Is It Okay To Just "Believe" The Church Is True...

[Brade]

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 would think that in the context of the temple recommend questions whether mere hope that something is true counts as a testimony that it is true depends on how the relevant Church authorities use 'testimony'. In any event, I too have an aversion to the terms' typical use among LDS.

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.

Fair enough, I'm happy to agree that by that sense of the term 'affirm' one can affirm religious claims with mere hope.

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.

Hmmmm, if by "inextricably linked to belief and faith" you mean that hope is unquestionably an an attitude one can take toward religious claims (or any sort of claim for that matter) then I think I can agree. However, if you mean something more along the lines of to have hope that P is true is inextricably linked to belief and faith that P is true, then I disagree. Certainly I can hope that God exists but have no belief whatever about whether or not he does (same for faith).

And relatedly I don't think there's any question that one can have a belief that P is true without any connected hope that it were or weren't true and one could have a belief that P is true and hope that it weren't (e.g. "I believe based on the best available evidence that I will be arrested this afternoon, but I hope that I'm not).

[Cobalt-70]

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?

I say to you, "Hey Cobalt, I believe that the Washington Monument is 945 feet tall.". Let's pick out the belief here:

Is that belief true or false?

To the first one, I say yes, you apparently know this (assuming you are telling the truth, which in this case you are not), but you are wrong.

To the second one, if you were sincere, I would say that your belief is a true belief, but you are still wrong. But at least there is more truth than if you said you knew that the monument was 945 tall.

[Brade]

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.

I apologize for being so frank, but this is a mishmash of unclarity and misunderstanding. First off, there is no sort of truth that accompanies belief. Beliefs may be true, false, or, perhaps in some novel cases, neither. Certainly just because a person believes that something is so does not entail that that belief is the case.

The property of being less delusional, if we go ahead and grant for the sake of argument that claiming to believe things is in fact less delusional than claiming to know things, is not a truth-value. If you're right about the delusion stuff, then that doesn't tell us anything about the truth-values of any beliefs or the trueness of the concept of belief in general, since, for one thing, concepts are not truth apt - they don't have truth-values. Go ahead, you can test this for yourself. Think of the concept of being a star. Got it? Ok, is the concept of being a star true or false? Hopefully you don't need any more convincing than that, but if you do, suppose your teacher handed you the following true/false quiz:

Please indicate whether what follows each number expresses the way things are in the world (true) or not the way things are in the world (false):

1. Barak Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America.

2. The earth is smaller than your eyeball.

3. Being a hermit crab

[Brade]

To the first one, I say yes, you apparently know this (assuming you are telling the truth, which in this case you are not), but you are wrong.

To the second one, if you were sincere, I would say that your belief is a true belief, but you are still wrong. But at least there is more truth than if you said you knew that the monument was 945 tall.

It looks like you're confusing or are being unclear about two distinct senses of the word 'true'. Something can be true in the sense that it is authentic (e.g. "That's a true Picasso!"). Something (statements, propositions, declarative sentences, etc) can be true in the sense that it reflects or expresses the way things are. A person who sincerely believes that the Washington Monument is 945 feet tall has an authentic belief - namely, that the Washington Monument is 945 feet tall. There belief, however, is not true in the truth-value sense that it does not reflect the way the world is.

I'm curious, since on your view, however, somebody can know something that is false, what are the conditions of knowledge? What do you understand to be the conditions of knowledge and how are the conditions of knowledge as you understand them different from the conditions of belief?

[mfbukowski]

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.

I suppose if one "testifies" what they say is a "testimony".

Problem solved. So Brade, get up and testify, if you feel you can, and then you have a "testimony"

I think a pragmatic theory of truth does wonders for this problem.

Edited October 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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.

I think it is just a lot of certainty about what certain words mean. Of course words are defined by their contexts, so the way the words are used by epistemologists may not agree with the way most people use them.

A "string" to a physicist may or may not be something to tie up a package with, and all of us do not use "believe" or "know" the same way, and don't let anyone tell you they are the only ones who know the correct definition.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Actually, they ask if you have a "testimony".

[Calm]

I wonder if all those who take issue with saying "I know" in regards to the Church have the same issue with someone saying "I know my spouse lives me.". After all, since there is no mind reading how do we know that our loved one is not just really good at acting like s/he loves us?

[BCSpace]

Jesus doesn't require that we "know"; but that we "believe" in Him (and be baptized).

