omni Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Rather than to "know" it's true?While most wouldn't ever come right out and say it, I feel there's somewhat of a stigma around saying you believe the church is true.I would be interested to know how many here "believe" rather than "know".
bluebell Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Absolutely it's fine to believe rather than to know. Most people use the term 'know' when sharing a testimony to say 'i know, based on the evidence that i have' rather than to mean 'i have proof that this is true'.
Brade Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Here's a related question:Does merely hoping that God exists count as a testimony that God exists?What I'm getting at is whether mere hope with respect to the temple recommend questions or baptismal interview questions would be sufficient to qualify one for the relevant commitment.
CV75 Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Rather than to "know" it's true?While most wouldn't ever come right out and say it, I feel there's somewhat of a stigma around saying you believe the church is true.I would be interested to know how many here "believe" rather than "know".I think it depends how you say it and what it means to you when you say it as to whether there is a stigma to saying "I believe" it is true. I think we convey what we mean, and people may interpret how we say it, by our daily actions and other statements, attitudes and behaviors. I think the hearer has a much responsibility in what and how they hear and whether any attachment of stigma is justified.
Sky Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 If that’s where you are at, I think its fine to say you believe rather than know. I don’t think anybody (well, most people) would correct you. I’ve even seen some profiles of people on Mormon.org that say they believe the Church is true.I agree that it is more taboo in the Church to say this, but that might have more to do with our culture than our doctrine. I'm not sure.Alma 32: 21 says it well:And now as I said concerning faith—afaith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye bhope for things which are cnot seen, which are true.
CV75 Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Here's a related question:Does merely hoping that God exists count as a testimony that God exists?What I'm getting at is whether mere hope with respect to the temple recommend questions or baptismal interview questions would be sufficient to qualify one for the relevant commitment.As I mentioned above, I think it depends how you say it and what it means to you when you say it as to whether there is sufficient qualification for a temple recommend. I think we convey to the Bishop what we mean, and he may interpret how we say it, by our daily actions and other statements, attitudes and behaviors. I think the Bishop has a much responsibility in what and how he hears and whether the applicant qualifies.
Senator Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Does merely hoping that God exists count as a testimony that God exists?I hope so..... What I'm getting at is whether mere hope with respect to the temple recommend questions or baptismal interview questions would be sufficient to qualify one for the relevant commitment.In my mind hope is just as virtuous as belief or faith. All three are affirmations in the face of uncertainty.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) It is absolutely okay. For exactly this reason, I actually often make it a point to specify that "I believe" rather than "I know" during testimony meetings, because that's where I'm at. And if someone tries to bully you into "knowing" the Church is true if you don't, or they try to make it seem like those who "know" are more righteous than those who "merely believe", then throw D&C 121 in their self-righteous lil' faces. *grin*A good essay: Exploring Faith & Knowledge Edited October 28, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith
elguanteloko Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Rather than to "know" it's true?While most wouldn't ever come right out and say it, I feel there's somewhat of a stigma around saying you believe the church is true.I would be interested to know how many here "believe" rather than "know".Mormon 'knowledge' = being strongly convinced.This is what most Mormons think knowledge is so it isn't surprising they see as suspicious someone who doesn't say they 'know' but only believes.
elguanteloko Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 BTW, you guys, you will feel vindicated to know that most philosophers (people who actually study these issues rigorously as careers) agree knowledge is a type of belief so anyone who "knows" believes but not all that believe "know".
ERayR Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Rather than to "know" it's true?While most wouldn't ever come right out and say it, I feel there's somewhat of a stigma around saying you believe the church is true.I would be interested to know how many here "believe" rather than "know".I do not say I believe the church is true. I testify that the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the church is true.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 BTW, you guys, you will feel vindicated to know that most philosophers (people who actually study these issues rigorously as careers) agree knowledge is a type of belief so anyone who "knows" believes but not all that believe "know".Belief is better than knowledge. You can "know" false information. However, your honest belief is never "false," even if you are dead wrong.
elguanteloko Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Belief is better than knowledge. You can "know" false information. However, your honest belief is never "false," even if you are dead wrong.Epistemologists vastly agree that knowledge isn't knowledge if it is false and that knowledge must be a type of belief. Saying "belief is better than knowledge" is like saying Toyota Camrys are better than cars...Also, the belief that 'honest beliefs are never 'false'... that makes no sense because relativism in epistemology makes no sense. Unless you are using "false" in a metaphorical way in which case I don't care.
ldsfaqs Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Mormon 'knowledge' = being strongly convinced.False.... Most likely fall that way, but not I. I was once strongly convinced, but now I know for certain without any holes or doubt.I know many others in the Church are also at that level of understanding. It's literally true, which is why such can occur.This is what most Mormons think knowledge is so it isn't surprising they see as suspicious someone who doesn't say they 'know' but only believes.You judgments of mormons are not LDS judgments. It's not at all what we think knowledge is, and we most certainly DO NOT consider someone as "suspicious" simply because they say they believe rather than know.Further, those of you making this argument are ignoring one important fact. Most people who say they know, when they only believe do in fact "know" certain things, but only believe other things. Thus their "preponderance of the evidence" gives them a more sure word of knowledge/prophecy, so they are being perfectly honest when they say they know, even though they may just believe a lot of the things related to the Church.I know because I've been through the process. Even though I was still "believing" more so on many issues, in totality, I had "know"ledge. Thus, I knew.
