ERayR Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 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. I give permission to all those who do not know to say "believe" if it makes you feel better but reserve the right to say I know. You can not possibly know whether I know or not. You only believe that I don't know. So until you know all aspects of my knowledge or lack thereof you can not know but only believe.
ERayR Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 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. That is what cell phones are for.
Calm Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 He either didn't take it or he is up in the mountains where he can't hear it. I don't think his motorcycle is gone, but I didn't check when I checked for the car. It wouldn't be so annoying if there was more conversation here. 1
why me Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 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.This idea has been around for a long time. I remember hearing about it a few years ago on exmormon boards. Basically, they claimed that it would be better for members to say I believe and not I know. However, if one received a witness to the book of mormon, could one say I know in that circumstance or should one belittle the spiritual experience with I believe? To claim to believe more or less means that one always has doubt. But to know basically means that one is sure that the true is true. Which statement is better for that person who had a spiritual experience about the book of mormon? 1
ERayR Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 He either didn't take it or he is up in the mountains where he can't hear it. I don't think his motorcycle is gone, but I didn't check when I checked for the car. It wouldn't be so annoying if there was more conversation here. Those pesky mountains. If they were not so darn beautiful we could just flatten them out.
Calm Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) lol. I am an idiot, I forgot we also have my mom's car here for a bit...too many at where she is staying right now and she isn't driving. He took that one. Costco has its own 'no reception' zones. I prefer my solution that he was out plunking with his friend. He's worked hard all week and needs some fun. add-on: oops, got "plinking" mixed up with "spelunking" Edited June 20, 2015 by calmoriah 1
UtahTexan Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 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. Not true. Let me give an example. Let us say I wish to sell my house. I can say, I know my electrical is good. I can say, I know my water lines are good. Now, I have just limited my knowledge of what I KNOW is good. But if I say, "I know my HOUSE is good, I am certifying that I know all of what the house encompasses is good. If one says, "I know the CHURCH is true", they are saying they know every aspect of what the Church encompasses is true. That would include anwers to questions we simply do not know...but we take on faith.
UtahTexan Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 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). Exactly...so then, you BELIEVE the Church is true
UtahTexan Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 This idea has been around for a long time. I remember hearing about it a few years ago on exmormon boards. Basically, they claimed that it would be better for members to say I believe and not I know. However, if one received a witness to the book of mormon, could one say I know in that circumstance or should one belittle the spiritual experience with I believe? To claim to believe more or less means that one always has doubt. But to know basically means that one is sure that the true is true. Which statement is better for that person who had a spiritual experience about the book of mormon? Belief and doubt are two sides of the same coin. No one where the Book of Mormon took place...yet we BELIEVE it actually took place. Though, not being able to find the definitive proof always leaves the doubt. That is why we are taught to focus on what we believe, and not on what we doubt. Do I KNOW the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be? Nope. But...I have a very strong belief that I would die for that it is. The Bible does not say, "he that knows and is baptized shall be saved" it says, "he that BELIEVES and is baptized shall be saved". In my opinion, belief is better than knowledge. Belief takes faith. Knowledge does not. And if we have faith of a mustard seed.......
why me Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 Belief and doubt are two sides of the same coin. No one where the Book of Mormon took place...yet we BELIEVE it actually took place. Though, not being able to find the definitive proof always leaves the doubt. That is why we are taught to focus on what we believe, and not on what we doubt. Do I KNOW the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be? Nope. But...I have a very strong belief that I would die for that it is. The Bible does not say, "he that knows and is baptized shall be saved" it says, "he that BELIEVES and is baptized shall be saved". In my opinion, belief is better than knowledge. Belief takes faith. Knowledge does not. And if we have faith of a mustard seed.......I think that my point was that if a person receives a witness to the book of mormon, would it better to say to know and not to believe? The lds church is a 'witness' church. One gets a witness that the church is true. If this witness came from god, then the lds can say the verb to know. I think that those women who received a witness about polygamy during joseph's time actually felt that they knew that it was a true principle. I dont think that they would accept the principle based on belief.
