Redundant Phrases in the Church

[Vort]

20 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

@Vort Really? The gun shoots accurately. Great. Makes sense. Good job. Nothing is left open ended. Not the same when you say the Church is true

Yes, it is precisely the same. The Church puts us on an undeviating course toward Christ. It is true, just as much as the gospel is true. The comparison is exact, or almost so.

What is this exaltation for which we seek? It is eternal life, which, according to the Lord, is to "know...the only true [there's that word again] God, and Jesus Christ, whom [he hath] sent."

What does it mean to know God? It means to comprehend him, to see him as he really is, because we are like him. It is to dwell with him in his kingdom, to go no more out.

And what do we call the kingdom of God here on the Earth? We call it The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Our exaltation is eternal. We can begin enjoying its fruits right now. But we do that only within the Church.

The Church is true. Quit fighting against that fact and instead seek to understand it.

[clbent04]

@Vort You're going on a tangent here unrelated to the previous posts. It's not the same. You're wrong

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

@Vort You're going on a tangent here unrelated to the previous posts. It's not the same. You're wrong

It is not a tangent, but a direct and relevant response to exactly what you said. If you think the topic is tangential, blame yourself for bringing it up, not me for responding.

And insisting that I am wrong doesn't make me wrong. I have explained to you why I am right. If you wish to discuss the matter, then discuss it. Merely saying "it's not the same, you're wrong" is foolish.

[clbent04]

36 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes, it is precisely the same. The Church puts us on an undeviating course toward Christ. It is true, just as much as the gospel is true. The comparison is exact, or almost so.

What is this exaltation for which we seek? It is eternal life, which, according to the Lord, is to "know...the only true [there's that word again] God, and Jesus Christ, whom [he hath] sent."

What does it mean to know God? It means to comprehend him, to see him as he really is, because we are like him. It is to dwell with him in his kingdom, to go no more out.

And what do we call the kingdom of God here on the Earth? We call it The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Our exaltation is eternal. We can begin enjoying its fruits right now. But we do that only within the Church.

The Church is true. Quit fighting against that fact and instead seek to understand it.

You're example of "I know this rifle shoots true" is a statement that makes sense in itself, correct?  We both agree on that. No further information is needed to understand this as a complete thought.  The statement "I know this Church is true" is not a statement that makes sense in itself.  It's open ended.  Do you see how it begs the question, "what is it about the Church that makes it true?"  No matter how much you want to say this statement is not an open ended statement, it's still an open ended statement. Do you see that?

[Vort]

Just now, clbent04 said:

The statement "I know this Church is true" is not a statement that makes sense in itself.

Sure it is, just as much as the gun example. The words make sense when you know what they mean. The Church points you toward Christ; ergo, it is true. Simple as that.

2 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

It's open ended.  Do you see how it begs the question, "what is it about the Church that makes it true?"  No matter how much you want to say this statement is not an open ended statement, it's still an open ended statement. Do you see that?

Your words above don't mean what you seem to think they mean. An open-ended question is one that cannot be answered "yes" or "no". By analogy, an open-ended statement would be one with which one cannot simply agree or disagree. But one can very well agree (or disagree) with the statement, "The Church is true". So you are mistaken; it is not an "open-ended statement".

I don't particularly care to get all picky with vocabulary. If you're trying to make a point, let's look past the wording and get to your point. Perhaps you can clarify what you're trying to say when you assert that the statement is not "open-ended".

[clbent04]

48 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sure it is, just as much as the gun example. The words make sense when you know what they mean. The Church points you toward Christ; ergo, it is true. Simple as that.

Your words above don't mean what you seem to think they mean. An open-ended question is one that cannot be answered "yes" or "no". By analogy, an open-ended statement would be one with which one cannot simply agree or disagree. But one can very well agree (or disagree) with the statement, "The Church is true". So you are mistaken; it is not an "open-ended statement".

I don't particularly care to get all picky with vocabulary. If you're trying to make a point, let's look past the wording and get to your point. Perhaps you can clarify what you're trying to say when you assert that the statement is not "open-ended".

Okay but help me out here if you happen to know what I'm trying to say even if I'm not saying it perfectly. It's a lot of work otherwise.  Some people on these forums may very well know what you're trying to say, but try to get you caught up in technicalities. Fair enough?  If I'm simply not using the right terminology or phrasing something well enough for you to understand, I'll keep trying. Just don't make it unnecessarily difficult (if you are)

Edited August 9, 2017 by clbent04

[clbent04]

54 minutes ago, Vort said:

Your words above don't mean what you seem to think they mean. An open-ended question is one that cannot be answered "yes" or "no". By analogy, an open-ended statement would be one with which one cannot simply agree or disagree. But one can very well agree (or disagree) with the statement, "The Church is true". So you are mistaken; it is not an "open-ended statement"

To understand my use (or misuse) or the term "open-ended statement", replace every instance of my usage of "open-ended statement" with "statement that begs further questioning as to the complete understanding of that statement". 

