Article "why I No Longer Say I Know"

[UtahTexan]

You know you have good credentials you believe they should be sufficient.

 

I know I am qualified.  But I cannot say, I KNOW I will get a job. That was my point

[UtahTexan]

There's a big difference between a hard-copy of the Book of Mormon in someone's hand and a theoretical job offer that has not yet been made.

 

Yes.  You KNOW it is a book.  You do not KNOW it is what is claims to be.  You BELIEVE it is

[UtahTexan]

This is a good point. But what about Jospeh Smith who actually saw god the father and Jesus Christ? Does he from then on say, "I believe I saw Jesus Christ" or does he say he knows because it no longer requires faith? Can we receive a witness that we can then say we know and that then wouldn't require faith?

 

Joseph can say, He saw two personages who said....."    

[Bobbieaware]

I would ask them to define "knowing". If they KNOW, then I would expect them to have all the answers...all the proof. The only way to completely know is to have the evidence in your hand or to have personally seen it.

I am moving to Utah in 2 weeks to finally be with my wife. I believe that is where God wants me. I do not have a job in Utah. I am leaving a 6-figure income and going to where I have no job. I do not KNOW I will find employment...but I BELIEVE God will provide.

I have 25 years experience. I am a military officer. I am a former city councilman. With those qualifications, I could say, I KNOW I am getting a job. But I really don't. I believe I will. I have faith God will provide.

The following is Moroni's challenge altered to fit the "one cannot say he knows" model of testimony:

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not VERY LIKELY true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest A REASON TO BELIEVE IT IS TRUE unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may COME TO HAVE A REASON TO BELIEVE the truth of all things. (Altered version of Moroni 10)

The above is not meant to be an exercise in sarcasm but a genuine attempt to get Moroni's challenge to comport with the "you can't say you know" model of testimony.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[UtahTexan]

The following is Moroni's challenge altered to fit the "one cannot say he knows" model of testimony:

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not VERY LIKELY true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest A REASON TO BELIEVE IT IS TRUE unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may COME TO HAVE A REASON TO BELIEVE the truth of all things. (Altered version of Moroni 10)

The above is not meant to be an exercise in sarcasm but a genuine attempt to get Moroni's challenge to comport with the "you can't say you know" model of testimony."

 

To know is to have perfect knowledge.  Again...I am glad you do.  Please tell me where Zerehmla is.  Or where the Book of Mormon took place.  

[Bobbieaware]

To know is to have perfect knowledge. Again...I am glad you do. Please tell me where Zerehmla is. Or where the Book of Mormon took place.

You are incorrect. Within the framework of the gospel, it is possible, as Paul said, to KNOW IN PART. And just because someone knows in part does not mean that he DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE ALREADY KNOWS. Here's how Alma presents the argument:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to KNOW the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to KNOW the mysteries of God UNTIL HE KNOW THEM IN FULL..

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they KNOW NOTHING concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 10)

So as it says in verse 10, a man can KNOW - not just believe - many truths about the kingdom of God before he KNOWS all things in full. And if a man KNOWS many eternal truths by the power of the Holy Ghost, should he not say that he KNOWS them? Or should he lie to make those weak in knowledge happy by saying he doesn't KNOW but only believes? Or perhaps Alma doesn't KNOW what he's talking about?

Edited June 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[UtahTexan]

You are incorrect. Within the framework of the gospel, it is possible, as Paul said, to KNOW IN PART. And just because someone knows in part does not mean that he DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE ALREADY KNOWS WHAT HE KNOWS.

Here's how Alma presents the argument:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to KNOW the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God UNTIL HE KNOW THEM IN FULL..

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they KNOW NOTHING concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 10)

So as it says in verse 10, a man can KNOW - not just believe - many truths about the kingdom of God before he KNOWS all things in full. And if a man KNOWS many eternal truths by the power of the Holy Ghost, should he not say that he KNOWS them? Or should he lie to make those weak in knowledge happy by saying he doesn't KNOW but only believes? Or perhaps Alma doesn't KNOW what he's talking about?

