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

[WalkerW]

I have not read the entire thread and this may be slightly off topic, but I used Bridget "Jack" Jeffries' post "The Church is True" a few talks ago to make the point that members need to define what that means for non-members. It is often used as an emotive catch-phrase with little thought behind it. When one must explain what they mean (e.g. believing Joseph Smith was a prophet, believing in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, the belief in continuing revelation), it becomes a bit more challenging.

Edited July 27, 2012 by WalkerW

[Ahab]

I have not read the entire thread and this may be slightly off topic, but I used Bridget "Jack" Jeffries' post "The Church is True" a few talks ago to make the point that members need to define what that means for non-members. It is often used as an emotive catch-phrase with little thought behind it. When one must explain what they mean (e.g. believing Joseph Smith was a prophet, believing in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, the belief in continuing revelation), it becomes a bit more challenging.

Great point, and as one who would like to hear more from people when they get to share their testimony I wish people would just stop using that phrase and instead express what that really means to them.

Truth is something as it is, or was, or will be in the future, so anyone with a phone book or the ability to see there is an actual organization on this Earth known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" knows that is true, as a matter of fact. The Church is, and it is what it is. I think what most people mean is that the Church is truly what it claims to be, just like the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, but that's not really what they're saying when they use those catch-phrases.

Semantics are important, believe it or not.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Ahab

[Damien the Leper]

It is fascinating how I'm accused of some sort of hasty generalization or straw man. Ridiculous!

Certainty as I stated is the enemy of faith. This is a philosophical argument based on how such certainty hardens faith into arrogance. The arrogance comes in the form of "My faith is more right than yours because we believe...(give regurgitated list of 'truths held')" and shows a unique inability to demonstrate a sincere spirit of compassion, humility and egalitarianism. I see this kind of pandemic within Reformed Theology and the attitudes of its adherents and apologists more than any other faith group. It's quite nauseating that such a toxic product is so deceitfully sold and bought by those who are taught to fear. Calvinism and its elitism and 'one true theology/way' business is contentious and nasty. Its best to avoid any semblence of such attitudes.

If one were to decide that they 'know'...good for them. Because they ONLY know for themselves and that knowledge is of little relevance to anyone else. This is what makes fast and testimony meeting so mundane.

As I say for others who claim a faith of any kind...I hope that it serves you well and gives you the fulfillment that you require or crave.

[Damien the Leper]

"Indeed we should focus less on the words we use and more on what we are becoming."

you're sounding a bit like a Christian existentialist ... and I consider that a good thing.

As do I.

[Ahab]

I never pressured my children to gain a testimony by age 8. I led them to the way they should go to find their own.

Here we go again with another key word. Do you know what the word "testimony" actually means?

Anything anyone says is a testimony, from them, about what they believe or have faith in or "know" about something.

We in the Church use the word "testimony" to mean something we claim to know based on what God has told us, with our testimony being a mirror image of the testimony from God (as in the Holy Spirit, or Jesus Christ, or our Father - take your pick because they all will say the same thing) on at least some issues.

Now try hearing yourself again as I heard you and I'll bet you did try to get at least some ideas firmly implanted in your cjhild's mind by the time he or she got to be 8 years old. Kudos to you for mainly concentrating on teaching your child how they can know something about God is true, though. That's what we're supposed to be doing, not just teaching people what we know (or claim to know) but instead teaching them how they can know what is true for themselves, even if it's just finding out what happens when they don't do what we try to teach them.

My son who is now 23 has come back to me many times in his life to share that he thought he knew and now he knows more.

Knowing more doesn't negate knowledge we already have, even if our knowledge is false knowledge which isn't true in the first place.

Knowledge is a progression and the word know can mean one thing at the start of our faith journey than it does at the end.

GAINING knowledge is a progression, not knowledge itself. There are different degrees of how much people know, but if they know something, they know it, right or wrong.

We are not required to have a full knowledge of all things before we can say we know some things. Indeed we see through a glass darkly.

Right, and if this is what you meant when you said what you said above then I agreed with you before even when I didn't think I did.

That does not mean that even a child cannot know some things about God and His nature. My son knew his Father in Heaven from a very young age.

Knew "some things" about God, or knew at least something about who he is.

It is illuminating to me that those who struggle in their faith take offense at the use of the words Know and True. I detect some projection on those who declare our practice of saying we know the church is true offensive or misleading in any way.

Again read D&C 93 for a great definition of "know" that all LDS should follow.

I think I know what you mean. Some people seem to act as if they don't know anything, and can't know. How silly is that. Edited July 27, 2012 by Ahab

[Damien the Leper]

Does anybody else reject the premise that "I belive" is weaker than "I know"?

