Knowing, Believing, And Doubts- Richard Bushman

[Lamanite]

I couldn't see that this Mormon Stories Podcast had been presented for discussion on the board.

I've often been criticized for making the distinction between knowing and believing within a Mormon context. I've suggested on forums like this that we may want to discuss how some people within the Church view the use of words like "believe" in place of absolute declarations of Truth when sharing our testimonies. I've been called an "ark steadier" in the past for giving voice to my feelings about Mormon epistemology and the language we use to discuss it. So it was nice to hear Richard Bushman discuss doubts, knowledge, faith and belief.

I'm not saying Bushman perfectly reflects my personal beliefs, I am saying it was nice to hear that someone else thinks this is an important topic of discussion. (Seth Payne has written on the subject as well I just can't find the post right now.)

Discussion begins at 15:04.

http://mormonstories...sabre-rattlers/

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 31, 2012 by Lamanite

[CV75]

I couldn't see that this Mormon Stories Podcast had been presented for discussion in regards to this subject.

Without seeing/hearing the podcast due to time constraints, I give others a lot of latitude when they testify that they know, believe, think, have faith or even hope that a particular religious or spiritual principle is true, because for all intents and purposes they are living, striving or committing to live and defend the principle, and to me there is no better testimony than that.

Epistemology is a man-made philosophy and so each approach has its own limitations as well as the limitations of the person using it. So how I view others is ultimately an extension of what I know, believe, think, have faith or even hope in, and how well I am living, striving or committing to live and defend the principles I profess to be true.

When someone expresses doubt about a particular religious or spiritual principle that I hold to be true, and they either live it or express a desire to live it anyway, the latter is what really counts. In other words, it really doesn’t matter what people are willing to share from their hearts and heads as long as whatever they are doing is congruous or at least done in harmony with what I am doing.

[Rivers]

D&C 46:13-14

" 13 To some it is given by the aHoly 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 abelieve on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful."

The distinction between knowing and believing is right there in the scripture so I don't see why there should be anything wrong with it. Bushman also talked about the seed allegory in in alma 32 and explained that it was his model for believing rather than a single spiritual manifestation.

[Lamanite]

D&C 46:13-14

" 13 To some it is given by the aHoly 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 abelieve on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful."

The distinction between knowing and believing is right there in the scripture so I don't see why there should be anything wrong with it. Bushman also talked about the seed allegory in in alma 32 and explained that it was his model for believing rather than a single spiritual manifestation.

Have you ever been to a fast and testimony meeting? "I KNOW the church is TRUE." or "I KNOW that God LIVES". This type of language is found in our scriptural and cultural expressions. (If you want ref's just let me know) I once used "believe" instead of "know" at a youth gathering where I was asked to give a talk and was promptly reported to the Bishop. He later took me aside to discuss my use of those words in place of the traditional Mormon expressions of know and True.

I think in this day and age we are can be more sophisticated in the way we express our faith based claims. But thats just me. I did enjoy someone else who is a much better man than me share similar sentiments in public. Especially in the context of "doubt."

Big UP!

Lamanite

[CV75]

I think in this day and age we are can be more sophisticated in the way we express our faith based claims.

[Rhetorical questions--due to the number of them--this idea brings]

Who would this be good for? Who would this be bad for? Who is to be edified by our expression of faith-based claims, and how? Who in a congregation is sophisticated, and who isn’t? How does this relate to understanding (I just stumbled upon another word to use in testimony: “I understand that the Church is true!”) things by the Spirit of God or by the spirit of a man? How are we to strive to convey sacred things, and if they are not sacred, what is our motive to share them?

[Senator]

I've been called an "ark steadier" in the past

We're an elite group!

Wear the badge with honor.

[Closet Doubter]

..... I've often been criticized for making the distinction between knowing and believing within a Mormon context. I've suggested on forums like this that we may want to discuss how some people within the Church view the use of words like "believe" in place of absolute declarations of Truth when sharing our testimonies. .....

This bothers me when I attend testimony meeting. We teach our children to not be truthful when we teach them to say they know something when in fact they only believe it. We then carry that over to adulthood. I would much rather hear someone truthfully state they believe something very strongly rather than be less than truthful by stating they know something that they absolutely do not know. I wonder what other things they are being less than truthful about.

[CV75]

This bothers me when I attend testimony meeting. We teach our children to not be truthful when we teach them to say they know something when in fact they only believe it. We then carry that over to adulthood. I would much rather hear someone truthfully state they believe something very strongly rather than be less than truthful by stating they know something that they absolutely do not know. I wonder what other things they are being less than truthful about.

We teach them to be honest about facilitating the immortal language of the Spirit. Both the teaching and the facilitation are accomplished by providing clean and pure verbal (words) and non-verbal (thoughts, deeds, desires, etc.) media through which the Spirit can convey God’s message to, through and from the bearer and unto others. This is as much a function of what we are as what we say and how we say it, and of not getting in the way. Undue consternation about the words we choose for others to say can squelch the authenticity of both the words and the person, and thus inhibit the operation of the Holy Spirit. Maybe the kid actually knows!

