What do you think?
Rate this book
Who Is Truth: Reframing Our Questions for a Richer Faith
Nearly two thousand years ago, Christ’s followers asked, “How can we know the way?” Christ’s reply was simple and “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). What happens when we think of truth as a living, breathing person instead of as a set of abstract ideas? We wrote this book for Latter-day Saints who wish to re-examine their faith in a way that strengthens their faith in the Restoration of the Gospel. Many of our questions may not have answers because they start with the wrong premises. When we reframe our questions with God as our ultimate goal, rather than a set of abstract doctrines or ideas, they are easier to answer using the scriptures and more likely to strengthen our faith in Jesus Christ.
151 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 9, 2019
47 people are currently reading
105 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
April 1, 2019
Possibly the most thought provoking book I’ve read in the past five years. Highly recommended.
June 13, 2019
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). We take this literally for the words “way” and “life,” but what if we also took it literally for the word “truth”? In their book Who What is Truth? Reframing Our Questions for a Richer Faith, that is exactly what authors Jeffrey L. Thayne and Edwin E. Gantt encourage us to do, changing our way of thinking from truth as an idea (this turns out to be rooted in Greek philosophy) to truth as a person (Hebrew thought).
The chapter headings give a good summary of what is covered: “What if truth is a person?,” “The ancient roots of person-truth,” “Faith in ideas, or faithfulness to a Person?,” “Knowing God vs. believing ideas about Him,” “Person-truth does not give us control,” “Knowing person-truth through covenant,” “Our on-and-off relationship with person-truth,” “What it means to be an authority on truth,” “The archnemesis of person-truth,” “What is sin, if truth is a person?,” “Rethinking the atonement of Christ,” and “Person-truth in a world of science and reason.” There is also a conclusion chapter, a list of further readings, and appendixes with more on Greek and Hebrew thought and questions and answers.
I was initially skeptical when offered this book to review. But it claimed to offer help for those having a faith crisis, and to strengthen faith in Jesus Christ and the Restoration, so I thought it would be worth a look. I was pleasantly surprised, and found myself agreeing with the conclusions (the good fruit being brought forth), even as I am still processing the explanations that led up to them. The authors anticipated skepticism, and they addressed all the potential red flags that came up in my mind as I read.
For instance, “God guides His children within their contexts. What was prudent for one generation may no longer be prudent for another. His instructions are not the sort of universal, unchangeable abstractions that we privilege in the modern world” (page 47). This is followed up with a warning that “Some Latter-day Saints have used these very ideas to rationalize a wholesale rejection of prophetic teaching and warning…. They rightly point out that prophets are fallible and can make mistakes; they wrongly assert that this means we should reject their current teachings” (page 49).
The book is full of gems that address topics related to a crisis of faith, such as “some Latter-day Saints argue that faith cannot exist without doubt. They reject the certainty with which many Latter-day Saints express their testimonies of the restored gospel…. Some Latter-day thinkers have begun to use similar logic to valorize doubt and skepticism as a prerequisite to genuine faith…. In contrast, the person view of truth shifts our understanding of doubt. If we use marriage as our example, spouses are always and ever knowing each other better every day. But it would make little sense to say that each must question or doubt the existence or faithfulness of the other in order to have faith in him or her or to be truly faithful…. Similarly, our fidelity to God is not justified by rational inference or empirical evidence either” (page 56). It also covers topics such as so-called “bishop roulette,” how it’s OK that prophets sometimes seem to contradict each other or even themselves, why bad things happen even though we live the gospel but we should trust God anyway, and what is wrong with the idea of “being on the wrong side of history.”
There is a chapter on the temple that reframes the question, “If the sacred truths of the Holy Temple are really so important, why do we keep them a secret, rather than sharing them with everyone?” into “What must I do to prepare myself for the ritual communion with God that takes place in the Holy Temple, and how can I invite others to do the same.” It further explains, “The first question assumes that all truth should be verified in light of public scrutiny, whereas the second question assumes that our relationship with God can involve levels of familiarity and intimacy that are guarded by covenants” (page 77).
One observation I have made with those that lose their faith is that early in the process they can be helped, but they eventually reach a point where they have lost their trust and nothing can be said to help them. At this point, it seems that only God can turn them around, in His own time. This is explained: “[T]here may really be intellectual snares and traps that, once sprung, we cannot think our way out of. It is possible, from this view to be held captive by a lie or possessed by a false view of the world…. From a person view of truth, rational arguments may be insufficient. Divine rescue is often needed” (page 102). The question, “How can we convince someone who has been led astray by false ideas of the error of their beliefs and doctrinal understandings?” becomes “How can we invite someone who has been (or is being) led astray to obtain spiritual and intellectual confirmations through personal experiences with God?” (page 105).
