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

[Deborah]

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

I don't think anyone is saying that. What is being discussed is how much can we truly "know" based on faith. Just because someone tells you something is true do you always believe it. Now you may be one of those people that trusts the Lord and so believe on his word, but then the question is how do you know that's what the Lord really said because it was written down by a man who may or may not have been in tune with the Lord.

It does come down to the Holy Ghost and the testimony one feels from that. It does come down to experiences which confirm prior experiences, so that it's not just a one time thing that we have to hold on to. Although some of those one time things can be so powerful that they carry us through the other times where we question. I know that I love my grandkids. I know that because they tear at my heart when they are hurt and they fill me with overwhelming joy when I see them succeed or when my little ones give me a hug. I "know" that the church is true because after 50 plus years of being a member and with all the ups and downs in my life the church has been an anchor for me and has given me the gospel message that has enriched my life and gotten me past some very tragic experiences.

[mfbukowski]

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

You are just too kind! Thanks!

[CASteinman]

I don't think anyone is saying that.

Actually yeah, it was said. Maybe it was a misstatement. I am fine with that. But it set my teeth on edge because it was a denial of the Words of Christ.

Here is the specific claim that I objected to: "in fact, church's are never true. Rocks aren't true. Trees aren't true. Churches aren't true."

And I contrast that to this:

"Those to whom these commandments were given might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth...."

It seems to me to be a good thing to allow members to agree with the Lord and a bad thing to discourage them from agreeing with the Lord.

I'm ok if that's just my opinion though.

[mfbukowski]

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.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

² The same was in the beginning with God.

³ All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made

I see this in a linguistic constructivist sense, meaning that all we "know" - in the sense of sharable experiences- is only sharable by the "word" or through language. Think about it. We know "facts", and what are "facts"? They are words-sentences- we regard as "true". So all that can be confirmed by science, or all that we can share knowledge about is essentially about giving names or defining what we experience. Science and poetry are in the same boat. They are both linguistic models of some part of human experience. Poetry expresses feelings and emotions probably as nearly as it is possible to express them, where science expresses a linguistic model of what we all share by verifiable experiences. That is what science is- models of reality which change from time to time as they are refined, but those models are expressed in language- either mathematics, or natural languages like English or German, or most usually, both. But science uses models we all can verify and experience together, while poetry models emotions we all have felt. Music is likewise a universal language which expresses emotion across all linguistic boundaries.

Let's look at Abraham 4- I have taken liberty of underlining some instances where it is clear that the "organizing" of matter unorganized, was accomplished through defining raw experience. I have also inserted quotes where I think they were defining words, like the words "expanse" and the word "place".

Imagine that you are looking at chaotic matter- perhaps "snow" on a TV screen, and suddenly you start seeing regularities. As a mini-god, it is your responsibility to try to define those regularities. I believe this was similar to what the Gods are doing in the scriptural metaphor expressed in Abraham 4- linguistically defining what we know and speak of as the world around us. Not oddly at all, it is also what science does.

In short, I think this is the way the Word organized all that was organized. The Word after all, is the Messenger- the carrier of language- from God to man.

1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.....

5 And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called night; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night.

6 And the Gods also said: Let there be an "expanse" (defined) in the midst of the waters, and it shall "divide" the waters from the waters.

7 And the Gods ordered the expanse, so that it divided the waters which were "under" the expanse from the waters which were "above" the expanse; and it was so, even as they ordered.

8 And the Gods called the expanse, Heaven. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and this was the "second" (thereby defining numbers) time that they called night and day.

9 And the Gods ordered, saying: Let the waters under the heaven be "gathered" together unto "one place", and let the earth come up "dry"; and it was so as they ordered;

10 And the Gods pronounced the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, pronounced they, "Great Waters"; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.

So now we jump out of philosophical parlance and move into poetry and what is called "metaphysics".

I think the sentence "I am the Truth" can be taken many ways. First of all, Jehovah, the premortal Christ, is the great "I Am"- the self-existent one who defines all existence, for without the Organizer there would only be Chaos. Nothing would be ordered or defined.

Secondly he is the Word- the messenger of God who gives Adam language. It is language which enables men to become like God to organize our worlds from matter unorganized in the way God himself does, but only in a very very limited way.