I sometimes go to Sacrament Meetings, hear Testimonies, eulogies, etc... because my wife's family is part of the LDS church. I've learned that the use of "I know" before bearing witness is a cultural (if not religious) tradition within the church. I don't overthink it, I've just always assumed it was something that developed over the years as part of the LDS identity.

But there is a part of me that wonders two things whenever I hear someone start off their oration with the phrase "I know":

1) It is way harder to believe something than to know it. I would think in matters of spirituality it is, in a way, a stronger expression of faith to begin the statement with "I believe". It shows you have chosen a path and are steadfastly heading in the direction of the faithful. The idea that having any opening at all for doubt in any circumstance is a bit proud for my tastes (not that my tastes need be reflected in others). But after all, if Jesus himself had a lapse of faith in God's plan, who is anybody else to say they cannot?

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46

2) Why even use "I know" or "I believe" in the first place? Outside of a religious discussion, this would seem unnecessary.

"I know I went to the store" vs. "I went to the store"

"I know" seems to be more in-your-face whereas "I believe", as expressed candidly and 100% appropriately in the AoF, shows a manner of temperance and humility. It seems to be more sincere.

While I'm not a fan of passive voice in a literary sense, I do see the necessity when maintaining the need of sensitivity. Some would ignorantly presume that I'm giving my 'ok!' for some kind of political correctness. I am not. For example, when a missionary teaches an investigator it is best not to start with the FV. A better approach would be to come about the conversation from an angle in which the investigator can identify or relate to.

[Ahab]

Does anybody else reject the premise that "I belive" is weaker than "I know"?

Yes, many do, including me.

I sometimes go to Sacrament Meetings, hear Testimonies, eulogies, etc... because my wife's family is part of the LDS church. I've learned that the use of "I know" before bearing witness is a cultural (if not religious) tradition within the church. I don't overthink it, I've just always assumed it was something that developed over the years as part of the LDS identity.

That is true, for some reason, and many people who use the "I know" phrase don't overthink it or think about it much either. They just say it because they think they're "supposed" to say it, whether or not they really know what they're talking about. Some truly do know, but when someone says something which isn't actually true you can tell they just think they know when they really don't, or they have some false knowledge.

But there is a part of me that wonders two things whenever I hear someone start off their oration with the phrase "I know":

1) It is way harder to believe something than to know it. I would think in matters of spirituality it is, in a way, a stronger expression of faith to begin the statement with "I believe". It shows you have chosen a path and are steadfastly heading in the direction of the faithful. The idea that having any opening at all for doubt in any circumstance is a bit proud for my tastes (not that my tastes need be reflected in others). But after all, if Jesus himself had a lapse of faith in God's plan, who is anybody else to say they cannot?

I'd like to see you expand a little more on what you mean when you say it's not all that hard to "know it". From my perspective, it's a whole lot easier to believe something than it is to know "something is true". If you're talking about having some basic knowledge "about" something, rather than knowing that what you know is true, then I'd say it's just about as hard (or easy) to believe something is true as it is to know it is true, because you wouldn't believe it if you didn't know it was true.

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46

What you don't seem to realize here is that Jesus knew his Father had left him, because he could feel him withdraw. His Father (and our Father) was still where he was and was supporting what he was doing, but at the moment Jesus took on our sins he lost the association of our Father, and the Holy Spirit, just as we all do when we sin and just as Adam and Eve did when they were shut out from the garden of Eden.

Jesus didn't lose any faith in God's plan, though, and he didn't lose faith in God. I think he just didn't know what to expect or how it would feel until it happened, because he had never lost the association of God (our Father) before that.

2) Why even use "I know" or "I believe" in the first place? Outside of a religious discussion, this would seem unnecessary.

"I know I went to the store" vs. "I went to the store"

Sometimes it just seems to fit more in the context of what you are trying to say, like when you might want to say you understand and can comprehend what someone means. I guess we could say "I feel you, brother" more though, or "I dig it" instead of "I know what you mean" or "I know!" like when we can really relate to something someone else has experienced.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

Knowledge and Truth, as discussed by Philosophers and Theologians for centuries, are goals so unattainable it makes them difficult to define or discuss.

Justified belief is pretty much all we are left with. And in a lot of cases a justified belief may not be the best truth bearer. At the very least the justification should be infallible, otherwise it remains a minor belief, even if the alleged Truth/Justified Belief is successful, meaningful, and rational.