At 185 pages, this would be a quick read, except that much of it is a completely different way of looking at things, which I am still digesting. I did enjoy reading it – it was actually hard to put down. I plan to read it again, and refer to it in the future as I discuss matters of faith with others and try to help those that are struggling. As the authors point out in a note in the beginning, others have written about these ideas, but Thayne and Gantt did a great job expressing them in a way that makes them accessible to the general reader.
The chapter headings give a good summary of what is covered: “What if truth is a person?,” “The ancient roots of person-truth,” “Faith in ideas, or faithfulness to a Person?,” “Knowing God vs. believing ideas about Him,” “Person-truth does not give us control,” “Knowing person-truth through covenant,” “Our on-and-off relationship with person-truth,” “What it means to be an authority on truth,” “The archnemesis of person-truth,” “What is sin, if truth is a person?,” “Rethinking the atonement of Christ,” and “Person-truth in a world of science and reason.” There is also a conclusion chapter, a list of further readings, and appendixes with more on Greek and Hebrew thought and questions and answers.
I was initially skeptical when offered this book to review. But it claimed to offer help for those having a faith crisis, and to strengthen faith in Jesus Christ and the Restoration, so I thought it would be worth a look. I was pleasantly surprised, and found myself agreeing with the conclusions (the good fruit being brought forth), even as I am still processing the explanations that led up to them. The authors anticipated skepticism, and they addressed all the potential red flags that came up in my mind as I read.
For instance, “God guides His children within their contexts. What was prudent for one generation may no longer be prudent for another. His instructions are not the sort of universal, unchangeable abstractions that we privilege in the modern world” (page 47). This is followed up with a warning that “Some Latter-day Saints have used these very ideas to rationalize a wholesale rejection of prophetic teaching and warning…. They rightly point out that prophets are fallible and can make mistakes; they wrongly assert that this means we should reject their current teachings” (page 49).
The book is full of gems that address topics related to a crisis of faith, such as “some Latter-day Saints argue that faith cannot exist without doubt. They reject the certainty with which many Latter-day Saints express their testimonies of the restored gospel…. Some Latter-day thinkers have begun to use similar logic to valorize doubt and skepticism as a prerequisite to genuine faith…. In contrast, the person view of truth shifts our understanding of doubt. If we use marriage as our example, spouses are always and ever knowing each other better every day. But it would make little sense to say that each must question or doubt the existence or faithfulness of the other in order to have faith in him or her or to be truly faithful…. Similarly, our fidelity to God is not justified by rational inference or empirical evidence either” (page 56). It also covers topics such as so-called “bishop roulette,” how it’s OK that prophets sometimes seem to contradict each other or even themselves, why bad things happen even though we live the gospel but we should trust God anyway, and what is wrong with the idea of “being on the wrong side of history.”
There is a chapter on the temple that reframes the question, “If the sacred truths of the Holy Temple are really so important, why do we keep them a secret, rather than sharing them with everyone?” into “What must I do to prepare myself for the ritual communion with God that takes place in the Holy Temple, and how can I invite others to do the same.” It further explains, “The first question assumes that all truth should be verified in light of public scrutiny, whereas the second question assumes that our relationship with God can involve levels of familiarity and intimacy that are guarded by covenants” (page 77).
One observation I have made with those that lose their faith is that early in the process they can be helped, but they eventually reach a point where they have lost their trust and nothing can be said to help them. At this point, it seems that only God can turn them around, in His own time. This is explained: “[T]here may really be intellectual snares and traps that, once sprung, we cannot think our way out of. It is possible, from this view to be held captive by a lie or possessed by a false view of the world…. From a person view of truth, rational arguments may be insufficient. Divine rescue is often needed” (page 102). The question, “How can we convince someone who has been led astray by false ideas of the error of their beliefs and doctrinal understandings?” becomes “How can we invite someone who has been (or is being) led astray to obtain spiritual and intellectual confirmations through personal experiences with God?” (page 105).
At 185 pages, this would be a quick read, except that much of it is a completely different way of looking at things, which I am still digesting. I did enjoy reading it – it was actually hard to put down. I plan to read it again, and refer to it in the future as I discuss matters of faith with others and try to help those that are struggling. As the authors point out in a note in the beginning, others have written about these ideas, but Thayne and Gantt did a great job expressing them in a way that makes them accessible to the general reader.
Read
May 15, 2025.5/5
In Lori Branch’s “Postsecular Studies,” she begins with a question below her third of seven premises on postsecular inquiry: “To begin seeing secularism would necessarily be also to see religion differently, since religion in modernity has been constituted by the logic of secularism” (96). Here, Branch makes an argument that the religious is not so easily defined as the secular, and that readers must critically investigate the togetherness of the two, as the religious can be found in places others have dismissed as irreligious. Readers must go “beyond the knowledge/faith binary that has organized our thinking on religion since the Enlightenment. A postsecular perspective encourages us to investigate religion as a shifting range of practices and experiences in different times and places” (96). In the details of history, including the Enlightenment and Modernist periods, readers can find traces, or the husk of the irrational forming its literature. Branch continues that “this historical broadening of our understanding of the religious is potentially limitless, because of the impossibility of constituting a pure secularity” (96). Just as there is not “pure secularity,” there can also be no pure religion. This destructive binary thinking limits readers’ understandings of what is there in literature, or other works of art—by leaving this mindset, readers can find the irrational outreach of an author, seeking a higher or outer reconciliation outside of themselves. And it is in this that I believe Gantt and Thayne err in their book Who is Truth?.
Gantt and Thayne describe the concepts of Idea-truth (abstract widely philosophical knowledge) as passive, and Person-truth as active—something that “interrupts us when we are on other errands” (25-6). Here we can see these authors immediately setting a binary of what is truth, and what is not, and what is truly meaningful and what is not. In the beginning of Badiou’s The End: A Conversation, he discusses how in Plato’s allegory of the cave, the person moved from the lowest prison level to the outside never asked to be liberated. The man was moved outside of himself, placed outside, then brought back in on none of his own accord. In this, Badiou argues, is how knowledge can physically displace a person’s entire life. Gantt and Thayne’s Idea- and Person-truth concepts betray this idea. I believe the two are wrong.
In their seventh chapter “What if truth is a person?”, Gantt and Thayne explain that “our knowledge of truth is bound up with our covenantal relationship with God. We can lose truth as we neglect or betray that relationship” (83); but is this explanation of truth as separating the religious from the secular not also betraying Branch’s efforts to look deeper at our historical framework? Is there not a searching for in the neglect of? As we leave God, struggle against Him, is this not an act of faith within the framework of absence since He still occupies both our thoughts and actions? In reference to the lack of progress of God’s children, Gantt and Thayne write that “progress was only made to the extent that people heeded the instructions of God within their covenant community” (85-6). But is the explanation for faith only a sort of blind faith, that these two scholars seem to be arguing for: “Don’t doubt, don’t look elsewhere for truth, only take what God says and embody it”? In another definition of the Idea and Person truths, they describe “from an idea view of truth, ‘societal progress’ takes place independent of our relationship with God,” whereas “from a person view of truth, when we betray our covenants with God, we unhinge ourselves from the only Person who can keep us from faltering in our moral and spiritual progress” (86). Again, the binary is reset. Only the Person truth is real truth since it belongs to God. This implies the idea that God has no influence in the world, and that He only operates in one specific vein of reality. The two continue: “The closer and more intimate we are in our relationship with God (the Truth), the fuller and more discerning our understanding of what is right and true” (87).
Like in Branch’s scholarship, it is most important to acknowledge the humanity of peoples, seeing how both the worldly and religious have shaped perceptions of life; the destruction of this dangerous binary will pull readers closer to other people and God, being able to relate in the hardships of life while also acknowledging something higher than themselves.
--
Read for my ENGL 450R class: Studies in Lit Crit and Theory.
Acknowledging that my review is affected by my recent frustrations.
Called Mom for a while after church. Wished her a happy Mother's Day. Talked about her life. Her favorite vacations, restaurants, what it was like growing up and how me and my siblings were as kids. Did you ever think about giving up? I'd never be a mother without you, she said. There is so much beauty in trying. And I've learned that everything is done through a fumbling. Everyone trying to figure it out while maintaining a comfortability they and others can be okay in.
But wow do I struggle with church. I love God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit, although now I feel distanced from Them. I love the Bible, and the Book of Mormon. When I read them I feel the divine otherness that can only come from the irrational. But in church? Maybe my heart is too closed off. I don't know what I want. Maybe I'm projecting my mental health at this organization. Sometimes I feel that the people in my church don't care about what they're preaching--or maybe not care, but they just don't know. Talk after talk, I hear life-coaching, terrible readings of scriptures, unrelated life-stories. But also them being there and standing at a podium, untrained, and speaking is in it of itself them saying Here here is my faith and maybe I don't understand this doctrine or content now but I hope to and I can feel part of it and that's enough for me to come and to testify how I'm changed because of it.
Great.
I've been on a handful of dates these past months. Went to parks, chocolate shops, museums, lakes, hikes, movies. Awesome. Really cool people. But I feel so distanced. Like I'm watching myself on these, but I'm not there. Not really joking much. Taking things too seriously. The idea of being physically intimate with someone seems absurd.
People keep telling me to keep going out, keep meeting new people. That Once you meet the right one it'll all make sense, but I think that's ridiculous. Why forsake myself? Clearly unwell.
Going to keep lying low. If that means leaving BYU without finding a wife I think that's A-Okay. Keep writing, reading. Doing things I love. Spending money as I'd like. Not forcing myself into anything I don't want to do. Bike. Run. Eat great food. Cook great food. Swim. Go to museums. Watch the best movies. Be with friends when I feel up to it. Travel.
Being back with my family on vacations is so interesting I feel like most of us are so awkward. My brother doesn't know how to have a regular conversation. My sisters barely ever talk. Always on their phones or if they're with us they have their headphones in. Dad is very social where Mom is introverted. Hard to talk to her if you don't ask her a lot of questions. And then growing up in the church we had the no-talking-to-the-other-gender ban until we were 16. And that definitely set us all back. Definitely me. Have always been in my own head. Often embarrassed, shy, insecure. Got used to making funny declarations as people loved them, but could never talk. Not really. Like a real conversation. And maybe this is me in my own head again. But if I need a couple more years to chill out, be better at conversing, improve in some hobbies and habits, then that's perfect. The rest can happen from there. Don't want to drag another who is already ready into it.
This book was so bad. Badly written, including typos, and as if its talking to children. Why not read actual philosophy? Why not watch Bluey, instead? I'm not enjoying this class' readings.
But maybe this book is Thayne and Gantt's trying. Although imperfect, it is a step forward. Hopeful of an eternity, and how to exemplify Truth before they are judged. And that maybe their insights could help another, even if they're misarticulated. The book is a witness to an attempt. And that is something.
In Lori Branch’s “Postsecular Studies,” she begins with a question below her third of seven premises on postsecular inquiry: “To begin seeing secularism would necessarily be also to see religion differently, since religion in modernity has been constituted by the logic of secularism” (96). Here, Branch makes an argument that the religious is not so easily defined as the secular, and that readers must critically investigate the togetherness of the two, as the religious can be found in places others have dismissed as irreligious. Readers must go “beyond the knowledge/faith binary that has organized our thinking on religion since the Enlightenment. A postsecular perspective encourages us to investigate religion as a shifting range of practices and experiences in different times and places” (96). In the details of history, including the Enlightenment and Modernist periods, readers can find traces, or the husk of the irrational forming its literature. Branch continues that “this historical broadening of our understanding of the religious is potentially limitless, because of the impossibility of constituting a pure secularity” (96). Just as there is not “pure secularity,” there can also be no pure religion. This destructive binary thinking limits readers’ understandings of what is there in literature, or other works of art—by leaving this mindset, readers can find the irrational outreach of an author, seeking a higher or outer reconciliation outside of themselves. And it is in this that I believe Gantt and Thayne err in their book Who is Truth?.
Gantt and Thayne describe the concepts of Idea-truth (abstract widely philosophical knowledge) as passive, and Person-truth as active—something that “interrupts us when we are on other errands” (25-6). Here we can see these authors immediately setting a binary of what is truth, and what is not, and what is truly meaningful and what is not. In the beginning of Badiou’s The End: A Conversation, he discusses how in Plato’s allegory of the cave, the person moved from the lowest prison level to the outside never asked to be liberated. The man was moved outside of himself, placed outside, then brought back in on none of his own accord. In this, Badiou argues, is how knowledge can physically displace a person’s entire life. Gantt and Thayne’s Idea- and Person-truth concepts betray this idea. I believe the two are wrong.
In their seventh chapter “What if truth is a person?”, Gantt and Thayne explain that “our knowledge of truth is bound up with our covenantal relationship with God. We can lose truth as we neglect or betray that relationship” (83); but is this explanation of truth as separating the religious from the secular not also betraying Branch’s efforts to look deeper at our historical framework? Is there not a searching for in the neglect of? As we leave God, struggle against Him, is this not an act of faith within the framework of absence since He still occupies both our thoughts and actions? In reference to the lack of progress of God’s children, Gantt and Thayne write that “progress was only made to the extent that people heeded the instructions of God within their covenant community” (85-6). But is the explanation for faith only a sort of blind faith, that these two scholars seem to be arguing for: “Don’t doubt, don’t look elsewhere for truth, only take what God says and embody it”? In another definition of the Idea and Person truths, they describe “from an idea view of truth, ‘societal progress’ takes place independent of our relationship with God,” whereas “from a person view of truth, when we betray our covenants with God, we unhinge ourselves from the only Person who can keep us from faltering in our moral and spiritual progress” (86). Again, the binary is reset. Only the Person truth is real truth since it belongs to God. This implies the idea that God has no influence in the world, and that He only operates in one specific vein of reality. The two continue: “The closer and more intimate we are in our relationship with God (the Truth), the fuller and more discerning our understanding of what is right and true” (87).
