2.1 On Truth

Latter-day saints are encouraged to find and learn truth.

What is truth?

The Guide to the Scriptures gives a reasonable summary, particularly accompanied by a recent address from the prophet:

Truth: Knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come (D&C 93:24). Truth also refers to light and revelation from heaven.¹

Truth comes from many sources. In elementary school math class, for example, I was taught the truth that if you have five apples and eat two of them, three apples remain. Under our generally-understood system of counting, this is a universal truth.

Saints are taught that truth is delivered by God through prophets, apostles, and other church leaders. Consider a recent quote by Russell Nelson:

Many on earth today “are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it.” Some would have us believe that truth is relative—that each person should determine for himself or herself what is true. Such a belief is but wishful thinking for those who mistakenly think they will not also be accountable to God.

Dear brothers and sisters, God is the source of all truth. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces all truth that God conveys to His children, whether learned in a scientific laboratory or received by direct revelation from Him.²

From this pair of quotes, a number of principles can reasonably be inferred:

1. Truth is eternal in nature; if something is true it is always true
2. A person should not determine for themself what is true
3. God is the source of all truth
4. Truth may be learned through academic pursuits
5. Truth may be obtained through direct revelation from God

Let us, then, examine these principles one by one:

1. Truth is eternal in nature

That is to say, statements claimed as truth by prophets, seers, and revelators are to be understood as eternally true. If God, who is required by His nature to be a logically consistent being³, were to reveal a truth that only applies to a given timeframe, surely He would constrain revelation to include such a timeframe.

There arises, then, a problem with a statement in Nelson’s address:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces all truth that God conveys to His children²

When Saints was published and when the Gospel Topics Essays were released, it became clear to many members that the church had hidden or misrepresented portions of its history. For example, I was taught for years that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from brass plates using only a urim and thumim⁴. The church did not embrace the truth that Joseph used a peep stone and hired an editor to remove errors from his original translation⁵.

I will discuss more about this in 2.3 Reasoning and Fallacy, but I want to point out a critical point of logical reasoning: A general statement with a universal quantifier is false if there exists any counterexample to it. That is, because I have demonstrated a single counterexample to Nelson’s statement, his statement regarding all truth is false.

In case one counterexample did not suffice, I’m certain you can come up with many other examples yourself. When has the church failed to embrace any truth that God reveals?

• The church has reversed and changed its policies on polygamy⁶, race⁷, homosexuality⁸, and other controversial issues as a need has arisen, often with no apology or explanation, when the original policies were allegedly produced through revelation.
• The church does not embrace or make public the unflattering results of lawsuits, especially regarding abuse and sexual assault, often paying people to remain quiet⁹.
• The church discourages missionaries from sharing negative experiences with their families, advocating that they instead share faith-promoting stories.

Know, for the sake of completeness, that I am arguing that the statement “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces all truth that God conveys to His children”² is false. There are many similar statements which I have not disproved (including, for example, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces some truth that God conveys to His children”). However, using only official church documents, I have illustrated a falsehood in Nelson’s address.

Because a statement within the prophet’s address is incorrect, we can no longer believe that everything a prophet teaches is truth, nor can we affirm that all truth is eternal.

2. A person should not determine for themself what is true

When I first heard this talk, one line was particularly troubling to me:

Some would have us believe that truth is relative — that each person should determine for himself or herself what is true. Such a belief is but wishful thinking for those who mistakenly think they will not also be accountable to God.²

First, I was concerned that Nelson conflated several independent ideas without explaining the connection between them:

1. Some would have us believe that truth is relative
2. Relativism is defined as “each person should determine for himself or herself what is true”
3. A belief in relativism (which he defines as “each person should determine for himself or herself what is true”) is wishful thinking
4. Those who believe in relativism (which he defines as “each person should determine for himself or herself what is true”) mistakenly think they will not be accountable to God

This leads me to the conclusion that one should not determine for oneself what is true. This, however, is completely contradictory to other church teachings. Take, for example, this often-quoted scripture:

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.¹⁰

The Book of Mormon itself encourages a reader to determine for themself the truthfulness of the book with the help of revelation. Because scripture often comes with many possible interpretations, consider your own experience in the church. Chances are high you were taught to pray and use discernment to determine for yourself if something is true.

Despite its clear manipulative tone, let’s tackle this quote logically, one point at a time. Point 1 is true; many believe that truth is relative.

However, at Point 2, the argument begins to decay. He appears to be claiming that those who support relativism are exactly those who support the notion that each person should determine what is true.

Consider in contrast a peer-reviewed, generally accepted definition of relativism:

Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.¹¹

By my interpretation, I understand that Nelson is condemning the practice of any individual determining the truth for themself as relativism. In this context, consider the following quotes from church-authored sources:

Despite this modern reality, for much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.⁷

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.⁷

In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah. According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father. Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.⁷

These three quotes together make it clear to me that cultural context played a large role in the early church’s decision to bar black members from receiving the priesthood or participating in temple ordinances. There are thus two logical possibilities for the origin of this ban; either:

1. The racial priesthood and temple ban were not inspired by God, in which case a prophet fabricated revelation; or
2. The racial priesthood and temple ban were inspired by God, in which case God is influenced by cultural context.

The first statement is largely unappealing since much of the modern church depends heavily on Brigham Young being a prophet and speaking for God. If Young were not a prophet, either the entire church has always been a scam, or one of the other offshoot groups (i.e., FLDS or RLDS) is the correct church. Thus, a faithful interpretation of the priesthood ban must assume the second point holds.

By this logic, God believes truth is relative and points 3 and 4 derived from Nelson’s quote apply to God. That is, Nelson asserts that God is a wishful thinker who does not believe He will be held accountable for His actions. Because church members are taught that church leaders represent and speak for God, it can be concluded that anything a prophet says may only hold in a given cultural context.

If the church and its teachings are to represent Jesus Christ, we must then conclude that Jesus’ teachings are all relative. Because the church’s actions, like the racial priesthood and temple ban, are relative, members’ actions are relative. Because in your current cultural context, research and truth-seeking are morally acceptable, then, your own truth-seeking is morally acceptable and the proposition that people should not determine truth for themselves does not hold.

Final Points

3. God is the source of all truth This point is not worth arguing, as God’s nature and character are defined so ambiguously that it is impossible to determine if He inspired all truth, or if some truth was derived by humans.

I will, however, offer one suggestion. Throughout the history of the world, people who should not be eligible for God’s inspiration under the church’s teachings develop incredible inventions and discover truth. I personally work with a group of agnostic and atheist researchers, and they mathematically prove true statements multiple times per day. Statistically, I have had an equivalent ability to understand and interpret truth in my own profession before and after leaving the church.

So it is at least possible that God is not the source of all truth.

4. Truth may be learned through academic pursuits

This statement is obviously true.

5. Truth may be obtained through direct revelation from God

This statement is impossible to prove or disprove, as one may interpret revelation as one’s own thoughts, or vice versa.

Conclusion

I have determined several key takeaways as I have produced this document:

1. The church and its leaders are not always truthful
2. Individuals can and should learn truth for themselves
3. The church’s teachings on truth can be so convoluted that it is impossible to know the truth without consulting external sources
4. The church produces self-contradictory statements, so at least some of these statements are not true

So, as you continue reading this letter, remember that you are capable of learning the truth for yourself. Despite their lofty claims, church leaders are capable of lying, and you have the tools to decide what you believe.