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

[AddamS]

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-

Well, I guess we can only do the best we can with what we cannot know for certain.

For instance, I can't know if my house will burn down before I get home.

But I can know that if it does I can buy homeowners insurance, and that if it did they would cover the damages I am covered for.

If they don't, I know I can file legal action to get them to do so, and so on.

Nobody can know the future.

If I am misunderstanding what you are getting at, please let me know.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Are you sure?

Certainly! Come on now......you expected nothing more didja?

Edited July 31, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Kerry A. Shirts]

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-

And I think a lot of it is based on knowledge from previous experience as well.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

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.

And HOW do we determine what we think we feel is from the Lord, and not in our brains? Saying we know it is the Lord's word is an interpretation of OUR desire to think feelings we have are from the Lord. We underestimate our own brains' power to give us those feelings. The atheist Dan Barker, former preacher says he STILL gets the SAME feelings he used to attribute to the Lord, when he is giving lectures showing there is no God. WHAT do we do with THAT? And no, lets not pretend we KNOW he is deceived, and WE are not........that is pure biased prejudice.

[wenglund]

Well, I guess we can only do the best we can with what we cannot know for certain.

For instance, I can't know if my house will burn down before I get home.

But I can know that if it does I can buy homeowners insurance, and that if it did they would cover the damages I am covered for.

If they don't, I know I can file legal action to get them to do so, and so on.

Nobody can know the future.

If I am misunderstanding what you are getting at, please let me know.

That, in part, is what I was getting at. Think of religion, or the gospel of Christ in particular, as a way of purchasing fire insurance for your eternal soul.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kerry A. Shirts]

That, in part, is what I was getting at. Think of religion, or the gospel of Christ in particular, as a way of purchasing fire insurance for your eternal soul.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Utterly silly. This is fear based mongering......hardly a "Godly" way to coerce people into loving and believing in God.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[wenglund]

And I think a lot of it is based on knowledge from previous experience as well.

Sure.

It is also based on beliefs from previous experiences.

I submit that the vast majority of our mortal existence is based on beliefs from previous experiences. Without them, we could scarcely function or progress. Even within science, each advancement begins with a belief (a hypothesis formulated from previous experiences or observations).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Utterly silly. This is fear based mongering......hardly a "Godly" way to coerce people into loving and believing in God.

Profoundly myopic, fundamentalist, and humor-impaired reaction to a perfectly benign, reasonably viable metaphor. Certainly not what God had in mind as glorifying intelligence--though potentially indicative of the Novak effect. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

And HOW do we determine what we think we feel is from the Lord, and not in our brains? Saying we know it is the Lord's word is an interpretation of OUR desire to think feelings we have are from the Lord. We underestimate our own brains' power to give us those feelings. The atheist Dan Barker, former preacher says he STILL gets the SAME feelings he used to attribute to the Lord, when he is giving lectures showing there is no God. WHAT do we do with THAT? And no, lets not pretend we KNOW he is deceived, and WE are not........that is pure biased prejudice.

We don't know unless we KNOW.

The answer to that cannot be expressed. In revelations I have received I have known that they were NOT "from me" because they contained information that I did not know.

I have had promptings to call individuals- while I was engaged in a 50 mile bike ride, totally concentrating on my times per mile- doing calculations in my head while concentrating on avoiding rocks etc. Trust me- I was fully engaged mentally. I got a prompting to stop and call an elderly sister in my Ward. (I was the bishop at the time). I didn't listen, but I did call the relief society president who said- "She just popped into my head- I will give her a call".

She called her, and the sister had fallen and didn't want to call an ambulance, but was trying to call ward members to help her. The RS pres went over and helped her.

That is ONE incident among many.

But let's throw those all away.

How do I know, discarding my own subjective sense that these messages are from God? Other reasons like they change my life for the better and give me solutions I would not have thought of.

But suppose we even doubt that??

Let's say "God" is actually some higher sense of consciousness totally inside my skull some where- my "ideal self" that somehow gives me information I have figured out for myself (I don't believe that, but just suppose...) perhaps unconsciously- some neurons firing off connecting with other neurons due to some hormonal deal or stress that causes heightened awareness or some other thing like that.

Suppose now also we can "prove" that that is NOT being "caused" by supernatural means (can't prove that- but let's assume another doubt)

So what's your answer? I will tell you:

I DON'T CARE!

If after all that doubt it turns out that "god" is just the best inside of me (and I don't believe that it is) that somehow I can access by the mere false BELIEF that "God" exists- the bottom line is I DON'T CARE.

There are atheists around who say that that is what "religion" is. (Linked earlier somewhere- Rorty - Future of Religion for example) and they don't care either.

None of that negates the pragmatic truth that belief in God changes your life for the better as testified by billions around the world. So if that is the level you have to accept it on, go with Alma 32 and see if such a belief becomes "sweet" to you.

Exercise of particle of faith- take the first step- and see. It is an experiment- after all you want a scientific approach verifiable by experience don't you??

Trust what works and forget why it works just for a bit. Pretend you are an Australian Aborigine and just discovered the boomerang and don't have a clue about the aerodynamics of the thing- just that it WORKS!

What if that great early engineer sat around his fire at night and told everyone to forget about it because he couldn't explain it scientifically?

Edited July 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Utterly silly. This is fear based mongering......hardly a "Godly" way to coerce people into loving and believing in God.

Then we always have Alma 32- a totally pragmatic approach to faith.

Now you have the long answer and the short one!

And the Didache extends that "empirical approach"- the acceptance of life affirmation as the key to a pragmatic approach to the commandments, by following the "Way of Life" as opposed to the "Way of Death".

From that we get a pragmatic/utilitarian view of ethics and morals as well. It becomes almost like a new Kantian Categorical Imperative.

I haven't worked it all out yet but it is probably something like "Affirm and universalize moral principles which lead to the longevity and happiness of the most people"

Sumptin' lak 'at, ah dunno yet.

Edited July 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

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

(Lots of fun typos today)

[Carborendum]

When I was a deacon, we had a lesson on the Spirit, and "knowing" something by spiritual means as opposed to physical. After the instructor's explanation (which was in no way specific or definitive) I posited the question:

So how can you tell the difference between what the Spirit is impressing upon you vs. your own thoughts or emotions?

Instructor. How do you know it wasn't the Spirit making you think those thoughts or emotions?

Me: Yes, how do you know?

Him: No, that's the answer.

Me: I see, so you don't know either and we just wasted the last 15 minutes listening to your lesson on nothing.

Him: No. I'm saying that when the Spirit speaks to you, you know it.

Me: Yes, and I know that you really have no idea how to tell the difference.

Years later I came across an analogy about fishing. When you fish with a float, there are certain movements that you notice when a fish is nibbling on your line. If you catch it just right, you can hook the fish and bring it in before it nibbles away at all the bait, which would leave you with nothing.

The problem is that such movements are so similar to simple ripples on the water or other wavy motions that a novice fisherman will pull the line in, only to find nothing. Repeats of such action will cause the bait to wear out. And again you're left with nothing.

But after experimenting, watching, learning, & lots of practice, you eventually get the feel for the minute differences between the fish nibbling and the waves on the water. Even so, novices can get it right sometimes, and masters may mistake things sometimes. But it's a question of overall track record that determines the successful fisherman.

While the bobbing of the float may be considered faith or belief, the fish at the end of the line sitting in your boat is surely knowledge. But I'd say there are some motions of the bob that are so clear to the experienced fisherman, that it may as well be knowledge.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Carborendum

[mfbukowski]

When I was a deacon, we had a lesson on the Spirit, and "knowing" something by spiritual means as opposed to physical. After the instructor's explanation (which was in no way specific or definitive) I posited the question:

So how can you tell the difference between what the Spirit is impressing upon you vs. your own thoughts or emotions?

Instructor. How do you know it wasn't the Spirit making you think those thoughts or emotions?

Me: Yes, how do you know?

Him: No, that's the answer.

Me: I see, so you don't know either and we just wasted the last 15 minutes listening to your lesson on nothing.

Him: No. I'm saying that when the Spirit speaks to you, you know it.

Me: Yes, and I know that you really have no idea how to tell the difference.

Years later I came across an analogy about fishing. When you fish with a float, there are certain movements that you notice when a fish is nibbling on your line. If you catch it just right, you can hook the fish and bring it in before it nibbles away at all the bait, which would leave you with nothing.

The problem is that such movements are so similar to simple ripples on the water or other wavy motions that a novice fisherman will pull the line in, only to find nothing. Repeats of such action will cause the bait to wear out. And again you're left with nothing.

But after experimenting, watching, learning, & lots of practice, you eventually get the feel for the minute differences between the fish nibbling and the waves on the water. Even so, novices can get it right sometimes, and masters may mistake things sometimes. But it's a question of overall track record that determines the successful fisherman.

While the bobbing of the float may be considered faith or belief, the fish at the end of the line sitting in your boat is surely knowledge. But I'd say there are some motions of the bob that are so clear to the experienced fisherman, that it may as well be knowledge.

I hope you find that teacher and tell him what you have learned.

[Lamanite]

It seems that words like Know, True, Evidence, Surety et al., can be understood by re-defining the classical definitions, understanding the cultural use of the words, or the enlightenment of the Spirit. This seems to encompass most of what I've learned from this thread regarding the cultural and contextual use of these words when members are testifying of their subjective religious experiences.

It also seems clear that most members are extremely attached to these faith based expressions despite any alleged benefit to those in or outside the Church. This is interesting because there seems to be no downside at all to a shift in the way we define and use these words. There also seems to be no concern for the Mormon definitions/usage of these words and the conflict with classical epistemological definitions and philosophies. The resistance to change and the differing philosophical ideologies of Epistemology and Mormonism are neither bad nor good in my opinion. These are just a few of my observations based on this thread and my own experiences. I should add that the only mechanism for change that I can come up with is the gradual shift in how we testify, beginning with a few members (most effectively Leadership), until a gradual and lasting change begins within the Church.

Something I read today that has a hint of relevance to this thread. Richard Bushman::

"The Latter-day Saint answer to skepticism is not conventional evidence. Alma's declaration to Korihor, the archetypal skeptic, is our response still: "Will ye say, show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? (Alma 30:44). We ask that skeptics listen to the testimonies of believers who trust God because they have experienced his power and truth. Not only the Olympian testimonies of the prophets who, like Joseph, can say "that he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father" (D&C 76:22-23) - not only these few, but "all these thy brethren," today numbering in the hundreds of thousands, also know the truth because of the record borne to their souls. This is our evidence, your testimony and mine, our children's and our friends'. Among those who can so testify and who seek thereby to bring faith to the unbelieving, I am grateful to be one..." (emphasis added, Bushman 1974)

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited July 31, 2012 by Lamanite

[Tacenda]

We don't know unless we KNOW.

The answer to that cannot be expressed. In revelations I have received I have known that they were NOT "from me" because they contained information that I did not know.

I have had promptings to call individuals- while I was engaged in a 50 mile bike ride, totally concentrating on my times per mile- doing calculations in my head while concentrating on avoiding rocks etc. Trust me- I was fully engaged mentally. I got a prompting to stop and call an elderly sister in my Ward. (I was the bishop at the time). I didn't listen, but I did call the relief society president who said- "She just popped into my head- I will give her a call".

She called her, and the sister had fallen and didn't want to call an ambulance, but was trying to call ward members to help her. The RS pres went over and helped her.

That is ONE incident among many.

But let's throw those all away.

How do I know, discarding my own subjective sense that these messages are from God? Other reasons like they change my life for the better and give me solutions I would not have thought of.

But suppose we even doubt that??

Let's say "God" is actually some higher sense of consciousness totally inside my skull some where- my "ideal self" that somehow gives me information I have figured out for myself (I don't believe that, but just suppose...) perhaps unconsciously- some neurons firing off connecting with other neurons due to some hormonal deal or stress that causes heightened awareness or some other thing like that.

Suppose now also we can "prove" that that is NOT being "caused" by supernatural means (can't prove that- but let's assume another doubt)

So what's your answer? I will tell you:

I DON'T CARE!

If after all that doubt it turns out that "god" is just the best inside of me (and I don't believe that it is) that somehow I can access by the mere false BELIEF that "God" exists- the bottom line is I DON'T CARE.

There are atheists around who say that that is what "religion" is. (Linked earlier somewhere- Rorty - Future of Religion for example) and they don't care either.

None of that negates the pragmatic truth that belief in God changes your life for the better as testified by billions around the world. So if that is the level you have to accept it on, go with Alma 32 and see if such a belief becomes "sweet" to you.

Exercise of particle of faith- take the first step- and see. It is an experiment- after all you want a scientific approach verifiable by experience don't you??

Trust what works and forget why it works just for a bit. Pretend you are an Australian Aborigine and just discovered the boomerang and don't have a clue about the aerodynamics of the thing- just that it WORKS!

What if that great early engineer sat around his fire at night and told everyone to forget about it because he couldn't explain it scientifically?

I love your "I don't care" analogy. My brother is going through some scary stuff right now and his life has been a train wreck for most of it. I think he is suffering with alot of guilt for some things he has done wrong. He no longer believes in God. When I told him tonight that he needed someone like God to give his troubles too he pretty much laughed that off. If all he had was your analogy atleast it's something to hold onto. Make him feel better...

Edited July 31, 2012 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

It seems that words like Know, True, Evidence, Surety et al., can be understood by re-defining the classical definitions, understanding the cultural use of the words, or the enlightenment of the Spirit. This seems to encompass most of what I've learned from this thread regarding the cultural and contextual use of these words when members are testifying of their subjective religious experiences.

It also seems clear that most members are extremely attached to these faith based expressions despite any alleged benefit to those in or outside the Church. This is interesting because there seems to be no downside at all to a shift in the way we define and use these words. There also seems to be no concern for the Mormon definitions/usage of these words and the conflict with classical epistemological definitions and philosophies. The resistance to change and the differing philosophical ideologies of Epistemology and Mormonism are neither bad nor good in my opinion. These are just a few of my observations based on this thread and my own experiences. I should add that the only mechanism for change that I can come up with is the gradual shift in how we testify, beginning with a few members (most effectively Leadership), until a gradual and lasting change begins within the Church.

Something I read today that has a hint of relevance to this thread. Richard Bushman::

"The Latter-day Saint answer to skepticism is not conventional evidence. Alma's declaration to Korihor, the archetypal skeptic, is our response still: "Will ye say, show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? (Alma 30:44). We ask that skeptics listen to the testimonies of believers who trust God because they have experienced his power and truth. Not only the Olympian testimonies of the prophets who, like Joseph, can say "that he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father" (D&C 76:22-23) - not only these few, but "all these thy brethren," today numbering in the hundreds of thousands, also know the truth because of the record borne to their souls. This is our evidence, your testimony and mine, our children's and our friends'. Among those who can so testify and who seek thereby to bring faith to the unbelieving, I am grateful to be one..." (emphasis added, Bushman 1974)

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

I agree completely with your post, but want to confirm my understanding of your understanding.

IF I understand you, you are essentially saying "there is no downside to changing the terminology" and I think you have shown a clear understanding that the perceived differences are "just words", and that indeed "what we are saying" can be expressed in terminology more compatible with a modern philosophical point of view. That is what I understood you to mean.

I personally think that that is a pretty fantastic fact and if properly understood, could actually help the church to BE the "stone cut without hands" which rolls forth to fill the earth.

