man should believe in those things anyway. Because they are the things worth believing in."

And btw, I've heard some more of the talk.

:)

[BenRaines]

Jason, an interesting point.

I have said for many years that I believe and know, by spiritual confirmation that the LDS church is true. At the same time I add that if it were not and I erred in my belief or knowledge that by adhearing to its principles I have lived a good life and followed the Golden Rule then I have had a good life.

Living the Golden Rule should be rule one for all and then there would be no wickedness in the world and all would be tolerant with each other but then there would be no opposition.

I guess it depends on what one would consider good. To one what is good may be bad to another but the "Do unto others and you would have them do unto you" rings true to me.

Ben Raines

[Ray]

Joseph Smith once said something about what he thought if all of us (LDS) were wrong.

How bad would hell be with all of us there?

Think about it. How bad would it be?

How bad is it now while we're living in this world?

I would still choose to become a member of this Church.

Can you think of anyone else that you'd rather be with that you're not already with right now?

I don't live in the future. I live in the present. And in the present, God is with me right now.

And I would do nothing if I thought God would leave me... and never take me back to be with Him.

When I make a mistake... and I know it's a mistake... I repent, as soon as I can.

And if I ever found out the Church was truly wrong, I would leave it to be with Him then.

And I know other LDS who really feel the same way.

We are all LDS because we don't know any better, and if we know better, we won't be LDS.

But who is any better than LDS, collectively?

If I ever found out I would then join with them.

But as of now, I don't know any better.

[Outshined]

Have any of you seen a movie called "Second-hand Lions"?

There's a little talk I like to give to every man... when I think they are ready to hear it.

That's not an exact quote, but it's conveyed in the movie.

Here are some more thoughts from that movie that I like:

"Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good. That honor, virtue, and courage mean everything; that money and power mean nothing. That good always triumphs over evil. That true love never dies. Doesn't matter if they're true or not. A man should believe in those things anyway. Because they are the things worth believing in."

And btw, I've heard some more of the talk.

:)

Man, I love that movie...

[Ray]

We're old... (dad-nab-it - edited slightly)... leave us alone!

:)

[Rosewood]

Good points all around! I love that movie too.

Back to Bertrand Russell's thoughts...

When I was young and looking for something to believe in, finding TRUTH was the most important thing to me. I promised God (whoever he was) that if he would lead me to truth, I would do what ever was asked of me. Truth was paramount in my mind and I believe he led me to it in the LDS church, because of a spiritual experience I was given. Since then I have also thought, even if I hadn't had that experience, this is still a great an good church. Russell said truth and/or usefulness, either one, are good enough reasons in themselves. but if usefulness is the only reason for a persons commitment to his/her philosophy, then it needs to be re-evaluated from time to time to be sure it is still useful. This is still the path that our Heavenly Father uses to help us find truth if we are being guided by the light of Christ which gives us an understanding of what good is. I've been egnostic, but I've never been atheist. The words implies a hardness I can't relate to.

Thank you for sharing that with us, Jason.

[Ray]

I particularly like this thought:

...Russell said truth and/or usefulness, either one, are good enough reasons in themselves. but if usefulness is the only reason for a persons commitment to his/her philosophy, then it needs to be re-evaluated from time to time to be sure it is still useful.

And btw, it's interesting to note that if truth is the only reason for a persons' commitment to his/her philosophy, then it doesn't need to be re-evaluated from time to time to be sure it is still true.

The truth is always true, and it's useful to know that... always.

But the fact that some did things in the past at some time doesn't mean they need to do that always.

... or that we need to do that today.

... so it helps to know what things we should do at all times, and for that we need to know what is useful... truly useful.. to be for the best use... today.

:)

[Jason]

And btw, it's interesting to note that if truth is the only reason for a persons' commitment to his/her philosophy, then it doesn't need to be re-evaluated from time to time to be sure it is still true.

The truth is always true, and it's useful to know that... always.

But we should re-evaluate the "truth" on occasion to make sure it is the "truth". Or you can say you have the truth and bury your head in the sand until you die like Ray here.

[Ray]

But we should re-evaluate the "truth" on occasion to make sure it is the "truth". Or you can say you have the truth and bury your head in the sand until you die like Ray here.

Okay. You said it. Explain it.

Why would you need to re-evaluate if the truth was still the truth?

If it was true before, why wouldn't it still be true?

Can you give me an example of what you're talking about?

I'm anxiously awaiting your thoughts. :)

... if it helps, I'll explain what I meant.

While sitting at a traffic light... if it turns green... I go... I don't need to go back to re-evaluate.

It could even be red the next time I see it... but it was green... officer... it really was. :)

[Rosewood]

I'm going to butt-in here and add my thought to this. Occasionally I re-examine truth, but only because I'm mortal. I fear my own spiritual ears. Like a 2 yr old that returns to mom or dad for support in the middle of a busy play time. I just want to be reassured. Truth hasn't changed I just want to hear it again.

[Jason]

Why would you need to re-evaluate if the truth was still the truth?

To make sure it was still the truth.

If it was true before, why wouldn't it still be true?

New information or upon examination the examiner had a previous bias which was not realized at the time s/he first inquired into the subject.

Can you give me an example of what you're talking about?

No. Im not turning this into an anti-mormon thread. Thank you.

[Rosewood]

No! you're turning it into a Pro-mormon thread, keep going!

[BenRaines]

I can see where Jason is going with this. Percieved truth is something like believing that the earth was flat before 1492 or the statement made by the head of the US patent office in 1900 that it was time to disband the patent office because all that could be invented had been.

