Knowing, Believing, And Doubts- Richard Bushman

[CV75]

This conversation always devolves into a giant cluster.

I think every OP deserves pre-defined terms for the sake of conversation and discussion.

[CV75]

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.

OK--how does doubt play a major role in belief and faith? No doubt it plays a role in the outcome of our probation (just like sin does), but this would be like sin playing a role in righteousness. How does that work (Romans 6:1 -- "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?")?

[DBMormon]

I have become extremely comfortable no longer knowing some things and having more hope and faith

[Thankful]

OK--how does doubt play a major role in belief and faith? No doubt it plays a role in the outcome of our probation (just like sin does), but this would be like sin playing a role in righteousness. How does that work (Romans 6:1 -- "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?")?

Sin plays a role in righteousness because without the presence of sin in the world, there would BE no righteousness. Read 2nd Nephi. The principle of "Opposition in all things" applies.

Someone without the capacity to sin is absolutely good and innocent. But we would call someone "righteous" if they were capable of choosing sin, and chose otherwise (or repented and changed).

When I said that doubt is "requisite" for faith, it was based on the same principle. For faith to even BE faith, it has to be a conscious moral choice to act on true belief in the absence of absolute knowledge. Does that help?

[Thankful]

This is an interesting perspective, since we can have faith in a true principle without doubting it first.

I guess it all depends on your definition of doubt. You seem to define doubt as "rejecting" a principle. I'm defining it as "lacking sure knowledge" of a principle.

Sure you can have faith in something without rejecting it first. If you define it that way, I agree with you.

But if you define doubting as acknowledging that you lack sure knowledge, then I continue to believe that this definition of "doubt" is a requisite for true faith.

[teddyaware]

"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.

You seem to make an assumption that not having a perfect knowledge necessarily translates into having doubts. I'm wondering if there's a scripture you can locate in any of our standard works that teaches doubt must always exist in a mind where perfect knowledge doesn't exist. Alma 32 says "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge," It doesn't say "doubt must always exist where there is no perfect knowledge." For accuracy, I would modify your statement, "doubt is a requisite of faith, not the opposite." Perhaps it would be more correct to say, "potential for doubt is a requisite for the existence of faith." Or better yet, "banishing doubt is a requisite for the existence of faith." What do you think?

Edited November 6, 2012 by teddyaware

[TAO]

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"?

Well of course they can! But I can't experience their experiences, and thus cannot use it to judge reality, really. I can only use my own experiences to determine the fine points of what is real.

[Brade]

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...

That has not been my experience at all. In the first place, I've often found that people add to statements like "I know the church is true" and "Jesus is God's son" things explicitly like "The gospel has changed my life and is the most important thing in my life", and it at least seems a bit odd that they would add that if that's what they meant by something like "I know the church is true". But what's more, I've often asked testimony bearers to explain in more detail what they mean and by far the most common explanation I've gotten is that they mean some set of propositions about the world (e.g. "Joseph Smith saw God", "Joseph translated ancient languages into English", "God has a physical body", "Jesus was resurrected", etc.) correspond to the way the world is now or has been in the past.

This is, of course, nothing more than a battle of anecdotes, and, actually, I think it'd be preferable were every religious person to adopt exactly your way of thinking.

[Stargazer]

That has not been my experience at all. In the first place, I've often found that people add to statements like "I know the church is true" and "Jesus is God's son" things explicitly like "The gospel has changed my life and is the most important thing in my life", and it at least seems a bit odd that they would add that if that's what they meant by something like "I know the church is true". But what's more, I've often asked testimony bearers to explain in more detail what they mean and by far the most common explanation I've gotten is that they mean some set of propositions about the world (e.g. "Joseph Smith saw God", "Joseph translated ancient languages into English", "God has a physical body", "Jesus was resurrected", etc.) correspond to the way the world is now or has been in the past.

This is, of course, nothing more than a battle of anecdotes, and, actually, I think it'd be preferable were every religious person to adopt exactly your way of thinking.

Coming to this topic rather late.

As to the battle of anecdotes, well, it is certain that the experiences that cause testimony to form are most definitely subjective.

Earlier someone ClosetDoubter I think) posted that they felt uncomfortable listening to people in Fast and Testimony meeting saying that they KNOW the Church is true, when they can't possibly KNOW that the Church is true.

Well, how does ClosetDoubter know that they DON'T know the Church is true? He doesn't. I don't. I do know that I know the Church is true. I don't know how else to put it. I don't just believe it, I know it. I can say that I believe that this particular 2x4 is 8 feet long, and when I measure it then I know it is (or isn't), but this sense of belief does not hold a candle to my feeling of certainty that Jesus is the Christ. If I were to say I believe that God lives it would sound like a tinkling bell or a sounding brass in my own ears, because the degree of certainty which I possess on this matter is not fairly expressed by the word "believe".

Too bad English does not have a word which fills in the gap between belief and knowledge where knowledge is what you get after you measure the 2x4 and find that it is exactly 8 feet long. Because that's what I mean when I say "I know the Church is true" or that "I know Jesus is the Christ" or that "I know that God lives."