By using philosophical definitions the Mormon experience with the Holy Ghost is not a proper truth bearer. It is a divine assurance that plants and nurtures belief (Alma 32). It is a personal subjective experience that by no means justifies an expression of Truth or Knowledge.

Now if you all want to redefine the classical definitions of Truth and Knowledge (which is what most of you seem to be doing) then by all means go ahead; and by so doing you make my OP irrelevant. If however, you want to accept and operate within classical definitions of Truth and Knowledge then the OP may be something worthy of discussion.

"Religious doctrines would do well to withdraw their pretension to be dealing with matters of fact. That pretension...is the source of the conflicts of religion with science...When [religion] seeks its sanctions in the sphere of reality, [it] forgets that its proper concern is to express the ideal...The excellence of religion is due to the idealization of experience which, while making religion noble if treated as poetry, makes it necessarily false if treated as science" George Santayana, Interpretations of Religion and Poetry

Big UP!

Lamanite

I think you are definitely on the right path, in studying Santayana - he was a wonderful philosopher. My only criticism is that he was a generation or so too early to really see the developments in later Pragmatism and the effects of the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein, in books like the Philosophical Investigations. (As you may know, Wittgenstein radically changed his views, so the "early" W. is quite different than the later W.)

Wittgenstein is incredibly important to all that comes after him in understanding the nature of language and how it supposedly "represents reality".

Wittgenstein takes a propositions meaning out of the world and puts it into the linguistic context itself

So to me Santayana's use of the words truth and knowledge sound a bit old fashioned- later Pragmatists like Rorty and even Dewey would speak more about justified beliefs even in a scientific context, along with Wittgenstein. To overly simplify the direction they take, one might say that they see even science as more like poetry and less like the classical Greek conception of Truth with a capital T.

If you like "Interpretations" I suggest you read John Dewey's "Art as Experience" next.

In my opinion, it takes Santayana's views farther down the Pragmatic path, but you will be very comfortable with Dewey as well.

[mfbukowski]

I think it goes the other way. The community understands what it means specifically because it hides the details of personal belief. But it is the personal belief that matters, and in terms of what yootaw was suggesting it is the personal beliefs that have the ability to most profoundly affect the lives of others. We can say "I know the church is true" in a statement that means something entirely different for everyone who hears it. Or we can say that "I know that God loves me" or "I receive personal inspiration from God through the Holy Ghost every day of my life" or "The gospel makes me a better husband, a better father, and a better human being" (such a list could be very long). It is the self reflection that comes from replacing "I know the church is true" with this list of propositions that makes it valuable to us individually. It is the expression of how we understand the church to be true that makes it valuable to others.

I think so. I think it certainly takes it out of the realm of a rote repetition, allows for some personal introspection. And I think its helpful within the congregation to understand what others value in their faith.

Well as I said, I do not disagree with this point of view but I cannot see how it is going to change unless we start having philosophy classes in church. I don't see that as a likely possibility.

Most people in church including those on this board still believe that there is a thing out there somewhere called "Truth" and it is accessible through something even more vague called "Knowledge".

I guess all we can do is reflect that vocabulary in our own testimonies.

Give it a hundred years or so. Things will change.

Edited July 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[zerinus]

Does anybody else reject the premise that "I belive" is weaker than "I know"?

I sometimes go to Sacrament Meetings, hear Testimonies, eulogies, etc... because my wife's family is part of the LDS church. I've learned that the use of "I know" before bearing witness is a cultural (if not religious) tradition within the church. I don't overthink it, I've just always assumed it was something that developed over the years as part of the LDS identity.

But there is a part of me that wonders two things whenever I hear someone start off their oration with the phrase "I know":

1) It is way harder to believe something than to know it. I would think in matters of spirituality it is, in a way, a stronger expression of faith to begin the statement with "I believe". It shows you have chosen a path and are steadfastly heading in the direction of the faithful. The idea that having any opening at all for doubt in any circumstance is a bit proud for my tastes (not that my tastes need be reflected in others). But after all, if Jesus himself had a lapse of faith in God's plan, who is anybody else to say they cannot?

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46

2) Why even use "I know" or "I believe" in the first place? Outside of a religious discussion, this would seem unnecessary.

"I know I went to the store" vs. "I went to the store"

A testimony is one of the gifts of the Spirit, and it is given to some to help others to strengthen their faith or testimony.