[pmccombs1]

What's the difference between knowing and believing?

[Rivers]

What's the difference between knowing and believing?

I think knowing simply implies a higher level of certainty. I also think that knowing might entail being in a state in which faith is longer necessary. But I'd love to hear more explanations on what the differences are.

[Rivers]

Duplicate

Edited November 1, 2012 by Rivers

[CA Steve]

What's the difference between knowing and believing?

Pre 1st vision vs post 1st vision.

[Lamanite]

By "sophisticated" I only mean that we can probably abandon the false notions of "True" and "Know" when dealing with faith based claims(Alma 32). I can only point to the non-threatening eloquence and authenticity of brother Bushman to illustrate my point.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

I really would suggest taking the time to listen to the relevant part of the Podcast.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[guerreiro9]

This bothers me when I attend testimony meeting. We teach our children to not be truthful when we teach them to say they know something when in fact they only believe it.

What's the difference between knowing and believing?

I actually think that in the context of a testimony stating that you believe something to be true is actually a stronger statement than saying that you know something is true. Belief requires an element of choice and agency, where knowledge does not necessarily require such. Many had knowledge of Jesus, and his miracles, but did not choose to believe in him. When "bearing testimony" I prefer the phrase "I choose to believe" to the phrase "I know".

I came to this conclusion not long ago and found it to be a very spiritual and empowering experience. So much time is spent with the question "Is the Church true?", and evidence either for or against that we forget to ask even more fundamental questions "Do we want the Church to be true?", "Do we want God to exist?" If there is a God, one thing that can be almost universally agreed upon is that he does not force anyone to believe in him. No matter what evidence is presented either for or against the church or for or against God, at some point we all decide whether we choose to believe or not.

This was a very empowering realization to me, my belief and my relationship to God was not based upon what could or couldn't be "proven" to be true. I was not being forced to either be a member of the Church or resign from the Church based upon irrefutable knowledge. I was being allowed to exercise my agency and choose for myself what I believe in.

I choose to believe in God, and I want him to be a part of my life. Although I do not know he is there, I do believe that he is and have had many experiences that strengthen my belief.

-guerreiro9

[mfbukowski]

I think knowing simply implies a higher level of certainty. I also think that knowing might entail being in a state in which faith is longer necessary. But I'd love to hear more explanations on what the differences are.

Yes, and certainty is subjective, isn't it? I am not saying that is bad at all- I am just stating the obvious. The difference between belief and knowledge is subjective certainty.

At least that is how we use the words.

[Lamanite]

The difference between belief and knowledge is subjective certainty.

At least that is how we use the words.

We've talked about this before, and I think we both agree that language is a very difficult part of this discussion. Most members aren't familiar with epistemology and the implications of their assertions about Knowledge and Truth and it's not my expectation that we begin to add philosophical elements to our curriculum so we can discuss truth according to epistemological standards. But I would like to see us (Mormons) less threatened or critical of other members using believe in the place of know. That's why it was nice to see Bushman mention the subject.

Also nice to see Givens discuss doubt in a recent address. It's my opinion that if we gently introduce new ideas and new perspectives into Mormon dialogue things will begin to slowly change.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Big UP!

Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

We've talked about this before, and I think we both agree that language is a very difficult part of this discussion. Most members aren't familiar with epistemology and the implications of their assertions about Knowledge and Truth and it's not my expectation that we begin to add philosophical elements to our curriculum so we can discuss truth according to epistemological standards. But I would like to see us (Mormons) less threatened or critical of other members using believe in the place of know. That's why it was nice to see Bushman mention the subject.

Also nice to see Givens discuss doubt in a recent address. It's my opinion that if we gently introduce new ideas and new perspectives into Mormon dialogue things will begin to slowly change.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Big UP!

Lamanite

Agreed.

That's why I want to make a case for the traditional view. I think there is nothing "wrong" with saying "I know the church is true" meaning something like "I know of a certainty that the gospel has changed my life and is the most important thing in my life"

I think that is what most members mean by that, and it has nothing to do with epistemology. I think it is the partisans of "I believe" that are bringing in the epistemology!

So there!

[mfbukowski]

I actually think that in the context of a testimony stating that you believe something to be true is actually a stronger statement than saying that you know something is true. Belief requires an element of choice and agency, where knowledge does not necessarily require such. Many had knowledge of Jesus, and his miracles, but did not choose to believe in him. When "bearing testimony" I prefer the phrase "I choose to believe" to the phrase "I know".

I came to this conclusion not long ago and found it to be a very spiritual and empowering experience. So much time is spent with the question "Is the Church true?", and evidence either for or against that we forget to ask even more fundamental questions "Do we want the Church to be true?", "Do we want God to exist?" If there is a God, one thing that can be almost universally agreed upon is that he does not force anyone to believe in him. No matter what evidence is presented either for or against the church or for or against God, at some point we all decide whether we choose to believe or not.

