Skip to content

I don’t believe the prophet is infallible

March 15, 2009

There is this saying: “Mormons don’t believe their Prophets are infallible, but they treat them as if they are; Catholics believe their Popes are infallible, but they treat them as if they aren’t.”

And so, many times in a Mormon context, the game is to try to show that distasteful parts of the church were not doctrinal and official and “Thus Saith the Lord” kinds of things but instead were off-time comments. So, you’ll have people asking if things were inspired…was the Priesthood ban inspired? And things might go on further into history.

I don’t know if I’m interpreting it incorrectly, but it seems that some think that if some action or quote or policy can be determined to be uninspired, then the True Church is absolved of responsibility (because really, that’s the fault of some person acting in limited capacity, and not the word of God.)

And I don’t think this necessarily absolves the Church of responsibility…

I’m not going to try to suggest that Prophets *should* be infallible. I mean, there are some who will take certain quotes and then use them to suggest that Prophets cannot get things wrong. For example, this very prominent one:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray… If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God…

And I guess I don’t really agree with one such rebuttal to such a quote (which is to suggest that the Prophet will never lead one astray in the principal issues of salvation, etc., while they might fudge on smaller details because they have limited understanding), but I can understand that it’s a little harsh to expect 100% or 0%.

…but to get to the heart of my message, I realize that of course I don’t believe in prophetic infallibility. I recognize that prophets are men, that general authorities and everyone down the line are men. But that’s just it: men aren’t perfect. And the organizations that they establish aren’t either.

So it seems to me that there has to be something compelling instead to show how what arises from and is led by imperfect people can be inspired by a higher cause. This is particularly difficult, because it seems we don’t even have reliable tools to tell if something is inspired or not. What we might find is inspired (or what a leader might say is inspired) could be utterly way off balance (I mean, keep in mind that there were some who actually believed in the priesthood ban and thought that was the way to go.) And what we don’t find inspired could actually be how things should be (someone has to be wrong in any given issue…so that means someone was fighting for a cause they *thought* was right, but which wasn’t).

So in all this confusion, it seems unreliable to take a broad stance that there is this true church and that we have the tools to discern its truth, especially when we then have to make all of these exceptions for fallible, imperfect leaders.

It seems a lot like saying, “Socialism is a perfect system, but it has never been implemented correctly.” (In fact, that’s what people say, don’t they? The gospel is a perfect system and the church is true, but it’s people, man, who suss it all up.)

So, was my problem in believing that the Prophet was infallible and then being crushed by seeing unfortunate things like polygamy, treasure hunting, racist statements, Mountain Meadows Massacre, etc.,? No. And I can’t say I understand this perspective that well, even though it seems to be a sticking point for much unbelief. My problem, if anything, is in believing that the Prophet and church is not altogether that much different than the CEO and organization of Wal-Mart or Google or the Red Cross or Harvard University or any other group. These guys can do good things (they can also do bad things; don’t misunderstand me), but I’m not (and was never) convinced that any of these are “True.”

From → Uncategorized

  1. Andrew,

    Thanks for the pingback. I did want to clarify one thing you said, “it seems that some think that if some action or quote or policy can be determined to be uninspired, then the True Church is absolved of responsibility.

    I’m not trying to absolve the church of responsibility. Just as a captain is responsible for the conduct of his crew, so the church is responsible for the conduct of its prophets. My post’s purpose was to explain what happened in the past, and to call attention to the fact that prophets are fallible, and can make “big” mistakes, as in the case of the priesthood ban. As an active LDS church member, I would hope you would find my actions at least a good start.

    I understand your point about the prophet acting much like a CEO, who does both good things and bad things. It would be nice if the prophet was right 100% of the time, but if we’re dealing with humans, how else are they going to act? They’re going to make mistakes, and while all humans want to venerate their leaders and pretend they do no wrong, we shouldn’t be too surprised when they let us down and act like CEO’s. Yes, it can shatter our image of them as prophets, but thoughtful, realistic people shouldn’t let such problems be a deal-breaker for them.

    “I’m not (and was never) convinced that any of these are “True.””

    So, what is your definition of “true”?

  2. I recognize the big mistakes of the past, and I’m not so much concerned with them. So, that there was a Priesthood ban in the past is not too much of a concern, since after all, there has been a revelation past it.

    But beyond that, there’s been little done. There still is folklore masquerading as doctrine, because the church hasn’t flat-out denounced any of it. This is the problem today. Not the history. The history is history.

