Stuffing A Turkey Through The Beak: Leading With Doubt

[wenglund]

The word "know" in regards to people saying they "know" the church is true is far too loosely applied.

From my experience, your perception of "too loosely applied" tends to be reserved to a relatively few overly literalistic, yet somewhat naive semantic game players who mistakenly assume they are in a position to control language for one and all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[PoisonWell]

From my experience, your perception of "too loosely applied" tends to be reserved to a relatively few overly literalistic, yet somewhat naive semantic game players who mistakenly assume they are in a position to control language for one and all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Control language? I understand that semantics can get tedious, but I can't blame people for it. Words have meanings and definitions for a reason, it leads to confusion when people use them incorrectly.

[wenglund]

Control language? I understand that semantics can get tedious, but I can't blame people for it. Words have meanings and definitions for a reason, it leads to confusion when people use them incorrectly.

Actually, words have a variety of meanings and reasonable plasticity in meaning. The intent of words is to convey meaning, and as long as that reasonably occurs, then the words have served their purpose. For the most part, this is the case with the word "know" withing the LDS faith community. When people use it in their testimonies, there is little confusion or controversy over the meaning. Thus, it is used "correctly." It only has become problematic for a relatively few who have assigned a somewhat different, and more exacting and precise and perhaps esoteric meaning to the word, and who mistakenly assume that their meaning trumps that of the community.

In short, the problem isn't with the community's use of the word, but with the few usurpers who presume to control the community's use of the word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 10, 2013 by wenglund

[PoisonWell]

Actually, words have a variety of meanings and reasonable plasticity in meaning. The intent of words is to convey meaning, and as long as that reasonably occurs, then the words have served their purpose.

Yes, when the meaning comes acoss well, it works. That isn't always the case though.

When people say they 'know' something when they mean they have faith in something I can see where confusion starts and how some people would prefer they use words how they're defined by the general (national/global) public.

[wenglund]

Yes, when the meaning comes acoss well, it works. That isn't always the case though.

When people say they 'know' something when they mean they have faith in something I can see where confusion starts and how some people would prefer they use words how they're defined by the general (national/global) public.

The global meaning of the word "know" is sufficiently fluid to easily and correctly accommodate the LDS use of the word. Again, that word isn't and hasn't been a problem within the LDS community.--except for a relative few. As such, the problem is with the few and not the community.

But, this is tangential to the thread, and so I shan't say more.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[PoisonWell]

The global meaning of the word "know" is sufficiently fluid to easily and correctly accommodate the LDS use of the word. Again, that word isn't and hasn't been a problem within the LDS community.--except for a relative few. As such, the problem is with the few and not the community.

Well, I can see your point and I think I agree. It's pedantic to argue over the word know in this case.

However, I still understand why some people would prefer if others made a distinction between knowing and having faith when expressing themselves.

[canard78]

http://www.lds.org/p...elieve?lang=eng

Just to be clear, only the 'highlights' are up at this point transcriptwise. My memory says the full one goes up usually by Tuesday nowadays, but I may be thinking of something else.

Here is a link to the page which will have the link to the transcripts when they are available: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/sessions/2013/04?lang=eng

Thanks. It's there in full now:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng

A couple of wonderful statements in here:

His initial declaration is affirmative and without hesitation: “Lord, I believe.” I would say to all who wish for more faith, remember this man! In moments of fear or doubt or troubling times, hold the ground you have already won, even if that ground is limited.

...

“Ye shall know them by their fruits,” Jesus said, and the fruit of living the gospel is evident in the lives of Latter-day Saints everywhere.

...

So be kind regarding human frailty—your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we.

...

when the infinite fulness is poured forth, it is not the oil’s fault if there is some loss because finite vessels can’t quite contain it all. Those finite vessels include you and me, so be patient and kind and forgiving.

...

I hugged that boy until his eyes bulged out. I told him with all the fervor of my soul that belief is a precious word, an even more precious act, and he need never apologize for “only believing.”

...