 

And not knowing in full is not knowing.

 

It is believing.

 

Thank you all for the discussion.  I KNOW it was interesting for as a newly rebaptized member....I BELIEVE we will have more fun discussions

[ERayR]

I know I am qualified.  But I cannot say, I KNOW I will get a job. That was my point

 

Your not getting my point.  There is a part you know and a part you do not know.  You do not have to know everything.

[Bobbieaware]

And not knowing in full is not knowing.

It is believing.

Thank you all for the discussion. I KNOW it was interesting for as a newly rebaptized member....I BELIEVE we will have more fun discussions

As Alma puts it, there is a difference between knowing in full and knowing in part. But knowing something by the power of The Holy Ghost is still knowing, even though a man may not yet know all things. It was the Savior who said if one denies the knowledge he has received by the power Holy Ghost, that man is in greater potential spiritual jeopardy than one who witnessesd the Lord perform a miracle in person but had no concurrent spiritual witness of the divine origin of the miracle. So, paradoxically, the one who knows (according to the world's understanding of the word) actually knows less than the one who has never seen the Lord perform a miracle buy knows by the Spirit that the gospel is true.

All the best to you!

Edited June 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[ERayR]

Yes.  You KNOW it is a book.  You do not KNOW it is what is claims to be.  You BELIEVE it is

 

I can not show you the plates from which it was translated but I have had spiritual manifestations that allow me to know.  What you are saying is that you do not know that I know.  If you are relying on empirical proof alone then your assertions make sense.

[Bobbieaware]

I can not show you the plates from which it was translated but I have had spiritual manifestations that allow me to know.  What you are saying is that you do not know that I know.  If you are relying on empirical proof alone then your assertions make sense.

True. Perspective often changes how we view the same reality.

[ERayR]

To know is to have perfect knowledge.  Again...I am glad you do.  Please tell me where Zerehmla is.  Or where the Book of Mormon took place.  

What has this to do with knowing the Gospel is true?  Step out of your legal training and work with the spirit for awhile.

 

Zerehmla is spelled Zarahemla.  That much I do know.

[Jeanne]

Article was about the common fast and testimony declaration that a person says they "know" that the Church is true, or the Book of Mormon is true, or that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or that the current President was called...and argues that it would be better to say believe and that belief should not be belittled. It was a refreshingly good article to be included with that particular site.

I read this too..just can't remember where.  It was interesting though.

[De Groote]

As a recovering attorney  ...

 

The things I know by the Holy Ghost are more certain to me than the things I know by holding them in my hand or seeing them with my eyes. If the word "know" has any meaning at all, it has a better home in parts of my testimony than it does in the day-to-day physical world.

 

Because I have a testimony of Jesus Christ, the mission of his prophet Joseph Smith, and that the keys of the priesthood are found only in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am comfortable saying I know these things are true. I can't think of another word that can have the same impact.

 

At the same time, however, I have zero problem saying that I believe these things are true. I can believe things that I know are true. There are also some things that I believe are true because of the things that I know are true.

 

Parts of this discussion remind me of President Packer's experience he mentions in his  talk "The Candle of the Lord":

 

I will tell you of an experience I had before I was a General Authority which affected me profoundly. I sat on a plane next to a professed atheist who pressed his disbelief in God so urgently that I bore my testimony to him. “You are wrong,” I said, “there is a God. I know He lives!”

He protested, “You don’t know. Nobody knows that! You can’t know it!” When I would not yield, the atheist, who was an attorney, asked perhaps the ultimate question on the subject of testimony. “All right,” he said in a sneering, condescending way, “you say you know. Tell me how you know.”

 

The talk, by the way, is very interesting -- as is his answer to the challenger.

[Jeanne]

Saying "I know"  around others with such conviction sets a pedestal very high.  Those who get those goosebumps that "believe" don't feel like they are quite up to par to bear any testimony..and the never ending question of "how do you know" gets in the way of finding out for yourself.

