Proving the church true in the US court of law

[Gadianton]

I don't think any moral framework would justify Joseph Smith and company, especially the framework of Mormonism, which is why people discovering the truth about church history go through a faith crisis.

Mormon ethics is either materialist or none of the above. James Faulconer, who knows a lot more about this topic than Dan does, says "none of the above".

Postmodernism has a great appeal after learning the truth about Church history. Look at MG. After learning the truth about how bad the Church is, there is a great temptation to gravitate towards theories that say right and wrong are conventional, a matter of perspective, or non-existent, enough to get Joseph Smith out of hot water and then they can go on condemning others. In fact, that's the reason the new MI exists, is to nuance the truth with postmodernism so Mormonism can still be right, after all the hard data is made available.

But then there are MGs, who realize historical truth needs a ton of postmodern nuance so that he can believe whatever he wants about Joseph Smith. But gender has zero postmodern nuance, gender is completely fixed and anyone who says otherwise. Postmodernism can be a terrific ally to fascism.

The appeal of postmodernism may be nearly irresistible for those who come into the ranks of learning basic church history. Dan is an exception, even though he draws on postmodernism now and again to take science down a notch. In general, however, Dan holds firm and maintains the facts are wrong, and that Joseph Smith was an exemplary figure by normal evidential measures and a Christian framework. But he's going to be in the deep minority. Sure, I have no doubts that the Dodo is more on Dan's side than the new MI side. But it's a losing battle, because the typical person isn't capable of such dissonance; just like the typical lawyer can't take on Trump's cases.

The choice is either a) ignorance, or b) postmodernism, for all practical purposes.

[malkie]

Props to Gad for using the Boolean exclusive or.

[Morley]

And to malkie for catching it.

[Philo Sofee]

And to Morley for noting that Morley caught it.

[Philo Sofee]

Is this available to review anywhere? The more they invoke the power of doing it in court, the more obvious their losing case since they never take it to court. It may not even be an item that is admissible in court, against a strike against the silly proposition.

[malkie]

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!

[Dr. Shades]

And to Morley for noting that Morley caught it.

Malkie caught it, not Morley.

[Imwashingmypirate]

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

I've always felt this sounds bizarre. "I know the church is true".

It's implied to mean that it's the only church that God deems to be the correct church but I just find the wording to be odd and this wording is used in testimonies all over the world. Other churches I visit don't spend so much time going on about the church being true. All churches exist therefore all churches are true. It's strange.

[Chap]

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!

[I Have Questions]

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

I've always felt this sounds bizarre. "I know the church is true".

It's implied to mean that it's the only church that God deems to be the correct church but I just find the wording to be odd and this wording is used in testimonies all over the world. Other churches I visit don't spend so much time going on about the church being true. All churches exist therefore all churches are true. It's strange.

It always struck me, especially during F&T meetings, that members and leaders used the phrase “I know the Church is true” as a sort of bolster for themselves. They were saying “I’m right” and “I’ve made a good choice” and “I’m better than other religious people” and “I’m special”. Whenever I heard people use the phrase “I know the Church is true” I always got the impression they doubted it.