Can a church be true?

[_huckelberry]

Gimr, you ask whether a church can be called true, and make the observation true can mean something that can be objectively demonstrated or proven.

I think there is a point to the idea of verifiable to describe true. However one might consider a question like, is there intelligent life on another planet within fifty lightyears of earth?. There is a clear true or false answer to this question but I do not know which it is. It can theoretically be verified by observation by sending observers to all stars within the area and finding out if any planets have life. However the observation process at present requires more time and expenditure than we can make so the question remains unknown despite being theoritically verifiable as true or false.

I would think that basic claims the LDS church makes are similar. We do not presently have the means to complete the obsertions to be objectively sure but theoretically it is possible. I think it is reasonable to ask whether the churh is true. The conclusion I see from that however is that the statement the church is true opens the door to the possible alternative conclusion. The church is not true.

You also allude to another aspect of the simple question, is the church true? Perhaps it is a very mixed affair with some things which are true, some things which are not, and somethings too garbled to distinguish.

The mark of cain thing is an easy target. It is an exceptionally lame idea. It was picked up from antabellum southern apologetics for slavery. In another post I observed that I am old enough that I grew up when the teaching was guiding LDS church policy. I think it was a cankerous thing to be taught. At the same time I do not think it was a centeral idea for Mormons. It was not something that was essential to Mormon self understanding. It was instead something we lived with like a dead weight. Well maybe some took a touch of delight in being in the know on such "truths". After all even self conscious humans get a bit of pleasure thinking they are a bit ahead of the game compared to somebody else.

Today people can say wey got over it. Yes, to an extent.

GIMR, I have a litte question for you. (have you found sufficient distance to be willing to answer?) Are there things in the church which could be true? Is there something that has enought truth to keep you concerned about the church. After all it would seem plausible for a young black person finding LDS past doctrines to simply sever ties and say sheeeeeeesh.

I think there may be things about personal responsibility that the church encourages which can be a boon to young and old. that could be a truth even if other doctrines and stories are not true. I am not saying this to say you ought to go back or go any particular place. It is more in invite, what did you see of value? Those things may still be yours, I doubt LDS have ownership papers on the true parts.

[_Sam Harris]

repost, my original thoughts were lost...

[_Sam Harris]

Gimr, you ask whether a church can be called true, and make the observation true can mean something that can be objectively demonstrated or proven.[\quote]

That is what an empirical claim is.

I think there is a point to the idea of verifiable to describe true. However one might consider a question like, is there intelligent life on another planet within fifty lightyears of earth?. There is a clear true or false answer to this question but I do not know which it is.

This is a question that in time will be proven, but your below quote sets out how it shall be done. How are you going to prove the LDS church to be "true"? And in what way?

It can theoretically be verified by observation by sending observers to all stars within the area and finding out if any planets have life. However the observation process at present requires more time and expenditure than we can make so the question remains unknown despite being theoritically verifiable as true or false.

I would think that basic claims the LDS church makes are similar.

No.

We do not presently have the means to complete the obsertions to be objectively sure but theoretically it is possible. I think it is reasonable to ask whether the churh is true. The conclusion I see from that however is that the statement the church is true opens the door to the possible alternative conclusion. The church is not true.

When you are willing to do more than a cursory reading of the LDS church's whitewashed history, you'll come to the proper conclusion. It may be that the church is not true. It may be that such a question is at best, absurd.

You also allude to another aspect of the simple question, is the church true? Perhaps it is a very mixed affair with some things which are true, some things which are not, and somethings too garbled to distinguish.

This can be said of any faith, so why is the LDS church somehow unique?

The mark of cain thing is an easy target. It is an exceptionally lame idea. It was picked up from antabellum southern apologetics for slavery.

Note that we don't have an antebellum south anymore, but we do still have people teaching in the LDS church that blacks are the seed of Cain. Telling....very telling...

In another post I observed that I am old enough that I grew up when the teaching was guiding LDS church policy. I think it was a cankerous thing to be taught.

I applaud your concession on this matter.

At the same time I do not think it was a centeral idea for Mormons.

I am sorry, but you are incorrect. The basic book of the LDS canon is filled with tales of people who became darker due to iniquity. How can you say this, and have read the Book of Mormon?

It was not something that was essential to Mormon self understanding.

Again I must point out your fallacy. Your GAs expounded a great deal from the pulpit how inferior blacks were in the mid 50s and prior.

It was instead something we lived with like a dead weight.

I think some sick people were rather lifted up by the concept. Kind of like a spiritual Red Bull, being pure, white, and delightsome gives you wings.

Well maybe some took a touch of delight in being in the know on such "truths". After all even self conscious humans get a bit of pleasure thinking they are a bit ahead of the game compared to somebody else.

If a touch is all you can come up with, I can't help but wonder how well your nervous system is functioning.

