After realizing that I left my lightsaber at home (I do have one, and yes, I have battled many a Sith Lord – see picture below), I pondered this concept, and realized how this statement of “absolute” can be very misleading. It is a concept embraced by those who prefer to see the world in black and white. Black and white thinking is what leads many people to extremism, fundamentalism, racism, and all those other horrible “isms” that plague our world. By putting people into one of two categories, such as either right-wing or left-wing, religious or heathen, saved or damned, patriot or traitor, etc., it gives people little room to express any individual reservations which might lie outside either extreme.
At the same time, it can be used to express that some facts are either true or false. For instance, the existence of God has an element of absolute to it – either a supreme being does exist, or one does not. Though the nature of that fact may be disputable and unknowable, the fact itself has an answer.
To further complicate the issue, there are biblical origins to this concept. In Luke 11:23, Jesus Christ says “He who is not with me is against me…” However, in Mark 9:40 this is expressed differently: “who ever is not against us is for us.” These two similar passages convey very different ideas. Understanding context is vital.
Mormonism, like all other religions, is often faced by this confusion of extremism and truth. In Doctrine and Covenants 1:30, Jesus Christ claims that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth.” This scripture is often erroneously paraphrased as “the only true Church.” To many, both Mormon and non-Mormon, this statement portrays a sense of extremism, that the Mormons are right, and all others are wrong. There are two major mistakes in this thinking. The first is the drop of the adjective “living.” These are not two separate characteristics of the Church. “True and living” is in this regard a single adjective, describing the nature of this church and why it is true. The second is the belief that being the only true and living church, that all others must be false and dead. If Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind, and other Christians believe it also, both have a similar belief in the same truth. If different churches, peoples, groups, etc., all share a majority of common beliefs or interests, then it is impossible to say that only one is completely right and the others are all completely wrong. In short, no Church, individual, or any entity can claim sole possession of truth.
Within the world of Mormonism, this same confusion often leads to the struggle between those who believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is founded in truth, and those who do not. With both sides guilty of trying to persuade the other using arguments based on extremism rather than truth, my question for this week is this: Can these two groups accept each other on equal grounds, and if so, how can this be done?
Posts
20 comments:
I love this post. I served a mission for the LDS church and while there, I experimented with new ways of being able to get people to open up about their religious beliefs. I was surprised to find that when asked by people what are the differences between my church and say the Catholic church, that in responding with "Well we actually have a lot in common." I was able to start much more rewarding conversations. Since that time that is how I respond when asked similar questions. I enjoyed the comment that said that no church has claim to all the truth. We must realize that others beliefs are not devoid of truth. Although my missions principal purpose was to baptize, I learned a great deal from hearing things from another perspective. I never gained anything from tearing down someone's beliefs in a war of words.
I really appreciated the sentiment in this post, Nils. I think there is benefit in the recognition that extremism is the undoing of ANY faith system. The church does not appologize for making a pretty strong claim to the truth, and church leaders do not correct members who say that the LDS church is "the true church," and yet, your logic is solid (in my opinion) recognizing that if there is truth to be found in the overlapping messages of any faith system, then there is benefit to the adherent.
When people lay claim to the "one-true-only" mindset, they have a tendency to move inevitably to the point where someone, somewhere, decides to fly airplanes into buildings. If we can avoid that line of thinking, and accept goodness where we find it, basking in the goodness of what we personally find spiritually fulfilling and granting all others the same privlege, then perhaps we could quit killing each other.
Good thoughts, Nils!
First of all, I noticed that my comments on your last post apparently inspired this one. It is therefore in an effort to promote the last tether of humility left in this fat head of mine that I congratulate you on your expressing the concept in far better words and more fully than I had. :)
Here is the answer to your question: these two groups will not accept outsiders whom they see as having only "partial truth" until more of them are made aware of the types of logic you used in this post. Unfortunately, many of them will see your efforts to promote this type of thinking as the work of the devil, attempting to water down the faith. Good luck anyway though.
Now what I am wondering is, do Sith lords really fight in cargo shorts? Come on...
Hi, Nils!
Great post.
You said:
If different churches, peoples, groups, etc., all share a majority of common beliefs or interests, then it is impossible to say that only one is completely right and the others are all completely wrong. In short, no Church, individual, or any entity can claim sole possession of truth.
