No need to apologize for watching the Simpsons, dude.

What I will try to discuss in the next article in the series is what it can mean to find truth in many (perhaps all) places…what it means to have truth be found in these many places even though there are differences…and then what it means for there to be one group that has the Truth.

I think the reason that truth can be found in many places is because many different *rules* can reach the correct principles.

However, if you don’t have the correct principles and aren’t seeking them, then you won’t have the truth. So, in my reading, when you say “This is how I view the LDS church as it compares to other religions. Again, it is the only source of all truth. This is chiefly due to the fact we have a Prophet that communes with God,” then what seems to me to be the case is that the church is aligned with all correct principles and the Prophet, in communion with God, distills the principles with rules and commandments to achieve these principles.

I did hedge using ‘appears, cursory and trying’; however, I still acknowledge a poor choice of words. Allow me to rephrase.

This is going to be somewhat of a confession and when I was in a significant leadership position in the Church my wife constantly remained me of the bad influence it was on me and my kids. Since being released, I can now watch it again without guilt. With that said, one of my favorite shows is the Simpsons. I love the political satire and smart-allec humor. Probably an explanation for by trailer trash comment in the previous post.

In one episode (warning a perception of blasphemous behavior), the character playing God answered a question to one person one way and then gave another person a different answer on the same question. Later in the episode they all converged in the same location at the same time and the topic came up. Immediately, God darted from the room. I did not find it blasphemous as it was an inaccurate description of God. He would only tell the truth.

True, I said truth CAN be found in all these places; however, at some point there are differences and only one can have the Truth. This is how I view the LDS church as it compares to other religions. Again, it is the only source of all truth. This is chiefly due to the fact we have a Prophet that communes with God.

Thanks for commenting. I’m not exactly sure that the way I would put what I am trying to accomplish here as “rationalizing why you should have to live a set of rules,” but let’s go with that.

1) To try to explain, the reason I truncated your comment was not to try to dismiss a part of it, but to try to save space (my neurosis, I guess you could say, is a “target” blog length. It already forced this blog post into at least two.) To address the idea of tithing, I would put that in the grouping of specific and proprietary rules that seeks to capture the essence of general principles. So, I think instead of pushing out your discussion of rules, I’m trying to include it with my discussion.

I do have a bit of a reaction to one thing you said…The rules are decidedly not eternal and they do not last forever. Many of our commandments have changed given the dispensation, the group to which they are directed, or the increased or decreased capacity or willingness of the people to which they were directed to live by them. For example, tithing vs. law of consecration.

However, from these transitory rules, we *can* seek eternal principles from them. Seems to fit my theory. These eternal principles, whatever they are and from wherever they spring, can be discovered, as you say, by faithful application of the principle.

2) I’ve heard a quote, “Never attribute to malice that which could be adequately explained by stupidity.” I guess, in this case, I’d probably want to say, “Never attribute to defensiveness what could be attributed to stupidity.” I can deal with claims of my stupidity, but defensiveness?

When I point out that the LDS church does not have exclusive rights to truth, I am not mentioning it in any sort of “tone,” just pointing it out. Since you agree that no one of authority has made such a claim, you should have no problem with my pointing it out.

My point is this: as you point out, the way we come to a knowledge of these rules (you say a knowledge that they are from God; I say that they are good, beneficial, and right) is to live them and see the blessings that stem from these rules. My point is that the “windows of heaven” will open in a number of situation (because truth can come from a Buddhist, a Mormon, an atheist, a cowboy, as you said), and that the windows of heaven opening is the goal, not the mechanism by which we accomplish the goal (the law of tithing.) My point is that we will be filled with love through a number of attitudes and actions (because truth can come from a Buddhist, a Mormon, an atheist, a cowboy, as you said), and that being filled with love is the goal, not the mechanism by which we accomplish the goal (the law of chastity). My point is that we will walk and not be weary and run and not be faith under a number of situations (because truth can come from a Buddhist, a Mormon, an atheist, and a cowboy, as you said), and that walking and not being weary is the goal, not the mechanism by which we achieve the goal (the Word of Wisdom). And so on and so on.

But my final point is this: even if these principles our are principal goal, and they can be found in any situation, rules are crucial for us to stumble upon these principles. They give us a structured way to cultivate the principles and enjoy the benefits.

At a cursory glance, it appears like you are trying to rationalize why you should have to live a set of rules. I base this judgment on two things:

1) You left out a key quote, in the middle of the paragraph of mine you quoted. You took out “For example, I may believe the law of tithing is right (or stupid), but I will not have faith in it until I apply the principle”. It is as if you want to push aside any discussion of rules, but then post a new thread on rules. It was a willful and wanton decision to pull this sentence out of my quote. It makes me question why. Tithing, like so many other commandments, is one of many eternal rules outlined by God. The rules are eternal and have latest forever. It is obedience to these rules that all blessings are predicated.

2) Your tone. You again pointed out the LDS church does not have exclusive rights to truth. You keep bringing this up in a defensive tone in spite of the fact no one in any position of authority has made this claim. I reiterate my response in the previous post “As for your other judgment, I never said Mormons own the truth. Truth is truth and can come from a Mormon, Cowboy, Buddhist or Atheist. With this said, I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Days Saints contains the fullness of truth. Not so much because I believe it is contained in our canonized scripture; but, because we have a living oracle – a true prophet of God.”

I state what I said another way. The only way you are going to come to a knowledge these rules are from God is to live them and see the blessings the stem from these rules. The windows of heaven will be open if the live the law of tithing. We will be filled with love if we live the law of chastity. We will walk and not be weary and run and not faint if we live the word of wisdom. We will become closer to our family by doing temple work. We will find true joy by doing missionary work. In final I reiterate my definition of faith ‘Faith is the application of a belief that enlarges your soul and enlightens your mind’.

Alma 32, Moroni 10:3-5, the chapter on charity (Moroni 8?), Nephi explaining Christ’s baptism (1 Ne 32?), “I will go and do” (1 Ne 3:7), King Benjamin’s address Mosiah 3-5, “pray over your farms, fields,etc” Alma ??

That’s a good start.