Truth

I believed from a young age that the church’s teachings represented absolute, unequivocal truth. “I know the church is true,” I said (and heard) countless times, uttered with a fervent conviction that seemed to defy any possibility of doubt or questioning. This sentiment was often expressed through the sharing of testimonies—intimate spiritual experiences that were presented as irrefutable evidence of the divine origins of the church’s doctrines and practices.

However, as I’ve grown older and my understanding of the world has deepened, I’ve come to realize that the nature of truth is far more complex and elusive than the simple declarations of certainty that I once accepted without question.

Would You Want to Know?

I pose an question vital to the discovery of truth: If your belief system were wrong, would you want to know?

As I’ve grappled with the nature of truth in a religious context, I’ve come to realize that the path to understanding is paved not with unquestioning faith, but with a willingness to approach questions with an open and critical mind.

While personal spiritual experiences should not be dismissed, when these subjective experiences are elevated to the level of absolute, unquestionable truth, they can become a hindrance to genuine understanding and growth. Instead, I attempt to strike a balance – acknowledging the value of spiritual exploration, while also recognizing the limitations of personal revelation or the pronouncements of religious authorities.

By embracing a more holistic, multifaceted approach to the pursuit of truth, we open ourselves up to a richer, more nuanced understanding of the human condition and our place within the grand tapestry of existence. This means being willing to engage with diverse perspectives, to challenge our own preconceptions, and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead – even if that means confronting uncomfortable truths or letting go of cherished beliefs.

In my own journey, this realization has forced me to grapple with the uncertainty and ambiguity that often characterize the human experience, rather than clinging to the false comfort of absolute certainty. But it has also imbued my understanding of the world with a deeper sense of wonder, a greater appreciation for the complexity of existence, and a renewed commitment to the ongoing pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

Embracing the complex nature of truth is a celebration of the richness and complexity of the human experience. It is a call to approach the world with a spirit of curiosity, humility, and a willingness to engage in the ongoing dialogue that is the hallmark of true intellectual and spiritual growth.

The Burden of Proof

When confronted with claims of absolute, unquestionable truth, it is important to carefully examine the burden of proof that rests upon those making such assertions. In academia, for example, the peer-review process demands extensive evidence to support any hypothesis or theory. The more extraordinary the claim, the more robust the supporting evidence must be.

In the context of religious discussion, Hitchens’ Razor is a commonly-cited epistemological razor that distills this requirement into a simple phrase:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.¹

This principle of the burden of proof is a fundamental tenet of rational inquiry, rooted in the recognition that our individual perceptions and beliefs can be shaped by a wide range of cognitive biases, emotional attachments, and cultural conditioning. It is not enough to simply assert a truth claim and expect it to be accepted at face value; rather, the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate the validity of their position through verifiable, objective evidence.

If truth claims are to be taken seriously, one must be willing to subject those claims to the same rigorous standards of evidence and rational scrutiny that are applied to any other system of beliefs. Only then are the foundations of faith built on a solid, unshakable bedrock of truth, rather than the shifting sands of unsubstantiated assertions and appeals to authority.

“The Church is True”

I’ve always been confused by the claim that a church can be true. I have pondered this claim and asked church members what they meant by the saying. In general, the saying can be interpreted in the following ways:

1. The church’s doctrine and truth claims are true; or
2. The church values and exemplifies truth, honesty, and transparency.

Doctrinal Truth

The claim that the church’s doctrine and truth claims are true is simultaneously straightforward and complex to analyze. The church’s burden of proof is to demonstrate that its doctrine is logically consistent; by identifying even one example of logical inconsistency, it is possible to disprove the truth of doctrinal claims. The church has produced a finite set of claims, so it is possible to determine the logical soundness of church doctrine in a finite amount of time. However, as I explore in the following section on Reason, a combination of highly-effective logical fallacies scattered throughout the church’s teachings introduces a layer of complexity to this analysis.

When it comes to its doctrine, I’ve often found that the church does not uphold its burden of proof. Time and again, I’ve encountered faith-based teachings that rely heavily on appeals to authority, personal experiences, and the force of tradition, rather than rigorous, empirical validation.

Consider the church’s doctrine of prophetic infallibility—the belief that the church’s president and apostles are incapable of leading the faithful astray, as they are guided directly by God. This claim, at the heart of the church’s truth claims, is presented as an absolute, unquestionable tenet of the faith. Yet, prophets and apostles have made pronouncements and policy decisions that have later been abandoned or reinterpreted as mistakes or imperfections.