Today people can say wey got over it. Yes, to an extent.

No, not to any extent. An apology for the teachings has not been issued, and until it is, the LDS church will deal with this issue. No amount of "I don't know how this happened" from President Hinckley, no number of hits from blacklds.org, not even sales of Glady's faith promoting albums is going to do away with this.

GIMR, I have a litte question for you. (have you found sufficient distance to be willing to answer?)

Do you have any idea how condescending you sound? Be grateful that I have bothered to answer you, speaking to me in such a manner.

Are there things in the church which could be true?

Like I said above, no more or less than any faith.

Is there something that has enought truth to keep you concerned about the church.

I'm not concerned, rather bored. I'm waiting until midnight to see if my check hits the bank. There's never anything on TV.

After all it would seem plausible for a young black person finding LDS past doctrines to simply sever ties and say sheeeeeeesh.

And wouldn't that make it all the more easier to ignore the bump in the rug and say "we're over it to some extent". I'm sorry, but I can't let you do that.

I think there may be things about personal responsibility that the church encourages which can be a boon to young and old.

Your church doesn't have a monopoly on this, I am so sorry to tell you. My church teaches that every sunday, and personal responsibility is not attached to faith, as many atheists who are good world citizens can attest to.

that could be a truth even if other doctrines and stories are not true.

Then what makes the church any more true than any other? If the LDS church is true based on your logic, then so is mine.

I am not saying this to say you ought to go back or go any particular place.

I appreciate that.

It is more in invite, what did you see of value? Those things may still be yours, I doubt LDS have ownership papers on the true parts.

What I saw of value was ultimately an illusion. It was based on the hopes I took in with me and the stories and half-truths told to me by the missionaries. What I took with me was an introduction to the name Jesus. The relationship I developed with Him came after I left. The one thing the church did give me was a knowledge of what harm racism can do. I have also come to learn that I can have what the church promised me (a family, as I have never had that in the fullest sense) just as much out here in the real world as in there. And probably much happier, too.

[_huckelberry]

Gimr, I am not LDS. I think it is a trap filled with fantasy. Sorry I didn't make my ironies more pointed.

[_Sam Harris]

I'm sorry as well huckleberry, as this is a subject I can be nothing but completely straight on. Your post sounds very much like a lot of apologetics I've heard over the years. Forgive me if I misunderstood you. I'm used to being seen as nuts for my thoughts on the issue.

[_huckelberry]

GIMR, I liked your red bull image.

I also think you have a good point refusing my proposal that LDS past racial beliefs are not essential parts of LDS belief. I was thinking of a rather purely logical consideration of basic doctrines. I can imagine all of the basic formulations of beliefs continuing unchanged if the racial ideas were completely cut away. The basic Christian doctrines would remain unchanged. Even the peculiar LDS views do not depend upon the racial ideas. Yet you are correct the racial views are located in central enough places that there influence is not a matter of logical analysis of doctrines. In fact logical analysis of doctrine may just miss the otherwise obvious point. (how other people are described is part of how other people are treated)

[_ozemc]

Gaz, I fear you may wake up in heaven and see some folks there you don't want to see.

Reminds me of a poem I heard:

I was shocked, confused, bewildered as I entered Heaven's door,
Not by the beauty of it all,
by the lights of its decor.
But it was the folks in Heaven
who made me sputter and gasp--
the thieves, the liars, the sinners,
the alcoholics, the trash.

There stood the kid from seventh grade
who swiped my lunch money twice.
Next to him was my old neighbor
who never said anything nice.

Herb, who I always thought
was rotting away in hell,
was sitting pretty on cloud nine,
looking incredibly well.

I nudged Jesus, "What's the deal?
I would love to hear your take.
How'd all these sinners get up here?
God must've made a mistake.

And why's everyone so quiet,
so somber? Give me a clue."
"Hush, Child," said HE "They're all in shock.
No one thought they'd see you!"

[_Sam Harris]

GIMR, I liked your red bull image.

I also think you have a good point refusing my proposal that LDS past racial beliefs are not essential parts of LDS belief. I was thinking of a rather purely logical consideration of basic doctrines. I can imagine all of the basic formulations of beliefs continuing unchanged if the racial ideas were completely cut away. The basic Christian doctrines would remain unchanged. Even the peculiar LDS views do not depend upon the racial ideas. Yet you are correct the racial views are located in central enough places that there influence is not a matter of logical analysis of doctrines. In fact logical analysis of doctrine may just miss the otherwise obvious point. (how other people are described is part of how other people are treated)

I think that racism, along with a few other doctrines could be safely extracted from the LDS faith (much to the benefit of the members), and the church retain its Christian beliefs. Legalism in any form is not good for any faith. The church is extremely family oriented, which can work in its favor and has in many cases. But the legalism can just as easily cancel that out.