Having said that, do you see how the statement "I know this Church is true" begs the question "What is true about it?"

[AnthonyB2]

Sorry to intrude, but I thought I would add that sometimes people say repetitious things for various reasons...

Someone may find that any form of public speaking is very intimidating, using a well worn phrase may help them to speak, when else they would be silent.

Or something may have crushed them (eg death of a child or spouse), they are struggling through greif and pain, they may not have the ability or feel the faith to speak fresh words but can determinedly speak cliche words as an act faith, They are clinging to Jesus in a simple way, till the day they can run, dance and worship him more freely.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AnthonyB2 said:

Sorry to intrude, but I thought I would add that sometimes people say repetitious things for various reasons...

Someone may find that any form of public speaking is very intimidating, using a well worn phrase may help them to speak, when else they would be silent.

Or something may have crushed them (eg death of a child or spouse), they are struggling through greif and pain, they may not have the ability or feel the faith to speak fresh words but can determinedly speak cliche words as an act faith, They are clinging to Jesus in a simple way, till the day they can run, dance and worship him more freely.

Tah-dah!!!

It isn't just the timid speaker.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, clbent04 said:

To understand my use (or misuse) or the term "open-ended statement", replace every instance of my usage of "open-ended statement" with "statement that begs further questioning as to the complete understanding of that statement". 

Having said that, do you see how the statement "I know this Church is true" begs the question "What is true about it?"

If you really have heard the phrase to the point where you find it annoyingly redundant, and you are still claiming that you don't know what it means, then you're just not paying attention.  That would explain a lot about you.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The phrase "don't eat yourself to death" doesn't make any sense either.  But we know what it means.

I'm not sure the point directly correlates here. You're implying, and tacitly agreeing, that the phrase "I know the church is true," doesn't literally make sense but we know what it mean, like saying something is tongue-in-cheek doesn't actually mean their tongue is in their cheek but we know what the phrase represents. I don't think that's right. When I say that I know the church is true I mean what I say. I know the church is true. I don't much care if some cynical skeptic cannot understand that. If they cannot, they cannot. Doesn't meant that I secretly meant something other than what I said.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, clbent04 said:

To understand my use (or misuse) or the term "open-ended statement", replace every instance of my usage of "open-ended statement" with "statement that begs further questioning as to the complete understanding of that statement". 

Having said that, do you see how the statement "I know this Church is true" begs the question "What is true about it?"

Maybe you should add something along the lines of "for me" or "in my case" to this. As in, "For me the statement that one knows the church is true begs further questioning as to the complete understanding..."

Because, I gotta say, when I hear someone say they know the church is true, it doesn't beg any further question.

Edited August 9, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure the point directly correlates here. You're implying, and tacitly agreeing, that the phrase "I know the church is true," doesn't literally make sense but we know what it mean, like saying something is tongue-in-cheek doesn't actually mean their tongue is in their cheek but we know what the phrase represents. I don't think that's right. When I say that I know the church is true I mean what I say. I know the church is true. I don't much care if some cynical skeptic cannot understand that. If they cannot, they cannot. Doesn't meant that I secretly meant something other than what I said.

Yes, something like that.  I wasn't making an issue about agreeing or disagreeing with "The Church is true" making sense or not.  I was simply pointing out the logic he used to complain about it was in error.

IOW:  Even if we concede that the phrase doesn't make sense in a literal verbal analysis, so what?  Lots of phrases we say don't make literal sense, but we don't complain about those.

[clbent04]

6 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe you should add something along the lines of "for me" or "in my case"  this. As in, "For me the statement that one knows the church is true begs further questioning as to the complete understanding..."

Because, I gotta say, when I hear someone say they know the church is true, it doesn't beg any further question.

Did Joseph Smith give up on the Saints even when some were too stubborn to see a better way?  Nay, my brethren, I say nay.  So too shall I press onward with you. Onward ever onward!

Edited August 9, 2017 by clbent04

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Did Joseph Smith give up on the Saints even when some were stubborn to see a better way?  Nay, my brethren, I say nay.  So too shall I press onward with you. Onward ever onward!