If sound reasoning methods were truly applied, one would expect the church to provide a robust, well-reasoned justification for why its leaders should be granted such a lofty, infallible status—one that can withstand rigorous scrutiny and critical analysis. Instead, the doctrine is often simply asserted as a matter of faith, with little attempt to demonstrate its validity through objective, verifiable means.

Further, doctrines and teachings evolve and change over time. What was once presented as an immutable, divinely-inspired truth can later be reframed, reinterpreted, or even outright abandoned as the understanding of the world and the human condition progresses.

The history of the church provides a prime example of this phenomenon. Teachings and policies that were once touted as eternal, God-given mandates—such as a racial ban on priesthood and temple ordinances or the practice of polygamy—have since been discarded or reinterpreted, challenging the notion of the church’s infallibility and the immutability of its core truths.

This pattern of doctrinal shifts and revisions requires us to confront a fundamental question: If the “truths” of a religion can change so dramatically over time, how can we be certain that the current teachings represent anything more than the fallible interpretations of human beings, rather than the immutable, divinely-inspired revelations they are often claimed to be? I cannot answer this question, but I assert that the burden of justification lies with church leaders, who—in my opinion—have yet to provide a satisfactory answer.

By failing to uphold their burden of proof, church leaders visibly attempt to insulate their doctrines from meaningful critique and challenge. This undermines the pursuit of truth and can foster an environment of unquestioning obedience, where adherents are discouraged from engaging in critical thinking or independent investigation of the faith’s core tenets.

Cultural Truth

The assertion that the church values and exemplifies truth, honesty, and transparency is one that deserves careful scrutiny. On the surface, this claim aligns with the church’s professed commitment to moral and spiritual principles. However, a closer examination of the church’s historical and contemporary practices reveals a more complex and, at times, contradictory reality.

One need look no further than the church’s long-standing tradition of obfuscation and secrecy surrounding its finances, institutional decision-making, and the personal lives of its leadership. Despite repeated calls for greater financial transparency, the church has steadfastly refused to provide externally-audited reports of its vast wealth and expenditures. This lack of openness stands in stark contrast to the church’s teachings on the importance of honesty and accountability.

Similarly, the church’s handling of sensitive issues, such as allegations of sexual abuse within its ranks, has often been characterized by a troubling pattern of cover-ups, victim-blaming, and a general unwillingness to confront uncomfortable truths. Time and again, the church has prioritized the protection of its reputation and institutional interests over the pursuit of justice and the wellbeing of its own members. It was discouraging to see the church spend tithing money in a legal battle defending the right of clergy members to withhold information about abuse. It was more discouraging to read the church’s reaction in (the church-owned publication) Deseret News:

Bill Maledon, the church’s attorney who handled the case, said in a statement to the Deseret News, “We are pleased with the Arizona Superior Court’s decision granting summary judgment for the Church and its clergy and dismissing the plantiffs’ claims.”²

Moreover, the church’s historical narratives have been shown to contain numerous inaccuracies, omissions, and even outright falsehoods. From the whitewashing of its past treatment of marginalized groups to the selective presentation of historical evidence, the church has at times demonstrated a concerning disregard for the principles of truthfulness and transparency that it so ardently espouses.

One particularly thorny issue that arises when examining the nature of truth in a religious context is the possibility of a prophet or religious leader deliberately deceiving their followers. While many faiths hold their prophets and apostles in the highest regard, imbuing them with near-infallible status, history has shown that even the most revered religious figures are not immune to human flaws.

The discovery of past religious leaders engaging in unethical or even criminal behavior—from financial misdeeds to sexual abuse—have shaken the faith of many adherents, forcing them to confront the unsettling reality that even those entrusted with the divine mantle of leadership are capable of betraying the trust placed in them. This raises profound questions about the reliability of truth claims and the need for robust systems of accountability and transparency within faith communities.

Ultimately, the claim that the church values and exemplifies truth, honesty, and transparency must be viewed through a critical lens. While the church may pay lip service to these virtues, its actions and institutional practices often tell a very different story – one that raises troubling questions about the church’s commitment to the pursuit of truth and the wellbeing of its adherents. True transparency and accountability can only be achieved through a willingness to confront the church’s shortcomings and to hold its leaders and institutions to the same standards of honesty and integrity that they demand of their members.