Thirdly, he is the Truth in the sense of being the True path which "works" for all who find it and all who order their lives according to the rules (commandments) and ordinances he has devised for us. His way is the Way of Life (See the Didache) the ethical system which maximizes all that has been defined as good for mankind. His truth is the truth which works best for mankind to make us all happy.

In fact, we call that plan the Plan of Happiness in our church - and that is exactly what it is.

Anyway that is the way I understand it!

[mfbukowski]

Actually yeah, it was said. Maybe it was a misstatement. I am fine with that. But it set my teeth on edge because it was a denial of the Words of Christ.

Here is the specific claim that I objected to: "in fact, church's are never true. Rocks aren't true. Trees aren't true. Churches aren't true."

And I contrast that to this:

"Those to whom these commandments were given might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth...."

It seems to me to be a good thing to allow members to agree with the Lord and a bad thing to discourage them from agreeing with the Lord.

I'm ok if that's just my opinion though.

Well we certainly think that there is some degree of truth in other churches- clearly I don't think you would dispute that.

So I see that sentence to mean the "truest" path to achieving the Plan of Happiness and the only church who even teaches that there IS such a thing.

So I see it as justifiable to call it the "only living church" if indeed it is true that the Plan of Happiness is the only path to the true plan of happiness which is best for humanity. I have no trouble saying that or thinking that at all.

There are other ways to be happy to be sure. But the question is what is the "best"? In my opinion it means following the commandments and having a great family and trying to be the best human being I can be. I think that is the way to "fill the measure of my creation and have joy therein".

But that's just me

[CASteinman]

Well we certainly think that there is some degree of truth in other churches- clearly I don't think you would dispute that.

But having some degree of truth does not make the the True Church or even a True Church.

So I see it as justifiable to call it the "only living church" if indeed it is true that the Plan of Happiness is the only path to the true plan of happiness which is best for humanity. I have no trouble saying that or thinking that at all.

I agree but I also add.... the "true and" in between "only" and "living".

The issue for me, really was the claim that "no Church is true". If that is right, it makes the Revelation to be a lie.

[mfbukowski]

But having some degree of truth does not make the the True Church or even a True Church.

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Uh oh, I guess we are in trouble then.

The issue for me, really was the claim that "no Church is true". If that is right, it makes the Revelation to be a lie.

That's why I divided it all into two contexts. He was right- rocks and buildings are not "true" unless you mean "plumb".

But that is not what we LDS typically mean by that- our context is different.

So if you look at it contextually, you are both right but you are both stuck in your personal context and not seeing that point. Nothing to argue about here, according to MY context!

[CASteinman]

Uh oh, I guess we are in trouble then.

No... because that is not what makes the Church True.

So if you look at it contextually, you are both right but you are both stuck in your personal context and not seeing that point. Nothing to argue about here, according to MY context!

I do not see how there is anything right about saying the Church is not True -- that indeed it cannot be True. Even taken in the most generous context, the comment appears to be of the opinion that we should not say such things because it is not a valid statement and because outsiders might be confused about what it means.

I entirely object to either idea. I think the Lord's words on this matter make sense.

Edited July 28, 2012 by CASteinman

[Carborendum]

So, I'm getting several lines of thought in this thread.

1) There are differing levels of knowledge. Lesser levels we call belief, or whatever.

2) How can we differentiate between what we "know" vs. what others "know" that seem to contradict our "knowledge".

3) A whole bunch of gobbely goop on who knows what and how much. As CAS pointed out, this is rather ironic that we should be making statements of fact that are really our best guesses and suppositions when there is nothing but a "feeling" as to the validity. While it may be valid. Do we know it? Yet it is being stated as a fact.

4) The Church is true.

Can we just accept that the use of the word "know" is an imprecise and illogical word? Knowledge itself is not exact. How can it be?

With varying degrees of knowing, where do you draw the line between belief and knowledge? And who are we to draw that line? We each draw that line for ourselves.

The Church is true precisely because it is "living". Not in the same sense that you and I are living. But it is living. An idol cannot be a true god. It isn't alive. A rock isn't true because it isn't alive. Words are not necessarily true, but when such words come together to convey a message that breathes life into our souls, they live and are true.

The doctrines of the Church are true. The system/organization that Christ himself setup on this earth is such that it focuses, harnesses, and even breathes the Spirit into our souls. It is alive. It is true. I know it.

