Knowing, Believing, And Doubts- Richard Bushman

[Stargazer]

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.

Wow. And I hope you are exaggerating.

I must not have been a good teacher as a parent, because virtually none of my children (who are all adults) are active in Church, and I don't think any of them have an actual testimony (though they will defend the Church against an outsider mocking it). And there is no he|| here. Perhaps you should move away from Utah, and I am not kidding. I like visiting Utah occasionally. Nice place. But I would NOT want to live there. Too many Mormons. Not enough Latter-day Saints. And I am being judgemental, sorry.

[Calm]

The thing is, the "truthiness".....

Wiki:

Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1]

You sure you want to use that particular word?

[Tacenda]

Why can't a person have a testimony of the Saviour or Savior and have that be enough in this church without the repercussions!!!

[why me]

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.

I wouldn't take it all that seriously. Belief and knowing can come with time. I always try to keep it simple. I know that there are 11 witnesses who claim to have had an experience with the book of mormon. And this experience was so strong and powerful that they never back tracked on what they experienced. So, I believe that something happened at that time.

But if I did not know or believe and yet, felt connected with Mormonism, I would just go with the flow and hope to be understood.

[why me]

Why can't a person have a testimony of the Saviour or Savior and have that be enough in this church without the repercussions!!!

Here is what I think. I think that you came under the influence of born again christians who made you doubt your faith in mormonism. If i remember correctly, you have been involved with the EVs. I see nothing wrong with your take on the savior. I think that the problem comes when you come across too EVish with your family. We need to remember that the EVs have not been that friendly to the lds. In fact, Joanna Brooks in her memoir relates how EVs were not very nice to her when she was growing up by claiming that she didn't believe in the real Jesus because she was a mormon.

I think that if I am correct, this may be where the repercussions happen.

But like I said, it is difficult to explain away the witnesses.

[Calm]

Why can't a person have a testimony of the Saviour or Savior and have that be enough in this church without the repercussions!!!

In the New Testament Christ demanded a lot more of his followers than solely belief or a testimony.

Why would he demand less of those who follow him now than he has in the past?

Edited November 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[Lamanite]

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

I wish there was a "like" feature for posts

Big UP!

Lamanite

[volgadon]

I wish there was a "like" feature for posts

Big UP!

Lamanite

There is. Click on the box to the right of the little green arrow. For practice, I'll let you click on all my posts.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I think if you sit down with them and talk to them you will find they are closer than you think. Please note that I am not on this thread and am only responding because you quoted this and I got an email so I don't have a clue what has been said on this thread.

But if you sit down with them, and keep questioning them ("But how do you KNOW that Jesus was resurrected", How can you KNOW that Joseph saw God") etc they would start to say something like "Well I have faith in it" or "I know by the spirit".

And then if you continued to ask them what the Spirit was and how they knew they felt it, in a non-threatening way, as if you yourself were not criticizing them but asking for their advice (tone is everything in these conversations) they would end up saying something like "Look- these are things I take on faith and my life is better for it".

[mfbukowski]

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?

Dang it,

I did not want to get into this thread, but now I see this and have to respond.

It's NOT a "nice part of your life" it is the CENTRAL CORE of my life and occupies every waking moment in one way or another. It gives my life meaning and purpose.

Have you read any Kirkegaard or are you familiar with Fideism?

[CV75]

I just happened to come across this, from President Monson in his latest General Conference priesthood sesion remarks:

"I would give everything I possess if I knew that what those speakers said today was true.” In essence he was saying, “I wish that I had a testimony of the gospel...

"There is absolutely nothing in this world that will provide more comfort and happiness than a testimony of the truth. Although to varying degrees, I believe every man or young man here tonight has a testimony. If you feel that you do not yet have the depth of testimony you would wish, I admonish you to work to achieve such a testimony. If it is strong and deep, labor to keep it that way. How blessed we are to have a knowledge of the truth."

[Closet Doubter]

.... 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. . . .

So you believe what the scientist tells you and you know it might change based on further knowledge and discovery. You also believe that God lives (as so I) but you have been taught to say you know it because you believe it very strongly and you have been taught to do so from such a young age that you can't see the difference between knowledge and faith. And by the way, one of the purposes of this life is to learn to live by faith which is why God doesn't give us absolute knowledge of things. He makes us believe instead.

[CV75]

So you believe what the scientist tells you and you know it might change based on further knowledge and discovery. You also believe that God lives (as so I) but you have been taught to say you know it because you believe it very strongly and you have been taught to do so from such a young age that you can't see the difference between knowledge and faith. And by the way, one of the purposes of this life is to learn to live by faith which is why God doesn't give us absolute knowledge of things. He makes us believe instead.

I was an adult convert, and to spare the details, no one taught me to say “know”, yet after the spiritual experience that led to my conversion, I wrote down privately that "I know," and I later confided in people that I knew. It wasn't until later that I read Moroni's promise about "knowing" or D&C about the burning in the bosom.

We live by faith so that we can gain knowledge and apply greater faith to live by – the abundant life is full of expanding faith and knowledge. We cannot live by faith without gaining some knowledge about the object of our faith.

[Stargazer]

Quote

Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1]

Wiki:

You sure you want to use that particular word?

Yes. That was what I had at the very beginning. It is not what I have now

[Brade]

Uh, no, I don't think so.

Hmm, so this is what I said:

...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.

But I don't see how what you said disagrees with that.

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.

Again, I said that it sounds to me that when you say "I know God lives" you mean at least that God lives and not merely that the belief that he lives blesses your life. You're response was, essentially, "No, no, when I say 'I know God lives' I mean that he is there...". How does that not encompass what I said?

[Brade]

Dang it,

I did not want to get into this thread, but now I see this and have to respond.

It's NOT a "nice part of your life" it is the CENTRAL CORE of my life and occupies every waking moment in one way or another. It gives my life meaning and purpose.

Have you read any Kirkegaard or are you familiar with Fideism?

Well, you know, if it's the central core it's at least a nice part. I've not read Kirkegaard, but I'm familiar enough, I think, with Fideism. I never took your view to be Fideism. Is it?

Edit: By the way, I didn't mean anything by the "nice part" bit. I wasn't trying to minimize anyone's belief.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Brade

[mfbukowski]

I've not read Kirkegaard, but I'm familiar enough, I think, with Fideism. I never took your view to be Fideism. Is it?

Yeah, I think pretty much I think I am a Wittgensteinian fideist. when it comes to these questions. Speaking about matters of faith and speaking about matters of "reason" including science are pretty much different "language games" and never the twain shall meet. I suppose I am a Pragmatic Fideist a la William James.

I see religious discourse as being analogous to moral discourse and religious "truth" as being analogous to moral "truth".

I think it can be said that the statement "Murder is wrong" can be seen as being true but you certainly cannot prove it empirically.

I think the statement "God exists" is similar in that regard to moral statements. Furthermore I think that first person statements and third person statements cannot be made logically equivalent and so physicalism cannot be true because again, different language games are being mixed.

"I have a pain in my toe" cannot be made logically equivalent to "Bukowski is feeling pain impulses in his toe" because one is a statement about my perceptions and the other is a statement about what someone else is seeing on a pain-o-meter, say.

They are from different points of view- just as the statement "Pyramids are square" (seen from above) can be true simultaneously true about the same object, with the statement "Pyramids are rectangular" (seen from the side) but they are obviously not logically equivalent statements.

In short, statements about physical brain states are not logically equivalent to statements about my subjective perceptions. One is not reducible to the other.

Similarly, statements about beliefs which make my life meaningful to me have nothing to do with objective empirical statements, nor should they be taken to be so.

So the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead- it has to do with what the claimant knows subjectively in the sense of being certain about it. This is pretty much straight from Dewey's view of certainty.

Of course that does not mean that Jesus did NOT actually rise from the dead- I am simply talking about the logic of the statement not what actually happened.

Edited November 7, 2012 by mfbukowski

[TAO]

There is. Click on the box to the right of the little green arrow. For practice, I'll let you click on all my posts.

You get a 'like' for that!

[Stargazer]

Again, I said that it sounds to me that when you say "I know God lives" you mean at least that God lives and not merely that the belief that he lives blesses your life. You're response was, essentially, "No, no, when I say 'I know God lives' I mean that he is there...". How does that not encompass what I said?

I don't know. Maybe I can't express it well enough so that it differentiates itself in your mind. There's a lot of that going around. But what you stated feels different to what I mean by what I wrote. Sounds squishy, don't it? Oh, well.

God is everpresent to me. I manage to temporarily forget this from time to time, but I just have a deep-seated feeling that does not go away. When I haul this out and inspect it carefully I cannot find any holes in it.

Sorry I cannot express it better than I have.

[Calm]

Quote

Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1]

Yes. That was what I had at the very beginning. It is not what I have now

Got it.

[Thankful]

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.

Yes, thank you.

[Thankful]

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-

This is a very good point. We need to make sure debating semantics doesn't cause us to ignore the "weightier matters." Thanks for the reminder.

I do find discussions like this valuable though. It's easy to forget that 2 people may perceive the same words and concepts very differently. Our misunderstandings of each other can make it harder to truly know and cherish one another.

If we hope to have true charity, it helps to recognize our initial impressions might not be correct. Learning to see our own assumptions and compare them with how others define the world can help us be more open and loving if we allow it to.

No amount of discussion can replace the impact the spirit can have. Both are valuable.

[Brade]

Yeah, I think pretty much I think I am a Wittgensteinian fideist. when it comes to these questions. Speaking about matters of faith and speaking about matters of "reason" including science are pretty much different "language games" and never the twain shall meet. I suppose I am a Pragmatic Fideist a la William James.

I see religious discourse as being analogous to moral discourse and religious "truth" as being analogous to moral "truth".

I think it can be said that the statement "Murder is wrong" can be seen as being true but you certainly cannot prove it empirically.

I think the statement "God exists" is similar in that regard to moral statements. Furthermore I think that first person statements and third person statements cannot be made logically equivalent and so physicalism cannot be true because again, different language games are being mixed.

"I have a pain in my toe" cannot be made logically equivalent to "Bukowski is feeling pain impulses in his toe" because one is a statement about my perceptions and the other is a statement about what someone else is seeing on a pain-o-meter, say.

They are from different points of view- just as the statement "Pyramids are square" (seen from above) can be true simultaneously true about the same object, with the statement "Pyramids are rectangular" (seen from the side) but they are obviously not logically equivalent statements.

In short, statements about physical brain states are not logically equivalent to statements about my subjective perceptions. One is not reducible to the other.

Similarly, statements about beliefs which make my life meaningful to me have nothing to do with objective empirical statements, nor should they be taken to be so.

So the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead- it has to do with what the claimant knows subjectively in the sense of being certain about it. This is pretty much straight from Dewey's view of certainty.

Of course that does not mean that Jesus did NOT actually rise from the dead- I am simply talking about the logic of the statement not what actually happened.

Thanks for the clarification.

[brainburn]

So the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead- it has to do with what the claimant knows subjectively in the sense of being certain about it.

Can you provide some LDS examples supporting this sort of thinking?

When has a prophet or GA ever made such statements but also made clear that it should not be taken as objective empirical statements?

I'm interested in the statements like "I know Jesus rose from the dead" which clearly have an objective/empirical dimension, whether or not you accept it...

[mfbukowski]

Can you provide some LDS examples supporting this sort of thinking?

When has a prophet or GA ever made such statements but also made clear that it should not be taken as objective empirical statements?

I'm interested in the statements like "I know Jesus rose from the dead" which clearly have an objective/empirical dimension, whether or not you accept it...

Clearly no GA means that the resurrection can be scientifically verified nor that God's existence can be either nor that any of Joseph's visions etc can be verified scientifically. How could they possibly have an "empirical dimension" (whatever that is supposed to mean) without being scientifically verifiable?