LDS scripture and doctrine requires more than just belief. For example:

And this is life ^beternal, that they might ^cknow thee the only true ^dGod, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast ^esent.

John 17:3

(25-2) John 17:3 . How Can a Man Know God and Jesus?

“To know God in that full sense which will enable us to gain eternal salvation means that we must know what he knows, enjoy what he enjoys, experience what he experiences. In New Testament language, we must ‘be like him.’ ( 1 John 3:2 .)

“But before we can become like him, we must obey those laws that will enable us to acquire the character, perfections, and attributes that he possesses.

“And before we can obey these laws, we must learn what they are; we must learn of Christ and his gospel. We must learn ‘that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.’ ( Mosiah 3:18 .) We must learn that baptism under the hands of a legal administrator is essential to salvation and that after baptism we must keep the commandments and ‘press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men.’ ( 2 Ne. 31:20 .)” (Bruce R. McConkie in CR, Apr. 1966, p. 79.)

NT Institute Manual: The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, 25 - "Not My Will, But Thine, Be Done""Not My Will, But Thine, Be Done"

Edited October 29, 2011 by BCSpace

[elguanteloko]

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.

Here's the thing, man. If I were a bishop I would expect people who are going to the holy house of the Lord to trust enough in God so as to assume surely enough that God exists, not merely that they want God to exist. I guess you can believe in God and still hope he exists but the feeling of security is different. If you tell your wife that you hope she is truthful to you instead of saying that you believe she is truthful to you or that you 'know' she is truthful to you, you are going to make a difference in her reaction.

If you don't believe God exists then I don't see how you can say you trust in God at all. Consequently, I don't see how you could be said to be temple-worthy at all.

I don't know how much of this question is actually what you do (whether you hope or believe God exists and, yes, they seem mutually exclusive to me), but I went about merely hoping and trusting God existed for about 6 months... I wasn't strong enough to keep this up for too long before I just became a full-blown atheist.

I'm left feeling this comment sucked, I hope you don't think so.

[Log]

Actually, if you have to ask that question, you already know the answer. So why ask someone else? Hoping someone will give a different answer?

[Cobalt-70]

It looks like you're confusing or are being unclear about two distinct senses of the word 'true'. Something can be true in the sense that it is authentic (e.g. "That's a true Picasso!"). Something (statements, propositions, declarative sentences, etc) can be true in the sense that it reflects or expresses the way things are. A person who sincerely believes that the Washington Monument is 945 feet tall has an authentic belief - namely, that the Washington Monument is 945 feet tall. There belief, however, is not true in the truth-value sense that it does not reflect the way the world is.

The distinction I'm trying to make is between "true knowledge" and "true belief." True knowledge disbelieves the possibility of true dis-knowledge, whereas true belief still acknowledges the possibility of true disbelief. So there is a neurotic pathology within knowledge that does not exist within belief. To disbelieve in dis-knowledge is problematic, because dis-knowledge is inherent within the idea of knowledge. Dis-knowledge is the inversion of knowledge. It is neither "false knowledge," "absence of knowledge," or "knowledge that something is false" (which is still positive knowledge) but rather, knowledge negated. Dis-knowledge is the analogue of disbelief. It is hard for us to imagine dis-knowledge, because as Westerners, we are trained to see what is present, but often fail to see what is absent.

[CV75]

I would be interested to know how many here "believe" rather than "know".

As far as definitions and meanings go, “the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.” The heart and mind are where things such as knowledge, belief, hope and testimony reside.

It is possible that someone else can know, believe, hope and testify just as you do. Determining this involves very simple doctrines such as: “If you love me keep my commandments,” “Inasmuch as ye have loved the least of these you love me,” etc. Without these doctrines, we either deny, or only pretend or imagine or think/talk ourselves out of, knowing, believing, hoping and testifying with one heart and one mind. And on the other hand, enmity and contention are not of God.

I am comfortable expressing my testimony in terms of “I know.” I gained a testimony in perhaps a unique way, independent of any immersion whatsoever in LDS culture or language expectations, and when I did, I knew that I knew, and expressed it as such.

[Brade]

Here's the thing, man. If I were a bishop I would expect people who are going to the holy house of the Lord to trust enough in God so as to assume surely enough that God exists, not merely that they want God to exist. I guess you can believe in God and still hope he exists but the feeling of security is different. If you tell your wife that you hope she is truthful to you instead of saying that you believe she is truthful to you or that you 'know' she is truthful to you, you are going to make a difference in her reaction.