THAT is why I am a Mormon and is why I joined the church now 33 years ago after I saw no incompatibility with the philosophy I had found in my studies, AND of course the confirmation of the spirit.

It's a pretty fantastic insight to see that. It can be a life-changer. I am glad you see that.

So how do we get the word out?

Edited July 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Lamanite]

I agree completely with your post, but want to confirm my understanding of your understanding.

IF I understand you, you are essentially saying "there is no downside to changing the terminology" and I think you have shown a clear understanding that the perceived differences are "just words", and that indeed "what we are saying" can be expressed in terminology more compatible with a modern philosophical point of view. That is what I understood you to mean.

I personally think that that is a pretty fantastic fact and if properly understood, could actually help the church to BE the "stone cut without hands" which rolls forth to fill the earth.

THAT is why I am a Mormon and is why I joined the church now 33 years ago after I saw no incompatibility with the philosophy I had found in my studies, AND of course the confirmation of the spirit.

It's a pretty fantastic insight to see that. It can be a life-changer. I am glad you see that.

So how do we get the word out?

""what we are saying" can be expressed in terminology more compatible with a modern philosophical point of view."- Some may bristle at this but I can figure out why some may resist for rational or reasonable arguments.

How do we roll out some "additional" expressions of faith to use during the sharing of a testimony? Ideally a Leader would become aware and begin to use the new expressions consistently. He could plant the seed across his area. Then a few of us could begin in our wards. Then just let it spread like a ponze scheme.

The end result to those within the Church may be an honest approach to the truth/Truth/ and he who is TRUTH. Using "believe" may foster better dialogue with other faiths and individuals of other faiths. Theological ramifications due to the changes in faith expression may be ways to increase our discipleship through more accurate testimonies and declarations of truth.

Shifting paradigms from Know and True- to those of Faith and Believe, could redefine who it is we receive light and knowledge from. If we Know and have the Truth, then in those areas we no longer necessitate continuous revelation that would reveal God's will. Members are beyond that because they Know and possess Truth. Belief and Faith have areas where justified belief, as bestowed upon the individual by the Holy Ghost, should be testified as a belief because it falls beneath the standard for Truth. Nevertheless, although the world doesn't recognize our testimonials as true, our faith and belief will motivate us to merely touch the hem of his garment and be made whole. And an outpouring of God's love through miracle or the still small voice, either case is a witness that God lives and that he is aware and involved in all of our lives. And that type of experience is an extremely justified belief.

I Believe the Church is True; I believe this because God has revealed it to me. I have Faith that he will yet reveal many things to me regarding his will for me. I so testify that all these things are right. I testify, not by mine own name, but in the Sacred name of Jesus Christ....Amen.

Not so bad. I'm sure the members could stomach that.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

""what we are saying" can be expressed in terminology more compatible with a modern philosophical point of view."- Some may bristle at this but I can figure out why some may resist for rational or reasonable arguments.

But here's the deal:

With the alternate understanding (to me, the true understanding) of what the word "know" means, in this context as certainty of a subjectively justified belief, I am saying there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with saying "I know the church is true".

I say it that way all the time myself.

But it does not mean that somehow the beliefs of the church are somehow scientifically verifiable. And I think most members, if pressed, would agree, and say "Oh no- of course it's not scientifically verifiable- I mean it's true in my heart" or something like that. And I think that pov is unassailable- it IS true in that way.

The problem is not that they are saying testimonies "incorrectly" it's just that they get confused when confronted by critics who say things like "the church cannot be true" etc. (I am not talking about critics here- there are none of those on this thread at the moment- that is what we are discussing- I am talking about critics who are logical positivists etc who think that the only possible reality or truth must be verifiable in a scientific sort of way)

In my opinion, they need education in philosophy to understand that the critics are the ones who are confused and that indeed that confusion, when presented in our culture of Scientism, can be very convincing though without any substance.

But when you present such ideas, one gets criticized for bringing the "philosophies of men" into a church discussion. I don't know why we are so afraid of "philosophy"- that is probably the REAL problem.

The attitude is:

Bad guys discuss philosophy but you can't argue against them unless you know philosophy better than they do but you can't study it because philosophy is what bad guys discuss.

That attitude presents a problem. THAT is what needs changing in my non-humble opinion.

I mean this is serious stuff. We are losing members because they are confused about what "true" means but we can't talk about it because it is "philosophy".

Edited July 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Deborah]

Does anyone seriously believe that members who say "I know" in their testimonies are saying anything other than "I have a spiritual confirmation which convinces me that...." I think the everyday member would be confused that such a discussion as this takes place. Most people aren't philosophers or linguists; they know what they know in their hearts and that is what they are saying when they use words such as I know as opposed to I believe.

[mfbukowski]

Does anyone seriously believe that members who say "I know" in their testimonies are saying anything other than "I have a spiritual confirmation which convinces me that...." I think the everyday member would be confused that such a discussion as this takes place. Most people aren't philosophers or linguists; they know what they know in their hearts and that is what they are saying when they use words such as I know as opposed to I believe.

I agree totally.

The problem arises though when someone says "You can't know that- you have no verification! It can't be true without evidence! Where is your evidence?" and then the "average member" has doubts. He thinks that in fact objective evidence is required for "truth" when it is not.

You cannot argue that this does not happen. We have abundant examples of precisely these arguments DAILY on this board. People are losing their testimonies over these arguments.

Do I know I love my wife? Without a shred of doubt. Is the sentence "I know that it is true that I love my wife" itself true? Without a shred of a doubt.

Where is my evidence? It doesn't exist. Perhaps my behavior- but I understand that love has occasionally been "faked" in the history of mankind. I hear that occasionally "loving spouses" have actually planned to murder their spouses. Imagine that.

What the "average member" does not understand is that there are statements which are properly called "true" which are subjective statements based only on subjective evidence, and internally felt or understood.

And they also do not understand that that is the only way we can "know" God, or have a testimony. That subjective evidence is the only evidence available to us. Is it sure evidence? Of course. Do you really doubt that you love (or hate ) your spouse? Do you have any doubt that you have a choice to answer this post or go watch the olympics instead? Do you have any doubt that murder is wrong?

No doubt at all. Do you know these principles are true? Of course, AND with certainty.

There is no evidence in a scientific sense available for any of these notions, but that does not make them "false".

And THAT is what the "average member" needs to understand and be able to assert with confidence.

[wenglund]

IF I understand you, you are essentially saying "there is no downside to changing the terminology" and I think you have shown a clear understanding that the perceived differences are "just words", and that indeed "what we are saying" can be expressed in terminology more compatible with a modern philosophical point of view. That is what I understood you to mean.

I personally think that that is a pretty fantastic fact and if properly understood, could actually help the church to BE the "stone cut without hands" which rolls forth to fill the earth.

I see it somewhat differently. To me, there is a reason that the Lord sends out young, relatively naive and inexperienced men and women to serve on missions rather than highly educated philosophers and linguists who supposedly know the right words to use. It is because, to me, the "rolling forth" isn't so much a function of the specific words that we use when declaring the gospel, but the Spirit that attends them.

Indeed, I would submit that the reason the Lord relies on the young, naive men and women who may be "slow of speech," is so as to avoid the potential misperception that it is the words, themselves, that is doing the converting, rather than the Spirit. It may be an intentional way that God may help keep us rightly focused on the Word, rather than on the words.

In short, there very well may be a down-side to shifting the way we define words, or rather there may be a down-side to elevating the importance of words by trying to shift the way we define them. The down-side may be, as we find on another thread, people may end up making others an "Offender for a Word."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

The problem arises though when someone says "You can't know that- you have no verification! It can't be true without evidence! Where is your evidence?" and then the "average member" has doubts. He thinks that in fact objective evidence is required for "truth" when it is not.