Real truth does not change but how do we know what real truth is.

Ben Raines

[pushka]

Hi Jason,

Thanks for this post. I did find it really helpful to assess why I keep coming back to a religious forum and continue to read posts about the Bible, God, Jesus and all.

At first it was just out of curiosity, because of my previous attendance at the LDS church. I pulled away from the site for a while, as I wasn't really in a good place in my life, and couldn't have contributed to the site much. When I returned, I slowly developed a new attitude. One of acceptance of others' beliefs as long as they were harmless and of some use.

I have found lots to think about on this site over the last 12 months, lots of times I've assessed my attitude to people around me and in the world generally. I've thought about my actions and reactions to people and events, and have tried to better myself. It seems that although I still feel agnostic in general, this daily dose of religiosity (if there's such a word!) is helping me to try to better myself all the time, and to be more thoughtful. So yes, religion has its truths and is useful for me.

[Jason]

I think Ben and Michelle have expressed what I think quite nicely. As usual, Ray may have missed the mark but I think he get's it now. :)

[rosie321]

Great topic! Truth. Is it true?... How do you know?... Is it useful? This has been my neverending, exhausting quest for a number of years now.

Some of my thoughts and ideas.

Just stumbled on a rerun for Growing Pains It touched upon the whole truth thing for me. On it Mike stays home from school. He asks his dad if he can watch tv. He sees Gilligans Island is on. All of a sudden he has his moment of I can't believe it. Gilligans Island is on. He runs into his dad and says Gilligans Isand is on. His dad was dealing with other stuff at the moment and goes AND..... Well Mike came to the knowledge that things go on without him. Such is truth. Truth goes on whether we believe it or not. Whether we see or know it for ourselves.

We might tune into truth or not. Its something that does have to be sought after. Our knowledge levels can effect our abilities. Think of a kindergartener trying to understand some college concepts. Not very likely it is going to happen. We learn and understand line upon line.

Our stress levels, perceptions and abilities can affect it to. Maslow did the heirarchy. Someone concerned with basic survival is most likely not going to be too concerned with eternal truths. Many basic religious beliefs turn that worry to a higher source and helps minimize the temporal worries.

Aren't there changing truths vs eternal? What is a temporal truth vs eternal? I think this is where much frustration and confusion comes in with religion as it seeks to define and clarify truth. Each faith emphasizes something different or tries to present certain ideas as eternal truths.

Isn't total truth beyond many of our current comprehensions to understand? I think of the elephant description. Each person grabbing onto a different part and seeing something different. Members of the church are considered part of the body. So won't truth be interpreted differently by each part? The mouth may see something different then the intestines. The heart different then the brain. So truth though the same may be interpreted differently.

As someone who has desperately sought truth and to know whether "this church is true" I can see where I keep coming back to it. Isn't that what truth will do stand all the storms?

Is it useful? I find it is. It promotes great morals and values. When I am away from it that is when my spirit is totally changed. I feel a darkness come over me. It's not this dramatic thing but I feel my spirit just going. I lose the incentive and zest. I just don't care anymore. This summer was a great learning experience for me because I was able to see the truths beneath all the stuff we do. That all the temporal actions that we do draw us closer but are not the truths. People cannot change ulitmate truths despite their best efforts. The truths are far more precious and are seperate from everything else. Truth is like a buried treasure. Its a messy and tough job getting to it but like the great pearl of price once you have it.

I liked what one of the previous posters said, if we are wrong than how bad could hell be?

[boyando]

<div class='quotemain'>

And btw, it's interesting to note that if truth is the only reason for a persons' commitment to his/her philosophy, then it doesn't need to be re-evaluated from time to time to be sure it is still true.

The truth is always true, and it's useful to know that... always.

But we should re-evaluate the "truth" on occasion to make sure it is the "truth". Or you can say you have the truth and bury your head in the sand until you die like Ray here.

Jason,

I think you are right in saying that truth should be re-affirmed. But truth can not be changed, unless it changes. The sky is blue, until it is not.

There are only a few things that never change. All have to do with God. Gods love for us, never changes. Only our love for him changes. If we always are re-evaluating his love for us, the effect of his love changes, not his love.

To ask your self if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints is true, over and over again, is a commandment.

Good luck on your search for truth - allmosthumble

[Ray]

I think Ben and Michelle have expressed what I think quite nicely. As usual, Ray may have missed the mark but I think he get's it now. :)

I didn't miss the mark, Jason. I agree with what you were talking about... if what they said accurately reflects your thoughts. But I was adding another thought you didn't seem to know about which you now think contradicts what you meant.

The truth does not change... if you know what I mean. Once a truth, it is always the truth.

But what you are saying is also true too... once a truth doesn't mean it's always useful.

... I was also saying that, in addition to what I said, and both points are still equally true.

Allow me to try to explain in again.

When a traffic light turns green it will always be true that the light turned green at one time, but that doesn't mean... and I wasn't saying that it meant... the light will always be green forever.

Anyway, here's another example:

If Joseph Smith was truly a prophet of God, then it will always be true that he was. And since I know that is true then I don't need to go back to know if that was ever true... because I already know that he was.

Get it now?

The light turned green, and I know it. He was a prophet of God, and I know it.

And if you don't know that, then maybe you never knew it. Or maybe you just forgot what you knew.

The truth will never change. But we might. We might forget that we once knew the truth.

But the truth will always... always... be true.

Even if we never know, or never knew it.

[Ray]

oops... I hit the reply button instead of the edit button.