    The comparison with CEO and Prophet is not merely to point out that both can do good things and bad things — after all, as you say, people are fallible and flawed. They are human.

    But the idea is…a CEO and Prophet should act toward different ends. The CEO maximizes profitability and keeps the organization going. The Prophet THEORETICALLY should be maximizing truth and the Good (or whatever he will want to call it).

    So when we have people like Aboz who instead point out that the Prophet is more about what will keep the organization thriving, then that’s the problem. If the Church is a corporation or a human organization, there is no problem and this is no dealbreaker. But as the Church claims to be the TRUE Church and claims to have moral high ground to make moral policies and press them forward…this should very much be a dealbreaker. We might trust Wal-Mart for giving us super cheap tubesocks, but I hope no one trusts Wal-Mart as a source of morality.

    I guess between the post and even this comment, I have a fuzzy definition of truth. I’m not even entirely sure what it entails, but I think it has to do with the metaphysical claims the church (or any similar organization) makes. So, for the church, Truth is the worldview that all of the Articles of Faith aren’t simply believed but are true (e.g., it’s the way the universe actually works)…the worldview that the gospel is the way the world works.

    These metaphysical statements demand legitimacy, so if the church doesn’t have such legitimacy, that’s a problem.

  3. In all honesty, Andrew, I think it comes down to one of two things for most people:

    1) Their own personality and how they see the “personality” of the Church;

    2) Their own natural inclination to believe or not believe.

    By #1, I mean that some people are analytical and don’t deal well with subjectivity and relativism and “fuzziness”. They want clear, objective answers – to KNOW truth, and anything that lacks clear answers can’t be accepted – or, at least, continually needs to be questioned. I’m a lot like that in many ways. I really want to figure stuff out intellectually.

    Other people are emotional and don’t deal well with analysis and “intellectual objectivity”. They want to FEEL and EXPERIENCE truth, and anything that relies on the intellect is untrustworthy. I’m also like that in many ways. I love to figure stuff out, but my first priority is on my experiences – instances where I have felt something so overpowering and intellectually unexplainable that I can’t intellectualize my way around it. I have way too many of those experiences to base my ultimate beliefs on what my mind can figure out, especially since people WAY more intellectual than I can reach very compelling but competing conclusions.

    The problem comes in when each person sees “The Church” as the opposite personality. Emotional people who see the Church as analytical feel alienated; likewise, analytical people who see the Church as emotional also feel alienated. Those who aren’t challenged are those who either see the Church as the same personality as themselves OR have reconciled the difference. The BIGGEST problem is that this is rarely a conscious understanding, but rather functions almost entirely within the realm of undercurrents and our subconscious.

    By #2, I mean that some people simply see things critically and want proof for everything before they will believe. Other people see things receptively and look for ways to justify what they believe – or want to believe.

    I am 100% in the latter camp, but I am there by choice. I realized early on in my life (VERY early, actually) that I could create a solid intellectual argument for just about anything I wanted to believe, so I intentionally chose to use my mind to bolster my heart, if you will. For most people, I don’t think it’s a conscious choice; rather, it’s simply there own “natural (wo)man” – which means, ironically, from a Mormon theological standpoint, it is a bad thing **when left unexamined and unchosen**.

    I’m not sure if that is very clear, but I think it lies at the heart of why the type of issues that drive you nuts don’t drive me nuts – including the very practical and critical issue of homosexuality. I think, at the core, for you it’s a very emotional, practical, experiential issue – while for “The Church” it’s much more of an analytical, theoretical issue. That “personality clash”, as much as the actual details of the disagreement, are what cause that issue to be so unresolvable, imo.

    As to the exact focus of your post, I look at the prophets much more emotionally than you do. I want people to look back 100 years from now at what I’ve said and written publicly and be charitable in how they view me. I’m positive I have said and written things that will be flat-out laughable in the future, but, while I will understand if they laugh, I hope they won’t scorn or ridicule or reject me for it. Therefore, I take that same basic perspective when I evaluate what others have said or written. I try to understand the possible “truth” of it first; I try to understand the possible “why” of it next; only last do I try to determine if I agree or not – and generally, by that time, even when I disagree I am able to be more compassionate and not rail against them.

    Sorry for the length, but I felt like I needed to explain as fully as I could.