If you don't believe God exists then I don't see how you can say you trust in God at all. Consequently, I don't see how you could be said to be temple-worthy at all.

I don't know how much of this question is actually what you do (whether you hope or believe God exists and, yes, they seem mutually exclusive to me), but I went about merely hoping and trusting God existed for about 6 months... I wasn't strong enough to keep this up for too long before I just became a full-blown atheist.

I'm left feeling this comment sucked, I hope you don't think so.

I don't think your comment sucks. For a very long time I tried to go along as if merely hoping that certain things were true was sufficient to count as a testimony in those things, and after many years I've accepted what had troubled me all along - mere hope that certain things are true is not a testimony of those things (certainly not a testimony that they're true). I've resolved myself to something of an agnostic position - I simply don't have a belief about the existence of any sort of god. I hope that there is an afterlife and I hope that a pleasant god exists, but I have no good reason for believing that there is an afterlife and that a pleasant god exists. About a year ago I accepted that that sort of sincere thinking (among agnosticism or outright disbelief of other specifically Mormon claims) ought to exclude me from the temple.

The debate that I'm currently having is whether I ought to maintain any level of activity in the Church at all. Currently I am not, and my thinking these days is that I find enough of Mormonism disagreeable to me that for my own benefit and the benefit of those who do want to be active I ought not to be active. There are, however, elements of Mormonism that I enjoy - the sense of community, organization for local service projects, social interaction, etc.

[jo1952]

LDS scripture and doctrine requires more than just belief. For example:

And this is life ^beternal, that they might ^cknow thee the only true ^dGod, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast ^esent.

John 17:3

Here, you are speaking of LDS doctrine which includes ALL of canon AND guidance of continuing revelation, which is for the purpose of helping us achieve Eternal Life---which goes beyond merely being saved. Eternal life is not a requirement for being saved; however, it is a goal of those who are saved and who have the understanding of the difference.

I would offer, though, that even those who do not yet understand the difference, be they LDS (new or young members), or believers from other denominations, and even non-believers, will still achieve Eternal life if they would have done everything required had they had the chance to understand it and fulfill the requirements. So those who have no understanding, or who have only a milk understanding at the time they die, are not in danger of losing out on Eternal life just because they did not yet have the meat understanding. Christ will be able to Judge them fairly and justly. What they will have missed out on is the joy that each level of understanding brings us while we are yet in the flesh.

Believing in Christ and being baptized saves us. But this is just a stepping stone in our journey which lasts eternally.

Regards,

jo

Edited October 29, 2011 by jo1952

[BCSpace]

Here, you are speaking of LDS doctrine which includes ALL of canon AND guidance of continuing revelation, which is for the purpose of helping us achieve Eternal Life---which goes beyond merely being saved. Eternal life is not a requirement for being saved; however, it is a goal of those who are saved and who have the understanding of the difference.

I'm certainly not proposing all knowledge is required, but when we LDS speak of being saved, it is typically in the eternal life sense. That is the mission of the Church. For example, baptism is a requirement for salvation. Obviously those in the Telestial have not received it or did not receive it until after there first or "second" (Terrrestial) chance according to D&C 76. So the fact reamins as per scripture and LDS doctrine (note the terms "eternal salvation" and "salvation was, and , is and is to come" ) that a certain level of actual knowledge is required for salvation and I'll hazard that will go for any degree of glory.

[jo1952]

I'm certainly not proposing all knowledge is required, but when we LDS speak of being saved, it is typically in the eternal life sense. That is the mission of the Church. For example, baptism is a requirement for salvation. Obviously those in the Telestial have not received it or did not receive it until after there first or "second" (Terrrestial) chance according to D&C 76. So the fact reamins as per scripture and LDS doctrine (note the terms "eternal salvation" and "salvation was, and , is and is to come" ) that a certain level of actual knowledge is required for salvation and I'll hazard that will go for any degree of glory.

Yes, at a minimum, the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ will be necessary in order for a person to accept Him, if they didn't accept Him through faith during their second estate. But unless they do accept Him, they cannot be saved. It is difficult for me to imagine that anyone, once they receive that sure knowledge, would be able to turn their back on Him and refuse His gift. It is very easy for me to believe that individuals like Ghandi and his wife will even obtain Exaltation. Of course we know that those who are awaiting resurrection ARE being taught - so knowledge is being made available to both the living and the dead.