Is there a κοινή (koine) Greek word which means this? Or a Hebrew word?

[Brade]

Coming to this topic rather late.

As to the battle of anecdotes, well, it is certain that the experiences that cause testimony to form are most definitely subjective.

Earlier someone ClosetDoubter I think) posted that they felt uncomfortable listening to people in Fast and Testimony meeting saying that they KNOW the Church is true, when they can't possibly KNOW that the Church is true.

Well, how does ClosetDoubter know that they DON'T know the Church is true? He doesn't. I don't. I do know that I know the Church is true. I don't know how else to put it. I don't just believe it, I know it. I can say that I believe that this particular 2x4 is 8 feet long, and when I measure it then I know it is (or isn't), but this sense of belief does not hold a candle to my feeling of certainty that Jesus is the Christ. If I were to say I believe that God lives it would sound like a tinkling bell or a sounding brass in my own ears, because the degree of certainty which I possess on this matter is not fairly expressed by the word "believe".

Too bad English does not have a word which fills in the gap between belief and knowledge where knowledge is what you get after you measure the 2x4 and find that it is exactly 8 feet long. Because that's what I mean when I say "I know the Church is true" or that "I know Jesus is the Christ" or that "I know that God lives."

Is there a κοινή (koine) Greek word which means this? Or a Hebrew word?

It sounds like you're joining the chorus of those of my experience in the sense that it seems that when you say "I know that God lives" you mean something more than that the belief that God lives has been a nice part of your life. You mean, it seems, that there's a being out there -- God -- and he's alive. Have I captured your meaning correctly or not?

[Lamanite]

I have become extremely comfortable no longer knowing some things and having more hope and faith

Oh my goodness praise God that someone else out there feels the same as I do!!!

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

I do know that I know the Church is true.

If this knowledge of truth you have has come by revelatory means then I can state with certainty that you Don't Know anything of the kind. If you want to use some type of subjective spiritual definitions for know and true then language and definitions prevent us from having a meaningful discussion. If however you would be willing to work with the language and definitions found within epistemological parameters then we can communicate just fine. And if somehow you will adopt epistemological definitions for Truth and Know then you must concede that you don't know anything is true when it comes to your faith based claims.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[why me]

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"?

I am afraid that you have missed something in your post. It is not in the Baptist or Evangelical vocabulary to claim that their church is true. However, what they do claim is: I know that Jesus lives....I know that God lives....they can say this. Catholics in general tend to downplay such expressions. They go to mass, take the communion, feel the presence of Christ etc.

But the mormons make the truth claim based on the book of mormon and the restoration. It is in their cultural vocabulary.

[why me]

OK--how does doubt play a major role in belief and faith? No doubt it plays a role in the outcome of our probation (just like sin does), but this would be like sin playing a role in righteousness. How does that work (Romans 6:1 -- "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?")?

I think that since the bible tends to spend a great deal of time with doubt and with faith it is obviously that they both tend to be related. Remember that there are opposites in all things. Such is the case with faith and doubt. I do believe that since there is not tangible evidence that there is a god....I believe that He understands that we can also have doubt and has provided tools to work with such doubt. Thus, its importance in the bible and other scriptures.

[why me]

I have become extremely comfortable no longer knowing some things and having more hope and faith

It is all about faith and less about knowing. However, if one was Joseph Smith who claimed to have a spiritual vision of two personages, I would imagine that knowing would trump faith. But unless we also receive such an experience, faith is what we have for better or for worse.

When we look at the apostles and see that no matter what experiences they experienced with Christ, they still doubted until they saw him again as a resurrected being...I do believe that god would be understanding of our own faith and hope.

[Calm]

Oh my goodness praise God that someone else out there feels the same as I do!!!

Big UP!

Lamanite

Life becomes much more fun with this attitude, IMO, and a lot less anxiety producing.

[Tacenda]

I am afraid that you have missed something in your post. It is not in the Baptist or Evangelical vocabulary to claim that their church is true. However, what they do claim is: I know that Jesus lives....I know that God lives....they can say this. Catholics in general tend to downplay such expressions. They go to mass, take the communion, feel the presence of Christ etc.

But the mormons make the truth claim based on the book of mormon and the restoration. It is in their cultural vocabulary.

And if one is LDS and doesn't know or believe the church was restored and lives amongst the LDS and LDS family, it's emotional he*#. And suicide is a welcome alternative.

[CV75]

Sin plays a role in righteousness because without the presence of sin in the world, there would BE no righteousness. Read 2nd Nephi. The principle of "Opposition in all things" applies.

Someone without the capacity to sin is absolutely good and innocent. But we would call someone "righteous" if they were capable of choosing sin, and chose otherwise (or repented and changed).

When I said that doubt is "requisite" for faith, it was based on the same principle. For faith to even BE faith, it has to be a conscious moral choice to act on true belief in the absence of absolute knowledge. Does that help?

2 Nephi 2 says that there is no sin and norighteousness without opposiiton, not without each other. Opposition is dependent on agency, not on the existence of things that cannot exist without opposition or agency.

From 2 Nephi 2: 11-16: “…there is an opposition in all things. If not so [opposite results] could not be brought to pass [by the application of agency]… Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must …have …no purpose in the end of its creation. …[but] there is a God, and he hath created all things, …both things to act and things to be acted upon. And to bring about his eternal purposes …the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself…[and] man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by [the options, or the compound(s) in one].”

So faith and doubt are opposites but not required for each other; rather, agency is required for either. They exist only as “a compound in one” under the conditions of exercising agency, which sustains all existence*. 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.

*using D&C 93: Truth (knowledge; v. 24), intelligence (the light of truth; vs. 29) and light comprise the glory of God (v. 36; exaltation; see Moses 1:39). Receiving the glory of God builds one’s agency (as opposed to his condemnation by not receiving it; v. 31). Exalted man embodies truth (see D&C 88:66, 67) and so acts for himself (or possesses a fullness of agency; vs. 4, 6), defining existence (v. 30).

[CV75]

I guess it all depends on your definition of doubt. You seem to define doubt as "rejecting" a principle. I'm defining it as "lacking sure knowledge" of a principle.

Sure you can have faith in something without rejecting it first. If you define it that way, I agree with you.

But if you define doubting as acknowledging that you lack sure knowledge, then I continue to believe that this definition of "doubt" is a requisite for true faith.

Yes, it does all depend on definitions. That is why the intent of what people say when speaking of spiritual things must ultimately be conveyed by the power of the Spirit, and good-faith conversation will bear that out. In the absence of conversation (such as in a testimony meeting), charity and its attendant qualities serve the same purpose.

[CV75]

I think that since the bible tends to spend a great deal of time with doubt and with faith it is obviously that they both tend to be related. Remember that there are opposites in all things. Such is the case with faith and doubt. I do believe that since there is not tangible evidence that there is a god....I believe that He understands that we can also have doubt and has provided tools to work with such doubt. Thus, its importance in the bible and other scriptures.

I agree that faith and doubt are important, and I agree that faith and doubt are related in that they are a "compound in one," but not that they are reliant upon each other. Regarding opposiiton in all things, please refer to post #68 so I don't clog up the airwaves!

[Senator]

D&C 93:1

Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who ^aforsaketh his ^bsins and cometh unto me, and ^ccalleth on my name, and ^dobeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall ^esee my ^fface and ^gknow that I am;...

Until that day comes, I cannot see how anyone can know that Christ lives and is who he is. Until that day we continue to live in the realm of "looking through a glass darkly", a realm of uncertainty,belief, faith, hope.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Senator

[wenglund]

I appreciate all that the semantic police have said and done regarding the word "know." The world is now a much safer and amenable place to live. We can now move on to far less important matters, like feeding the hungry, carry for the sick, and providing for those in need.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stargazer]

It sounds like you're joining the chorus of those of my experience in the sense that it seems that when you say "I know that God lives" you mean something more than that the belief that God lives has been a nice part of your life. You mean, it seems, that there's a being out there -- God -- and he's alive. Have I captured your meaning correctly or not?

Uh, no, I don't think so.

Let's see, I am aware that astronomers have settled upon a "best value" for the age of the Universe (time since the Big Bang) of 13.75 billion years, plus or minus 110 million years. I'm onboard with that. But while I could say that I believe it, in fact I am not sure I could say I know it. It is certainly possible that the value is correct, but since some brilliant physicist in the future may discover something that puts the real value into a completely different order of magnitude, it is not a matter of absolute knowledge, even for scientists (I'm sure many of them would argue differently, but whatever).

But I know that God lives. I've had sufficient personal experiences with God to be quite certain He is there and is aware of me, personally. I have not seen Him, nor have I had marvelous visions that make His existence absolute. In short, I have not had a "Brother of Jared" moment.

But I know that God lives, whereas I only believe that the Universe is 13.75 billion years old.

I don't know if this helps you see where I am on this.

[Stargazer]

If this knowledge of truth you have has come by revelatory means then I can state with certainty that you Don't Know anything of the kind. If you want to use some type of subjective spiritual definitions for know and true then language and definitions prevent us from having a meaningful discussion. If however you would be willing to work with the language and definitions found within epistemological parameters then we can communicate just fine. And if somehow you will adopt epistemological definitions for Truth and Know then you must concede that you don't know anything is true when it comes to your faith based claims.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I am sorry, but I reject your attempt to tell me what I know or don't know. Whether my knowledge comes by revelatory means or otherwise.

As I tried to point out in an earlier post, the verb "to know" has a range of meanings, and which particular shade of meaning am I using when I say "I know that the Church is true"?

The thing is, the "truthiness" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been evident to me from the very moment I heard it being spoken of way back in 1965, when I chanced to meet a young man of my age who told me about it. It has only grown since then, and these days I don't have much room for doubt. It would be a matter of thunderclap surprise to me to find otherwise -- and I wish I could convey this to you in a way that would convince you that I know whereof I speak. But I cannot, so there we are.

[Stargazer]

I appreciate all that the semantic police have said and done regarding the word "know." The world is now a much safer and amenable place to live. We can now move on to far less important matters, like feeding the hungry, carry for the sick, and providing for those in need.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Amen.