The Use Of "Know" And "True" Within The Mormon Faith.

[Lamanite]

After discussing what "Truth" is in my epistemology thread it seemed natural to want to discuss how we use the words "know" and "true" within our religion. This discussion may be extremely short if the ultimate answer is simply explained away as cultural practices and definitions, with no desire to evaluate and possibly change how we express ourselves.

However, for those open to discussing these notions, do you think it would be valuable to begin a shift towards using words like "believe" and "faith" in order to more accurately reflect the nature (subjectivity) of truth and the religious experience in general? How might a shift in how we express our "testimonies" affect members and those outside of our faith? Placing emphasis on belief and faith may also change the lens through which we view revelation and our personal communion with the Divine. Over time there may be a theological shift, to a greater or lesser degree, as to how we understand Truth, revelation, faith, and our understanding of those of other faiths.

Just a few thoughts.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited July 26, 2012 by Lamanite

[CV75]

After discussing what "Truth" is in my epistemology thread it seemed natural to want to discuss how we use the words "know" and "true" within our religion. This discussion may be extremely short if the ultimate answer is simply explained away as cultural practices and definitions, with no desire to evaluate and possibly change how we express ourselves.

However, for those open to discussing these notions, do you think it would be valuable to begin a shift towards using words like "believe" and "faith" in order to more accurately reflect the nature (subjectivity) of truth and the religious experience in general? How might a shift in how we express our "testimonies" affect members and those outside of our faith? Placing emphasis on belief and faith may also change the lens through which we view revelation and our personal communion with the Divine. Over time there may be a theological shift, to a greater or lesser degree, as to how we understand Truth, revelation, faith, and our understanding of those of other faiths.

Just a few thoughts.

Big UP!

Lamanite

When so many all over the world use and even favor noetic processes, and the Church is expanding into these cultures, and the "oriental" philosophies become more familiar in the west, I think the word "know" will be more difficult to control for the expression of testimony and spiritual experience. While it may come across as "new agey" I think the word "know" can be used to describe the kind of knowledge and experience testimonies are based on. But still, whether one says "I know", "I beleive", "i testify", "I feel", "I'm assured that", "I am satisfied that (I think I recall President Hinckley using this one on occassion)," it is the Spirit verifying what a person says that brings his hearers around to sense the truth that is being testified of.

[cdowis]

I have a factual knowledge that these things are true, based on divine events in my life.

You might find Alma 32, starting with verse 17, of interest.

An example is my driving my car with manual transmission. Through many years of experience I have learned which gear to use for certain situations, and when and how to make adjustments as conditions change.

It is more than a "feeling"

[CV75]

P.S. In the spirit of talking to myself, however one expresses himself, he has to be honest and faithful about it. For example if someone places more self-conscious emphasis on describing the definition, science and qualification of their knowledge than their spiritual experience (in terms of both obtaining, and bearing testimony), I suspect it might be difficult for the Spirit to operate through him or at least confirm what he says, or only confirm it to the degree the Spirit is relied upon.

[CV75]

I have a factual knowledge that these things are true, based on divine events in my life.

***

It is more than a "feeling"

I agree, and no matter what words you use to describe it, the Spirit will confirm it to others only under certain conditions.

[CASteinman]

However, for those open to discussing these notions, do you think it would be valuable to begin a shift towards using words like "believe" and "faith" in order to more accurately reflect the nature (subjectivity) of truth and the religious experience in general?

When I do not have a testimony of something I express gratitude and belief in that thing. When I have a testimony of it borne of the Holy Spirit I will mostly testify to that witness by the Holy Spirit but once in a while I will simply say I know ________ is true.

[Lamanite]

I have a factual knowledge that these things are true, based on divine events in my life.

You might find Alma 32, starting with verse 17, of interest.

An example is my driving my car with manual transmission. Through many years of experience I have learned which gear to use for certain situations, and when and how to make adjustments as conditions change.

It is more than a "feeling"

Just to clarify, if a Muslim said "I know Mohammad is a Prophet of God based on Divine events in my life", your response would be what? Both experiences can't be "True". So which one of you is driving the metaphorical manual transmission?