ANECDOTE: My companion and I were called to an investigator's home whom we pretty much knew was an anti-Mormon. But we did our duty and gave him a chance. His position was that the King James Bible was the true bible and all other versions are a waste.

When we were discussing some doctrinal points, I brought up some of the alternate translations of some words (as indicated in the footnotes of the LDS version). He said they were all invalid because the KJV doesn't say it that way..

Eventually, I pointed out to him that he was WORSHIPING a book. He was worshiping paper and ink. We worship the Living God. And I invited him to worship Him with me. He didn't take me up on it. Hmmm.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Carborendum

[wenglund]

Eventually, I pointed out to him that he was WORSHIPING a book. He was worshiping paper and ink. We worship the Living God. And I invited him to worship Him with me. He didn't take me up on it. Hmmm.

Reasonably, this salient point may be distilled even further to the worship of individual words--like "know" and "truth."

It seems perfectly reasonable to me were an individual to wish to be more precise and clear in what they are saying, and to rationally discuss the meaning and better usages of certain words--as I suspect is the case with my buddy, Lamanite.

Where I think it may turn problematic is when people may place too much importance on the words--i.e. when the practical usage of words is sacrificed on the alter of anelretention, and where people become dogmatic and demanding that others worship the words even as they do.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 29, 2012 by wenglund

[CASteinman]

As CAS pointed out, this is rather ironic that we should be making statements of fact that are really our best guesses and suppositions when there is nothing but a "feeling" as to the validity. While it may be valid. Do we know it? Yet it is being stated as a fact.

No complaint here and not digging at things, but if by CAS, you mean me, that was not really my position. I don't grieve over how people express this sort of thing and do not judge other people in this regard. I just have my own standards.

I happen to think that the Church is True and Living because it is the Lord's Church and he is our True and Living God and directs its according to His will and pleasure.

And as I said, I don't take issue with how people express their thoughts on this (believe, know, trust, have faith, etc) but I do get an emotional and intellectual reaction to the idea that it is not the Only True and Living Church on the Face of the Whole Earth.

[Benjamin McGuire]

It seems to me to be a good thing to allow members to agree with the Lord and a bad thing to discourage them from agreeing with the Lord.

See, this statement seems highly problematic to me.

Exactly what does it mean for the members to agree with the Lord here? What exactly did the Lord mean (assuming of course, that it is the words that the Lord said and not an interpretation on the part of Joseph Smith). Perhaps you could tell us exactly what the Lord meant when he gave us that statement?

Ben M.

[Ahab]

See, this statement seems highly problematic to me.

Exactly what does it mean for the members to agree with the Lord here? What exactly did the Lord mean (assuming of course, that it is the words that the Lord said and not an interpretation on the part of Joseph Smith). Perhaps you could tell us exactly what the Lord meant when he gave us that statement?

Ben M.

Instead of asking one of us mortals here to tell you what the Lord meant, or what he said, why don't you just ask the Lord, himself, or maybe someone else who you "know" will say the same thing he said... like our Father, who may testify through the Holy Spirit?

Huh? Ever thought of that, bro? Seems like that would be the best way to clear up any confusion you may have, or anyone else has about this kind of thing.

As far as agreeing with the Lord, it means to agree with Lord, regardless of who else agrees with him or who doesn't agree with him.

Seems like I'm starting to remember why I got fed up with a lot of people on this website.

[Carborendum]

No complaint here and not digging at things, but if by CAS, you mean me, that was not really my position.

Sorry, CAS.

I did not mean to seemingly conflate several ideas. I think I got what your position was. But I was writing so fast, that I blended it with my own idea.

I was simply saying that pointing out the irony was not originally stated by me (although I came to that realization independently). It ws MY position that it seems ironic that we are talking about how some people don't know things when we don't know whether they know or don't know. And a million other words describing what we know and think we know.

[Ahab]

So, I'm getting several lines of thought in this thread.

1) There are differing levels of knowledge. Lesser levels we call belief, or whatever.

2) How can we differentiate between what we "know" vs. what others "know" that seem to contradict our "knowledge".

3) A whole bunch of gobbely goop on who knows what and how much. As CAS pointed out, this is rather ironic that we should be making statements of fact that are really our best guesses and suppositions when there is nothing but a "feeling" as to the validity. While it may be valid. Do we know it? Yet it is being stated as a fact.

