Knowing, Believing, And Doubts- Richard Bushman

[wenglund]

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

Well said, and I agree. What is important to me is how people are influenced and benefited by and living the gospel, and not what words they may choose to informally express the influence and benefits of the gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

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.

It's called giving thorough analysis.

It's a good thing....Really!

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.

Nor should you.

Who suggested that you should?

[Thankful]

"Doubt is the opposite of faith" says Lightbearer...

Like Lamanite, I have to recommend another reading of Alma 32. Doubt is a REQUISITE of faith, not the opposite. "Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge" says the B of M. What makes faith a saving virtue and a requirement from God is precisely that it's a moral choice. If you know something, you do not choose to believe. But when you acknowledge that you don't know something (ie "have doubt") but choose to act in faith anyway... That's when you are showing true commitment to God and th truest faith.

I have no problem with anyone saying "I know.," and do not assume it is an indicator of childish certainty as some might imply. Nor do I have a problem with someone saying "I believe" in a testimony. I think reporting them and asking them to change what they say would be out-of-line. We need to accept each other where we are, and not try to measure the faith of others. Let people be wherever they are in their spiritual journey, and be glad to share the path together. God knows our hearts and the sincerity of our faith. That's good enough for me.

I think becoming more comfortable with different ways of expressing belief can strengthen us. Saying one "believes" is only saying they don't "know yet," but are "acting on faith." That's not the same as saying "one cannot know" (as in the 3rd Nephi scripture quoted above). Testimony is "knowing" and faith is "believing." Both are valuable.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Doubt being presented as the opposite of faith may lead us to entirely wrong conclusions however. We expect others to have doubt about their own religions in order for us to get them to convert to Mormonism don't we? We certainly don't suppose doubt is wrong or evil there. But when it comes to our own, we, of course, have to label it derisively. Why is that? We as Mormons have been far too one sided trained into believing far too much on faith, having doubt about evidence that suggests our own paradigm is not water tight, but we cringe about it and ignore it all. To have faith without doubt is no faith at all I would suppose. The two cannot exist without the other. Doubt is absolutely as necessary as faith even within one's own religion.

[Tacenda]

Doubt being presented as the opposite of faith may lead us to entirely wrong conclusions however. We expect others to have doubt about their own religions in order for us to get them to convert to Mormonism don't we? We certainly don't suppose doubt is wrong or evil there. But when it comes to our own, we, of course, have to label it derisively. Why is that? We as Mormons have been far too one sided trained into believing far too much on faith, having doubt about evidence that suggests our own paradigm is not water tight, but we cringe about it and ignore it all. To have faith without doubt is no faith at all I would suppose. The two cannot exist without the other. Doubt is absolutely as necessary as faith even within one's own religion.

I've wondered about this, especially when under 2 % of the world is LDS and even less are active or don't even know they are being counted. Yes, I get that LDS seem to have members that actually live their religion. But maybe that is because the consequence of not living, outwardly anyway, is too great. Edited November 4, 2012 by Tacenda

[Lamanite]

In general conference the phrase "know the church is true" was only used 4 times since 1960. The phrase "testify that the church" has been used 6 times. The word testify is used much more frequently by G.A.'s in connection with a testimony than the word know is. I know it's not scientific but I did my little GC search because I was intruiged by the use of the word testify in someone's testimony today. I use it frequently but I haven't heard anyone at church use it in a long time.

Something interesting.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[CV75]

In general conference the phrase "know the church is true" was only used 4 times since 1960. The phrase "testify that the church" has been used 6 times. The word testify is used much more frequently by G.A.'s in connection with a testimony than the word know is. I know it's not scientific but I did my little GC search because I was intruiged by the use of the word testify in someone's testimony today. I use it frequently but I haven't heard anyone at church use it in a long time.

I use it ("I testify that..." or "I have a testimony that...") all the time. I also use "I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that..."

I would think as often as Moroni's Promise and instructions on personal revelation, tetsimony and other aspects of the Gift of the Holy Ghost are brought up in General Conference, there must be mention of our "knowing" truth and true principles.

I wonder how often "I witness that..." or "I bear witness that..." is used in General Conference--I think I hear that quite frequently.

[CV75]

"Doubt is the opposite of faith" says Lightbearer...

...Doubt is a REQUISITE of faith, not the opposite.