Also, would you feel that a member who "believes" the Church is true, hasn't had the same divine events in his/her life? Is there religious experience less real and true because they only "believe" as opposed to knowing the Church is True?

Just wanting to understand where your coming from.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

When I do not have a testimony of something I express gratitude and belief in that thing. When I have a testimony of it borne of the Holy Spirit I will mostly testify to that witness by the Holy Spirit but once in a while I will simply say I know ________ is true.

I usually say "I know ...... is true" because that's how we talk as Mormons. What I mean is that I have received Divine assurances that XYZ is true and that these assurances have left an indelible and motivating impression on both my intellect and my soul. I Believe in a very definite way.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Hamba Tuhan]

I know that, if I walk off the edge of 10-metre-high cliff, I will fall into the water below. I know because I've done it several times. I also know that, if I break the commandments of God, I will fall, again because I've done it several times. Wherein lies the difference because of which only one of these experiences should be expressed as belief?

[yootaw]

I would love to see a shift towards 'I believe' rather than 'I know'. I think that 'I know' conveys a specific cultural meaning that is essentially I believe. And you may have every reason to believe strongly. The problem with the I know language (in my opinion), is that it seems to devalue the experiences of those whose faith is developing, or who are doubting, or who just feel more comfortable with less absolute language. Again, this is just my opinion.

Edited July 26, 2012 by yootaw

[yootaw]

I know that, if I walk off the edge of 10-metre-high cliff, I will fall into the water below. I know because I've done it several times. I also know that, if I break the commandments of God, I will fall, again because I've done it several times. Wherein lies the difference because of which only one of these experiences should be expressed as belief?

There may not be a functional difference in your example, especially within the mormon culture. But what about 'I know that God will heal my sick child.' This is clearly an expression of faith, not knowledge. I think that we say it that way to reinforce our hope/faith. What if God doesn't actually heal the child?

[blackstrap]

Funny how most of the Articles of Faith start out " We believe"

[Glenn101]

A testimony of Jesus Christ, and anything else gospel related, can be known. It goes beyond belief. Belief crumbles under the onslaught of negativity from details of church history, science, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham. A person who "knows", who has a testimony born of the spirit, the Holy Ghost to be exact, is not bothered by those things.

Having such an experience is beyond description. It is sort of like trying to describe the color orange to a person who has never seen that color before. It cannot be done. One has to show another the color orange for such an one to be able to understand it.

The spiritual experience cannot be shared like that, but it can be experienced in such a powerful way that leaves no doubt that it was such an experience, and of the message.

Glenn

[blackstrap]

I know that God can heal my child. Whether it happens or not depends on my faith(trust) and on God's will.I have pondered the possiblity that faith can override God's will.God does allow us to do things against His direct wishes, but I don't think that is the same thing.

[bluebell]

If someone wants to use 'know', i'm not going to try to argue them out of that desire. Same with using 'believe'.

I think sometimes the word choice has to do with cultural practices and traditions, but othertimes i think it's a deliberate choice made for specific reasons. I say, let people choose what word they want to us and let them be able to use it without worry that someone in the audience is thinking in their head how wrong, misguided, unenlightened, weak, faithless, or whatever, using 'that' word was.

Bearing a testimony is hard for a lot of people. I'm a fan of not making it harder.

[selek1]

I would love to see a shift towards 'I believe' rather than 'I know'. I think that 'I know' conveys a specific cultural meaning that is essentially I believe. And you may have every reason to believe strongly. The problem with the I know language (in my opinion), is that it seems to devalue the experiences of those whose faith is developing, or who are doubting, or who just feel more comfortable with less absolute language. Again, this is just my opinion.

Bull pockey.

The problem with "I know" is that it expresses a certitude and a faith that enemies of the Church (within and without) find bothersome because it does not excuse their own lassissitude and does not allow them an opening into which they can plant the seeds of doubt.

You'll notice a common trend among those who agitate for the weaker language: weaker testimonies.