  4. I agree, Ray. On both points.

    But let’s see if I can try to prod the conversation a slightly different way (before answering the last few paragraphs of your post) to see how far this agreement goes: what would you say about this: if a person does not have an inclination to believe, do you think that they should “work on it” regardless of any possible inner strife this causes them? It seems to me that even if the church were to recognize something like your point 2, it would say something like, “But it doesn’t matter if you are not naturally inclined to believe: you should just be obedient and endure to the end.” They say that you can just “desire to believe,” but this DESIRE also isn’t chosen…it’s part of that inclination, I think.

    Anyway, end of that aside. Getting back to your comment, I think it’s all great and fine to have compassion and charity for those you disagree with, and I’m glad that works for you. But for me, I guess because of personality (your point number 1), it doesn’t work *experientially*. Nice guys finish last, so if I’m going to be nice, it better be for a cause, a person, an idea that I can justify (even if the justification is only personal). I have to take a stand when people attack me or my interests, because yes, I might when a moral highground if I turn the other cheek, but in a world where such moral highground means nothing, I just come out worse in the end.

  5. I think those who don’t have the “gift to know” OR the “gift to believe on those who know” (which can be good OR bad, depending on what it is they “know” or “believe”) should live their lives exactly as those who “know” or those who believe people who “know” – to the best of their ability, according to the dictates of their own conscience. My standard is the exact same for everyone: Live according to whatever you think and believe. Period.

    That means I respect someone who passionately argues FOR something more than someone who passionately argues AGAINST something – and I think there’s a huge difference. I can’t stand many political pundits, because they spend their whole time railing against others and spend very little time making productive suggestions. If their opponents disappeared overnight, they would have nothing to say.

    That’s the same reason I have a hard time with much of what passes as conversation on the internet. There’s less of it in the Bloggernacle than many other places, but it’s there, as well. Those who frequent certain sites ONLY to attack and scream and make hyperbolic accusations bother me, until I stop expecting anything else from them. Then, they simple disappoint me. I want to discuss and learn from differing opinions and perspectives, not engage in verbal fisticuffs.

    Just FYI, I have a post on Mormon Matters that will publish in a couple of hours on exactly that topic. It will be interesting to read the reactions to it.

  6. interesting; I guess I’ll have to wait for the topic to go in a couple of hours then.

    I guess your perspective on those who passionately argue for something rather than against is interesting…but the thing that seems apparent to me is that there are some groups that only have a logical kinship because of what they are against. The fact that their opponents’ nonexistence would eliminate everything they have to say isn’t really a bad thing…it’s like…if you are FOR cancer research, you just really have a common background AGAINST cancer. If cancer ceased to exist, you’d have nothing to say on that point.

    I guess it’s unfortunate that some get to a point where anything they disagree with is a cancer that must be protested against, but it seems like that is still passionate; they are still living according to what they think and believe.

  7. But the idea is…a CEO and Prophet should act toward different ends. The CEO maximizes profitability and keeps the organization going. The Prophet THEORETICALLY should be maximizing truth and the Good (or whatever he will want to call it).

    I get what you’re saying, and even agree with it. But I don’t believe these 2 propositions are necessarily at odds. Why can’t a prophet act like a CEO? Can’t a prophet try to maximize profitability (or organizational strength), while trying to maximize truth? It could be argued that if one neglects organizational viability, it really doesn’t matter how true the message is if the organization dies.

    On the other hand, if the church doesn’t teach truth, but is simply a strong organized, it will also fail because it will have no moral compass, and will end up corrupted from within. The organization will have a nice veneer, only to crumble later like Enron.

    So, I think both of ideas are important, and will be always be at odds with each other. I am reminded of the time where I worked in quality control, and was always trying to make the best quality products out there. Production hated me, because I was always shutting them down. Then I started working in production, and learned what it is like to be on the other side. In this environment, quality and production will always be butting heads, and there will be compromises made. Sometimes quality will be compromised, sometimes production will be compromised. It is tension that is part of every organization, and neither should be completely sacrificed at the expense of the other. To neglect one will kill the organization.

  8. Well, MH, THEORETICALLY, the truth *should* also maximize profitability and organizational strength.

    It’s like this idea even in business that shareholders respond well to corporate ethics, so even if the bottom line is less because of ethical standards, stock price will move up because the company is more “trusted.”

