✅ True¶
Estimated time to read: 11 minutes
And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.
— 1 Nephi 1:3, Book of Mormon
Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraced it felt himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, falls at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft.
— Joseph Smith; Letter to Isaac Galland, 22 March 1839, p. 53, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed May 26, 2024, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-isaac-galland-22-march-1839/3
Things that are self-evident, or things have been proven, are just assumed. If you go to an advanced physics class, They don't testify to the truthfulness of the test physics you learned in the first year. It's not only just generally accepted, it is demonstrated over and over again in the advanced material. When you work on computers, the guys don't say "and before I start, I want you to, I want you to know that I know this computer runs on binary". It's just understood, right?
So when people are insisting things that otherwise would go without saying, pay attention. When somebody keeps telling you that they're honest, pay attention to it. When whatever they're repeating to you that normally goes without saying, pay attention to why they feel the need to say that.
It was a realization for me that the only proof you need for "the church is not true" is that they keep fucking saying it all the time. Because if it was actually true, no one would say it!
People don't say things like "I know the garbage man comes on Wednesdays." They just don't do that. That's not how the human mind works. ... They just keep saying that over and over again, but if it was true, there would be no need to say it.
— Insight shared from John Larsen's Mormon Expression podcast episode on epistemology
Definition¶
When we hear the word "true," what does that really mean? As much distaste as I feel for the trope of introducing a word's definition as part of a thesis (see also LDS sacrament meetings), some cursory searches online define true as:
- in accordance with the actual state of affairs
- in accordance with fact or reality
- not false
- being what exists, rather than what was thought, intended, or stated
I grew up in the LDS faith, and so I can't really speak to the experience of other religions. But this does make me wonder, do Catholic church attendees hear a testimony that the Catholic church is true, or is it assumed? Would the priest be safe to assume that "if you congregants are here listening to me, you don't need for me to convince you that it's true"? Do Jehovah's Witnesses do this? Do Muslims do this?
What does a true church even mean? Does that mean it has not tried to obscure information? Does that mean it is internally consistent? Does that mean it is in harmony with Christ's teachings, or that it has not strayed from His word as recorded in the four Gospels?
Opposition¶
And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil.
And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations;
My first reaction to the above passage is that it's a prime example of a false dilemma logical fallacy. This is oversimplifying something to two possible outcomes. In the above example, "the church" can either be backed and authorized by God, or founded by the devil and has a maternal affinity for non-specific abominations.
My next thought is that this doctrine wants to categorize everything outside of the LDS faith as being led by an evil force, in opposition to the one organization outside of that broad category. Maybe when this angel speaking to Nephi says "church," he doesn't mean "church" as we understand it today. If this is the case, that conflicts with the idea of it being written for our day, but I digress. Is this angel suggesting that every branch, sect and offshoot of Christianity is borne of Satan, with only one exception? Does "the church of the devil" includes everything that is not the modern Brighamite sect of the LDS church? If so, why? Why would one "church" be plural, but the other "church" is singular? Are all Eastern religions founded by Christianity's boogeyman? What does this suggest about offshoots from the LDS church, founded by Joseph Smith? Did their founder change?
This dualistic all-or-nothing approach seems to oversimplify what humans find value in. "This one is true, therefore everything else is false." Not a little bit false, either, but led by Satan and will 100% certainly lead its adherents to eternal damnation and torment.
"What Do We Mean When We Say the Church Is True?"¶
What fortuitous timing this is! I'm writing these notes in May of 2024, and the upcoming edition of the LDS church's magazine Liahona (formally Ensign) has an address specifically about this very topic. I wrote up some notes on it, but found my comments to be much more numerous than I expected. They're kept in a separate note, you can find it here.
Implications¶
Paul Grice's Maxim of Quantity¶
Paul Grice was a "philosopher of language", and I best know of him for outlining cooperative principle. Colloquially called Grice's Maxims, these are accepted as foundational concepts in the linguistic field of pragmatics. One of which is the Maxim of Quantity, outlining that in conversation, a participant should:
- Make your contribution as informative as is required
- Do not make your contribution more informative than is required
A fellow named Tom Scott has a YouTube channel where he presents this in an approachable way, with the example that we don't need to specify that tomatoes are vegan. Giving too much information (these tomatoes do not contain meat nor dairy) is a breach of this maxim of quantity, and so it feels strange and out of place in conversation. Another example is asbestos-free cereal. You sure hope it has no asbestos, and now you wonder why the manufacturer felt the need to clarify that. The qualification brings more questions than answers; is this an improvement over past shipments that did have asbestos?