Like in Branch’s scholarship, it is most important to acknowledge the humanity of peoples, seeing how both the worldly and religious have shaped perceptions of life; the destruction of this dangerous binary will pull readers closer to other people and God, being able to relate in the hardships of life while also acknowledging something higher than themselves.
--
Read for my ENGL 450R class: Studies in Lit Crit and Theory.
Acknowledging that my review is affected by my recent frustrations.
Called Mom for a while after church. Wished her a happy Mother's Day. Talked about her life. Her favorite vacations, restaurants, what it was like growing up and how me and my siblings were as kids. Did you ever think about giving up? I'd never be a mother without you, she said. There is so much beauty in trying. And I've learned that everything is done through a fumbling. Everyone trying to figure it out while maintaining a comfortability they and others can be okay in.
But wow do I struggle with church. I love God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit, although now I feel distanced from Them. I love the Bible, and the Book of Mormon. When I read them I feel the divine otherness that can only come from the irrational. But in church? Maybe my heart is too closed off. I don't know what I want. Maybe I'm projecting my mental health at this organization. Sometimes I feel that the people in my church don't care about what they're preaching--or maybe not care, but they just don't know. Talk after talk, I hear life-coaching, terrible readings of scriptures, unrelated life-stories. But also them being there and standing at a podium, untrained, and speaking is in it of itself them saying Here here is my faith and maybe I don't understand this doctrine or content now but I hope to and I can feel part of it and that's enough for me to come and to testify how I'm changed because of it.
Great.
I've been on a handful of dates these past months. Went to parks, chocolate shops, museums, lakes, hikes, movies. Awesome. Really cool people. But I feel so distanced. Like I'm watching myself on these, but I'm not there. Not really joking much. Taking things too seriously. The idea of being physically intimate with someone seems absurd.
People keep telling me to keep going out, keep meeting new people. That Once you meet the right one it'll all make sense, but I think that's ridiculous. Why forsake myself? Clearly unwell.
Going to keep lying low. If that means leaving BYU without finding a wife I think that's A-Okay. Keep writing, reading. Doing things I love. Spending money as I'd like. Not forcing myself into anything I don't want to do. Bike. Run. Eat great food. Cook great food. Swim. Go to museums. Watch the best movies. Be with friends when I feel up to it. Travel.
Being back with my family on vacations is so interesting I feel like most of us are so awkward. My brother doesn't know how to have a regular conversation. My sisters barely ever talk. Always on their phones or if they're with us they have their headphones in. Dad is very social where Mom is introverted. Hard to talk to her if you don't ask her a lot of questions. And then growing up in the church we had the no-talking-to-the-other-gender ban until we were 16. And that definitely set us all back. Definitely me. Have always been in my own head. Often embarrassed, shy, insecure. Got used to making funny declarations as people loved them, but could never talk. Not really. Like a real conversation. And maybe this is me in my own head again. But if I need a couple more years to chill out, be better at conversing, improve in some hobbies and habits, then that's perfect. The rest can happen from there. Don't want to drag another who is already ready into it.
This book was so bad. Badly written, including typos, and as if its talking to children. Why not read actual philosophy? Why not watch Bluey, instead? I'm not enjoying this class' readings.
But maybe this book is Thayne and Gantt's trying. Although imperfect, it is a step forward. Hopeful of an eternity, and how to exemplify Truth before they are judged. And that maybe their insights could help another, even if they're misarticulated. The book is a witness to an attempt. And that is something.
June 9, 2021
I agree with the authors' original premise of idea-truth vs Person-Truth. And there were definitely some thought provoking gems of information in this book. But overall I felt their arguments and facts in support of their main point were sometimes weak and lacked validation. I also felt the authors clumsily tried to adapt this principle to topics where it didn't quite fit. Throughout the entire book they exclusively favored the Hebrew thought process over the Greek, yet the last few paragraphs warned the reader not to do this, or to take their points too rigidly (which is one of my criticisms of their work). In general I thought the authors had a great idea to share, but did so with poor execution.