    If this isn’t the case…and integrity, truth, and all of those “good” things don’t maximize organizational viability, then I’d think that you have a problem with what you’re peddling. So that’s my problem with ideas like, “If one neglects organizational viability, it really doesn’t matter how true the message is.” When someone argues this, they have to start dropping some metaphysical claims or some “high ground.”

    Regarding your second paragraph, good point. The thing is…you’d have people saying that the church is in such a position right now. Really, you can’t know until the fall happens (going back to Enron…it was easy to say after the fact, “Oh wow, there were a lot of signs this was not solid,” but the fact is that people either ignored or did not pay attention to cracks in the foundation.)

    I completely understand the idea about different departments in an organization being at odds with each other, but that’s precisely why these organizations don’t have moral high ground, IMO. It seems to me that the compromise made here (and that is extrapolated to the church sometimes) is a recognition that there is a central flaw here that invalidates the organization from being worthy of the level of veneration that we would like to give the church.

  9. Andrew,

    I can’t really dispute anything you’re saying. In a perfect world, theory matches practice.

    We have fallible men, doing the best they can, making decisions regarding quality and production, which can be at odds with each other. Some men do better than others when dealing with these tensions. It probably sounds like a cop-out, but God uses fallible men to run his work, and they make bad decisions–utilizing the PR (ie production) machine when they should be doing the moral high ground (quality). I wish it wasn’t so, and I think it is good when people like you and me point this out, because if nobody pointed unflattering things out, then the truth (ie quality) gets worse.

  10. I guess this is where the distinction between a believer and a nonbeliever becomes apparent.

    When I think about it all, I realize something: we don’t have to assume a perfect world. We don’t have to assume a perfect truth and then try to reconcile all this imperfection with it (especially when there’s a lot of imperfection to reconcile.)

    Things click into place (at least for me), when I drop the metaphysical presupposition of perfection and recognize that I shouldn’t expect things to be perfect. That way, I don’t have to reconcile fallible men or organizational goals that are at odds with the mission statement, so to speak, of the organization. If we don’t try to force “divine inspiration” into the equation, (and my point in comparing to corporations is to point out that we don’t do this for any other organization), then things make sense about why there would be so much imperfection. It makes sense why production and quality are at ends — they don’t pretend to have a mandate from higher powers.

    But instead, we try to force out that “God uses fallible men to run his work,” and then reason out all the reasons why this would be (free will, for our development, etc.,)

    so, that’s what I wonder. Why spend so much time trying to reconcile the imperfections of an organization with a perception that organization stands for something “true.” I mean, let’s say the gospel is true. Then it doesn’t really matter if ORGANIZATIONS like the church or any other church thrive…the gospel will still be true and this should outlive everything else (even the Joseph Smith story hearkens to this: we had an apostasy for thousands of years, but the mechanism to restore the priesthood power was still available).

  11. Andrew, this reminds me of the frequent mormon proverb, “the gospel is true, even if the people aren’t.”

  12. and I mean, seriously, let’s take that to be the case.

    Then why try so hard to defend the organization and the people?

    I mean, I think I know why…because revelation and prophecy is integrated with the Gospel (well, as far as the church goes…ask a protestant the same question and they’d disagree).

  13. I don’t defend the indefensible parts of the church.

    But, I think there is something to mormon culture. Helen Whitney, who produced “The Mormons” on PBS, talked about how there is a “circle the wagons” attitude in the church. On the one hand, there is no christian organization with the history of persecution the mormons have had in the US. The results of this persecution has probably led to a culture of protectionism, leading to the virulent “defend the church at all costs” attitude that you mention. I don’t know that mormons as a culture feel safe in abandoning that cultural training. Perhaps that will change in the future.

  14. I think there is a lot to that, the culture, that is, but if that is the case, then really, things get hairier.

    See, culture doesn’t change on its own. So, we can’t just say “perhaps that will change in the future.” Really, there has to be some direction (whether from outside or inside) that propels the change. The outside pressures are there, but they aren’t going to lead to change in a good way…instead, things like Big Love or Prop 8 backlash or whatever else will lead to more protectionism.

    That’s why I think it’s CRITICAL for the Q12, FP, Prophet, etc., to be taking rein of the church. Because they are the primary vehicles of internal change.

    If not…then…we’re not really going anywhere.