UtahTexan Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 I think that my point was that if a person receives a witness to the book of mormon, would it better to say to know and not to believe? The lds church is a 'witness' church. One gets a witness that the church is true. If this witness came from god, then the lds can say the verb to know. I think that those women who received a witness about polygamy during joseph's time actually felt that they knew that it was a true principle. I dont think that they would accept the principle based on belief. Anything "known" can be proven. So, if you say you have a witness...prove it. If you say you know it was God, prove it. The problem is, we can't. I absolutely have received a witness. I have been shown so many miracles over the past year that I simply cannot deny that the Church is true. I was re-baptized because my belief is very strong. Do I know it? No. I can't. Too many things unproven. Do I care? No. Believing is better. It requires the faith God says we MUST have. I believe the Church is true. I have a testimony of its truthfulness.
why me Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) Anything "known" can be proven. So, if you say you have a witness...prove it. If you say you know it was God, prove it. The problem is, we can't. I absolutely have received a witness. I have been shown so many miracles over the past year that I simply cannot deny that the Church is true. I was re-baptized because my belief is very strong. Do I know it? No. I can't. Too many things unproven. Do I care? No. Believing is better. It requires the faith God says we MUST have. I believe the Church is true. I have a testimony of its truthfulness. It actually doesn't matter too much to me what people say in regards of to know or to believe. However, we do need to consider just where the church would be today, if the witnesses to the book only had the to believe verb and not the to know verb. On their deathbeds many claimed that they know that they know that the book of mormon is the word of god because of their experience. For example we have this: Testimony of Hiram PagePhilader Page (son of Hiram Page) I knew my father [Hiram Page] to be true and faithful to his testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon until the very last. Whenever he had an opportunity to bear his testimony to this effect, he would always do so, and seemed to rejoice exceedingly in having been privileged to see the plates and thus become one of the Eight Witnesses. I can also testify that Jacob, John and David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery died in full faith in the divinity of the Book of Mormon. I was with all these witnesses on their deathbeds and heard each of them bear his last testimony. (Andrew Jenson, Biographical Encyclopedia, 1:278) John C. Whitmer (Nephew of B of M Witness John Whitmer)I was closely connected with Hiram Page in business transactions and other matters, he being married to my aunt. I knew him at all times and under all circumstances to be true to his testimony concerning the divinity of the Book of Mormon. (Testimonies of Book of Mormon Witnesses, p.2) http://scottwoodward.org/churchhistory_page_hiram_testimony.html It seems that the witnesses mentioned above all knew that the book of mormon to be true. It was not just a belief. Edited June 20, 2015 by why me
UtahTexan Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 It actually doesn't matter too much to me what people say in regards of to know or to believe. However, we do need to consider just where the church would be today, if the witnesses to the book only had the to believe verb and not the to know verb. On their deathbeds many claimed that they know that they know that the book of mormon is the word of god because of their experience. For example we have this: Testimony of Hiram PagePhilader Page (son of Hiram Page) I knew my father [Hiram Page] to be true and faithful to his testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon until the very last. Whenever he had an opportunity to bear his testimony to this effect, he would always do so, and seemed to rejoice exceedingly in having been privileged to see the plates and thus become one of the Eight Witnesses. I can also testify that Jacob, John and David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery died in full faith in the divinity of the Book of Mormon. I was with all these witnesses on their deathbeds and heard each of them bear his last testimony. (Andrew Jenson, Biographical Encyclopedia, 1:278) John C. Whitmer (Nephew of B of M Witness John Whitmer)I was closely connected with Hiram Page in business transactions and other matters, he being married to my aunt. I knew him at all times and under all circumstances to be true to his testimony concerning the divinity of the Book of Mormon. (Testimonies of Book of Mormon Witnesses, p.2) http://scottwoodward.org/churchhistory_page_hiram_testimony.html It seems that the witnesses mentioned above all knew that the book of mormon to be true. It was not just a belief. Perhaps the secret here is "knowing" what "know" means. Perhaps I am, as an attorney, too literal about what "know" means. Maybe, in the context of Church Testimonies, it is not as definitive a word as in Trial Testimony, and, by extension, how I use and understand the word.
ERayR Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) Exactly...so then, you BELIEVE the Church is true I believe I posted earlier that I know the gospel is true and that the Church provides a framework and vehicle for spreading the gospel and administering the saving ordinances. There you go again telling me what I do or do not know. Drop your legalistic mind frame. Edited June 21, 2015 by ERayR
Bobbieaware Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) Perhaps the secret here is "knowing" what "know" means. Perhaps I am, as an attorney, too literal about what "know" means. Maybe, in the context of Church Testimonies, it is not as definitive a word as in Trial Testimony, and, by extension, how I use and understand the word.An important question: How can a belief in the possibility that something or someone may exist empower some men and women to be able to uproot great mountains and cast them into the sea, turn mighty rivers out of course, cause seas to retreat so that multitudes can walk on dry ground, cause devouering fire to descend from the sky, cause the deaf to hear, the blind from birth to see, the congenitally lame to walk and the dead to be raised to life? How can a mere belief in a possibility that something or someone may exist empower humans to produce such miraculous feats? Edited June 21, 2015 by Bobbieaware
mikegriffith1 Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) 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. If you know the gospel is true by the power of the Holy Ghost, then you should you "I know." There is a big difference between believing something and knowing something. On the other hand, if you do not have a testimony, you should not say "I know." You should accurately express the state of your faith. If you do not know the gospel is true but you believe it is true, then you should say "I believe." If you say you know when you really do not know, you are misrepresenting your faith. Edited June 21, 2015 by mikegriffith1
UtahTexan Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 An important question: How can a belief in the possibility that something or someone may exist empower some men and women to be able to uproot great mountains and cast them into the sea, turn mighty rivers out of course, cause seas to retreat so that multitudes can walk on dry ground, cause devouering fire to descend from the sky, cause the deaf to hear, the blind from birth to see, the congenitally lame to walk and the dead to be raised to life? How can a mere belief in a possibility that something or someone may exist empower humans to produce such miraculous feats? A mere belief? When you say it like that, it sounds weak and empty. How can we? FAITH. And Faith is based on belief. Jesus told us...Faith can move mountains.
UtahTexan Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 If you know the gospel is true by the power of the Holy Ghost, then you should you "I know." There is a big difference between believing something and knowing something. On the other hand, if you do not have a testimony, you should not say "I know." You should accurately express the state of your faith. If you do not know the gospel is true but you believe it is true, then you should say "I believe." If you say you know when you really do not know, you are misrepresenting your faith. I have a testimony. a Strong testimony. But...I do not "know". I have faith. I believe. But, if you ask me, where the Book of Mormon took place, I do not KNOW. I can;t PROVE it. I have a belief it is true. I have a testimony it is true. How can you KNOW something is true if you do not KNOW the facts?
UtahTexan Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 I believe I posted earlier that I know the gospel is true and that the Church provides a framework and vehicle for spreading the gospel and administering the saving ordinances. There you go again telling me what I do or do not know. Drop your legalistic mind frame. Please do not take that tone with me. Fine. You know it. So..prove it. I want your proof. prove it is true. That will make it all better.
ed2276 Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 I say I know about the things I do know, and I believe about the things I believe. There is no reason for me to start saying I believe the things I know simply so that it won't sound like I'm belittling belief. There is nothing wrong with belief, and in fact my knowledge was preceeded by belief. I find nothing belittling in the fact that I still have belief about many more things than I have knowledge about. Certainly, it is not right for a parent to coach his kid to say he knows the church is true, Joseph is a prophet, etc. when the kid doesn't know any such thing. But to suggest that I have to modify my testimony and say I merely believe what I know so others won't feel inadequate is not right either. 2
