Can A Child Know?

[Maidservant]

I wanted to reply to the tangent that was going on in the Mosque thread, but am starting a new one so that it is not a derail.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

My issue is having children say 'I know' when they don't yet.

I don't think that any young child who says these things un-knows these ideas. They know them as much as anyone else can. They are presented with an idea (on a glove if that's the case): "Joseph Smith is a prophet." Under the circumstances of the presentation, how would they NOT know what they were presented with? They TRUST and have FAITH in what they heard. Can we KNOW any more than they do, just because we've fleshed out the historical details or have had a specific witness? I have never had a single witness moment of the Book of Mormon, but I 'know' it is true in any way anyone else could possibly say they know.

I think that when we say we know something, children included, we are telling what **WE** KNOW. Knowing isn't always about the possession of what might be called correct facts (which in my opinion don't exist at all; facts--slippery things). Rather, KNOWING is the condition of paradigm and understanding we are presently in and operating under and that informs the expression of our lives. If we stand at a pulpit and say that we Know that Joseph Smith is a prophet, then based on our example if we are any example that someone wants to follow, it might cause them to think, That woman is always happy and she says she Knows that, so maybe I might want to learn that and increase my happiness.

In any case, I have always required that my own children can only bear their testimony when they are able to on their own, which has generally been about 8 years old although I have had some beg for earlier and when I agreed, they did fine. I did instruct them that they should think of two things they wanted to say that were NOT "I love my mom and dad". So I had a son, for example, that always stood up and said something like "I am thankful I got baptized".

But in our ward, we have about 1/3 to 1/2 testimonies of children (and which never seems to get in the way of the adults that want to bear, it seems to go smoothly). Most come up by themselves, even when they are 5, but all do not. My father would, at least at one time, have been offended by this which is why in reaction to his opinion I have thought a lot about this. I think it says a lot about US that we are willing to be instructed by children, that we are willing to be told "I love my mom and dad and my brothers and sisters" and consider this to be the greatest treasure, knowledge, teaching and testimony as it drops from the lips of our babes. I think it says a lot about us that as a ward family, we sit at the feet so-to-speak, and are willing to be instructed by tiny children and feel that spirit. That our 3 year olds stand up confidently in Sacrament meeting and be heard in the presence of High Priests. I think it's magical, celestial. And it creates a certain kind of person as they grow, that they know that they confidently shared such things and were "suffered" (i.e. welcomed).

[Hamba Tuhan]

I used to wonder about the age of eight being too young for a child to make baptismal covenants. Then I was called to teach the seven-year-olds in primary. I was blown away during the very first lesson by what these kids knew. Because the lesson manual suggested it, I asked them if they had had any experiences wherein their prayers had been answered. Every hand but one went up. The first boy I called on explained that, when they moved to the town, he was scared to go to a new school. His non-member father had come into his room and told him, basically, that he just needed to buck up. That hadn't worked, he said. Then his member mother came in and reminded him that he could pray and ask Heavenly Father for help, so he climbed out of bed and onto his knees and prayed that he wouldn't be scared anymore. He said that immediately his fear left him, and he was able to sleep. When he awoke the next morning, he felt completely at peace still. He knew that God had answered his prayer.

The girl I called on next talked about having both parents in prison and living with her grandmother and rattled off a list of her personal prayers which God had paid merciful attention to. She knew that God was real, that He listened to her, and that He intervened in her life, and she knew all of that because she had lived it. Her testimony was no different to mine in that regard. And on it went. So yes, a child can know.

[rpn]

Derailing: You do know that the official handbook position is that children who cannot bear their testimonies on their own without parental assistance, should not be doing so in sacrament meeting, I hope?

[ERayR]

I wanted to reply to the tangent that was going on in the Mosque thread, but am starting a new one so that it is not a derail.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't think that any young child who says these things un-knows these ideas. They know them as much as anyone else can. They are presented with an idea (on a glove if that's the case): "Joseph Smith is a prophet." Under the circumstances of the presentation, how would they NOT know what they were presented with? They TRUST and have FAITH in what they heard. Can we KNOW any more than they do, just because we've fleshed out the historical details or have had a specific witness? I have never had a single witness moment of the Book of Mormon, but I 'know' it is true in any way anyone else could possibly say they know.