[UtahTexan]

What has this to do with knowing the Gospel is true?  Step out of your legal training and work with the spirit for awhile.

 

Zerehmla is spelled Zarahemla.  That much I do know.

 

Because....to know the Church is true is to know all aspects are true.  To know all aspects are 100%true, you must be able to prove it all.  You can't.  hence the need for faith.....

[UtahTexan]

Your not getting my point.  There is a part you know and a part you do not know.  You do not have to know everything.

 

Actually, I get your point.

 

See, you can say that you KNOW certain aspects of the Church...but to say you KNOW the Church is true...it is all-encompassing.  You mut know ALL of it is true....if part of the church is not true, then the church, as a whole, is not true.

[UtahTexan]

I can not show you the plates from which it was translated but I have had spiritual manifestations that allow me to know.  What you are saying is that you do not know that I know.  If you are relying on empirical proof alone then your assertions make sense.

 

Spiritual Manifestations are not perfect knowledge.  If they were, then we are in trouble...because people of ALL faiths have "Spiritual Manifestations".  You BELIEVE your Manifestations are true.

[UtahTexan]

What has this to do with knowing the Gospel is true?  Step out of your legal training and work with the spirit for awhile.

 

Zerehmla is spelled Zarahemla.  That much I do know.

 

Yeah...I suck as a typist.

 

But I give a good closing argument  

[VideoGameJunkie]

Instead of saying I know I say "I believe". Because unless you've had visual witness or heard voices you can't say you know for sure. You just believe.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Instead of saying I know I say "I believe". Because unless you've had visual witness or heard voices you can't say you know for sure. You just believe.

 

If you hear voices frequently you should probably go to a doctor 

[Vanguard]

As a recovering attorney  ...

 

The things I know by the Holy Ghost are more certain to me than the things I know by holding them in my hand or seeing them with my eyes. If the word "know" has any meaning at all, it has a better home in parts of my testimony than it does in the day-to-day physical world.

 

Because I have a testimony of Jesus Christ, the mission of his prophet Joseph Smith, and that the keys of the priesthood are found only in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am comfortable saying I know these things are true. I can't think of another word that can have the same impact.

 

At the same time, however, I have zero problem saying that I believe these things are true. I can believe things that I know are true. There are also some things that I believe are true because of the things that I know are true.

 

Parts of this discussion remind me of President Packer's experience he mentions in his  talk "The Candle of the Lord":

 

The talk, by the way, is very interesting -- as is his answer to the challenger.

 

Nicely said though IMO there is no escaping the fact - as I see it - that you cannot "know" of these things in the way you describe. I would assume you arrived at this knowledge by way of spiritual confirmation though you do not know from whence this confirmation came. That this confirmation was different and beyond anything you have ever experienced is not a commentary on whether it is indeed true but rather whether it has crossed your own personal, subjective threshold for truth confirmation. You must always be open for the possibility that your threshold needs adjusting, however. My own convictions lead me to feel and believe quite powerfully that indeed there is a "supernatural" influencing our lives for the good and for an ultimate purpose. How I "know" of these things, however, sets me adrift much like literally everyone else who claims similar knowledge.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Vanguard

[ERayR]

Because....to know the Church is true is to  know all aspects aretrue.  To know all aspects are 100%true, you must be able to prove it all.  You can't.  hence the need for faith.....

 

I know what I know and faith fills in the rest.  I do not have to "know all aspects are true.  Just a preponderance of the evidence and a manifestation of the spirit (Moroni's promise).

[ERayR]

Yeah...I suck as a typist.

 

But I give a good closing argument  

 

That may be but to say one must know every little jot or tittle or the can not know is in error.  If that were so none of the sciences could progress.

[Calm]

If you hear voices frequently you should probably go to a doctor 

I hear voices all the time.  At the moment I am wishing I heard my husband's voice because he took off without telling me where he was going and when he would be home.