Hmmm.

Saying annoying things = Disobeying Church leaders?

clbent = Joseph Smith?

Nay, my brethren, I say nay.

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Did Joseph Smith give up on the Saints even when some were stubborn to see a better way?  Nay, my brethren, I say nay.  So too shall I press onward with you. Onward ever onward!

What?

[Vort]

clbent, you are a son of the Most High. You are infinitely precious in his sight. I have not forgotten that, though I may not always have shown you that I know it.

You have been asking honest questions. This is fine. You may or may not get answers.

What I (and, I suspect, others) sense is a disturbing pattern to your questions. They focus on mechanisms, which are not revealed, and on minutiae, which are irrelevant. You think you have a pile of questions now? Keep forging ahead, then look back from your middle age, and you will have ten times the questions. The more you know, the more you know you don't know, and the more questions you have.

8 hours ago, clbent04 said:

Okay but help me out here if you happen to know what I'm trying to say even if I'm not saying it perfectly. It's a lot of work otherwise.  Some people on these forums may very well know what you're trying to say, but try to get you caught up in technicalities. Fair enough?  If I'm simply not using the right terminology or phrasing something well enough for you to understand, I'll keep trying. Just don't make it unnecessarily difficult (if you are)

Fair enough. I am looking for clarity and communication, not to "win".

7 hours ago, clbent04 said:

To understand my use (or misuse) or the term "open-ended statement", replace every instance of my usage of "open-ended statement" with "statement that begs further questioning as to the complete understanding of that statement". 

Having said that, do you see how the statement "I know this Church is true" begs the question "What is true about it?"

Communication depends on a shared set of references. In the case of spoken or written language, those references are words, sometimes phrases, sometimes phonemes. Any phrase -- any phrase at all -- is incomprehensible until you understand the symbols used. The simplest Swahili sentence will escape your understanding until you learn some Swahili.

The statement "I know the Church is true" makes perfect sense to thousands, maybe millions. Those of us to whom it makes sense understand it because we share the reference set. If you don't share the reference set, then what needs to happen is that you need to learn and share the reference set. Saying, "Hey, I don't understand what 'The Church is true' is supposed to mean. Can anyone provide insight?" is a great way to start. Saying, "The phrase 'The Church is true' is meaningless drivel! It's stupid! Stop saying it!" -- not so much. I have understood you to be saying the latter, more or less. I suspect I'm not alone. If you have been saying the former, then I bet you'll find we're all perfectly willing to say, "Brother, come along with us. Here's what I mean when I say that."

(Btw, "beg the question" doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.)

Edited August 9, 2017 by Vort

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

clbent, you are a son of the Most High. You are infinitely precious in his sight. I have not forgotten that, though I may not always have shown you that I know it.

You have been asking honest questions. This is fine. You may or may not get answers.

What I (and, I suspect, others) sense is a disturbing pattern to your questions. They focus on mechanisms, which are not revealed, and on minutiae, which are irrelevant. You think you have a pile of questions now? Keep forging ahead, then look back from your middle age, and you will have ten times the questions. The more you know, the more you know you don't know, and the more questions you have.

@clbent04,   This ^^^^ -- as well as the remainder.  But I want to address this portion.  Your questions, fair they may be, are lacking.

The common characteristic of all your questions on this forum is that of "Tremendous knowledge with zero understanding."  You've got a whole lot of pieces of a puzzle that you've just dumped out of the box and you're trying to make sense of each piece.  You can't.  It was never meant to be a single piece by itself.  It will be meaningless.  This is why I thought you weren't LDS.  You seem to have experience and studied, but the lack of understanding the pieces is difficult to comprehend from someone who was raised in the Church.  A lot of what you say simply doesn't fit.  

You remember how Star Trek characters would visit today's earth and everything they did was just "a touch" off?  That's how you sound with these questions.  That's not to say I'm discouraging your questions.  But you need to come more from a perspective of "I can't see the big picture here.  How does this fit?"  Instead, you seem to be saying,"I know better, why can't you see that?"  This attitude is the beginning of apostasy.  Pull up before it's too late.

[Grunt]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

@clbent04,   This ^^^^ -- as well as the remainder.  But I want to address this portion.  Your questions, fair they may be, are lacking.

The common characteristic of all your questions on this forum is that of "Tremendous knowledge with zero understanding."  You've got a whole lot of pieces of a puzzle that you've just dumped out of the box and you're trying to make sense of each piece.  You can't.  It was never meant to be a single piece by itself.  It will be meaningless.  This is why I thought you weren't LDS.  You seem to have experience and studied, but the lack of understanding the pieces is difficult to comprehend from someone who was raised in the Church.  A lot of what you say simply doesn't fit.  