4) The Church is true.

That's what you're getting? Okay, at least you're making some progress, as I am. Now we just need to figure out what to do with the thoughts in our heads.

Can we just accept that the use of the word "know" is an imprecise and illogical word?

In some cases, yes, like when people don't use the word appropriately.

Knowledge itself is not exact. How can it be?

Try thinking of knowledge as something that is kept in one grand master storage database of all things that can be "known" as something I shall call "knowledge".

Now think of that database as being divided into 2 main tables, or 2 main sections of tables - with one called "true knowledge" and the other called "false knowledge".

Now think of the data in the "true knowledge" table as knowledge of things as they really are, or were, or will be in the future, while everything in the "false knowledge" table is about everything as it is NOT, and never was, and never will be at any time ever in all of eternity.

Now imagine how some people gain a little bit here, and a little bit there, of some of the knowledge in both tables with maybe some saying something like "Hey, this data doesn't go in the "true knowledge" table - while they try to move it to the "false knowledge" section either in the main database or in their own little database they keep in their minds and while trying to "add" to the knowledge possessed by others - or vice versa.

With varying degrees of knowing, where do you draw the line between belief and knowledge?

Between what is truth and what is not truth, and between what is good and what is evil.

And who are we to draw that line?

I am what I am, and I am a child of my Father in heaven.

We each draw that line for ourselves.

We each draw the line where we "think or believe" it should be, but the line between what really is true and what really isn't true is automatically drawn by reality.

The Church is true precisely because it is "living". Not in the same sense that you and I are living. But it is living.

That's an interesting thought. How do you define "living"? Is Satan living, in the same sense you are using that word, I wonder. Hmm, yes, interesting word.

An idol cannot be a true god. It isn't alive.

Is Satan alive, in your opinion or in your use of the word "alive". Hmm, I wonder some more.

A rock isn't true because it isn't alive. Words are not necessarily true, but when such words come together to convey a message that breathes life into our souls, they live and are true.

You're using some interesting words here and I'd like to see you do more to elaborate.

The doctrines of the Church are true. The system/organization that Christ himself setup on this earth is such that it focuses, harnesses, and even breathes the Spirit into our souls. It is alive. It is true. I know it.

I know that too, and I also know Satan is "real". Does that mean Satan is true, since truth is a knowledge of things that are, or were, or will be in the future, though? Hmm, I could see how maybe some people might think so based on how they perceive reality.

ANECDOTE: My companion and I were called to an investigator's home whom we pretty much knew was an anti-Mormon. But we did our duty and gave him a chance. His position was that the King James Bible was the true bible and all other versions are a waste.

When we were discussing some doctrinal points, I brought up some of the alternate translations of some words (as indicated in the footnotes of the LDS version). He said they were all invalid because the KJV doesn't say it that way..

Eventually, I pointed out to him that he was WORSHIPING a book. He was worshiping paper and ink. We worship the Living God. And I invited him to worship Him with me. He didn't take me up on it. Hmmm.

Hmmm. Interesting story, and I have also seen things like that in reality.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Ahab

[The Grimace]

Most of what is said to be known in the Church can't be known. One can't know if Joseph had plates, if God and Jesus visited him, or if God and Jesus exist as beings inside or outside the universe.

Faith is what one has when it comes to the claims of the LDS Church, Christianity, or any religion, really. One has faith that God and Jesus Christ visited Joseph Smith because of what one feels when meditating upon this claim. Your faith is justified based on your feelings, but that does not mean you have received knowledge - you may have complete faith in something that never happened.

[wenglund]

Most of what is said to be known in the Church can't be known.

Ironically, can you know this? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Carborendum]

Ahab,

I believe your comments were basically about two points.

1) Knowledge v. false knowledge.

2) What is "Living"?

First "Living". As I posited earlier, many different definitions may be stated for different contexts. In this context MY definition was "That which breathes the Spirit (of Truth) into your soul is living."

Second, neither the OP, nor my previous posts have been about truth vs. error or falsehood. It was about our understanding or internal proofs or surety of that which we consider to be knowledge.