Rain Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 Perhaps, at least where "I know the church is true" comes in the problem is not the words "know" or "believe", but with the word "true".What does that even mean? That the Lord set it up? That it is an actual church? That all of the teachings are true? That everything all the leaders do comes from God? That you can only get to God through the church? That the church has loyalty to me? It could mean so many things. As far as Moroni's promise goes - it doesn't give a time frame of when we will know. I'm of the opinion that we can know through the Spirit, but it may take all of my lifetime and more to get to the point when I do know. So it's important let someone else say, "I know" or "I believe" because we don't know what others know. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) Country Boy, If somebody believes, or even simply desires to believe, more power to him or her. In Alma 32:27, Alma says that even if all we can do is desire to believe, we should let that desire grow in us. In Alma 32:28, he equates truth and goodness. He says that true seeds are good seeds. How do I know the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is true? Because it bears good fruit in my life. I don't simply believe it bears good fruit in my life: I know it does. I fear that, by saying otherwise, I would offend God. (See Doctrine and Covenants 59:21, Joseph Smith—History 1:25). As for your very kind invitation to prove the truth of the Gospel, you must know, based on your long experience, that weighing evidence in a court of law and weighing evidence in a lab (proving a theorem) are two different things. I admire your faith in (knowledge of? ) your ability to persuade a jury, but surely, you must know that it's possible for two jurors (or even for two juries, if, say, a case is retried) to consider the exact same evidence, yet to reach different conclusions about it. When it comes to matters of religious truth, we are all our own triers of fact: individually, we decide what evidence we will consider, what evidence we will exclude, how much weight we will give to any evidence we consider, and so on. I know what I know because of what I have experienced, but someone else may not be as persuaded by those experiences as I have been. Bottom line, as I noted above, if someone believes, more power to him: he should let that belief work in him. But, just as one's knowledge does not give one the right to beat a "mere believer" over the head with that knowledge, nor does another's mere belief mean that those of us who know should, all of the sudden, become tepid or timid about what we know (even if that knowledge wasn't gained by means of empiricism or logic). Edited June 21, 2015 by Kenngo1969 2
Kenngo1969 Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) Please do not take that tone with me. Fine. You know it. So..prove it. I want your proof. prove it is true. That will make it all better.Hmmm ... You don't want someone to take a particular tone with you, but then you turn right around and strike an imperious tone with him? Pot, meet kettle? P.S.: And he's right that, while legal training may provide one with a useful framework to consider many kinds of questions, it is not equally useful for all purposes. Edited June 21, 2015 by Kenngo1969
UtahTexan Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 Country Boy, If somebody believes, or even simply desires to believe, more power to him or her. In Alma 32:27, Alma says that even if all we can do is desire to believe, we should let that desire grow in us. In Alma 32:28, he equates truth and goodness. He says that true seeds are good seeds. How do I know the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is true? Because it bears good fruit in my life. I don't simply believe it bears good fruit in my life: I know it does. I fear that, by saying otherwise, I would offend God. (See Doctrine and Covenants 59:21, Joseph Smith—History 1:25). As for your very kind invitation to prove the truth of the Gospel, you must know, based on your long experience, that weighing evidence in a court of law and weighing evidence in a lab (proving a theorem) are two different things. I admire your faith in (knowledge of? ) your ability to persuade a jury, but surely, you must know that it's possible for two jurors (or even for two juries, if, say, a case is retried) to consider the exact same evidence, yet to reach different conclusions about it. When it comes to matters of religious truth, we are all our own triers of fact: individually, we decide what evidence we will consider, what evidence we will exclude, how much weight we will give to any evidence we consider, and so on. I know what I know because of what I have experienced, but someone else may not be as persuaded by those experiences as I have been. Bottom line, as I noted above, if someone believes, more power to him: he should let that belief work in him. But, just as one's knowledge does not give one the right to beat a "mere believer" over the head with that knowledge, nor does another's mere belief mean that those of us who know should, all of the sudden, become tepid or timid about what we know (even if that knowledge wasn't gained by means of empiricism or logic). I said earlier that it comes down to how define "know". And I am not really demanding for proof the LDS Church is true. I believe with all my heart that it is. But...if someone insists they "know" then they must be able to prove it. And yes...a jury can look at evidence differently. But that is only because we do not KNOW. But...if I say I KNOW the defendant committed a crime and I have DNA proof, and an eyewitness, and fingerprints...etc...then I KNOW...I do not just believe...and I can prove it...and I will not have two jurors on the fence. If all I have is circumstantial evidence, then you are exactly right. But, if all I have is circumstantial evidence, then I will not tell a jury "I know the def is guilty".
Kenngo1969 Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 Anything "known" can be proven. Maybe. But an attorney can know his client is not guilty or not liable, but proving it to a jury is another matter entirely. Even if the law and the facts are both on your side, both of those things are meaningless unless you can persuade a jury to be on your side, as well. Are you really prepared to say that no jury has ever taken matters into its own hands and come to a conclusion that's contrary to the law and to evidence?
Recommended Posts