You remember how Star Trek characters would visit today's earth and everything they did was just "a touch" off?  That's how you sound with these questions.  That's not to say I'm discouraging your questions.  But you need to come more from a perspective of "I can't see the big picture here.  How does this fit?"  Instead, you seem to be saying,"I know better, why can't you see that?"  This attitude is the beginning of apostasy.  Pull up before it's too late.

That's why I asked several times if he was LDS, with no answer.   Earlier he had said he has no solid testimony and was looking for the true church (paraphrasing), so I thought he was not LDS.  I like to know because it puts statements, questions, and ideas in perspective for me as an outsider if I know the source.  

[clbent04]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

The statement "I know the Church is true" makes perfect sense to thousands, maybe millions

I agree.

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Those of us to whom it makes sense understand it because we share the reference set.

This is where I take issue. Why does the #1, most popular phrase used by Mormons during talks and testimony meetings require a reference set to be understood when the statement could just as easily be said without being dependent on a reference set?  Just seems like good policy that the most popularized statement would be able stand on its own, no reference set necessary.  

Say you're an investigator visiting for the first time during a fast & testimony meeting.  You hear the statement "I know this Church is true" and are not quite sure what it means.  And you continue to hear it throughout the meeting over and over again. Maybe you develop a reference set very quickly within that same first meeting and begin to understand what the statement means, but maybe you don't.  It's your first time in an unfamiliar church and you're taken it in piece by piece.  

For the benefit of the first time investigator, can we not replace the high frequent usage of this statement with something like "I know this Church is of God, and the teachings within it are true."  You could even simply say "The teachings within this Church are true." While the investigator is not yet familiar with the teachings, they understand that you believe the teachings to be true whatever they may be.  When you say "I know this Church is true", the investigator is left wondering what about the Church do you find true?  

The Spirit speaks to the heart and also to one's intellect.  While the investigator may still feel the Spirit upon hearing the phrase "I know this Church is true" without even knowing for sure what it means, they are more likely to feel it when no reference set is necessary so the pathway of the Spirit can be more fully open to satisfy both spiritual and intellectual sides.

4 hours ago, Vort said:

(Btw, "beg the question" doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.)

Arrrrrrrr. Thanks. Revising this one once more.... (please don't correct it again if I have another mistake, or I think I just might cry)

To understand my use (or misuse) of the term "open-ended statement", replace every instance of my usage of "open-ended statement" with "statement that requires a reference set" 

Edited August 9, 2017 by clbent04

[estradling75]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

clbent = Joseph Smith?

Nay, my brethren, I say nay.

Agreed... He seems more of a Hiram Page

Edited August 9, 2017 by estradling75

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

This is where I take issue. Why does the #1, most popular phrase used by Mormons during talks and testimony meetings require a reference set to be understood when the statement could just as easily be said without being dependent on a reference set?  Just seems like good policy that the most popularized statement would be able stand on its own, no reference set necessary.  

Are you truly serious?!? 

Do you ever say "OK"?  Do you know the origin?  Does this most common term in the English language make any kind of sense?  

Do you even understand how language works?!@?!?!@#?@#$

This is preposterous.  I'm done.

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

This is where I take issue. Why does the #1, most popular phrase used by Mormons during talks and testimony meetings require a reference set to be understood when the statement could just as easily be said without being dependent on a reference set?  Just seems like good policy that the most popularized statement would be able stand on its own, no reference set necessary.

In other words: I don't like how you're saying this, so stop saying it that way.

That just isn't how things work.

[estradling75]

52 minutes ago, Grunt said:

That's why I asked several times if he was LDS, with no answer.   Earlier he had said he has no solid testimony and was looking for the true church (paraphrasing), so I thought he was not LDS.  I like to know because it puts statements, questions, and ideas in perspective for me as an outsider if I know the source.  

From other posts it seems we can say he is a teenager...  And has a serious case of "I know everything and adults are stupid"...  Sadly this is a common aliment and most of us can say we have had it to some degree ourselves.  Time and experience are really the only cures. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by estradling75

[clbent04]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Are you truly serious?!? 

Do you ever say "OK"?  Do you know the origin?  Does this most common term in the English language make any kind of sense?  

Do you even understand how language works?!@?!?!@#?@#$

This is preposterous.  I'm done.

Easy, breezy, lemon squeezy

Edited August 9, 2017 by clbent04