This is an interesting perspective, since we can have faith in a true principle without doubting it first. We can also act on faith in accordance with a true principle, act on doubt by rejecting a true principle. We can also have interest or apathy in a true principle irrespective of doubt or faith in it. So we are not required to reject a true principle before accepting it.

I do not think the law of opposition is about the dependency of opposing principles upon each other to exist, or that they exist because of each other, but only that they come to exist as a compound in one the moment the principle to be acted upon comes into our awareness. This is a function of our agency, which is dependent on having knowledge of the true principle, the capacity to choose to act upon it, and the ability to act on it, or scripturally-speaking, having intelligence.

So I agree that doubt is in opposition to faith when one or the other can be applied to the same true principle with opposite results.

[teddyaware]

Lamanite said:

"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."

Here's an enlightening exercise for anyone interested in coming to an understanding why the word 'know," rather than the word 'believe,' is used by the vast majority of Latter Day Saints when they bear verbal or written testimony to the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel: Go to LDS.org and do a Book of Mormon search of the word know (its variants will also appear), and learn for yourself how often it is used when the Lord's ancient American servants testify to gospel truth. It appears 651 times! While carefully reading and then absorbing the plain meaning of the majority of these specific verses, you'll come to understand there's little wonder why we Latter Day Saints use the term 'know' rather than 'believe' when we testify to the truths of God. We're simply following the lead of the prophets who wrote the "Keystone Scripture!"

A studious reading of these verse will also clearly reveal the reason why the word know , rather than believe, is so often used: It is because the inspired writers and individuals who appear in the pages of the Book of Mormon received REVELATION from God, and divine revelation is a powerful enough witness to carry a saint beyond a mere belief, into the realm of actual knowledge.

It must be noted, though, that within the context of the doctrine of the Restored Gospel, there is a difference between a knowledge based on revelation and a 'sure knowledge.' By way of analogy, a knowledge based on revelation can be likened to a man who, during the dark hours of night, 'knows' the sun is going to rise in the morning; while a sure knowledge can be likened to the same man who actually witnesses, with his own eyes, the actual rising of the sun in the morning.

Now there may be some active members of the Church who actually only believe the Restored Gospel is true, rather than know by revelation that it is true. So in their case, it's likely appropriate for them resist peer pressure and testify only to the fact that they believe, but do not as yet, in reality, know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is true. By frankly admitting to the actual status of their testimony, rather than succumbing to internal and external pressures to publicly present a pretense of revelatory knowledge, they will place themselves' in a position wherein they will much more likely gain a true revelatory knowledge in the future. Admission to the truth of the real status of their testimony will set them free to seek the help and encouragement they need to eventually gain a more sure revelatory knowledge.

Remember, the Book of Mormon makes it crystal clear the Gift of the Holy Ghost has the power to endow the saints with genuine, confirmatory knowledge, not just with the strongly held opinions we call belief.

Importantly, it should be understood the New Testament often uses the words believe, belief and believing interchangeably with the words we Latter Day Saints refer to as living and motivating faith, or revelatory knowledge. It must also be understood that the word "believe" in the New Testament infers something beyond mere strongly held opinion, but, rather, refers to a revelatory knowledge that can powerfully, dramatically, and often rapidly spirtually transform lives. So don't allow these semantic subtleties to waylay a consistent LDS understanding of the differences between the word believe (holding strongly held opinions) and know (having a living faith and spiritually transforming revelatory knowledge.

In all fairness, it should be understood belief (strongly held opinions), in the context of the Restored Gospel, can be a very good thing; a stepping stone, really. For it can begin the process of spiritual transformation that can ultimately lead to the revelatory knowledge the prophets of God have always enjoyed. By analogy, it's somewhat like comparing the Light of Christ to the Gift of the Holy Ghost -- both are positive forces for good, but one is more powerfully transformative than the other.

Notice how, in the following famous Book of Mormon quote, the prophet Moroni uses the word know (knowing), rather than believe, when speaking of the revelatory action of the Holy Ghost:

"4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you (revelation), by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know (not just be given the abilty to theoretically understand, gospel priciples, and to entertain strongly held opinions) the truth of all things." Moroni 10

Edited November 5, 2012 by teddyaware

[MiserereNobis]

I've wondered about this, especially when under 2 % of the world is LDS and even less are active or don't even know they are being counted.

Yes, I know that the numbers of believers don't matter when it comes to truth, but I just wanted to point out that if the LDS church has 15 million members and the world population is 6 billion, then that would 0.25%

[Senator]

First of all, teddyaware, let me say that you have expressed this very well.

It must be noted, though, that within the context of the doctrine of the Restored Gospel, there is a difference between a knowledge based on revelation and a 'sure knowledge.' By way of analogy, a knowledge based on revelation can be likened to a man who, during the dark hours of night, 'knows' the sun is going to rise in the morning; while a sure knowledge can be likened to the same man who actually witnesses, with his own eyes, the actual rising of the sun in the morning.

Here you seem to reintroduce the allowance for uncertainty(doubt) into the equation. If one does not have a "sure knowledge" (whatever that means) then he/she must still be facilitating some form of belief/faith/conviction into this definition of "revelatory knowledge". No?

Now there may be some active members of the Church who actually only believe the Restored Gospel is true, rather than know by revelation that it is true. So in their case, it's likely appropriate for them resist peer pressure and testify only to the fact that they believe, but do not as yet, in reality, know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is true. By frankly admitting to the actual status of their testimony, rather than succumbing to internal and external pressures to publicly present a pretense of revelatory knowledge, they will place themselves' in a position wherein they will much more likely gain a true revelatory knowledge in the future.

Lets place this were the rubber meets the road. In the temple recommend questions, we are asked, "Do you have a testimony of the restored Gospel?"

Given what appears to me, (according to the seeming facilitation of uncertainty into the definition of "revelatory knowledge"); to the person that expresses their faith in the form of belief,hope,conviction, would you say that that person has offered an acceptable "yes" to the recommend question?

In other words, would it wash if one says, "I know such an such is true, however, I don't Really know?"

Edited November 5, 2012 by Senator

[why me]

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

You may have had a nutty bishop. I mean no disrespect by saying that but it doesn't sound normal at all to be called out for saying believe instead of know. I have never heard of such a thing.

I think that people can say that they know the church to be true when they have a spiritual experience that confirms the truth. Those who say believe may not have had such a spiritual experience.

[why me]

Doubt being presented as the opposite of faith may lead us to entirely wrong conclusions however. We expect others to have doubt about their own religions in order for us to get them to convert to Mormonism don't we? We certainly don't suppose doubt is wrong or evil there. But when it comes to our own, we, of course, have to label it derisively. Why is that? We as Mormons have been far too one sided trained into believing far too much on faith, having doubt about evidence that suggests our own paradigm is not water tight, but we cringe about it and ignore it all. To have faith without doubt is no faith at all I would suppose. The two cannot exist without the other. Doubt is absolutely as necessary as faith even within one's own religion.

I think that you are wrong. Doubt is quite a natural human experience. It comes with faith and in fact it compliments faith. One can not have faith without doubt and I do believe that the lds church knows this. You just need to check the topical guide and see just how often doubt is mentioned with faith. I have known no mormon who labels doubt in a negative way. And why should they when faith and doubt are often mentioned in the scriptures. To doubt is as natural as having vanilla ice cream on apple pie.

[CV75]

I think that you are wrong. Doubt is quite a natural human experience. It comes with faith and in fact it compliments faith. One can not have faith without doubt and I do believe that the lds church knows this. You just need to check the topical guide and see just how often doubt is mentioned with faith. I have known no mormon who labels doubt in a negative way. And why should they when faith and doubt are often mentioned in the scriptures. To doubt is as natural as having vanilla ice cream on apple pie.

From 2 Nephi 2: 11-16, I figure that faith and doubt are opposites but not funamentally required for each other; rather, agency is required for either. They exist only as “a compound in one” under the conditions of exercising agency. They both cannot occupy the same mind at the same time upon the same principle because exercising agency discerns and distinguishes them as opposites that require action to be taken in one direction or the other.

[why me]

In general conference the phrase "know the church is true" was only used 4 times since 1960. The phrase "testify that the church" has been used 6 times. The word testify is used much more frequently by G.A.'s in connection with a testimony than the word know is. I know it's not scientific but I did my little GC search because I was intruiged by the use of the word testify in someone's testimony today. I use it frequently but I haven't heard anyone at church use it in a long time.

Something interesting.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I think that it comes to down to correct usage. In a testimony meeting we are basically testifying. So, the GAs in general conference would tend use I testify instead of I know. However, if one testifies that the church is true, they are also claiming that they know the church is true. It becomes a matter of apples and oranges...different and yet fruit.

[why me]

From 2 Nephi 2: 11-16, I figure that faith and doubt are opposites but not funamentally required for each other; rather, agency is required for either. They exist only as “a compound in one” under the conditions of exercising agency. They both cannot occupy the same mind at the same time upon the same principle because exercising agency discerns and distinguishes them as opposites that require action to be taken in one direction or the other.

Perhaps. But when we put both words in the human condition we will see that faith and doubt do occupy the same space because faith in something usually implies a lack of tangible evidence. Belief in god takes faith and yet, faith can also create doubt as we navigate our way through life without tanible evidence that there is a god.

[why me]

But maybe that is because the consequence of not living, outwardly anyway, is too great.

Maybe. But I doubt it. Most people who live their faith do so because they are happy doing it or they believe that god wishes such a life. Most don't care about other people and what these people think. Besides there are many closets in life and mormons can always hide in a closet and live accordingly.

Edited November 5, 2012 by why me

[CV75]

faith can also create doubt as we navigate our way through life without tanible evidence that there is a god.

In this case, I think of the analogy of an expanding balloon, where the air or area inside the balloon represents what we know, the area outside the balloon represents what we don't know, and the expanding surface at represents both 1) our enlarging awareness of what we don't know, and 2) our expanding frontier from which we may choosse to launch further exploration. Faith is the power that puts more air into the balloon; doubt is teh power that sends the air in another direction.

Faith in a principle at some point gives way to knowledge of that principle, which again gives way to faith for further exploration of that principle. Doubt and uncertainty about the principle do not fuel the "real intent" needed for that further exploration.

So rather than creating doubt, faith creates knowledge and with that, an awareness of what we don't know.

Edited November 5, 2012 by CV75

[why me]

So rather than creating doubt, faith creates knowledge and with that, an awareness of what we don't know.

And yet when we check the topical guide in the bible, it seems that doubt plays a major role. And there is a reason for that. It is because it has played such a major role when it comes to belief or disbelief.

[Lamanite]

This conversation always devolves into a giant cluster.

Faith based claims when viewed through todays cultural and philosophical precepts preclude a KNOWLEDGE of these things. That's where Bushman inserts his "belief" declaration.

We can however Know things we experience. Like "I Know the Church has helped make me a better man." For practical purposes that can be considered a knowable thing.

Most of the Church still uses the words Know and True in ways similar to their meaning and definitions from the past and in the scriptures. That's cool. Just please make a comfortable space within Mormonism for those of us who want to draw a distinction between Know and believe.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Calm]

Yes, I know that the numbers of believers don't matter when it comes to truth, but I just wanted to point out that if the LDS church has 15 million members and the world population is 6 billion, then that would 0.25%

Without looking it up, I think you are correct. The 2% is the US percentage, iirc and of course it would be a mistake to assume that is consistent throughout the world.

[Closet Doubter]

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!

I have NO idea what you just said. If I state I know something that I only believe, I am being less than truthful. That's as simple as it is.

[Closet Doubter]

Does knowing something mean it's true or real?

Apparently not when we teach our children and ourselves to state we know something that we only beleive.

[Closet Doubter]

You may have had a nutty bishop. I mean no disrespect by saying that but it doesn't sound normal at all to be called out for saying believe instead of know. I have never heard of such a thing.

I think that people can say that they know the church to be true when they have a spiritual experience that confirms the truth. Those who say believe may not have had such a spiritual experience.

So if a Baptist, Evangelical, or Catholic have a spiritual experience they can then say they know their church is true even though it contradicts what the Mormon knows to be true based on his/her spiritual experience. They can't both be true but both have had the same spiritual experience that you state makes it honest to say you "know"?

[CV75]

I have NO idea what you just said. If I state I know something that I only believe, I am being less than truthful. That's as simple as it is.

That that is good for you to remember, and remember you are only speaking for yourself. Others equate what they mean by "know" with what they mean by "believe" (and it's not "only believe") with what they mean by "know by faith," and they are being truthful when they say any of these things--has nothing to do with what their accuser might think. If good faith is involved, a good conversation between the testifier and the accuser will settle any issues and the truth will come out.