  15. Yes, but since the Q12, etc are the ones responsible for the “circle the wagons” culture, it sure makes change mighty difficult. Then we talk about fallible CEO’s leading the church, and end up circling the issue again…. If only they would receive the inspiration to listen to you and me…. 🙂

  16. Andrew,

    I just did a post on Sidney Rigdon’s efforts to start his own brand of Mormonism. Since we’ve been talking about how the corporate brand of Mormonism is a problem, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Sidney held the correct brand and truth. Since his brand disbanded within a decade of his death (though William Bickerton picked up Sidney’s pieces), I just wanted to know what you thought about Sidney’s efforts–under the assumption that Sidney’s brand of Mormonism is the truth, and follows your line of reasoning above.

  17. I think in the end it shows that the situation isn’t so cut-and-dry. For example, so often we fall into a trap of thinking that the ‘truth’ will overcome all odds and survive past everything else (or that success is a sign of truth: e.g., the church is the “fastest growing”?)

    But that’s not the case…it is as Sidney Rigdon’s son said…regardless of his ideas, Rigdon was no leader of men and he had no talent in that direction. So let’s say that his ideas were true (e.g., his “brand of Mormonism” was true)…but regardless, Young had a better vehicle with which to advertise his views.

    I don’t think this this goes against my reasoning. For example, it is only when we assume that divine things do well that we have this problem reconciling the success of the church with the failure (or decreased success) of seemingly more progressive movements in the Mormon umbrella. However, if we don’t assume divinity, but instead recognize human, social, organizational factors, etc., (which may not even respond to “right” or “true” or “righteous signals), then we don’t have such a problem.

    I’ll definitely have to look in more detail at your series of articles — I hadn’t paid too much attention to them at first.

  18. Going back to your analogy about a CEO, Sidney was a lousy CEO. It reminds me of Apple vs Microsoft. While Apple (Sidney) has plenty of people who think they have the “true” operating system, Microsoft (Brigham) is better organized. Ironically, MS actually bailed out Apple about 10 yrs ago, saving the company from bankruptcy, so in a way, MS is in some ways is responsible for the iPod. (I think my analogy is breaking down…..) 🙂

  19. But isn’t that interesting…because while there are the mac fanboys who are certain that OS X is the “true” OS or whatever, Apple has been able to pull themselves around in many ways precisely because leaders don’t necessarily fall into the same hype that they are also producing and working off of (evidence: iPod, iPhone, etc.,) Certainly, Apple’s gotten a lot of help, but they’ve been playing well strategically in recent years.

    But could you see that happening with the church or with smaller Mormon groups (Community of Christ, etc.,?) Where they “reinvent” their business strategies in such a way that they can start ‘reclaiming’ ground lost in the past?

    I mean, Rigdon is kinda out of the game, but theoretically, there could be others.

  20. Yes, you could be right–perhaps it’s the Bickertonites who’ve got the whole truth thing down. But as I understand your theory, if they start acting like CEO’s instead of prophets, then they will run the risk of compromising their standards for the sake of organizational efficiency and end up just like the Brighamites anyway.

    If I’m understanding your theory correctly, it really seems like a no win situation, doesn’t it?

  21. Correct. But a no win situation is perfectly acceptable when you don’t assume that there *should* be a win.

    Theoretically, where there would be a win is if what was “true” was also what was “effective.” This is an idea that is popular within the church — you can tell that things are righteous because they lead to good consequences. So, if you can stomach that organizational efficiency and standards are one and the same, then theoretically, you’d win.

    Some members do just that. “Well, the church has survived for so long, so there must be something to it,” etc.,

    But this doesn’t jive well with me, which is why I (and others) have problems. And the thing I was going with this message is…I feel that something that is the Real Deal Truth SHOULD be able to incorporate successful organizational principles as well. I mean, considering that we are dealing with a gospel that claims to be able to save lives and establish eternal life, I’d think it should be a little more resilient and resistant to corruption than it is. So, it seems like a copout to say that the church is true, but imperfect people get in the way.

  22. Ok, let’s assume Rigdon’s brand was true, but not effective. Then are you saying that the only logical conclusion is that untruth will triumph in the end, because truth *apparently* isn’t effective enough to be able to sustain itself?

    Does every bit of ineffective truth get squashed by the talented CEO-type leadership of untruth? That seems like a pretty pessimistic assessment, IMO.

    I notice you keep saying these “should” be compatible, but then you talk about how the people keep screwing things up (ie socialism, etc). Is untruth the most powerful force in the universe? Is it more powerful that truth?