Actually, there's a hole in that logic.
If two people share a majority of beliefs, then there are three variations on right and wrong.
1. They can both be wrong
2. They can both be partly right, and both be partly wrong (with the overlapping portion of their beliefs being the correct part)
3. One can be completely right, the other only partly right (where their beliefs overlap)
The LDS church seems to claim that they have the "most complete" truth, others only have a part of the truth. This is unfortunately often misinterpreted as "right vs. wrong".
Part of the challenge is that the world is not a static thing - it is constantly changing. So, what was "right" yesterday, might not be "right" today. With a living church, with ongoing revelation and living prophets, we have a constant guide.
Great article. Keep up the good work.
We Sith are protective of our sith-ters.
First, to answer Jacob, yes, Sith fight in cargo shorts. They also fight in bad shirts and jeans (a la Star Wars Kid).
Second, per the post, I wish I had Tyson's insight on my mission, because when people ask about the LDS church, I often address the things that make us different rather than things that make us the same. So thank you, Tyson, you have opened my eyes.
Saying only the LDS church has truth and treating other churches like they don't have any truth at all goes against something that President Hinckley himself said and taught often before he passed away. He told us that our attitude towards those of different beliefs should be one of,"Come and bring all the truth that you have, and let us see if we can add to it." He didn't say "we WILL add to it," he said "let's see if we can."
There is no good that comes of saying other churches don't have truth, because as everyone has pointed out, it's simply not true. Non-LDS churches teach baptism and repentance and other doctrines shared with the LDS church, so how can one say other churches are devoid of truth? IT BOGGLES THE MIND!
On a related note, remember when Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was "the most correct of any book on earth?" He didn't say it was the only true book. The Bible is still a true book, moreso when it is translated correctly.
Maybe it's the same way with the LDS church. It's not a perfect institution, but it is, in my belief, the most correct of any church or religious organization on earth. That does not mean other churches are not also holders of truth and doers of good Christian work.
@ steven: Is the BoM still the most correct?
As to seeing the world in black and white, I think some grab onto reductionist thinking because it's easier to have the matter settled. The problem really becomes how to reopen the matter to possibilities rejected, or not considered before. For example, maybe not all Jedi are good.. maybe some are vigilantes, or desperadoes, or cheap floozies?
On the topic of truth. An analogy might be used. Let's say I wanted to get to Graceland (just to choose a destination at random), I need a complete and accurate map, with sufficient detail to get me there. If my map is missing even one section, I could get lost and end up somewhere totally different, like say Old Faithful.
For those of us who belong to the true church, our "map" to heaven is totally sweet, and everyone else's "map" is about as useless as a screen door on a submarine.
So to answer your question Nils, I'm not really sure how to talk to those poor lost souls on equal grounds, unless of course we talk about something neutral, like politics.
If one travels back in time to our early prophets and there talks and speeches to the masses, there is hard talking, finger pointing, people are going to hell and some serious tones in voice, as to what point they want to make, mostly being about the principles and teachings of the gospel and of it's correctness.
Today we have toned down soft voiced prophets that use wit, stories and multi-cultural language to make points, all very kosher.
Today if one doesn't want to rattle the cage, it's easy keep to smaller topics with strong opinionated people. As we all know the ones that succeed in life are those that know how to "walk the walk and talk the talk". Or if it starts getting shaky change the topic, make a joke whatever is necessary to keep the cool collected karma among our fellow men.
Which brings me to mainstreaming! Would the prophets of old agree with what we have become.
And to answer Nils question, Can these two groups accept each other on equal grounds, and if so, how can this be done?
I think life is complex enough to get through the day with what it throws at you to bother judging a religion itself, if one is better or equal, they are what humans have made them, if everyone spent there time on how to improve themselves, what an improvement our current world would be for all.
@tobyo: yes, the Book of Mormon is still the most correct book on earth. And I love that this post has taken a distinct "Star Wars" tone :)
@roly: you bring up a good point about "softer tones"- one wonders how Moses or Elijah, prophets known to be "in-your-face," might have treated some of the nonsense going on today.
I do notice, however, that while the leaders of the LDS church encourage us to be diplomatic in our approach to sharing and discussing the Gospel with others, at no time do they tell us to compromise what we believe and know to be true. It is possible, I think, to be perfectly frank about one's belief in the true and full Gospel, and still maintain civility with others. Tact is a precious thing to have, and a rare thing in this day of reality TV and the urge to reveal harsh truths.
A wise man once said that "Silence is not always tact, and it is tact that is golden, not silence."
One also hears strength in the admonitions of church leaders in calling the members to repentance and obedience to the Gospel. Though their tones are soft, the leaedersr of the Church are firm and unyielding in their assertions.
This is a great topic, Nils. I've thought about this a lot in my life. I've always felt guilty for feeling uncomfortable with the whole "my church is truer than your church" sentiment. But I can now see that I shouldn't feel so guilty for disliking that idea. While I feel more comfortable and happy with my LDS religion (and by no means do I understand it all), I have a strong desire to respect other people's beliefs. My dad investigated the LDS church and has told me that he knew it wasn't the thing for him. I didn't understand how this could be, when the gospel is for everyone, right? (It could be that he didn't want to give up smoking or drinking, but who knows?) I had to stop and think and realize that a lot of people don't believe that my church is right for them. And who am I to dictate what is right for them and what isn't?
I wonder if the extremist ideas just come from an extremely narrow look at this life with a lack of respect and love for others. Christ taught that no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of heaven. That seems pretty black and white, right? But, I think subconsciously we judge others based on this idea without remembering that Christ is the true judge. I think that everyone does the best with what they have.
I am really enjoying the feedback this week. I hope you will like the upcoming article. I would like to respond to some of your comments:
Tyson - It is really impressive that you were able to focus on the sharing common beliefs as a missionary. As a Peace Corps volunteer, we have three main goals. One is to help spread understanding of American culture. Another is to obtain understanding of the culture in the country in which we serve. I think missionary work includes the same. I left Russia so enamored with Russian culture that it has since been the foundation for my future and career.
Paul - Thanks for coming over and making comments! I really like how you point out negative effect that extremism has on any faith system. I would even go so far to say it has the same effect on any social system, even beyond just religions.
Hopefully we can make more people aware of the differences in this type of thinking.
Jacob - You can feel all the pride you want. You (and others) always inspire the new topics, so keep the good comments coming. I would hope that people wouldn't think that the kind and moderate people of the world are doing the devil's work, but then again, I am sure there is somebody who believes in everything. As for Sith's in cargo shorts, well, pictures never lie.
bmillios - Thanks for drawing out the different varieties of "truth-having" that a religion can claim. By "sole possession of truth" I was referring to what you and Steven said, that there isn't a fourth category (one is completely right and the other is completely wrong). Thanks for your comments!
roly - I like you comparing the world today to the religious culture seemingly portrayed in ancient religious writings. I think it is important to realize that we live in a very different world now than we did before, and even the psychology of people has likely changed based on various external influences.
I'll leave it there for this week. I encourage you all to continue discussion, and hope you enjoy the next post.
Nils
I'm gonna stick my neck out here and ask if it really and truly matters if there IS a "most correct" doctrine? We say that because we've heard it in church, in conferences...that sort of thing. I'm asking, do we really NEED a book that is "truer" than others? And if so...why?
::runs and ducks::
If you're looking for truth, for the absolute truth, and you believe God will help you find that truth, then it makes sense that He would give you a source of truth like the Holy Scriptures, a fountain of truth more reliable than any other source, because it comes fro m God. When Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the most correct, I think (and this is my opinion) what he meant is that since it had been translated with divine guidance and assistance, it had no mistakes (at least as far as the doctrine is concerned- there have been grammatical and spelling-type errors which have been correctedm but the doctrine and truth have been unchanged). I'm sure if the Bible could be read in its original and unadulterated form, it would be as correct as the Book of Mormon- then we'd have two most correct books!
So for the sake of the truth, there must be an unfallible source, one more correct than any other, or else where could one go for a reliable source?
Now some will argue: "What better source for truth than God himself?" And that's a valid point- one can go to God directly for help. But I think others will agree that the Book of Mormon can reach our hearts and minds at times when we won't let God into our lives or souls. I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts about this last point.
A lot of church members would say "Yes absolutely The Book of Mormon is still the most correct book on earth!"
Logically, to be 'the most' correct, it would have to be more correct than any other book. So if I can think of a single book that is 100% correct, The Book of Mormon cannot top it, and cannot be the most correct book.