Regards,

jo

[BCSpace]

The greater priesthood administers the gospel and holds “the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.”1 What is the key of the knowledge of God, and can anyone obtain it? Without the priesthood there can be no fulness of the knowledge of God. The Prophet Joseph Smith said that the “Melchizedek Priesthood … is the channel through which all knowledge, doctrine, the plan of salvation and every important matter is revealed from heaven.”2 President Joseph F. Smith stated: “One who can truly affirm that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and Jesus is the Savior, has in his possession a prize beyond computation. When we know this we know God, and we have a key to all knowledge.”3

Father Abraham recognized the value of this grand key as he recounted his experience: “I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, … and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.”4

Anyone who is righteous and desires to possess greater knowledge and to become “a greater follower of righteousness” can, under the authority of the priesthood, obtain a greater knowledge of God. The Lord tells us one clear way to do so, as given in the Doctrine and Covenants: “If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, … that which bringeth joy, that which bringeth life eternal." D&C 42:61

http://lds.org/general-conference/2004/10/the-key-of-the-knowledge-of-god?lang=eng&query="knowledge+of+God"

[jo1952]

It would seem, then, that the Holy Ghost functions under this same authority because we are taught that it is ONLY the Holy Ghost who reveals Truth. The Priesthood, then, would be the vehicle through which mankind is authorized to use the Power and Authority of God; though the Holy Ghost, as the third member of the Godhead has always had that authority on earth . But the Holy Ghost can only speak to our spirits. Mankind, OTOH, is able to communicate with each other in a physical way and thus use the spiritual power and authority of God upon each other on the earth. Since it is ONLY the Holy Ghost who CAN reveal Truth, I would think that it MUST be the Holy Ghost who is the one who communicates with Priesthood bearers when they are administering to anyone on earth. It would then be the Holy Ghost who is telling the individual who is giving a blessing what to say.

Inasmuch as the Holy Ghost also operates and communicates with individuals via Spirit to spirit communication which is NOT being done directly through men who hold the Priesthood, that He MUST be able to communicate with us through the same power of the Priesthood whenever He witnesses to us, and whenever He is giving us personal revelation which Father has instructed Him to reveal to each of us on an individual basis. So, it would seem that the Holy Ghost - though always functioning through the power and authority of the Priesthood, will sometimes work through Priesthold "holders", and will sometimes work without them. However, His communication always comes through the Father whether or not there is an intermediary earthly Priesthood "holder" through whom the Holy Ghost is communicating, and it is the power and authority of the Priesthood which HE holds which allows Him to do so. Thus, whenever Truth IS being revealed on earth, it IS through the power and authority of the Priesthood. It is just that sometimes man holds these keys to perform God's work on the earth by using the proper power and authority; and sometimes he has NOT personally held that power and authority. OTOH, the Holy Ghost ALWAYS uses that power and authority; regardless of whether the keys for man to use it are on the earth or not. Wow, the implications and layers of this understanding are truly far reaching and help explain so very much more than meets the eye at first blush!!

Regards,

jo

Edited October 29, 2011 by jo1952

[elguanteloko]

I don't think your comment sucks. For a very long time I tried to go along as if merely hoping that certain things were true was sufficient to count as a testimony in those things, and after many years I've accepted what had troubled me all along - mere hope that certain things are true is not a testimony of those things (certainly not a testimony that they're true). I've resolved myself to something of an agnostic position - I simply don't have a belief about the existence of any sort of god. I hope that there is an afterlife and I hope that a pleasant god exists, but I have no good reason for believing that there is an afterlife and that a pleasant god exists. About a year ago I accepted that that sort of sincere thinking (among agnosticism or outright disbelief of other specifically Mormon claims) ought to exclude me from the temple.

I feel you but, did you still want to go to the temple? Besides for a friend's or relative's wedding or to watch a movie, I don't get why you would want to.

The debate that I'm currently having is whether I ought to maintain any level of activity in the Church at all. Currently I am not, and my thinking these days is that I find enough of Mormonism disagreeable to me that for my own benefit and the benefit of those who do want to be active I ought not to be active. There are, however, elements of Mormonism that I enjoy - the sense of community, organization for local service projects, social interaction, etc.