D&C 46:

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

It is not a universally given gift to all Church members. And those who have the gift do not always have to say "I know" to be bearing, or using, that testimony to help or strengthen others. If you have that gift, it comes across in the manner in which you teach and speak of gospel truths, without you having to formally "bear your testimony". I know of someone on another (non-LDS) discussion board (a former member who had lost his faith), who once commented on that board that he had never met someone who spoke of the Church with such conviction as I did! Later on I was amazed to find him stating, in another place on the Internet, that he had been "converted" to the Church as a result of "my testimony;" whereas in fact I had never in "borne testimony" to him in the formal sense as it is understood in the Church. He had come to that conclusion as a result of observing my exchanges and interactions with him and with others on that particular message board.

Edited July 28, 2012 by zerinus

[cursor]

Hey ... people used to "know" that the world was flat.

People used to "know" that the earth was the center of the universe.

People used to "know" that ...

"Faith without works is dead, being alone" (James 2:17)

Similarly I say, faith without at least some modest amount of knowledge, is dead.

And, knowledge without some degree of faith that more [faith or knowledge] will develop, is dead.

Faith and knowledge are complementary and necessary elements.

Edited July 28, 2012 by cursor

[mfbukowski]

Hey ... people used to "know" that the world was flat.

People used to "know" that the earth was the center of the universe.

People used to "know" that ...

"Faith without works is dead, being alone" (James 3:17)

Similarly I say, faith without at least some modest amount of knowledge, is dead.

And, knowledge without some degree of faith that more [faith or knowledge] will develop, is dead.

Faith and knowledge are complementary and necessary elements.

Yeah but....

You're not defining either one.

If you read Alma 32, it speaks as if faith turns into knowledge just like uncertainty turns into certainty with more evidence.

So that is consistent with what you are saying here, but in that case "knowledge" is just belief with more certainty. I have no problem with that because I think that justified beliefs are the best we can hope for, which finally after a while approach what we want to arbitrarily call "knowledge" and I think that is the way Alma 32 uses the terms as well.

If that's cool with you, it's cool with me. But I think people here want "knowledge" to be something it is not.

I'll stick with Alma 32, which just happens to work perfectly with what is called in philosophy the "pragmatic theory of truth".

If it works in science, it is true. If it works in your life, it is true. Subjective objective doesn't matter. If you are certain, you "know". So "I know the church is true" becomes virtually equivalent to "I am certain the church is the right path for me", or it could also mean "I am certain that the church could work for anyone".

Edit: For all those who think I'm fooling, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth

Edited July 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Gervin]

"I am certain the church is the right path for me", or it could also mean "I am certain that the church could work for anyone"

The first phrase seems entirely appropriate (for you) while the second appears to border on relativism (your certainty cannot be logically applied to how the church could work for me)

[mfbukowski]

The first phrase seems entirely appropriate (for you) while the second appears to border on relativism (your certainty cannot be logically applied to how the church could work for me)

I was just going to answer "So?" but I thought that would be too much even for me!

But seriously, I am not sure why some think that is a dirty word. Of course it all depends on what the term means to you. Perhaps you could clarify?

[cursor]

But I think people here want "knowledge" to be something it is not.

Who are the "people here' date='" and what might it mean for them to want "'knowledge' to be something it's not"?

Knowledge is a sure faith. What else might [others want'] it [to] be?

Edited July 28, 2012 by cursor

[Gervin]

I'm unclear about the dirty word ("that"?)

I'm certain that the church could not work for anyone given the number of people who claim that the church does not work for them. Just sayin'.

[mfbukowski]

I'm unclear about the dirty word ("that"?)

I'm certain that the church could not work for anyone given the number of people who claim that the church does not work for them. Just sayin'.

The word was "relativism". So?

[mfbukowski]

Who are the "people here," and what might it mean for them to want "'knowledge' to be something it's not"?

Knowledge is a sure faith. What else might [others want] it [to] be?

I was referring to those who want "knowledge" to mean absolute knowledge, meaning certainty of the truth of propositions in some way corresponding to way the world really is. I believe there is no such thing.

The best we can do is having good reasons for why we believe things and various degrees of certainty. The Greek notion of absolute "Truth" as existing somewhere "out there" is what I do NOT believe in.

But I have no problem with the idea that "knowledge is sure faith", in fact that definition works well for me.

All of my assumptions about "people here" are based on years of similar discussions here.

Edited July 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Gervin]

my point was that the phrase has the appearance of blurring the distinction between belief and truth

[Gervin]

The Greek notion of absolute "Truth" as existing somewhere "out there" is what I do NOT believe in.

What do you make of the statement attributed to Christ that he is truth?

[mfbukowski]

What do you make of the statement attributed to Christ that he is truth?

He also said he is the "Way" didn't he? And how about the Life? How does that fit?

He is the Word as it says in John 1. God creates all through the Word, in fact reality is defined linguistically.

It is by the Word that God "called" (defined) the evening and morning as the "first day".