This was a very empowering realization to me, my belief and my relationship to God was not based upon what could or couldn't be "proven" to be true. I was not being forced to either be a member of the Church or resign from the Church based upon irrefutable knowledge. I was being allowed to exercise my agency and choose for myself what I believe in.

I choose to believe in God, and I want him to be a part of my life. Although I do not know he is there, I do believe that he is and have had many experiences that strengthen my belief.

-guerreiro9

........On the other hand, you make a good point!

[Lamanite]

I think it is the partisans of "I believe" that are bringing in the epistemology!

I think this statement is absolutely true. Bushman actually introduces the discussion of knowing and believing within the context of doubt/doubters. I think he did so to help situate them more comfortably into traditional Mormon culture and expressions.

I was once of the opinion that we change how the whole church expresses their beliefs to something that mirrors epistemological models and structure. I don't feel that way anymore. I'm just hoping that as a few of us choose alternate expressions the stigma attached to those types of expressions will begin to fade and others will be accepting and supportive. That's why I think it's important that addresses like Bushman's be recognized, circulated and discussed. Eventually the exposure to the idea may begin soften the reaction to it....at least that's how it works with gays and SSM.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Ahab]

What's the difference between knowing and believing?

You ask that as if there is only one difference... which you call "the" difference.

Consider the word knowledge. What is that? How much certainty is in each of the things you would tell someone you "know".

Would you say you know the sky is blue on a clear sunny day? Would you say you know grass is green when it is growing and healthy? Would you say you know there is a God because of the logical fact that there must be a supreme being and we use the word God to refer to the supreme being?

As Obi Wan Kenobi once said: You'll find many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

What you say you know could be only what you believe is true, or you may not really believe what you say you know.

[pmccombs1]

You ask that as if there is only one difference... which you call "the" difference.

Consider the word knowledge. What is that? How much certainty is in each of the things you would tell someone you "know".

Would you say you know the sky is blue on a clear sunny day? Would you say you know grass is green when it is growing and healthy? Would you say you know there is a God because of the logical fact that there must be a supreme being and we use the word God to refer to the supreme being?

As Obi Wan Kenobi once said: You'll find many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

What you say you know could be only what you believe is true, or you may not really believe what you say you know.

Does knowing something mean it's true or real?

[Lightbearer]

Sounds very much like this historical person:

"O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come. Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers. How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ. Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so." (Book of Mormon | Alma 30:13-16)

Can you see where the idea that one "cannot know" leads to? Doubt is the opposite of faith, and whatsoever is not of faith is SIN. I realize that in our modern culture it is considered laudable to not be "too sure of one's beliefs" but I consider that a whispering of Satan to decieve the very elect. Of course the world is filled with mocking pointing fingers who try to undermine those who believe. It seems childish to those who are sophisticated to have simple faith and is threatening to those who lack confidence to hear others say they KNOW instead of timidly say they "believe" or think a thing might be true. God said that except we become as a little child we cannot enter His kingdom. As for Bushman, I am rereading RSR, but while some things are good and informative, the tone is what bothers me most, his so called "neutral" writing style seems to slavishly consider the point of view of contemptable Anti-Mormon sources. Also his "armchair" psychology of the prophet's motives can be annoying. So while he may be a great scholar in the eyes of the world and with some members, I do not consider him the last word on what my faith should be and how I ought to express it. I am not ashamed of my testimony and if people are offended by my saying I KNOW the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is true, then that is their problem not mine and I do not think the Church needs to change it's way of expressing it's faith just because it offends the world. Edited November 3, 2012 by Lightbearer

[Lamanite]

Sounds very much like this historical person:

Can you see where the idea that one "cannot know" leads to? Doubt is the opposite of faith, and whatsoever is not of faith is SIN. I realize that in our modern culture it is considered laudable to not be "too sure of one's beliefs" but I consider that a whispering of Satan to decieve the very elect. Of course the world is filled with mocking pointing fingers who try to undermine those who believe. It seems childish to those who are sophisticated to have simple faith and is threatening to those who lack confidence to hear others say they KNOW instead of timidly say they "believe" or think a thing might be true. God said that except we become as a little child we cannot enter His kingdom. As for Bushman, I am rereading RSR, but while some things are good and informative, the tone is what bothers me most, his so called "neutral" writing style seems to slavishly consider the point of view of contemptable Anti-Mormon sources. Also his "armchair" psychology of the prophet's motives can be annoying. So while he may be a great scholar in the eyes of the world and with some members, I do not consider him the last word on what my faith should be and how I ought to express it. I am not ashamed of my testimony and if people are offended by my saying I KNOW the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is true, then that is their problem not mine and I do not think the Church needs to change it's way of expressing it's faith just because it offends the world.

Just curious if you've ever read Alma 32?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[wenglund]

We're an elite group!

Wear the badge with honor.

I think it more accurate descriptor is "elite-wannabe group". LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-