elguanteloko Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 False.... Most likely fall that way, but not I.I said "most". I was once strongly convinced, but now I know for certain without any holes or doubt....and once again, "no holes or doubt" isn't knowledge.You judgments of mormons are not LDS judgments.I've visited many LDS congregations and they actually do. You don't agree with me? Fine... whatever.Most people who say they know, when they only believe do in fact "know" certain things, but only believe other things....sure, you may "believe" the church is true and know your house as two stories.... and? Thus their "preponderance of the evidence" gives them a more sure word of knowledge/prophecy, so they are being perfectly honest when they say they know, even though they may just believe a lot of the things related to the Church.I know because I've been through the process. Even though I was still "believing" more so on many issues, in totality, I had "know"ledge. Thus, I knew.Can you tell me what the difference between "knowledge" and "belief" is? I ask because you are using it here exactly in the same way I'm criticizing.
KevinG Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 I know a few things by the power of the Holy Ghost. I know others by evidence.I believe a lot of things by study, pondering or tradition.I am constantly learning through experience. 1
BCSpace Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 While most wouldn't ever come right out and say it, I feel there's somewhat of a stigma around saying you believe the church is true.It is one of the spiritual gifts to believe on the words of others. I think very few who say they know when bearing testimony know everything with completely surety. I would say merely believing, as long as one continues to struggle to know, is okay and will serve for a long time. However, there is John 7:17. One who truly hopes or is trying to know will do the will of God and therefore come to know. So I think ultimately, in the long run, it is not okay to merely hope and believe. I think that to know certain things before they are revealed in the resurrection and judgement will be a requirement.
Log Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Loads of mind-reading in this thread, which always and ever is a projection of one's internal states on others, and is the type of judgement condemned in the scriptures.
jo1952 Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 3 Nephi 12:32-33 (Jesus speaking):32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.33 And whoseso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.Jesus doesn't require that we "know"; but that we "believe" in Him (and be baptized). Whatever then is added upon by personal revelation from the Holy Ghost (spiritual knowledge; i.e., "real" Truth---which can be received ONLY from the Holy Ghost and discerned spiritually), is icing on the cake, so to speak.Regards,jo
Brade Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 I hope so..... It would be nice I suppose, but to my mind it makes no sense given the meaning of 'testimony' in either ordinary discourse or mormon idiosyncratic use.In my mind hope is just as virtuous as belief or faith. All three are affirmations in the face of uncertainty.I disagree that all three are affirmations in the face of uncertainty if what you mean by that is that to hope that P is true is to affirm that P is true. I hope I got an A on my chemistry test, but I wouldn't be justified on that basis to affirm I got an A.
Brade Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 You can "know" false information.I say to you, "Hey Cobalt, I know that the Washington Monument is 945 feet tall." Do I know that the Washington Monument is 945 feet tall?However, your honest belief is never "false," even if you are dead wrong.I say to you, "Hey Cobalt, I believe that the Washington Monument is 945 feet tall.". Let's pick out the belief here:The Washington Monument is 945 feet tall.Is that belief true or false?
Senator Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) It would be nice I suppose, but to my mind it makes no sense given the meaning of 'testimony' in either ordinary discourse or mormon idiosyncratic use.That depends on your definition of the word 'testimony'; Especially in "mormon idiosyncratic use", which I have stated that I have formed a certain aversion to.I disagree that all three are affirmations in the face of uncertainty if what you mean by that is that to hope that P is true is to affirm that P is true. I hope I got an A on my chemistry test, but I wouldn't be justified on that basis to affirm I got an A.Perhaps 'affirmation' was not the best word to express my thinking. However, upon questioning my use of the word, I therefore looked up the definition. One of the entries is "to express dedication to". I think this more fits my use of the term.In my mind hope is inextricably linked to belief and faith. I see hope as an extention of belief, expressive of one's desires and not merely the state of his/her understanding. Edited October 28, 2011 by Senator
afterallwecando Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 The testimony glove encourages the use of the word "know", but the Temple Recommend questions only ask that you believe. Jesus only asks you to believe. I think it's wrong to say you know, cause the fact is you don't. Not unless you have a sure knowledge like God took you to Kolob for a retreat or something.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) Epistemologists vastly agree that knowledge isn't knowledge if it is false and that knowledge must be a type of belief. Saying "belief is better than knowledge" is like saying Toyota Camrys are better than cars...Also, the belief that 'honest beliefs are never 'false'... that makes no sense because relativism in epistemology makes no sense. Unless you are using "false" in a metaphorical way in which case I don't care.Epistemologists take themselves too seriously. Saying that "belief is better than knowledge" is simply saying that the kind of "truth" that accompanies belief is less delusional than the kind of "truth" that accompanies certain knowledge. Belief admits the possibility of disbelief, and is therefore more "true"; whereas knowledge denies the possibility of anti-knowledge, and is thus a delusion. Edited October 28, 2011 by Cobalt-70
Recommended Posts