LOL Solidarity, bro. I actually still go (when I'm not working) and I embrace that my comments will bother people a little bit (I obviously don't speak with the intention of making them doubt their beliefs but just to make them realize it isn't as easy as they take ideas to be). I really like some of the same things you mention and specially the sense of reverence. After all, you don't find many groups that meet largely to talk about how to be better. That in itself is something remarkable of religion in general and Mormonism in particular. I'm not even going to try to tell you what you "ought" to do but if it helps, I take going to church for myself as opportunities to bring a little bit of "the real world" to people's worldviews. I fully understand that sounds extremely condescending and self-righteous towards religious folks... but the truth is that most people don't consider the harshness of social conditions for countless people in the world when talking about good and evil and the character of God, or they don't know the scholarly work done in many of the things they consider private matters of thought (history of religion, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, ...ok, philosophy in general). Most people don't know there are folks whose job it is to think about these issues as seriously as possible. I have seen people's lives change when they see that the world of these ideas is richer than they previously thought. I want to see their level of conversation raised and be a part of it, that's all.

I hope this can help open a new attitude you could adopt to be comfortable bothering people a bit at church, have a noble reason for doing it, and enjoy the ride and help others have a much more personally fulfilling experience at church. People like a little bit of a challenge and you can be a healthy one (they won't be falling asleep in class if you speak your mind, I'll assure you of that).

[Brade]

I feel you but, did you still want to go to the temple? Besides for a friend's or relative's wedding or to watch a movie, I don't get why you would want to.

LOL Solidarity, bro. I actually still go (when I'm not working) and I embrace that my comments will bother people a little bit (I obviously don't speak with the intention of making them doubt their beliefs but just to make them realize it isn't as easy as they take ideas to be). I really like some of the same things you mention and specially the sense of reverence. After all, you don't find many groups that meet largely to talk about how to be better. That in itself is something remarkable of religion in general and Mormonism in particular. I'm not even going to try to tell you what you "ought" to do but if it helps, I take going to church for myself as opportunities to bring a little bit of "the real world" to people's worldviews. I fully understand that sounds extremely condescending and self-righteous towards religious folks... but the truth is that most people don't consider the harshness of social conditions for countless people in the world when talking about good and evil and the character of God, or they don't know the scholarly work done in many of the things they consider private matters of thought (history of religion, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, ...ok, philosophy in general). Most people don't know there are folks whose job it is to think about these issues as seriously as possible. I have seen people's lives change when they see that the world of these ideas is richer than they previously thought. I want to see their level of conversation raised and be a part of it, that's all.

I hope this can help open a new attitude you could adopt to be comfortable bothering people a bit at church, have a noble reason for doing it, and enjoy the ride and help others have a much more personally fulfilling experience at church. People like a little bit of a challenge and you can be a healthy one (they won't be falling asleep in class if you speak your mind, I'll assure you of that).

I appreciate your thoughts. I'm just not convinced that I should participate when it's seems clear enough to me that Church authorities want there not to be open doubt or disbelief running around in the Church. I see my current position as respecting the wishes they have for their organization.

[rodheadlee]

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 believe it's true because I know it's true, I know it's true because I believe it". Words of wisdom from my wife. We discussed it and we really don't think you can seperate the two.

[Brade]

"I believe it's true because I know it's true, I know it's true because I believe it". Words of wisdom from my wife. We discussed it and we really don't think you can seperate the two.

Why not? Knowing that P implies that you believe that P. Believing that P, however, doesn't imply that you know that P. To know that something is the case you've got to (1) believe it, (2) have good reasons for believing it, and (3) it's got to be true (this is obviously a departure from Cobalt's unusual view that you can know that P where P is false). Often enough we believe things which turn out to be false and so we have cases where we believe something but don't know it (even if we think we know it) because it's false and false things can't be know (to be true).

[elguanteloko]

I appreciate your thoughts. I'm just not convinced that I should participate when it's seems clear enough to me that Church authorities want there not to be open doubt or disbelief running around in the Church. I see my current position as respecting the wishes they have for their organization.

Oh, but I'm not saying you should make them doubt at all. All I'm saying is that you can participate by raising the level of conversation.

[zerinus]

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".

Yes:

D&C 42:

43 And whosoever among you are sick, and have not faith to be healed, but believe, shall be nourished with all tenderness, . . .

44 . . . and if they die they shall die unto me, and if they live they shall live unto me.

52 And they who have not faith to do these things, but believe in me, have power to become my sons; and inasmuch as they break not my laws thou shalt bear their infirmities.

Edited October 31, 2011 by zerinus