My point about drawing the line was that you don't know what is in my heart, mind, and soul. So you cannot tell me what I know vs. what I believe. Nor can I do that to you. I know my heart, mind, and soul. So, I can determine where to draw the line between MY OWN knowledge vs. MY OWN belief.

I never intended to have this thread go into epistemology. It was simply a commentary on the usage of the words "knowledge" vs. "faith" or "belief" which was the topic of this thread.

ASIDE: That anecdote was my personal experience. I did not get that from anyone. That was me, myself, & I (and my companion).

Edited July 29, 2012 by Carborendum

[zerinus]

So, I'm getting several lines of thought in this thread.

1) There are differing levels of knowledge. Lesser levels we call belief, or whatever.

I wouldn’t put it quite that way. I would say there may be different levels of certainty, conviction, or assurance, rather than different levels of knowledge.

2) How can we differentiate between what we "know" vs. what others "know" that seem to contradict our "knowledge".

There are several possible explanations: One possibility is that one or the other is mistaken; another possibility is that one or other is lying. D&C 10:28 is relevant here: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, wo be unto him that lieth to deceive because he supposeth that another lieth to deceive, for such are not exempt from the justice of God.” There are lots of people who do that. Many anti-Mormons do that. They bear false witness, knowing that it is false. So just because someone says that they “know” something, it doesn’t mean that they are telling the truth. That would be equally true of Mormons of course. So who is to tell? How can anyone know? How can one avoid being deceived? Ultimately there is only one way: “For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day” (D&C 45:57). Spirit speaks to spirit. Only in that way anyone can be assured of knowing and following the truth, and not being deceived.

3) A whole bunch of gobbely goop on who knows what and how much. As CAS pointed out, this is rather ironic that we should be making statements of fact that are really our best guesses and suppositions when there is nothing but a "feeling" as to the validity. While it may be valid. Do we know it? Yet it is being stated as a fact.

We can make statements of fact even if it is our best guesses. You want to eliminate the word “know” form the human language. You have no justification for doing that. Human fallibility may be such that no man’s declaration of “knowledge” may be reliable 100%. But 99.999% is still good enough in the human condition; otherwise no “testimony” in a court of law would be acceptable. You could always argue that the “witness” was a “human,” and therefore there was a one in trillionth chance that he had got it wrong somewhere. The world isn’t run that way. People still get convicted, and even sentenced to death in law courts on the testimony of others.

Can we just accept that the use of the word "know" is an imprecise and illogical word? Knowledge itself is not exact. How can it be?

Of course not. See above.

The Church is true precisely because it is "living". Not in the same sense that you and I are living. But it is living. An idol cannot be a true god. It isn't alive. A rock isn't true because it isn't alive. Words are not necessarily true, but when such words come together to convey a message that breathes life into our souls, they live and are true.

As for the meaning of “living church,” the following revelation in the Doctrine and Covanants might be helpful:

SECTION 22

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Manchester, New York, April 1830. HC 1:79–80. This revelation was given to the Church in consequence of some who had previously been baptized desiring to unite with the Church without rebaptism.

1 Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.

2 Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.

3 For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old.

4 Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen.

By “dead works” it means unauthorized sacraments of the church, such as baptism and the laying on of hands etc. These are “dead” when performed without authorization and priesthood authority, and have no saving effect. These works are “dead works” when performed by churches that have no authority from God, and therefore cannot make an indelible change, or affect the salvation of the individual. But when performed by God’s true Church, then they have all of those effects. Therefore the “living church” does “living works;” whereas dead churches can only do dead works. That is the difference between a living church and a dead church. A living church can minister to the salvation and eternal life of its members; whereas a dead church cannot.

Edited July 30, 2012 by zerinus

[Carborendum]

zerinus,

I'd appreciate it if you re-read my comments again with the notion that we agree. For the most part I think we do. You seem to be magnifying differences between my wording and what you shared as your opinion here.

Keep in mind that the first list of statements (the numbered ones) were not my ideas. They were my interpretation of what others had said.

[zerinus]

Ahab,

I believe your comments were basically about two points.

1) Knowledge v. false knowledge.

2) What is "Living"?

First "Living". As I posited earlier, many different definitions may be stated for different contexts. In this context MY definition was "That which breathes the Spirit (of Truth) into your soul is living."

Second, neither the OP, nor my previous posts have been about truth vs. error or falsehood. It was about our understanding or internal proofs or surety of that which we consider to be knowledge.