  23. If Rigdon’s brand was true but not True (e.g., a sense of pervading metaphysical Truth), then really, the distinction between truth and untruth doesn’t matter. So, yeah, you could say that untruth would triumph in the end.

    Basically, this is the critical distinction. If things are just true (small t for me implies that it is not some kind of “universal” or “metaphysical” truth), then really, we shouldn’t expect that it “comes out on top.” So, if Sidney Rigdon’s model is just true, that doesn’t afford it anything special and indeed, what is EFFECTIVE will overcome in most cases.

    I don’t think it’s a pessimistic statement at all, unless you assume there is a metaphysical, universal Truth that is not coming out on top. (For example, if you posit that “untruth is the most powerful force in the universe,” then you are conflating that to be a Truth. I’m not doing that, so I don’t think I’m being pessimistic.)

    I think that truth and untruth (small ts) are socially constructed in part, so when society responds better to “talented CEO” (which they do), that’s what squashes out the rest. This is not to suggest that this is a universal Truth…but that this is the way our construction works.

    When I talk about shoulds, what I mean is…I don’t eliminate the possibility of an overarching Truth that will merge effectiveness with rightness. It would be pessimistic, I suppose, to suggest that untruth is such a Truth (and that “rightness” is actually corruption and chaos, and we’re all idealistic fools to think otherwise). I think I’m being more optimistic by NOT suggesting that is the case. Instead, I don’t think we have a Truth (yet?), and in that absence, whatever we construct become smaller truths or untruths.

  24. I don’t understand your distinction between truth and Truth.

  25. I guess this is a tough little thing I’ve set up.

    When I think of truth, truth is something very slight and minor. It may be constructed, or it may be something that is universal, but is weak or mere or something like that. Because of this, truth can change, truth can be worked against, truth can be redefined. We have control over our destinies if all that’s in the way is “truth.”

    Truth is something greater. It is powerful, encompassing, big. Truth with a big T doesn’t change; it can be worked against but will not be overcome, and it will not and cannot be redefined.

    So, I think when people have faith, they want to have faith in Truth. So for someone who has faith in the Restored Gospel, he believes that it is not overcome (because even an apostasy cannot destroy it). And he believes that this Gospel is something that is woven into the very fabric of the universe — mercy and justice, as such are “Laws” that must be fulfilled as any scientific Law is. The Reincarnation, Resurrection, premortal existence, judgment, etc., are all the way the universe actually works. These things exist because the worldview of the Gospel is “True.” (So, keep in mind that’s from the perspective of the “Gospel.” Obviously, someone might believe that the Mormon interpretation of the Gospel is wrong and that a different Gospel is “True.” And then there are those who add more, and say that the Church is True. But then I ask if it fits under the criteria)

    However, with something that is merely true, then it might be true because it works for me or because it works for you. And then, things can change because you change, so what works for you or what works for me can change.

    For example, someone who is racist would hold that racial inferiority/superiority is true and True. However, I think most other people would realize that systems of racial inferiority/superiority are not True (or rather, if that is the case, that’s really depressing)…but even if it’s not True, because of the way societies are constructed, it still is true. It is not futilely True, but it is true in a way that people have to work against it.

    If Rigdon’s brand of Mormonism is true (it is the way Mormonism should be, should work, the right interpretation), but it is not True (it is not the way the universe ACTUALLY is…and it does not have claim to metaphysical truths), then of course it can be overrun by more effective things. If Rigdon’s brand of Mormonism is True, then it should be able to pervade through and reach out from its seeming ashes into other communities and “beat out” effective, but unTrue doctrines. But if you don’t assume that something is True, then you don’t have this problem.

    I’ll probably get around to dedicating a post to this, since my comments are just getting longer and longer

  26. I look forward to your post, but I think you’ve cleared up the differences between truth and Truth. Do you believe Truth exists anywhere on the earth, or is everything just a truth, subject to further light and knowledge?

  27. I don’t believe Truth exists on this earth, but please don’t take that to mean that I believe Truth does not exist. My lack of belief or disbelief isn’t a belief in the other direction.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. What can repair the church’s race relations? | Main Street Plaza
  2. Ex-Mormon Narratives: A lazy review « Irresistible (Dis)Grace
  3. Truth and truth (part 1?) « Irresistible (Dis)Grace
  4. Truth and truth (part II, the simplified version) « Irresistible (Dis)Grace
  5. Peace with the madman « Irresistible (Dis)Grace

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: