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

[Lamanite]

To those who claim absolute certainty and possession of absolute truth based on divine inspiration (Holy Ghost), is every other human being with similar claims to Divine revelation lying or otherwise inspired by the Devil or deluded or misguided in some way, shape, or form?

Honestly curious as to how you reconcile your certainty with the certainty of others based on subjective religious experiences.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

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-

Your right that feasibility is one of the primary issue. Even if my observations and assumptions were accurate (which is not something I claim), what am I really proposing for myself as an individual or for the Church as a whole? I have no answer. Just philosophical/theological musings...

I'm just a weirdo asking the questions I want to hear the answers to. :-)

Big UP!

Lamanite

[CASteinman]

To those who claim absolute certainty and possession of absolute truth based on divine inspiration (Holy Ghost), is every other human being with similar claims to Divine revelation lying or otherwise inspired by the Devil or deluded or misguided in some way, shape, or form?

If someone tells me that the Holy Ghost revealed something to them, I tend not to argue with them. I might even agree with them. Even though it is possible that they are lying or deceived.

[bu11fr0g]

There are multiple sources of truth.

Religious sources include physical experiences, spiritual experiences, direct revelation, testimonies of righteous men and women, upbringing, scriptures, religious philosophers and apologists, personal contemplation.

I heard a man bear his testimonhy that he knew js was a prophet because buddha told him he was ....

All of these sources may be personally more meaningful than report of scientific experience, for example.

[Buzzard]

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

PLEASE don't let this hijack the thread, but I have heard it posited, and do not find it outside the realm of possibility, the Mohammed really was a prophet, but that his pure revelations were altered and the religion hijacked in much the same fashion as Christ's church was altered and hijacked into apostasy in the second century A.D.

Not saying I believe this, but stranger things have happened.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Lamanite]

PLEASE don't let this hijack the thread, but I have heard it posited, and do not find it outside the realm of possibility, the Mohammed really was a prophet, but that his pure revelations were altered and the religion hijacked in much the same fashion as Christ's church was altered and hijacked into apostasy in the second century A.D.

Not saying I believe this, but stranger things have happened.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

I can't see how this is a hi-jack. It call into question the subjective nature of differing religious experiences as they relate to claims to authority and Truth. It directly correlates to how we identify truth and how we express our claims to truth. It also puts a spotlight on the paradox of two parties laying claim to the Truth via the same epistemological methodology.

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

P.S. Your explanation regarding the alleged corruption of Islam is IMO archaic and poorly reasoned. There are better arguments available if you're willing to do the research. Perhaps a quick note to Dan Peterson? :-)

[CASteinman]

PLEASE don't let this hijack the thread, but I have heard it posited, and do not find it outside the realm of possibility, the Mohammed really was a prophet, but that his pure revelations were altered and the religion hijacked in much the same fashion as Christ's church was altered and hijacked into apostasy in the second century A.D.

Not saying I believe this, but stranger things have happened.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

I have wondered that. I think it is unlikely though.

[Damien the Leper]

Wow! What a telling over-reaction. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not at all. It was not emotionally charged in the slightest to warrant an over reaction. I merely put a stop to the rabbit hole that would have ensued had I bit the bait.

[yootaw]

Selek1:

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

How can you possibly know that weaker language is equal to weaker testimonies? This is an opinion, one that seems designed to mark me as having a weaker testimony, thereby invalidating what I have to say. Is this what you are trying to do?

My own experience with those that express their spirituality in weaker language is almost directly opposite yours. The people that I know who use more open language generally seem to have deeper rooted testimonies. Love and humility is reflected in their language. They allow for the possibility of others' experiences as well as their own. I will acknowledge that you may experience spirituality differently than me, but perhaps we can agree that our individual experiences may both be valid?

It seems to me that your opinion is firm and unlikely to change. You also seem less inclined to allow others their own opinions. This seems likely to result in little real dialogue with you about the idea at hand. If you are really interested in discussing this in a meaningful way, perhaps fewer derogatory comments (such as those below) will convey a willingness to engage in the subject.