You're darned right that the language is absolutist. It is intended to be.

The "just say no" program advocates that response because it is a deterrent. A pusher who is told "No" in no uncertain terms is far less likely than one who is told "not right now" or "maybe later".

In exactly the same vein, "I know" signals clearly and unequivocably that I have neither the time nor any interest in entertaining the speculation and guesswork of those who seek only to undermine what the Lord and the Holy Ghost have witnessed clearly.

[selek1]

There may not be a functional difference in your example, especially within the mormon culture. But what about 'I know that God will heal my sick child.' This is clearly an expression of faith, not knowledge. I think that we say it that way to reinforce our hope/faith. What if God doesn't actually heal the child?

False dichotomy and pernicious nonsense. Even though you are partially correct with the latter statement, you are comparing apples and oranges.

There is a vast difference between faith in something that has happened and something that might happen.

I know that the sun rose this morning.

I have faith that it will rise again tomorrow morning.

"I know that Christ is my Savior." "I have faith that he will be yours, too, if you let him."

Do you see the qualifiers that separate and differentiate these two concepts? One is something that has already been revealed or come to pass. The other has yet to do so.

One has occurred. The other is hoped for.

As far as your "sick child" analogy goes, it is deeply and fundamentally flawed as it 1) presupposes God's will- which is a concept alien to LDS thought and 2) ignores the fact that God has stated that he will heal all the sick, relieve the afflicted, and comfort the mournful.

His timetable for doing, however, remains his own.

Edited July 27, 2012 by selek1

[treehugger]

I believe the Book of Mormon defines knowing something and differentiates that from faith.Also, an apostle gave a talk wherein he urged testimonies of "I know" rather than "I believe"

[Damien the Leper]

It is awkward how faith hardens into arrogance via the nauseating vessel of certainty. In a sense, it evidences some form of insecurity. Certainty is but hogwash.

In the book An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism a very humble statement is made. The book says that atheists do not claim that God does not exist because that means they have solid knowledge of things beyond the reality in which we experience every day. How arrogant it truly is when the New Atheists or any atheist claims that God does not exist!

Such a statement and its polar opposite are insidiously deceitful.

Faith has absolutely no relationship with certainty. Certainty, in fact, is the enemy of faith...not doubt as some may ignorantly claim. My path back to membership in the church is equally paved with sincere faith and sincere doubt. I could have it no other way.

[CASteinman]

Certainty is but hogwash.

Are you sure?

[wenglund]

While the idea suggested in the OP may be some value were it feasible, I don't know if it is a good move to get hung up on semantics. To me, the words aren't as important as the meaning, and the meaning is only as important as it makes us better people. In short, as long as people are striving to live a Christ-like life, it really doesn't matter all that much what words they use to bear their testimonies since their lives are what say it all anyway. At least that is how I see it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

Are you sure?

Hmm...nice attempt to bait but I'm not biting your fallacious logic. The mere fact that you ask such a question shows the depth of your inability to appropriately argue your perspective. Anyone can ask such disgustingly simplistic question as a means to 'one up' opponents of their position. In its own devious way...it resembles a straw man. Such an attempt to back one into a corner is poor form.

[CASteinman]

Hmm...nice attempt to bait but I'm not biting your fallacious logic. The mere fact that you ask such a question shows the depth of your inability to appropriately argue your perspective. Anyone can ask such disgustingly simplistic question as a means to 'one up' opponents of their position. In its own devious way...it resembles a straw man. Such an attempt to back one into a corner is poor form.

Paranoid much? It was a joke.

[wenglund]

Are you sure?

I was going to point out the paradox as well as the irony, but you beat me to it. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Hmm...nice attempt to bait but I'm not biting your fallacious logic. The mere fact that you ask such a question shows the depth of your inability to appropriately argue your perspective. Anyone can ask such disgustingly simplistic question as a means to 'one up' opponents of their position. In its own devious way...it resembles a straw man. Such an attempt to back one into a corner is poor form.

Wow! What a telling over-reaction. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 27, 2012 by wenglund