Proving the church true in the US court of law

[I Have Questions]

Separately. If the Church was true (meaning it is what it is claimed to be), then Prophets and Apostles would stand out as exemplars of the gospel. They would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They don’t. They don’t apologise for mistakes. They knowingly and deliberately illegally hide cash so as to avoid having to declare it. That’s not the hallmark of an organisation that is the sole purveyor of the word of God. They’ve done similar with Church history.

It’s ironic that the Church that people claim to be true, puts so much effort into hiding truths.

[Res Ipsa]

What does it even mean? The church is "true".

A few years ago there was some correspondence on this board, in which posters discussed when Mormons began the practice of proclaiming that "the church is true". I can't recall the conclusion, but I am pretty sure that the practice does not go back to the time of Joseph Smith.

Anyway - yes, it is certainly not a normal way of using the word true. Nobody says "Harvard is true" or "my Girl Scouts troop is true". The words "true" or its opposite "false" are used of propositions - i.e. statements that something is or is not the case. So if you have some propositions like:

(a) You need vitamins to stay healthy.

(b) Houston is a town in Texas.

(c) The moon is made of green cheese.

Then we can say that (a) and (b) are true, but (c) is not.

So why doesn't the CoJCoLDS have its congregations saying things like "I know that it is true that the Book of Abraham was written by Abraham", or "I know that it is true that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America"? The answer is that those are definite statements that may or may not be true, and so the very act of being asked to make them in a devotional context might lead to the believer trying to work out whether they really were true. Which is a dangerous tendency that the CoJCoLDS does not want its believers to follow.

If on the other hand you say "the church is true", you are on safe ground, since that does not make any statement capable of being tested, while still encouraging the believer to trust and obey the leaders of the "true" church when they are told to pay tithes, serve missions, believe whatever the Brethren are saying at present (whatever they may have said in the past that contradicts that), and so on. It works like a dream!

My earliest memories of testimonies are of people saying "the church is true." So, before the '60s, probably.

[Res Ipsa]

May I present a piece of evidence that ties the journey of Lehi and family in the old world to the descendants of Lehi in the new world: Exhibit 98-30 –Nahom in central Mexico.


Take that, sceptics!

Checkmate, apostates!

[Res Ipsa]

A legal/court structure is likely no more suited to serious evaluation of history or theology than would be an advanced auto-body shop to diagnose a heart attack or perform coronary bypass surgery. Just my guess.

This all reminds me of a production that appeared when I was a first grader in elementary school. I was too young to read it then, and am too world-weary to read it now . . .

The Trial of the Stick of Joseph
https://archive.org/details/TrialOfTheS ... ew=theater (original 1954 version)

Later graphic version, as The Book of Mormon on Trial
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Tria ... 1973298872 (comic book format)

Comments a decade ago, on the "other" board
https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61 ... -on-trial/ (discussion)

I agree. And a lawyer should know that.