Bull pockey.

False dichotomy and pernicious nonsense.

Edited July 27, 2012 by yootaw

[selek1]

How can you possibly know that weaker language is equal to weaker testimonies?

There is a direct and observable corollorary between those who agitate for the weaker language and those who publically express either doubts or overt criticisms of the Church's truth claims. The two go hand-in-glove.

This is an opinion, one that seems designed to mark me as having a weaker testimony, thereby invalidating what I have to say. Is this what you are trying to do?

The operative word of course is "seems". It is unfortunate that you insist on taking an neutral observation as a personal attack- but it is your perception. You bear sole responsibility for it.

By intimating and implying that one cannot know (particularly with his comparisons to subjective knowledge and contradictory testimonies), Lamanite is advocating for the softer language. He has, in the past, expressed some very serious doubts and criticisms of the Church.

You yourself have done precisely the same.

Valentinus accuses those of us who know of arrogance and draws a number of false conclusions about certainty- going so far as to be absolutist in his rejection of absolutism. Nor has he been particularly subtle in his criticisms and recriminations against the Church.

On the first page of this thread alone, we're three for three in confirming my observation.

My own experience with those that express their spirituality in weaker language is almost directly opposite yours.

And you are welcome to your opinion.

However, the hallmark of good observation is repeatability and verifiability. So far, we have only your word for it.

The people that I know who use more open language generally seem to have deeper rooted testimonies.

Again, the operative word is "seems".

Thus far, we are still stuck with your subjective opinion versus three observable examples of direct corrollation.

Love and humility is reflected in their language.

Ah yes,,,the time honored tactic of conflating contradiction with persecution and certitude for pride.

They allow for the possibility of others' experiences as well as their own.

Where have I denied the possibility of others experiences might be different?

It seems to me that your opinion is firm and unlikely to change. You also seem less inclined to allow others their own opinions.

Again- that operative word of "seems".

Have I called for your opinion to be censored? Have I demanded that you be punished for saying things with which I disagree? Have I called for your ouster or- as with the Queen of Hearts- shouted "Off with [his] head!" as though it were some sort of rebuttal?

No- I have addressed your points and explained where and why I think you are wrong.

The perception that I am "less inclined to allow others their own opinions" lies solely in your own head- you have no particular insights into mine.

As far as your whinge about "real dialogue" you might consider offering something other than your naked opinions as fodder.

Perhaps an observable phenomenon or behavior?

[cesc101]

There are multiple sources of truth.

Religious sources include physical experiences, spiritual experiences, direct revelation, testimonies of righteous men and women, upbringing, scriptures, religious philosophers and apologists, personal contemplation.

I heard a man bear his testimonhy that he knew js was a prophet because buddha told him he was ....

All of these sources may be personally more meaningful than report of scientific experience, for example.

[mfbukowski]

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

Just for the record I think you both are right. I have no problem with "I know the church is true". It is a statement peculiar to the church and we know what it means. If I were to define it for an outsider, I might say "I know this is the path God wants me to be on" I feel a sense of absolute certainty that this is, after years of searching, the belief system which coherently gives me the best religious model to order my entire life and give it meaning.

Besides God told me it was true. Who am I to argue with Him?

[mfbukowski]

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

+1

[cesc101]

sorry am using my mobile phone here now, but my question goes thus;

in the revelation cannonized in the D&C, why didn't President Joseph F. Smith see Budha, Mohammed, etc? Is TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE, REVELATION, etc only peculiar to one's cultural & religious upbringing?

[cesc101]

sorry am using my mobile phone here now, but my question goes thus;

in the revelation cannonized in the D&C, why didn't President Joseph F. Smith see Budha, Mohammed, etc? Is TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE, REVELATION, etc only peculiar to one's cultural & religious upbringing?

[mfbukowski]

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.

Definitely a tad intense.