September 9, 2020
This book gave me a whole new way of looking at truth, faith, the gospel, scriptures, my life. Very interesting. This provided a very good discussion at book club.
August 11, 2023
I got halfway through this book and then put it down. When I picked it back up I questioned why I ever put it down. People get distracted I guess.
This book drives home the point that we need to have a relationship with Christ and Heavenly Father and not just an idea of them. Covering the path from Hebraic thought and practice to Hellenistic thought, this read is full of inspired questions that turn you from a mindset of “what laws must I follow to be righteous” to “what can I do to form a bond and relationship with the Savior and my Father in Heaven.”
A must read.
This book drives home the point that we need to have a relationship with Christ and Heavenly Father and not just an idea of them. Covering the path from Hebraic thought and practice to Hellenistic thought, this read is full of inspired questions that turn you from a mindset of “what laws must I follow to be righteous” to “what can I do to form a bond and relationship with the Savior and my Father in Heaven.”
A must read.
September 10, 2020
This book definitely gives you the tools to look at the scriptures and religious topics from a different perspective. Very interesting read.
January 5, 2021
This is one of the best books about faith I have ever read. If you are going through a faith crisis this book is for you!!
March 26, 2021
This book has strengthened my testimony of the church and of God in ways never before. It shows how our relationship with God is so personal to us in our unique situations. It helps you feel the true peace and mercy of the Savior.
August 13, 2023
This book is written by Mormon authors and reflects their scholarship for the Mormon canon. Even though I am not Mormon I found this book of value. The exploration of the differences between Hebrew thought and Greek thought was very enlightening. This book should be a welcome addition to the library of those people who are seeking truth – regardless of their faith journey.
October 19, 2020
Great insights
June 9, 2019
I really like the idea of thinking of Truth as residing in God, not outside or above Him. The authors do a good job of explaining this concept and the implications for our questions and our faith. This has given me much food for thought.
August 18, 2020
I had to read this book for my History and Systems of Psychology class, and I absolutely loved it (when I could focus lol). It was a beautiful lesson on how we must have faith when it comes to seeing Christ as person truth.
April 8, 2023
One of the more thought provoking books that I have read in a while. This book helps you think of how you can have a relationship with God. Each chapter was captivating and can generate long discussions with friends and family . A fantastic book.
April 18, 2019
This was life-changing for me. Excellent.
April 14, 2025
This book was recommended to me by someone who knows I’ve been quietly deconstructing my Mormon faith—and Christianity more broadly—over the past few years. Its ideas feel refreshingly unique, and I applaud the authors, Jeffrey Thayne and Edwin Gantt, for approaching their subject with simplicity, evenhandedness, and empathy. I really like their two core assertions: (1) that truth is a person, and (2) that our Western, Greek-influenced view of God and truth represents a dramatic departure from earlier Hebrew interpretations.
If you're not LDS, you might ask, “What’s the problem with that?” This is where a fundamental difference between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity becomes relevant. In most Christian denominations, the Old Testament isn’t emphasized nearly as much as the New Testament—after all, the New Testament is seen as the higher law, right? But according to LDS theology, God has offered higher laws to humankind at various points in history, including during the Old Testament era, well before Jesus came in the flesh. Because of this, Old Testament symbolism and Hebrew interpretations carry greater significance for many Latter-day Saints.
The idea that truth is a person and not just an abstract concept really resonates with me. I also appreciated the many references to C.S. Lewis and other ecclesiastical thinkers. The book is a breezy read that tackles the apparent inconsistencies and messiness of organized religion, arguing that skeptics like me are often asking the wrong questions—questions shaped by a Western mindset that treats truth like a static math equation.
That perspective worked well for me at the start of the book, and I believe it offers helpful insight when exploring one's personal relationship with a higher power. Where it starts to fall apart, in my view, is when that same logic is extended to God’s purported representatives on Earth. The authors try to bridge that gap several times, but I ultimately found those efforts unconvincing.
One other critique—closer to the book’s core assertion—is that the authors seem to take what they like from Hebrew thought and ignore the rest. That feels a little too much like cherry-picking. To be blunt: if we truly preferred the Hebrew interpretation of God and truth, we wouldn’t be backing Jesus as the Messiah.
Quibbles aside, there are some thought-provoking ideas here, and I enjoyed my time with this book.