I'm thinking of the D&C for starters, and Standing for Something by Gordon B. Hinckley didn't seem to contain any errors.
To answer Janet's question, The Book of Mormon being the most correct places it above the Bible, and by having this book, the LDS church is raised above all other religions as the most correct church of them all.
I was thinking all night about what has been said by everyone - so here is what I have to offer:
I find that thinking in "black and white", "true or false" isn't always the easiest way to go (as some of us often claim it to be), because I think many a time it involves tough decisions. Likewise, "grey zones" are not just "anything goes" and "everyone do what you like, 'cause I don't care"-areas, as walking in "grey zone" we often need to ask ourselves a lot of painful questions.
Sarah's comment inspired me to go thinking in rounds and rounds and brought me to the ultimate question: What do we do, if someone we love dearly, does not share with us, what makes one of the pillars in our own life?
As I see it there are two options that are equally painful:
a) we can loosen the bond that connect's us with this person, because we feel he/she is a threat to our spiritual balance (obviously painful, because we lose contact to someone we love).
or
b) because we feel that the person is overall much more an enrichment to our life than he/she is a threat, we can accept, that we are going down different paths(in my opinion equally painful, because we then have to accept, that there isn't just one truth that makes everyone happy).
(There is also c) where we desperatley want to convince someone that our path only is right, but as Emily has pointed out earlier, convetion has to come from insight)
Coming back to Sarah's comment-
I don't think you should need to feel guilty for wanting to respect your father's choices. If he leaves you to go your own way, I feel that the right thing to do is to give him back the same love and respect that he is showing to you by letting you freely choose...
I think this is also my answer to your initial question, Nils.
Michaela.
PS: Sorry for this being so long and a little late.
Janet - Thank you very much for your question. I appreciate your willingness to bring it up and help us all dig a little deeper into our own thought while considering this important idea.
Not long ago I was reading a former conference talk by the late Ezra Taft Benson where he talked about the idea of "competition" being unbecoming to a member of the Church. By competition, he referred to pitting one thing (often oneself) against another for the purpose of claiming one to be superior and the other inferior. Most often this is our natural way of justifying our own thoughts or actions. Of course, we always have to make these types of comparisons to see what we prefer for ourselves. At the same time, I believe there is a big difference in whether one judges between two or more choices for their own belief system to decide what is right for them, and trying to impose that decision on another. This is similar to the major difference in how missionary work can be conducted - does one "share" their religion, or try to "sell" it?
Michaela - Thank you for your insight into the thought processes that people face when dealing with these issues. In the Mormon culture, many who leave the Church feel they are treated poorly by their families afterwards, and some truly are. However, often the families are experiencing unfamiliar feelings of grief and betrayal, unsure why their loved on would forsake something that they see as such an important part of life. Parents especially take this very hard, blaming the situation on themselves as their own failure at parenting. Their reaction is often irrational, trying to quickly "fix" the situation by convincing their loved one that they are going down what they feel is the wrong path. However, this often aggravates the situation and strains the relationship further, with the Church being forced in as a wedge that separates the two. I appreciate you pointing out how difficult this naturally is for people, so that both sides can understand why their loved ones might be reacting in one of the ways you described.
Nils
Nils, my ego is insulted at the lack of a personalized shout out. I'm not offendedm but my ego is. I'll go tell it to shut up :)
I really liked Michaela's comments, particularly because they caused me to examine such relationships in my life.
And finally, responding to tobyo, what criteria are you using to determine the correctness of the Book of Mormon?
nils: Come to think of it, I didn't get a shout out either. It's possible that's because I'm playing Jesus' advocate in my comments.
steven: I hope I didn't come across as saying the Book of Mormon is NOT correct. What I said was, if one book (i.e. The BoM), is 100% correct, and another book (i.e. The D&C), is 100% correct, then one cannot be more correct than the other; all books that are 100% correct must share the top spot.
MOST is also an acronym for Mothers of Super Twins.
@ tobyo: AAAAAAHHHHHHH! I get it. A very valid point, and the slowness in my mind took a while to catch up. My mistake. Joseph was right when he said it was the most correct, but now that we have the other books, I have to qualify my statement. Thank you for clarifying.
Steven and tobyo - Sorry that you two got the short end of the personalized shout-outs. You know that the discussion of this site would be nothing without you...
Post a Comment