I would say that those who experience the truthfulness of the gospel are inherently faithful. They do not need to understand that no scientific evidence is available or required for them to confidently assert their conclusions.

Those who waver (to whatever degree) have already accepted (to a congruent degree) the notion that other evidence is required or preferred (including where their acceptance of scientific evidence to support their religious conviction has proven to be a sandy foundation), or they have not yet accepted (to a sufficient degree) their own or a fuller spiritual experience.

The balance between serving “God (conscience) and mammon (cultural expectation)” is often a nonconscious orientation. Of course the discussion that you suggest be had with the confused and wavering (religiously- and scientifically-minded alike) would be helpful, more especially if it helps them recognize and experience the Spirit.

[Ahab]

Of course this is the best way - but the obvious bit that follows is that everyone can get a different answer.

Not from the Lord - which is a term I'm using to refer to Jesus Christ - they can't. The Lord will answer everyone with the same answer, although he may use different words to convey the same message to help everyone understand him.

And so we run right back into the same problem.

The problem is averted if everyone just gets their answer from the Lord - or from our Father in heaven, or from the Holy Spirit, all 3 of which will say the same thing.

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.

Huh? What statement are you referring to now?

This thread is all about what we mean when we use the phrase and what other LDS mean when they use the phrase.

Are you referring to the phrase "I know". I've already said I agree with the idea that it would be better for people to define exactly what they know when they're saying they know something. Saying "I know the Church is true" is something anyone should be able to say if they understand what those words mean, literally, and can just read a phone book to know the organization does exist.

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.

Look, it's really simple. The phrase "I know" refers to the idea of being aware of something about something or someone. It doesn't necessarily mean you believe what you know or know about, but you are at least aware of the subject. The word "true" refers to the idea that something actually exists, and/or has existed, and/or will exist in the future.

For example, the phrase "I know the Church is true" literally means I am aware of the Church and I know it exists, and/or has existed, and/or will exist in the future. It doesn't mean I know the Church is what it claims to be, even though some people think those words mean that and use the phrase because they think it conveys that message.

Enough said about that now? I hope so.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Ahab

[CV75]

What the "average member" does not understand is that there are statements which are properly called "true" which are subjective statements based only on subjective evidence, and internally felt or understood.

P.S. What measures are you using to define the "average member"?

[Ahab]

And HOW do we determine what we think we feel is from the Lord, and not in our brains?

In one word, experience, just as you need experience when you get to know anyone.

Suppose for example that someone tells you that he is Jesus Christ. Now suppose you just accept his answer and believe that person is Jesus Christ. Now suppose you start to learn from that person about who he is and you notice that he isn't acting the way you think Jesus Christ would act, given what you believe about him. Now suppose you start to wonder if that person is just an imposter and you start looking around for someone else who may be Jesus Christ, not being really sure either way yet. It could be that the first person really is Jesus Christ, but you could also be mistaken. Now suppose you meet someone else who you think may be the real Jesus Christ, at which point you would have 2 persons to watch and observe and learn from.

At some point in the process you either start to learn the difference between good and evil, or you get to know more, and all the while you are learning the difference between Jesus Christ and Satan, since each of those persons typify either good or evil.

Saying we know it is the Lord's word is an interpretation of OUR desire to think feelings we have are from the Lord. We underestimate our own brains' power to give us those feelings. The atheist Dan Barker, former preacher says he STILL gets the SAME feelings he used to attribute to the Lord, when he is giving lectures showing there is no God. WHAT do we do with THAT? And no, lets not pretend we KNOW he is deceived, and WE are not........that is pure biased prejudice.

Do you know your wife yet? - I'm assuming of course that you are married.

I'd say you are getting to know her, and you know at least something about her, while you are still trying to get to know her even more.

It works the same way getting to know Jesus Christ, and Satan. You keep learning a little bit here, and a little bit there, at some point knowing the difference.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Ahab