* * *

I never intended to have this thread go into epistemology. It was simply a commentary on the usage of the words "knowledge" vs. "faith" or "belief" which was the topic of this thread.

Human language is very imprecise for handling spiritual concepts, and the best we can achieve is a close approximation. Faith is not knowledge, yet in some sense of the term it might be called such. Faith is not doubt either; and if it is not doubt, can it be called knowledge? There are also degrees of faith. Some are said to have greater faith than others. The scriptural explanation seems to be the most reliable to learn from:

Ether 3:

19 And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting.

20 Wherefore, having this perfect knowledge of God, he could not be kept from within the veil; therefore he saw Jesus; and he did minister unto him.

Ether 12:

19 And there were many whose faith was so exceedingly strong, even before Christ came, who could not be kept from within the veil, but truly saw with their eyes the things which they had beheld with an eye of faith, and they were glad.

20 And behold, we have seen in this record that one of these was the brother of Jared; for so great was his faith in God, that when God put forth his finger he could not hide it from the sight of the brother of Jared, because of his word which he had spoken unto him, which word he had obtained by faith.

21 And after the brother of Jared had beheld the finger of the Lord, because of the promise which the brother of Jared had obtained by faith, the Lord could not withhold anything from his sight; wherefore he showed him all things, for he could no longer be kept without the veil.

Alma 32:

17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

My point about drawing the line was that you don't know what is in my heart, mind, and soul. So you cannot tell me what I know vs. what I believe. Nor can I do that to you. I know my heart, mind, and soul. So, I can determine where to draw the line between MY OWN knowledge vs. MY OWN belief.

That is true; but on a more objective level, it is possible to know what is in the hearts and minds of others by the Holy Spirit. It is possible to know if someone is lying, or bearing false witness, or not.

[ANACO]

Read the Lectures on Faith.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Ahab writes:

Instead of asking one of us mortals here to tell you what the Lord meant, or what he said, why don't you just ask the Lord, himself, or maybe someone else who you "know" will say the same thing he said... like our Father, who may testify through the Holy Spirit?

Huh? Ever thought of that, bro? Seems like that would be the best way to clear up any confusion you may have, or anyone else has about this kind of thing.

Of course this is the best way - but the obvious bit that follows is that everyone can get a different answer. And so we run right back into the same problem. While we can have some individual idea of what the statement means, so can everyone else, and when we use that statement ourselves, we run right back to the situation I originally described.

As far as agreeing with the Lord, it means to agree with Lord, regardless of who else agrees with him or who doesn't agree with him.

And? That isn't the issue in this thread. This thread is all about what we mean when we use the phrase and what other LDS mean when they use the phrase. And if your response is just that we mean exactly what the Lord meant, but we cannot explain it ourselves, then it has lost any meaning it might have had when we use it, and our statement of knowing the church is true becomes completely incoherent.

Seems like I'm starting to remember why I got fed up with a lot of people on this website.

Of course. And probably if I have to respond to you for a while, I will feel some of the same emotions towards you. *shrug*

Ben M.

[AddamS]

Thank you for the response.

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.

I think this particular pond is a bit less cloudy for me because I am not religious. I can't relate personally with the idea of purposefully believing something I can't, to my preference, demonstrably prove. This doesn't leave much room for debate for me because I am more prone to find subjects falling into three catgories:

1) I know it ("I are fruit for breakfast today.")

2) I know it exists, but I don't know much about it ("Nuclear Fission is used to generate electricity.")

3) I can't know it ("Something may or may not happen to what we call our souls when we die")

When a person believes in the spiritual realm they are more likely to start letting "believe" creep in and cloud the waters so to speak. I'm not implying this is better or worse, just saying I know people that have religious beliefs search for answers with a different method than I do.

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.

Thank you for the explanation of your interpretation of the matter. I hadn't considered that before.

[wenglund]

I think this particular pond is a bit less cloudy for me because I am not religious. I can't relate personally with the idea of purposefully believing something I can't, to my preference, demonstrably prove.

Where does that leave you in terms of planning and acting on plans for the future even in secular matters?

I think were you to carefully examine all your thoughts and action you may be surprised to learn just how much of your secular life is based on faith/belief rather than knowledge. I don't say this to scare you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 30, 2012 by wenglund