Now imagine two young fellows at your doorstep extending an invitation to you to attend their church. "By the way," one might say, "this church isn't wrong, in case you were wondering about that." "Nope," his companion interjects, "it is, in fact, true." You should hope that is the case. They wouldn't be proselytizing if they didn't believe it was true. But in this imagined scenario, they still felt the need to tell you that it is true.
If it was true, you wouldn't have to tell me that it's true.
Why testify?¶
The only reason one would testify "knowing that the church is true" is to negate the idea that it could be wrong, and wrongness would impact its utility or value. It's like saying "there are not lies here." "This is not an attempt to deceive you." Okay...? I didn't consider that possibility until I was assured otherwise.
The implication of verbalizing that "I know [this church] is true" inherently suggests that there are reasons to believe it is not, and you want to remind someone that those reasons are illegitimate. It makes me wonder more about what the disagreement points are. As part of the testimony I'm hearing in this hypothetical scenario, I have one side of the argument, but I've also been indirectly advised of the other side—indicating that there was an argument to consider in the first place. In a way, such a testimony asserts that "it is true, despite the things you or I have heard to say that it is not true."
Per the above outlined maxim of quantity, I am left wondering why did you feel the need to tell me that? Why would Nephi feel the need to tell us that "the record which [he makes] is true"? Is he trying to get that idea in edgewise before someone else pops up and says he's lying? Has he been accused of being untruthful in the past? Or, a more cynical explanation is that this statement is in some way a reaction to Lucy Harris' possession of 116 pages of manuscript containing the Book of Lehi?
This is a childish illustration, but I could tell you that Baskin Robbins ice cream is true. You might ask what in the hell that means, and I could defend my claim by saying that Häagen-Dazs is the whore of all the earth, and they're trying to convince you that Baskin Robbins is led by Satan, and also I promise that I am not trying to deceive you.
It's fucking ice cream. Relax.
Where else can truth be found?¶
To qualify "the church" as being "true", implies there must be a false church. What's a false church? What if, instead of testifying to the truthfulness of the LDS church, we testified of its legitimacy, veracity, utility, coherence, consistency, or value?
Imagine hearing a description of a friend's church, and they attest to how meaningful it is to them. He or she might describe finding emotional connection in it, comfort or stability in its routines or rituals, teachings, or philosophies. Would you interrupt to ask "but is it true though?"
Are Buddha Siddhartha Gautama's teaching "true"? If you were to find a Buddhist adherent, would they describe the philosophy as valuable, useful, meaningful? Or would they assert that "it's true, and that's why I follow it"?
Is truthfulness a precondition for value?
Mythology¶
This may warrant its own separate page of notes, but consider what value mythology has. Broadly speaking, myths aren't presented as true, but they're present in a culture for illustrative purposes. Zombies aren't real, but can be used to describe a mindless, violent horde. Cryptids like chupacabra or skinwalkers are described in folk stories, but aren't demonstrably proven to exist. One could argue that their value is to scare children away from sneaking out at night. On the flip side, mythologies like Santa Claus are a positive reinforcement to incentivize good behavior. These figures don't have to be real to have value. The stories don't have to be true to be useful.
Stories about vampires are not true, but can still be useful for telling a story for a reader or viewer to insert themselves into. Fictional stories have value. With some imagination, a reader can insert themselves into the scenario as a thought exercise, whether for entertainment or as a safe (imagined) environment to face moral dilemmas.
So, no, I dare say that truthfulness is not a precondition for value. If you find value in attending a church, that's enough of a reason to attend. If you find value, meaning, and comfort in religious routines and rituals, they don't have to be "true." Truth and utility are not mutually exclusive, nor are they inseparable.
In a romanticized reality, taking your kids to see Santa Claus in the mall is a cathartic and endearing experience. In more practical terms, verbally confessing 'sins' to your religious leaders can also be cathartic. Neither has to be "true." Both have value and utility. I'm not trying to equate the two. I am not saying that belief in Jesus is comparable to a childish belief in Santa. I'm saying that if someone sees value in reading the Book of Mormon every day, that intrinsic value is enough of a reason to keep doing it. Where problems arise is asserting that the Book of Mormon is a literal historical record, and insisting that anyone who rejects it is throwing away their chance at salvation. That paradigm shapes how you see and interact with the world, and with other people in it.