[mfbukowski]

To those who claim absolute certainty and possession of absolute truth based on divine inspiration (Holy Ghost), is every other human being with similar claims to Divine revelation lying or otherwise inspired by the Devil or deluded or misguided in some way, shape, or form?

Honestly curious as to how you reconcile your certainty with the certainty of others based on subjective religious experiences.

Big UP!

Lamanite

We're all individuals and God teaches us on an individual basis.

Extreme example:

Drunk on skid row finds the Salvation Army, sobers up, prays about it and gets a true revelation that this is the path God wants him to take.

Another: Guy raised with no religion at all finds the only church within 10 miles and it is Evangelical. Could God tell him to follow that church? Of course

God takes us where he finds us and teaches us in the way that will work best to move us on the path to Christ.

[Benjamin McGuire]

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.

My only real gripe in this general direction is that statements like "the church is true" aren't really very communicative. They do work in a community environment like church - but in fact, church's are never true. Rocks aren't true. Trees aren't true. Churches aren't true.

What really happens is that the person who avers that the church is true actually holds to a series of propositions that they believe (or even "know" - I think that people can know that something is true in some way) are true. And the congregation - the community - for each of its members who agrees, they too have a series of propositions about the church which they also believe or know to be true. And yet, the propositions don't have to be remotely similar for one person to say that they "know the church is true" and another person to say "amen" and assent to that notion.

In my opinion, we would be far better off not saying that we know the church is true, but rather pointing out the various propositions that we hold about the church that we know (or believe) to be true. That is a much more powerful testimony.

Ben M.

[CASteinman]

My only real gripe in this general direction is that statements like "the church is true" aren't really very communicative. They do work in a community environment like church - but in fact, church's are never true. Rocks aren't true. Trees aren't true. Churches aren't true.

This may be something to take up with Jesus who said that this Church is true (and living). You will want to explain to Him whose Church it is, what a silly error he made! But meanwhile, before you get Him to repent, you might consider giving members of the Church who consider Him to be special, a bit of slack as they honor Him by repeating His word and notion.

Edited July 27, 2012 by CASteinman

[Deborah]

When I say I know God exists it's not because I've seen him but I've seen and experienced enough evidence of his existence to not question it. I even tried one time to imagine what it would be like to not believe in God and I couldn't do it; it was too much a part of me and has been ever since I can remember.

I agree that there are probably better ways of expressing our faith but people are usually not that linguistically endowed and so they stick with the basic words they are familiar with and have heard expressed before. Most of us know what they mean even if the words aren't exact.

I also think others outside the LDS faith can "know" God lives and Jesus is the Christ. They might have a different understanding of who God or Christ is but based on the understanding they do have they know these things, at least their faith is strong enough to take them beyond mere belief.

It seems to me however we are one of the few religious groups who talk about the "Church" being the true church. Those who do make a claim seem to have some grounds for doing so, ie the Catholics from ancient tradition, and the LDS from restoration. My other Christian friends never talk about their church being true, only their beliefs in God, and in fact many of them go from church to church until they find their comfort zone.

[Benjamin McGuire]

CASteinman writes:

This may be something to take up with Jesus who said that this Church is true (and living).

Why don't you, instead, demonstrate my point and explain exactly what it means when you read the statement that the church is true.

Ben M.

[yootaw]

There is a direct and observable corollorary between those who agitate for the weaker language and those who publically express either doubts or overt criticisms of the Church's truth claims. The two go hand-in-glove.

OK. I am comfortable with this as your experience.

The operative word of course is "seems". It is unfortunate that you insist on taking an neutral observation as a personal attack- but it is your perception. You bear sole responsibility for it.

Respectfully, I must disagree. I certainly bear responsibility for how I interpret your comments, which is why I asked for clarification on your intent. However, when you continue to make comments such as below, I maintain that you are trying to discredit the validity of my perceptions (and the others who you have named) by labeling us as having a weak testimony.

By intimating and implying that one cannot know (particularly with his comparisons to subjective knowledge and contradictory testimonies), Lamanite is advocating for the softer language. He has, in the past, expressed some very serious doubts and criticisms of the Church.