Our communal understanding of the world is based on language, and that world is organized out of matter unorganized by the Word. (words)

I am a linguistic constructivist. I think that truth is about language and that the only reality we can speak about is the way humans experience the world.

Words literally define the way we see reality and organize our ideas about it. So really it is impossible to get "outside" of the way we speak of things to communicate something beyond what language allows us to communicate.

To me that is self-evident. If you can think something we can't talk about it, perhaps it has value to you (which is fine) but we guess what- we can't talk about it.

We can only talk about shared experiences. So when we talk about religious experience, for example, words fall short, so there is really not much to say about it. That doesn't mean it is not an authentic experience- you may base your entire life's purpose on it, it's just that "what really happened" cannot be discussed very well.

[cdowis]

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?

That's an easy one.

All religions have a portion of the truth, and we have experiences which reinforce those common values -- a belief in a Higher Being, morality, strict diet which precludes alcohol, modesty in clothing, honesty, family values, etc. We do not have a a monopoly on Gospel truths. And Mohammad and other religious leaders certainly were inspired by the Lord.

In this life, or the next, his life and training as a Mulsim will prepare him for the opportunity to be taught and perhaps accept the fullness of the Gospel. I would congratulate him on his values and virtue, his dedication to a belief in a Divine Being.

We share common experiences following those Gospel truths, whether taught by Mohammed or Joseph Smith. Whether I refuse alcohol as a Mormon or as a Muslim, the effect is the same.

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?

I am not in a position to judge another's faith. I have no such window into their soul.

Just wanting to understand where your coming from.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited July 28, 2012 by cdowis

[Lamanite]

He also said he is the "Way" didn't he? And how about the Life? How does that fit?

He is the Word as it says in John 1. God creates all through the Word, in fact reality is defined linguistically.

It is by the Word that God "called" (defined) the evening and morning as the "first day".

Our communal understanding of the world is based on language, and that world is organized out of matter unorganized by the Word. (words)

I am a linguistic constructivist. I think that truth is about language and that the only reality we can speak about is the way humans experience the world.

Words literally define the way we see reality and organize our ideas about it. So really it is impossible to get "outside" of the way we speak of things to communicate something beyond what language allows us to communicate.

To me that is self-evident. If you can think something we can't talk about it, perhaps it has value to you (which is fine) but we guess what- we can't talk about it.

We can only talk about shared experiences. So when we talk about religious experience, for example, words fall short, so there is really not much to say about it. That doesn't mean it is not an authentic experience- you may base your entire life's purpose on it, it's just that "what really happened" cannot be discussed very well.

Your comments regarding language are absolutely relevant and necessary to the discussion.

Also, I wanted you to know that your comments have been very much appreciated by me. I found your arguments inspiring and eloquent. Thank you for helping me to refine and redefine my personal ideologies.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Gervin]

He also said he is the "Way" didn't he? And how about the Life? How does that fit?

He is the Word as it says in John 1. God creates all through the Word, in fact reality is defined linguistically.

It is by the Word that God "called" (defined) the evening and morning as the "first day".

Our communal understanding of the world is based on language, and that world is organized out of matter unorganized by the Word. (words)

I am a linguistic constructivist. I think that truth is about language and that the only reality we can speak about is the way humans experience the world.

Words literally define the way we see reality and organize our ideas about it. So really it is impossible to get "outside" of the way we speak of things to communicate something beyond what language allows us to communicate.

To me that is self-evident. If you can think something we can't talk about it, perhaps it has value to you (which is fine) but we guess what- we can't talk about it.

We can only talk about shared experiences. So when we talk about religious experience, for example, words fall short, so there is really not much to say about it. That doesn't mean it is not an authentic experience- you may base your entire life's purpose on it, it's just that "what really happened" cannot be discussed very well.

I understand that Christ called himself the way and the light and the life. I understand the parameters that language imposes on our conscious being. I was curious about how you interpret, react to, read, etc., Christ's claim that he is the truth.

When you say: "I think that truth is about language and that the only reality we can speak about is the way humans experience the world" are you saying "I think that Christ is about language and that the only reality we can speak about is the way humans experience the world."?

IF Christ is Truth, then how does that inform what we think, say and do ... especially in this search for truth so many here talk about?

[CASteinman]

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

Why don't I instead? Instead of what?

Anyway, if I explain exactly what it means to me when i read a statement -- it might not support your point after all.

I did not really think it was fair to say that a Church is not true, when the Lord declared it to be so.

Note: Edited to reflect adjustment in my perceptions.

Edited July 28, 2012 by CASteinman