I think that when we say we know something, children included, we are telling what **WE** KNOW. Knowing isn't always about the possession of what might be called correct facts (which in my opinion don't exist at all; facts--slippery things). Rather, KNOWING is the condition of paradigm and understanding we are presently in and operating under and that informs the expression of our lives. If we stand at a pulpit and say that we Know that Joseph Smith is a prophet, then based on our example if we are any example that someone wants to follow, it might cause them to think, That woman is always happy and she says she Knows that, so maybe I might want to learn that and increase my happiness.

In any case, I have always required that my own children can only bear their testimony when they are able to on their own, which has generally been about 8 years old although I have had some beg for earlier and when I agreed, they did fine. I did instruct them that they should think of two things they wanted to say that were NOT "I love my mom and dad". So I had a son, for example, that always stood up and said something like "I am thankful I got baptized".

But in our ward, we have about 1/3 to 1/2 testimonies of children (and which never seems to get in the way of the adults that want to bear, it seems to go smoothly). Most come up by themselves, even when they are 5, but all do not. My father would, at least at one time, have been offended by this which is why in reaction to his opinion I have thought a lot about this. I think it says a lot about US that we are willing to be instructed by children, that we are willing to be told "I love my mom and dad and my brothers and sisters" and consider this to be the greatest treasure, knowledge, teaching and testimony as it drops from the lips of our babes. I think it says a lot about us that as a ward family, we sit at the feet so-to-speak, and are willing to be instructed by tiny children and feel that spirit. That our 3 year olds stand up confidently in Sacrament meeting and be heard in the presence of High Priests. I think it's magical, celestial. And it creates a certain kind of person as they grow, that they know that they confidently shared such things and were "suffered" (i.e. welcomed).

And they are much more in tune with the Holy Ghost. Unfortunately they grow older and are influenced by those who make such statements as: "My issue is having children say 'I know' when they don't yet."

[altersteve]

Children would know better than the rest of us. Aren't we told by the Savior to be more like children? I think there's a very good reason for that.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Unfortunately they grow older and are influenced by those who make such statements as: "My issue is having children say 'I know' when they don't yet."

Yep, and sometimes by those who consider themselves to be too clever to ever say they know anything.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Storm Rider]

The Spirit is the unequivocal voice of truth and leads each to all truth. It is absolutely clear by witness of the Spirit when someone is speaking truth and knows a truth regardless of their age. I have listened to too many children that have born wonderful testimonies to discount an individual's statements about truth.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Storm Rider

[canard78]

And they are much more in tune with the Holy Ghost. Unfortunately they grow older and are influenced by those who make such statements as: "My issue is having children say 'I know' when they don't yet."

Given this quote was started as a response to a comment by me I guess I'd better join in.

I have no problem with people saying 'I know' if they feel they know. There is no age restriction on this. I have been saying 'I know the Book of Mormon is true' since I was about 10 years old. Why? Because I read it for 2 years, knelt down and prayed and had, what I believe to be, a personal, spiritual witness from God that it is. Not because I had a mantra to repeat from a glove (or something similar) in sharing time.

I would never discourage a child from saying 'I know' if they felt they did know. My issue is having them parrot the 5 phrases on the glove "I know Joseph Smith is a prophet and translated the Book of Mormon" etc. This is positive affirmation at best and indoctrination at worst.

Instead here is what I want for my children, and what I would prefer the church to support me in doing: I want to help my children learn how the spirit communicates with them. I want to teach them the principle of personal revelation. I want to teach them the core beliefs of the church and then encourage them to apply the process of personal revelation to the church beliefs and get an answer for myself.