You yourself have done precisely the same.

Valentinus accuses those of us who know of arrogance and draws a number of false conclusions about certainty- going so far as to be absolutist in his rejection of absolutism. Nor has he been particularly subtle in his criticisms and recriminations against the Church.

However, the hallmark of good observation is repeatability and verifiability. So far, we have only your word for it.

The hallmark of a pattern is repeatability and the validity of an observation is verifiability. As I indicated, my observations do not match yours. I am not saying that yours are incorrect - just that they are different from mine. I am very interested in hearing others observations -- that's why I am here. I think that labelling anyone that wants open language as having a weak testimony will stifle open dialoge on the matter.

Ah yes,,,the time honored tactic of conflating contradiction with persecution and certitude for pride.

I confess that I am confused by this statement. I am not clear what you are trying to say here and how it relates to my comment. Can you elaborate?

Where have I denied the possibility of others experiences might be different?

This confuses me. I was describing the experience that I have had with others that use more open language. You clearly don't fit into this category. I'm not clear why you felt that this statement was about you.

Have I called for your opinion to be censored? Have I demanded that you be punished for saying things with which I disagree? Have I called for your ouster or- as with the Queen of Hearts- shouted "Off with [his] head!" as though it were some sort of rebuttal?

No- I have addressed your points and explained where and why I think you are wrong.

The perception that I am "less inclined to allow others their own opinions" lies solely in your own head- you have no particular insights into mine.

As far as your whinge about "real dialogue" you might consider offering something other than your naked opinions as fodder.

Perhaps an observable phenomenon or behavior?

Perhaps it is in my head. I agree that I have no way of knowing what your intents are. However, may I propose that the number of times an individual has been kicked out of a thread may serve as a good indication of willingness to engage in real constructive dialogue? A possible second metric may be the frequency of derogatory comments. I see both of these as observable phenomenon or behavior that is definitly outside the realm of naked opinion.

[Jaybear]

This may be something to take up with Jesus who said that this Church is true (and living). You will want to explain to Him whose Church it is, what a silly error he made! But meanwhile, before you get Him to repent, you might consider giving members of the Church who consider Him to be special, a bit of slack as they honor Him by repeating His word and notion.

When did he say that? Has any of your leaders either seen Jesus or heard from since Joseph Smith introduced secretly into the Church in direct violation of formal doctrine?

[mfbukowski]

My only real gripe in this general direction is that statements like "the church is true" aren't really very communicative. They do work in a community environment like church - but in fact, church's are never true. Rocks aren't true. Trees aren't true. Churches aren't true.

What really happens is that the person who avers that the church is true actually holds to a series of propositions that they believe (or even "know" - I think that people can know that something is true in some way) are true. And the congregation - the community - for each of its members who agrees, they too have a series of propositions about the church which they also believe or know to be true. And yet, the propositions don't have to be remotely similar for one person to say that they "know the church is true" and another person to say "amen" and assent to that notion.

In my opinion, we would be far better off not saying that we know the church is true, but rather pointing out the various propositions that we hold about the church that we know (or believe) to be true. That is a much more powerful testimony.

Ben M.

I know where you're going with this and I don't disagree in the slightest. But as long as the community understands what we mean the language is in context- we members understand each other and know what we mean.

We could I suppose keep it to specific propositions, but for non-believers that doesn't solve the problem- it just takes it down to the propositional level. Is saying that you know that paying tithing has blessed your life really better than saying that you know the church is true?

Maybe it is, maybe not. I don't know that it would help those who think we are crackpots anyway.

Edited July 27, 2012 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

In my opinion, we would be far better off not saying that we know the church is true, but rather pointing out the various propositions that we hold about the church that we know (or believe) to be true. That is a much more powerful testimony.

I would say that saying "the Church is true" is correct in that it asserts that the Church is in alignment with the way the Lord wants it organized (it conforms (or correctly positioned, aligned and level) to His standard. True is used this way in construction (carpentry, masonry).