If you're not LDS, you might ask, “What’s the problem with that?” This is where a fundamental difference between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity becomes relevant. In most Christian denominations, the Old Testament isn’t emphasized nearly as much as the New Testament—after all, the New Testament is seen as the higher law, right? But according to LDS theology, God has offered higher laws to humankind at various points in history, including during the Old Testament era, well before Jesus came in the flesh. Because of this, Old Testament symbolism and Hebrew interpretations carry greater significance for many Latter-day Saints.
The idea that truth is a person and not just an abstract concept really resonates with me. I also appreciated the many references to C.S. Lewis and other ecclesiastical thinkers. The book is a breezy read that tackles the apparent inconsistencies and messiness of organized religion, arguing that skeptics like me are often asking the wrong questions—questions shaped by a Western mindset that treats truth like a static math equation.
That perspective worked well for me at the start of the book, and I believe it offers helpful insight when exploring one's personal relationship with a higher power. Where it starts to fall apart, in my view, is when that same logic is extended to God’s purported representatives on Earth. The authors try to bridge that gap several times, but I ultimately found those efforts unconvincing.
One other critique—closer to the book’s core assertion—is that the authors seem to take what they like from Hebrew thought and ignore the rest. That feels a little too much like cherry-picking. To be blunt: if we truly preferred the Hebrew interpretation of God and truth, we wouldn’t be backing Jesus as the Messiah.
Quibbles aside, there are some thought-provoking ideas here, and I enjoyed my time with this book.
December 4, 2025
I found this book to be a deeply thought-provoking read that offers a profound perspective on the gospel that all people of faith ought to consider. Perhaps I'm biased because I am particularly interested in the philosophy of theology, so it's likely that most average readers won't appreciate this book's concepts as much as I did, but I feel it did an excellent job at applying what could easily be a very abstract set of ideas to the way we all read the scriptures and apply doctrine of Christ to our lives. In particular, each chapter ends with specific, simple examples of how its ideas can influence the way we all think about Christ's gospel as it pertains to our lives.
Additionally, it is incredibly enlightening to realize how much of the way we fundamentally view and interact with reality is culturally and historically influenced, as the book reveals how different the way we understand such basic philosophical concepts as truth is from the understanding of those who wrote our scriptures. Whether or not you decide you prefer the alternate perspectives of the ancient jews as presented in the book, being able to see and understand both worldviews enables us to read the scriptures with a far greater appreciation for the authors' intents and read familiar passages from a completely new light, one which ought to greatly enrich our understanding of their gospel message.
I am not sure I wholeheartedly agree with all of the book's assertions; it makes claims and presents a metaphysical perspective on God that, if taken literally, raises a lot of difficult questions within latter-day saint theology. However, the way that the author encourages us to reframe our gospel questions and center our entire worldview on our relationship with God is something I hope all people of faith can take away from this book regardless of whether or not they accept many of the book's metaphysical implications (though those are still very much worth considering).
Additionally, it is incredibly enlightening to realize how much of the way we fundamentally view and interact with reality is culturally and historically influenced, as the book reveals how different the way we understand such basic philosophical concepts as truth is from the understanding of those who wrote our scriptures. Whether or not you decide you prefer the alternate perspectives of the ancient jews as presented in the book, being able to see and understand both worldviews enables us to read the scriptures with a far greater appreciation for the authors' intents and read familiar passages from a completely new light, one which ought to greatly enrich our understanding of their gospel message.
I am not sure I wholeheartedly agree with all of the book's assertions; it makes claims and presents a metaphysical perspective on God that, if taken literally, raises a lot of difficult questions within latter-day saint theology. However, the way that the author encourages us to reframe our gospel questions and center our entire worldview on our relationship with God is something I hope all people of faith can take away from this book regardless of whether or not they accept many of the book's metaphysical implications (though those are still very much worth considering).
June 20, 2024
Who Is Truth: Reframing Our Questions for a Richer Faith is a wonderful book that I enjoyed reading
that goes into depth on the application of ideas regarding the nature of truth. For me, considering myself a religious and intellectual individual, this book brought certain aspects of truth and truth-seeking to light. It was wonderful to study the concept of idea-truths vs person-truths as explained in the book, and why Truth as a person is. I love the warmth from the writing, and the way the authors explain their ideas. They say at one point explaining the principle of trusting int Truth, “When we place our confidence in God, it is not a blind and unjustified confidence, Rather, it is a confidence born of experience” (Gantt & Thayne, 2019, p. 58). As I studied this book, I felt a deeper connection to God and a better grasp on how I might explain my beliefs to others. Overall, not too difficult to read for a book of it's stature, and very insightful and enjoyable. Would recommend, whether you are having a faith crisis or not, and whether you are studying theology/psychology or not. Enjoy!