The risk is that a 'testimony glove' approach is there is no foundation. If this is the only basis (parroting it at primary), when they ask themselves the question in their teens or adulthood 'How do I know, why do I know' there will be very little for them to fall back on. Despite all my questions and uncertainties, I've always been able to steady myself on the knowledge that at 10 years old I had a spiritual experience that convinced me the book is true.

The 'Testimony Glove' article in the friend has some 'instructions' for teachers at the end which includes this statement:

As you develop your testimony, don’t be afraid to share it! As you bear your testimony, you can use phrases like “I testify that …” or “I know that …” Your testimony will grow stronger when you share it with others.

The article also says "A testimony is a spiritual witness of the gospel’s truthfulness given to us by the Holy Ghost." What's really important is not to repeat phrases but to teach children how to communicate with God and understand how the Holy Ghost witnesses.

Out of interest, how would you feel if your school had them stand up in class and say "I know I evolved from a monkey. I know the earth was created by a big bang." You'd be furious, right? Children trust parents and teachers and will accept what they are taught. Given those who use the testimony glove are likely to have this conviction already, they may not consider it to be a bad thing to teach the child in this way. The problem is that if it's drummed in with no opportunity for the child to find out for themselves it will build a weak foundation.

[canard78]

Yep, and sometimes by those who consider themselves to be too clever to ever say they know anything.

For the purpose of this discussion I'm happy to discuss the child saying 'I know' when I personally consider better phrases for spiritual conviction in the unseen and intangible to be: 'I have no doubts' or 'I feel certain' or 'I firmly believe' or 'I have had a personal experience which I have been taught is a communication from God via the Holy Ghost.'

I would teach my children to say "I believe..." or "I know..." and let them worry about semantics if it ever becomes a concern to them.

Personally I feel more comfortable using the phrase "I know" for an Alma 32 style certainty. Apply principles, see they work, faith becomes dormant. Pure knowledge. I know the Book of Mormon will make me happier if I read it daily, I know the Christlike principles in the book of humility and compassion it helps me be a better person and treat people appropriately. This is just one example among many of what I can say I know. This 'makes me feel confident' or leads me to 'firmly believe' that God exists, that Jesus lived and died for us and that we will live again after we die. I believe all these things to try to follow the commandments I believe he has given me to make the best of my turn on earth. But for me, the process of discovering these things are intangible enough to mean I hesitate to say 'I know.'

[canard78]

The Spirit is the unequivocal voice of truth and leads each to all truth. It is absolutely clear by witness of the Spirit when someone is speaking truth and knows a truth regardless of their age. I have listened to too many children that have born wonderful testimonies to discount an individual's statements about truth.

To be clear... I put no age limit on a person's ability to say I know. I am only taking issue with a person (of any age) being encouraged to say 'I know' when they have not been taught or helped to have a personal experience that will stand them in good stead to say 'I know' after 'the glove' has been put away.

[cdowis]

I have a five year old grandson. His mother does not go to church, but we have been taking him. Within a few weeks I was completely astonished by his understanding of the Gospel, and his prayers. He has been teaching his mother a few things with the simple things he learns in Primary -- "Follow the prophet." He truly has the gift of faith.

[canard78]

I don't think that any young child who says these things un-knows these ideas. They know them as much as anyone else can. They are presented with an idea (on a glove if that's the case): "Joseph Smith is a prophet." Under the circumstances of the presentation, how would they NOT know what they were presented with? They TRUST and have FAITH in what they heard. Can we KNOW any more than they do, just because we've fleshed out the historical details or have had a specific witness?

I am sure a child can know these things. I just think it would be a shame if we taught them that they know by having them say the words, rather than giving them the tools and opportunity to gain a personal witness that it is true.

Elder Uchtdorf's recent CES talk on truth makes it very clear that it is our responsibility to learn the truth for ourselves. He even says it is an obligation, not just an opportunity.

He quoted Brigham Young:

"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful that they settle down in a state of blind self security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation. . . Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/9/27#150

I don't want my children to gain a testimony through confidence in their primary leaders or even in me. I want them to "know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God for themselves."

My comment you've referenced was specifically in response to the idea of a 'Testimony Glove' which, in The Friend, gives 5 statements to memorise:

My Testimony

1. I know that God is our Heavenly Father and He loves us.

2. I know that His Son, Jesus Christ, is our Savior and Redeemer.

3. I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. He restored the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth and translated the Book of Mormon by the power of God.

4. I know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s Church on the earth today.

5. I know that this Church is led by a living prophet who receives revelation.

The

from Desert Book (voiced by the gloves inventor Sister Kristen Oaks, Elder Oaks' wife) says:

"A testimony glove will help every child learn their testimony."

"I've seen Children... within a few minutes, able to bear their testimony" - so, give a child a glove to "learn" their testimony (or memorise it as The Friend suggests) and within a few minutes have them stand and say "I know Joseph Smith is a prophet." How do they know after a few minutes of memorisation? Answer: 'The teacher with the glove told me to say it.'

"This glove has great power to change lives" I was under the impression the Saviour and his gospel changes live.

"When they're eight years old they will be interviewed by a Bishop and asked the 5 things on this glove" - I hope the glove doesn't make it into any baptismal interviews.

"The testimony gloves helps children understand these principles and cements them in their minds for life" - This is my biggest concern, that people use the testimony glove to cement the principles in their children's minds for life. I would far rather the principles are cemented in their hearts by a personal, spiritual revelation.

There was one statement I did agree with in the video:

"You can use the spirit and you can teach your children very simple truths that will last for a lifetime" - I want my children to be taught how to communicate with the spirit to gain a testimony of simple truths. I'm not comfortable with the idea of a glove that 'cements' them in children's minds in 'a few minutes' and has them immediately say 'I know.'

I have never had a single witness moment of the Book of Mormon, but I 'know' it is true in any way anyone else could possibly say they know.

I'm not saying children need a "single witness moment" as long as the eventual witness received is based on the spirit communicating between them and God. I would imagine your knowledge was more than "a few minutes with a glove" that "cemented" the ideas "in your mind" through repetition.

[CV75]

For the purpose of this discussion I'm happy to discuss the child saying 'I know' when I personally consider better phrases for spiritual conviction in the unseen and intangible to be: 'I have no doubts' or 'I feel certain' or 'I firmly believe' or 'I have had a personal experience which I have been taught is a communication from God via the Holy Ghost.'

I would teach my children to say "I believe..." or "I know..." and let them worry about semantics if it ever becomes a concern to them.

People who structure a child's self-expression with forethought has obviously worried about the semantics and as a result intentionally imposes and imprints a child’s mind with his own personal semantics, if not also passing along his anxiety over the issue.

[Tacenda]

Can we compare a bit? To how the North Korean's wailed and cried when their President died? Even though he was a wicked man? They were taught to honor this evil man and not getting a witness for themselves. Or on second thought maybe they know but must put on an act and have known how evil their leader is but would be shot or put in prison for any disloyalty. There again it's night and day but wouldn't we want that true conversion of our members so that the day they run into cog dis they can come through it because they have a knowledge from a spiritual witness and were not trained to know it.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Tacenda

[canard78]

People who structure a child's self-expression with forethought has obviously worried about the semantics and as a result intentionally imposes and imprints a child’s mind with his own personal semantics, if not also passing along his anxiety over the issue.

Which is why I don't structure my children's self-expression. They can express themselves as they see fit. Our stake president in a recent conference gave a long talk and I noticed he never once said "I know..." instead he used phrases like "I am convinced that..." or "I firmly believe..." - it didn't remotely undermine the confidence of his testimony.

The Articles of Faith say "We believe..." not "We know..."

[canard78]

Can we compare a bit? To how the North Korean's wailed and cried when their President died? Even though he was a wicked man? They were taught to honor this evil man and not getting a witness for themselves. Or on second thought maybe they know but must put on an act and have known how evil their leader is but would be shot or put in prison for any disloyalty. There again it's night and day but wouldn't we want that true conversion of our members so that the day they run into cog dis they can come through it because they have a knowledge from a spiritual witness and were not trained to know it.

The majority of North Koreans seem sincere in their support of their leader and country. There are many other examples of people who "know" things that we would be certain is wrong.

[ERayR]

Given this quote was started as a response to a comment by me I guess I'd better join in.

I have no problem with people saying 'I know' if they feel they know. There is no age restriction on this. I have been saying 'I know the Book of Mormon is true' since I was about 10 years old. Why? Because I read it for 2 years, knelt down and prayed and had, what I believe to be, a personal, spiritual witness from God that it is. Not because I had a mantra to repeat from a glove (or something similar) in sharing time.

I would never discourage a child from saying 'I know' if they felt they did know. My issue is having them parrot the 5 phrases on the glove "I know Joseph Smith is a prophet and translated the Book of Mormon" etc. This is positive affirmation at best and indoctrination at worst.

Instead here is what I want for my children, and what I would prefer the church to support me in doing: I want to help my children learn how the spirit communicates with them. I want to teach them the principle of personal revelation. I want to teach them the core beliefs of the church and then encourage them to apply the process of personal revelation to the church beliefs and get an answer for myself.

The risk is that a 'testimony glove' approach is there is no foundation. If this is the only basis (parroting it at primary), when they ask themselves the question in their teens or adulthood 'How do I know, why do I know' there will be very little for them to fall back on. Despite all my questions and uncertainties, I've always been able to steady myself on the knowledge that at 10 years old I had a spiritual experience that convinced me the book is true.

The 'Testimony Glove' article in the friend has some 'instructions' for teachers at the end which includes this statement:

The article also says "A testimony is a spiritual witness of the gospel’s truthfulness given to us by the Holy Ghost." What's really important is not to repeat phrases but to teach children how to communicate with God and understand how the Holy Ghost witnesses.

Out of interest, how would you feel if your school had them stand up in class and say "I know I evolved from a monkey. I know the earth was created by a big bang." You'd be furious, right? Children trust parents and teachers and will accept what they are taught. Given those who use the testimony glove are likely to have this conviction already, they may not consider it to be a bad thing to teach the child in this way. The problem is that if it's drummed in with no opportunity for the child to find out for themselves it will build a weak foundation.

And when a child gets up and repeats "the 5 phrases on the glove" who are you or who am I to say they do not know. The words may have been taught but the knowledge can still be their own. Just because the words seem rote doesn't mean they don't have the witness of the Holy Ghost. Mathew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

[CV75]

Which is why I don't structure my children's self-expression. They can express themselves as they see fit. Our stake president in a recent conference gave a long talk and I noticed he never once said "I know..." instead he used phrases like "I am convinced that..." or "I firmly believe..." - it didn't remotely undermine the confidence of his testimony.

The Articles of Faith say "We believe..." not "We know..."

I agree; critiques of using the phrases “I know,” “I believe, ” “I trust,” I have faith,” “I have confidence,” “I am certain,” “The Spirit/power of the Holy Ghost told me,” “The Spirit led me,” etc. always lead me to conclude that they all have their place and they can all mean the same thing. I use all these myself at various times and circumstances. The Spirit will deliver and convey the message of truth regardless. And I think the same goes whether a glove was used in teaching a child or not—as with any child-rearing tool, it has to be in (on?) the right hands (hand?).

[cdowis]

Which is why I don't structure my children's self-expression. They can express themselves as they see fit. Our stake president in a recent conference gave a long talk and I noticed he never once said "I know..." instead he used phrases like "I am convinced that..." or "I firmly believe..." - it didn't remotely undermine the confidence of his testimony.

The Articles of Faith say "We believe..." not "We know..."

I have a certain knowledge, I know. That is one of the gifts of the Spirit given by God and each of us have different gifts. Sometimes I admire those who have successfully struggled with undertainty, My life could perhaps be enhanced with that undertainty. But I really have no choice in the matter.

While I am grateful, it sometimes gives me a feeling of the loss of free will.

Edited January 22, 2013 by cdowis

[ERayR]

Which is why I don't structure my children's self-expression. They can express themselves as they see fit. Our stake president in a recent conference gave a long talk and I noticed he never once said "I know..." instead he used phrases like "I am convinced that..." or "I firmly believe..." - it didn't remotely undermine the confidence of his testimony.

The Articles of Faith say "We believe..." not "We know..."

I would feel comfortable in saying that whether you do it consciously yo do structure your child's self expression. You teach your children in your own way of expression. You can find fault, if you like, with the words they use but they might, and legitimately so, question your way of expression. This does not excuse either in condemning the child's sincerity.

[changed]

Children would know better than the rest of us. Aren't we told by the Savior to be more like children?

We have a saying in our ward, that if Jesus came to church one day, he would come to primary. I have a primary calling, and I love it - I have felt the Spirit in there, very strongly.

Edited January 22, 2013 by changed

[canard78]

And when a child gets up and repeats "the 5 phrases on the glove" who are you or who am I to say they do not know. The words may have been taught but the knowledge can still be their own. Just because the words seem rote doesn't mean they don't have the witness of the Holy Ghost. Mathew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

I'm not sure if you're reading all of my posts. I am not saying the child does not, nor can not know. I actually said a child absolutely can know and should say so once they do.

However I took great lengths to point out that the instructions in the Friend and the commercial suggest that the child should learn the statements and say it, even if they do not know yet. The yet is the important qualifier. If they know, say. If they don't know yet don't make them say memorised 'I know' statements.

If a child knows it, let them say it - I celebrate this. I hope to hear my children say this. I just don't like the idea of a child learning 5 'I know' statements in a few minutes to repeat and not instead being taught the valuable tools of how to receive personal revelation.

[canard78]

I would feel comfortable in saying that whether you do it consciously yo do structure your child's self expression. You teach your children in your own way of expression. You can find fault, if you like, with the words they use but they might, and legitimately so, question your way of expression. This does not excuse either in condemning the child's sincerity.

I'll let my stake president know about your concern.

[CV75]

I'm not sure if you're reading all of my posts. I am not saying the child does not, nor can not know. I actually said a child absolutely can know and should say so once they do.

However I took great lengths to point out that the instructions in the Friend and the commercial suggest that the child should learn the statements and say it, even if they do not know yet. The yet is the important qualifier. If they know, say. If they don't know yet don't make them say memorised 'I know' statements.

If a child knows it, let them say it - I celebrate this. I hope to hear my children say this. I just don't like the idea of a child learning 5 'I know' statements in a few minutes to repeat and not instead being taught the valuable tools of how to receive personal revelation.

We are probably treading on the thin ice of telling people how to raise their children (D&C 68:25-28), but does a parent really know what their child knows?

All a parent can do is teach the child correct principles, and know that he taught them, and possibly have a spiritual witness that he taught them effectively and in the right way; the five points are certainly correct principles.

The language and method used to teach the child is the responsibility of the parent, according to the unique needs of the child. Some need absolutism, and some do not. And some take things in an absolute fashion, and some do not, whether they need it or not.

[canard78]

We are probably treading on the thin ice of telling people how to raise their children (D&C 68:25-28), but does a parent really know what their child knows?

All a parent can do is teach the child correct principles, and know that he taught them, and possibly have a spiritual witness that he taught them effectively and in the right way; the five points are certainly correct principles.

The language and method used to teach the child is the responsibility of the parent, according to the unique needs of the child. Some need absolutism, and some do not. And some take things in an absolute fashion, and some do not, whether they need it or not.

I agree with you on a lot of this. I am not making the suggestion that a parent gets to be the judge of whether I a child knows or not.

I am saying a child should be taught the principles that are important (I agree the 5 are important) and then taught how to know for themselves so they can sincerely say 'I know' rather than a memorised 'I know...' Statement from a glove in a few minutes.