Hope on. Journey on. Honestly acknowledge your questions and your concerns, but first and forever fan the flame of your faith, because all things are possible to them that believe.

I feel enriched

[canard78]

I interpreted Hollands talk as greatly easing the stigma of doubt among believers, while also placing those doubts into useful perspective. No longer need expressions of mere belief and doubt be a function of courage, but now they ought to be embraced with apostolic gratitude, though not preferentially to all about which one may have reasonable conviction.

Metaphorically, the rose garden of spiritual growth isn't without the thorns of doubt, nor lessened thereby, though it wouldn't do the beautiful garden justice to define it by, or solely or primarily focus on, the thorns.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Do you know Wade, I quite often disagree with you. But I really appreciated your summary of the key messages in the talk. Poetically put.

[wenglund]

Do you know Wade, I quite often disagree with you. But I really appreciated your summary of the key messages in the talk. Poetically put.

That is very nice of you to say. It is hard not to wax poetic when so deeply moved by a profound and eloquent message.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I would respond to the OP but I will get banned from the thread, so what's the point of trying to assess this? I will assess it as I find time on my Facebook account. That way you CAN actually see what an honest analysis is rather than ululations and paeans of praise for very little reason. Sorry this board is so biased I am gunshy to try and actually have a conversation here. Holland spouts sloganeering all over the place with shallow analysis. You can read the indepth stuff on my Facebook when I get around to it. It's not all that good of a talk so it's not like I feel a need to make it a priority.

[PoisonWell]

I would respond to the OP but I will get banned from the thread, so what's the point of trying to assess this? I will assess it as I find time on my Facebook account. That way you CAN actually see what an honest analysis is rather than ululations and paeans of praise for very little reason. Sorry this board is so biased I am gunshy to try and actually have a conversation here. Holland spouts sloganeering all over the place with shallow analysis. You can read the indepth stuff on my Facebook when I get around to it. It's not all that good of a talk so it's not like I feel a need to make it a priority.

Why not post it here? Does this board ban/censor people?

I haven't been here long, so I don't know it's history. It's obvious which direction the forum leans, but I haven't seen any moderation to enforce it, as of now.

[volgadon]

Over the past few years much has been made of epistemology, with many stating that the only possible honest approach is to state that we don't know.

So, iff that is where your faith is at, then, sure. Always go for honesty.

However, one should also consider what Joseph Smith wrote, and what I think underlies Elder Holland's concerns. "I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation." Cutting through the gordian knot which is philosophical debate on epistemology, if one knows, one should not pretend otherwise. I was quite pleased to see Elder Holland make a plea not only to accept doubters, but also to be true to what we personally know. Yes, know. It is not a dirty word.

[teddyaware]

I would respond to the OP but I will get banned from the thread, so what's the point of trying to assess this? I will assess it as I find time on my Facebook account. That way you CAN actually see what an honest analysis is rather than ululations and paeans of praise for very little reason. Sorry this board is so biased I am gunshy to try and actually have a conversation here. Holland spouts sloganeering all over the place with shallow analysis. You can read the indepth stuff on my Facebook when I get around to it. It's not all that good of a talk so it's not like I feel a need to make it a priority.

Rather than risk getting banned from this thread by responding to you with my own thoughts, putting to print exactly what it is I'd like to say, I will, instead, quote the Apostle Paul, 1st Corinthians 2. His words address what I believe might be the likely reason why you don't appreciate Elder Holland's remarks in the same way I and others here do: If you take the time to read these word's of Paul's, I would sincerely appreciate your in depth analysis of what it is you think the Apostle to the Gentiles is trying to say. Apropos to Paul's comments below, I would also sincerely like to know if you believe your analysis of Elder Holland's remarks are inspired of the Spirit?

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Edited April 11, 2013 by teddyaware

[wenglund]

I would respond to the OP but I will get banned from the thread, so what's the point of trying to assess this? I will assess it as I find time on my Facebook account. That way you CAN actually see what an honest analysis is rather than ululations and paeans of praise for very little reason. Sorry this board is so biased I am gunshy to try and actually have a conversation here. Holland spouts sloganeering all over the place with shallow analysis. You can read the indepth stuff on my Facebook when I get around to it. It's not all that good of a talk so it's not like I feel a need to make it a priority.

I am hoping that the Facebook servers are up to handling the hordes of people yearning desperately to finally read your personal criticism of Hollands talk. Given how many people now lean on your every word, it is destined to be a mega-event unrivaled even by the likes of Justin Beber.

For my own part, I may have to rise above my aversion to massive crowds to satisfy my nagging curiosity as to how my friend-gone-wacky may happen to warp the inspiring message of an apostle by filtering it through the concaved and darkened lens of his new religion of secularism.

And, I say this as someone who has been banned from more threads here in the last week than you can probably count on you abacus.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[canard78]

Rather than risk getting banned from this thread by responding to you with my own thoughts, putting to print exactly what it is I'd like to say, I will, instead, quote the Apostle Paul, 1st Corinthians 2. His words address what I believe might be the likely reason why you don't appreciate Elder Holland's remarks in the same way I and others here do: If you take the time to read these word's of Paul's, I would sincerely appreciate your in depth analysis of what it is you think the Apostle to the Gentiles is trying to say. Apropos to Paul's comments below, I would also sincerely like to know if you believe your analysis of Elder Holland's remarks are inspired of the Spirit?

Lol. Given Kerry has, I understand, declared a belief that there is no God, why would he consider his comments inspired by the spirit (apologies if I've mischaracterised your views Kerry)?

[canard78]

Delete duplicate.

Edited April 11, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

Why not post it here? Does this board ban/censor people?

I haven't been here long, so I don't know it's history. It's obvious which direction the forum leans, but I haven't seen any moderation to enforce it, as of now.

It does ban people from threads and occasionally bans people from the board entirely. Some people are also limited to 12 posts/day.

Check the board rules.

They are usually only likely to ban you from a thread if you get too personal in your rebuttals of other people's points of view. Also, speaking ill of an apostles character is likely to get a thread ban if it's too personal. They're fine with someone disagreeing with an apostles statement or analysing/deconstructing a talk/article. But again, it can't be personally attacking.

But they don't ban people from threads for simply having a different point of view to an apostle. There are and have been several non-Mormons participate on this board.

If you see red text at the end of a post it's usually a moderator warning to curb ones language.

Edited April 11, 2013 by canard78

[bcuzbcuz]

Actually, words have a variety of meanings and reasonable plasticity in meaning. The intent of words is to convey meaning, and as long as that reasonably occurs, then the words have served their purpose. For the most part, this is the case with the word "know" withing the LDS faith community. When people use it in their testimonies, there is little confusion or controversy over the meaning. Thus, it is used "correctly." It only has become problematic for a relatively few who have assigned a somewhat different, and more exacting and precise and perhaps esoteric meaning to the word, and who mistakenly assume that their meaning trumps that of the community.

In short, the problem isn't with the community's use of the word, but with the few usurpers who presume to control the community's use of the word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't doubt for a minute that the Mormon community has words that are singularly defined within the community and that have a completely different meaning in the world at large. But that wasn't the thrust of my post. I was referencing my comment in regards to a parents statement about their child.

I don't have any opinion on whether you, for example, "know" the church is true or whether you "believe" the church is true. Would your acquaintances in the church suddenly turn and look at you if you were to use the word "believe" when you offer your testimony? This isn't mentioned in order to garner a response. It's none of my business. But is "believe" a weaker describer than "know" when talking about the unknowable?

[teddyaware]

Lol. Given Kerry has, I understand, declared a belief that there is no God, why would he consider his comments inspired by the spirit (apologies if I've mischaracterised your views Kerry)?

Thanks for the info. Over the past few months, I haven't been able to clearly discern, to my own satisfaction, where Terry has been coming from of late. Given his strong defence of the Church over the years, I've even entertained the unlikely notion that he's been putting us all on or playing a bizarre mind game as some sort of social or psychological experiment. If it's true he no longer believes there is a God -- even in his heart of hearts -- it causes one to wonder why he would want to participate on a board like this one where most are strong believers, some are doubters, but where there are very few unbelievers? It would seem to me that passionate unbelievers who participate on boards like this one do so because they are either a. open to gaining or regaining belief, or b. they are hoping to destroy the belief of others, because misery loves company. Perhaps there are othe motivations as well, but I just woke up and I'm too sleepy to think deeply.

[volgadon]

I, for one, won't speculate on Kerry's faith.

[Questing Beast]

Over the past few years much has been made of epistemology, with many stating that the only possible honest approach is to state that we don't know.

So, iff that is where your faith is at, then, sure. Always go for honesty.

However, one should also consider what Joseph Smith wrote, and what I think underlies Elder Holland's concerns. "I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation." Cutting through the gordian knot which is philosophical debate on epistemology, if one knows, one should not pretend otherwise. I was quite pleased to see Elder Holland make a plea not only to accept doubters, but also to be true to what we personally know. Yes, know. It is not a dirty word.

It is a "dirty word" if "I know" is applied to subjective analysis, which all religious history is. Anyone getting up in testimony meeting and saying "I know Jesus is the Christ" has said all that there is to know about the subject. Yes, Jesus is the Christ, the Gospels tell us that. But to expound upon the restoration and apply "I know" to it is not believable to those who study and arrive at a conflicted picture of the history of the restoration. "I believe" is more accurate and unimpeachable. Nobody can assault a belief with the accusation "you lie", because nobody can show that a belief is not held. But in LDS parlance "I know" is required in order to be on the path toward having "your calling and election made sure". Anything less than "I know" is in the realm of being "neither hot nor cold", and nobody wants to be spit out of the Christ's mouth!

I know that "God" is Necessary in order to explain Existence In The First Place, therefore I know that God Exists. I know that I Exist. Beyond that I only have many, evolving beliefs....

[volgadon]

I know that "God" is Necessary in order to explain Existence In The First Place, therefore I know that God Exists. I know that I Exist.

You ought to have your mouth washed out with soap.

[Questing Beast]

...

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Yes, of course, Paul is speaking of knowing that "Jesus is the Christ". This was easy to distinguish in his day because there was effectively one Judeo-Christian religion growing in the world. But later it is different when applied to a singular religious paradigm. Anyone can quote Paul, appealing to his logic as "proof" that you KNOW. But Paul wasn't preaching about how to know the truth of the restoration, or of the reformation, or of the founding of the Church of Rome, etc. He was pointing out that knowing Jesus is the Christ is given by the Spirit of God. There is nothing in Paul, et al. the apostles' writings that give authority to apply their words to everything else, and there is especially the warning against false Christs and wolves with false doctrines entering into the flock, and of a falling away that was inevitable, and finally of a "restitution of all things", but without any particulars as to how that "restitution" would occur, or when. This of course leaves any and every asserted claim to it equally valid on the face of it. And "failure" remains wholly subjective. Only the original meaning of knowing that Jesus is the Christ remains. Misappropriating scripture to later times and situations is the folly of religion makers and defenders....

[Questing Beast]

You ought to have your mouth washed out with soap.

So let it be written, so let it be done. And it was so. But as space-time is man applied to it, and not it applied to man, I have "been there and done that". Dear God, what a memory....

[pmccombs1]

I would respond to the OP but I will get banned from the thread, so what's the point of trying to assess this? I will assess it as I find time on my Facebook account. That way you CAN actually see what an honest analysis is rather than ululations and paeans of praise for very little reason. Sorry this board is so biased I am gunshy to try and actually have a conversation here. Holland spouts sloganeering all over the place with shallow analysis. You can read the indepth stuff on my Facebook when I get around to it. It's not all that good of a talk so it's not like I feel a need to make it a priority.

I, for one, will take any chance to ululate that I can get.