that goes into depth on the application of ideas regarding the nature of truth. For me, considering myself a religious and intellectual individual, this book brought certain aspects of truth and truth-seeking to light. It was wonderful to study the concept of idea-truths vs person-truths as explained in the book, and why Truth as a person is. I love the warmth from the writing, and the way the authors explain their ideas. They say at one point explaining the principle of trusting int Truth, “When we place our confidence in God, it is not a blind and unjustified confidence, Rather, it is a confidence born of experience” (Gantt & Thayne, 2019, p. 58). As I studied this book, I felt a deeper connection to God and a better grasp on how I might explain my beliefs to others. Overall, not too difficult to read for a book of it's stature, and very insightful and enjoyable. Would recommend, whether you are having a faith crisis or not, and whether you are studying theology/psychology or not. Enjoy!
January 9, 2020
Thought provoking
I’m not entirely convinced, though I do find a lot to like in the philosophy described here. I think it may be incomplete (or maybe I am having a hard time giving up some of my idea-truth understanding).
One area where this philosophy could use further exploration is in how it works with the LDS teachings of eternal progression. If we are to rely on faith, on a relationship with an eternal god, the person-truth, is eternal progression somehow different than the model of “independence from our parents” that constitutes growth in this life? What then does eternal progression mean?
I’m not entirely convinced, though I do find a lot to like in the philosophy described here. I think it may be incomplete (or maybe I am having a hard time giving up some of my idea-truth understanding).
One area where this philosophy could use further exploration is in how it works with the LDS teachings of eternal progression. If we are to rely on faith, on a relationship with an eternal god, the person-truth, is eternal progression somehow different than the model of “independence from our parents” that constitutes growth in this life? What then does eternal progression mean?
February 21, 2023
I was hopeful that the person-truth theory would be clearly supported and elegantly presented. Instead I found the writing to be convoluted and nonsensical, with many examples of contradiction, sometimes even on the same page. For me the text presented as apologist language cloaked in academic rhetoric. Christ is truth but does that mean spiritual and scientific truths/unchanging principles do not emanate from Him as a guide and compass for mortality?
December 31, 2024
Really appreciated the depth of thought in the book combined with the effort to make it more accessible for a light read. Starting my second time through because it seems like one of those books that you get more out of a second time.
Their idea about person centered truth being more about a relationship oriented life was enlightening. I appreciated their acknowledgment that both idea truth and person truth have their place.
Their idea about person centered truth being more about a relationship oriented life was enlightening. I appreciated their acknowledgment that both idea truth and person truth have their place.
September 19, 2021
Good one! Introduced me to the concept of and differences between Greek and Hebrew thought and how they apply to common questions/conflicts in today's world.
I appreciated that the authors broke the book up into bite-sized chapters, and included example questions reframed as a way to illustrate their points.
I appreciated that the authors broke the book up into bite-sized chapters, and included example questions reframed as a way to illustrate their points.
March 6, 2025
It got its point across early on in the book so I was less interested as the book went on. The explanations of the differences between Greek philosophy and Hebrew thought are good enough. There were some poignant points. But ultimately not very persuasive or appealing to me personally. Others would probably like it more though.
September 25, 2025
Strengthened my relationship with Christ
I loved this book and the different viewpoint the authors try to help us understand and then act on to be closer to Christ. The Hebrew viewpoint of person-truth helped me understand Christ better and come to know Him better. I’m grateful for the authors and their insights.
I loved this book and the different viewpoint the authors try to help us understand and then act on to be closer to Christ. The Hebrew viewpoint of person-truth helped me understand Christ better and come to know Him better. I’m grateful for the authors and their insights.
September 27, 2021
Loved this perspective on truth as a Being who demands our confidence and to whom we are accountable. With this focus, religion becomes a way of life and a relationship with Divinity rather than a set of beliefs, ideas, or dogmas. Very profound and insightful, for the most part.
May 8, 2022
I don't agree with all the conclusions made in this book, but I think the premise is extremely interesting and worth considering. It provides another tool and lens to understanding faith, truth and the world.
July 6, 2025
I am fascinated in learning about Hebrew and Greek ways of thinking. This book was eye-opening to me. It helped me change my views in a lot of ways. I want to develop a more personal relationship with God as a result.
November 28, 2021
This book puts things in a whole new perspective. It challenges you to think differently but ultimately it’s a beautiful way to view things.
June 10, 2023
Life changing perspectives for Latter-Day saints!
January 23, 2025
Very good but super intellectual — almost too much so for me but still good.
Worth the read especially for logical thinkers / approach to religion.
Worth the read especially for logical thinkers / approach to religion.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews