FACT vs. FAITH

[Snoogins]

Hello, new to the boards. A little background... I no longer consider myself belonging to any religion and guess if I had to call myself anything I'd say spiritual. I've also lived in Utah all my life and was raised in a Mormon family. I still have a lot of family that is Mormon and some of my best friends are Mormon. I like to discuss religion and I'm not here to offend anyone. If I do that is not my intention. I hope I can give good conversation and something to think about from time to time as I hope to get the same out of anyone else.

To the subject... something from my Mormon days that always bothered me from a pretty young age is about when anyone gives their testimony. Everyone who is familiar with the church knows what is generally said in most people's testimonies. The part I want to bring up is when anyone says (and everyone says this), "I know this church is true" and "I know" this and that is true. This is where the fact vs. faith part comes in. It's technically a lie and breaking a commandment to say, "I know", when it would be appropriate to say, "I believe this church is true" or "I have faith that this church is true". I realize that the Mormon religion isn't the only religion that talks in this way. I've heard pastors, priests, etc. say the same types of things. I've always felt that it's technically a lie to say that no matter how much you believe it in your heart. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for believing what they choose to believe but fact and faith are not the same thing. I think an atheist would be lying to say, "I know there is no God" no matter how much they believe it.

Curious what others think about this. Thoughts, comments?

[TheSkepticChristian]

32 minutes ago, Snoogins said:

I no longer consider myself belonging to any religion and guess if I had to call myself anything I'd say spiritual.

 

[Snoogins]

Who doesn't appreciate super-thick sarcasm?

[Glenn101]

If you have ever had a visit from the Holy Ghost, then you can say without a shadow of doubt that you know it is true without lying. You are making judgments about what other people know based upon your own level of understanding and experiences and do not know what their experiences have been.

Glenn

Edited May 26, 2016 by Glenn101

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, Snoogins said:

Hello, new to the boards. A little background... I no longer consider myself belonging to any religion and guess if I had to call myself anything I'd say spiritual. I've also lived in Utah all my life and was raised in a Mormon family. I still have a lot of family that is Mormon and some of my best friends are Mormon. I like to discuss religion and I'm not here to offend anyone. If I do that is not my intention. I hope I can give good conversation and something to think about from time to time as I hope to get the same out of anyone else.

To the subject... something from my Mormon days that always bothered me from a pretty young age is about when anyone gives their testimony. Everyone who is familiar with the church knows what is generally said in most people's testimonies. The part I want to bring up is when anyone says (and everyone says this), "I know this church is true" and "I know" this and that is true. This is where the fact vs. faith part comes in. It's technically a lie and breaking a commandment to say, "I know", when it would be appropriate to say, "I believe this church is true" or "I have faith that this church is true". I realize that the Mormon religion isn't the only religion that talks in this way. I've heard pastors, priests, etc. say the same types of things. I've always felt that it's technically a lie to say that no matter how much you believe it in your heart. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for believing what they choose to believe but fact and faith are not the same thing. I think an atheist would be lying to say, "I know there is no God" no matter how much they believe it.

Curious what others think about this. Thoughts, comments?

Perhaps if while you were an LDS Church member you had more thoroughly familiarized yourself with the Book of Mormon you would now be able to answer your own question. Latter-day Saints who testify by the power of the Spirit that the Church is true are merely following in the footsteps of, and adhering to the same practice as, the Book of Mormon prophets who also knew and testified by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Gospel of Mormonism is true. It's likely that because you never experienced what it's like to have the Spirit powerfully testify to your spirit that the Restored Gospel is true that such spiritual KNOWLEDGE is beyond the scope of your comprehension. The Lord desires that each of his sons and daughters obtain the spirit of revelation and become prophets and prophetesses in their own right. The same Spirit that testified to Alma that the Gospel is true has also testified of the same to me, and, therefore, I do know.

45 And this is not all. Do ye not suppose that I know of these things myself? Behold, I testify unto you that I do know that these things whereof I have spoken are true. And how do ye suppose that I know of their surety?

 46 Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have fasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of revelation which is in me. (Alma 5)

[Traela]

 Maybe a purely secular analogy will help.

Several times I was in college, my weekly physics homework had that one problem that just seemed impossible.  I would set up my little force diagram, stare at it a while, try a set of a formulae (which wouldn't work), then set in aside in defeat to tackle a different problem.   Then I'd go back and go through the process again.  I would start on Monday afternoon.  Finally, late Wednesday night, it would happen: I would look at the problem and know how to do it.   It was absolutely clear.  Writing out the math was practically just an exercise to get it down on paper, because I knew what the answer would be (it was in the back of the book).  

The next day my study group would meet to compare homework.  That problem I had struggled with?  No one else would have figured it out.  Someone would examine my math and say doubtfully, "It looks right.  But why is it right?"  The funny thing was, I  would look at that problem and honestly couldn't remember the why anymore.  But I knew absolutely that it was correct.

A testimony is kind of like that.  Through the influence of the Holy Ghost, everything clicks into place and you know.  You might not be able to explain it, but you can say with absolute confidence that this is true.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

If we insist on being precise about this, of course humans cannot "know" anything.  We are after all purely subjective creatures, incapable of knowing anything objectively.  That does not mean that we cannot live ordinary, practical lives -- a bit above the level of other animals -- nor does it mean that we are forbidden from using language in an ordinary way to express ourselves.  Indeed, the logician Ludwig Wittgenstein defines words as they are in fact used, not according to some precise or technical dictionary definition.

This has important implications for our understanding of such powerful texts as Alma 32:26-43, in which some important differences between faith and knowledge are explored in very practical, programmatic ways.  We need to be less contemptuous of ordinary people who bear their testimonies, and we need to spend less time assuming that they are technically lying, and simply appreciate their sincerity.  We must not hold brethren in the faith to hidebound, rigid rules.

[Jeanne]

I will just contribute something that I feel is not a good thing.  Doesn't take away a true testimony.  But, telling a young child to say " I know the church is true" when giving a testimony is not a good thing. 

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I will just contribute something that I feel is not a good thing.  Doesn't take away a true testimony.  But, telling a young child to say " I know the church is true" when giving a testimony is not a good thing. 

If the child believes they know the church is true and wants to say it, is it a good thing then?

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the child believes they know the church is true and wants to say it, is it a good thing then?

Of course.  The child is saying what he/she thinks to be true.  It is a practice of utilizing their own thoughts and ideas..not from someone else.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Of course.  The child is saying what he/she thinks to be true.  It is a practice of utilizing their own thoughts and ideas..not from someone else.

I agree.   I've never had a child who wanted to bear their testimony so it's a moot point for our family.  I know the church tries very hard to keep parents from teaching their kids to parrot testimonies.  Hopefully parents are listening.

[Mystery Meat]

I have a few thoughts:

• As a general rule, people crave certainty.
• I believe the craving for certainty can, but doesn't always, cause people to convince themselves that they KNOW something is or isn't true.
• The false allusion of certain knowledge of spiritual things (as opposed to actual knowledge) may and often does prevent a person from exercising real faith.
• Faith is the first principal of the Gospel.
• It is absolutely possible to gain knowledge and certainty about things of a spiritual nature.
• Things of a spiritual nature cannot be learned by an examination of facts and hard data and cannot be proven, peer reviewed, or examined by scientific study or hard evidence.
• Faith is hard, because having faith and exercising faith doesn't always go hand in hand with certainty (although it can).
• People who leave the Church, who once claimed to know it was true, and who now claim to know it isn't true are not bad people, but they are just as guilty of not being able to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty and are no less black-and-white thinkers as non-believer/non-practicing members then when they were TBM.
• The ability to possess knowledge (meaning actual certain knowledge) of spiritual things is not qualified by a person's age, socioeconomic background, level of formal education, calling, gender, orientation, political affiliation, race, or awareness of scientific or historical information. Rather the only three factors that I am aware of that influence the level of certain knowledge a person has attained are (1) a specific spiritual gift of knowledge, (2) adherence/obedience to the Restored Gospel, or the level of light given, and (3) the degree to which a person exercises faith.
• Faith does not turn into knowledge overnight, but often requires years (if not longer) of exercise and patience; but the humble and willing shall reap rewards of the righteous exercise of faith along the way.
• Perhaps most importantly, a testimony of "I believe..." is just as valid (and sometimes more inspiring) as a testimony of "I know..."
• Testimonies of "I know" in affirming the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel often cause cognitive dissonance (ironically) to those who doubt or claim to know otherwise.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Mystery Meat
Added 3rd and 4th bullet points; added third to last and last bullet.

[JLHPROF]

I think "know" is perfectly acceptable if you accept the source of that knowledge as unquestionable.

Whether other people accept or believe your source is irrelevant.  We're talking about the religious and the supernatural here.  These are not things that can provide empirical proof to public audiences.
But that doesn't preclude God from proving to me that he exists.  It is then knowledge for me.  Someone else accepting my word would be operating on faith, but I have the evidence sufficient to call it knowledge for me.

If I say I KNOW Joseph Smith was a prophet, and I have something that proved that to me, then know is the right phrase.  If someone believes my testimony of Joseph Smith without finding out for themselves that become faith on their part.
It's not science, it's religion.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

....................................................:

• Things of a spiritual nature cannot be learned by an examination of facts and hard data and cannot be proven, peer reviewed, or examined by scientific study or hard evidence.

I agree generally with your disquisition here, and even gave you a rep point for them, but with some clarification:  Claims of s spiritual nature, such as that a book of Scripture is "true," can in fact be subjected to historical, scientific inquiry.  That might not be true of a testimony, but rather of the mundane circumstances surrounding that testimony.  There are often close relationships between the two separate realms.

.............................................................

• People who leave the Church, who once claimed to know it was true, and who now claim to know it isn't true are not bad people, but they are just as guilty of not being able to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty and are no less black-and-white thinkers as non-believer/non-practicing members then when they were TBM.

...........................................................

• Testimonies of "I know" in affirming the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel often cause cognitive dissonance (ironically) to those who doubt or claim to know otherwise.

Those who are so-called TBMs might sometimes be subject to rigid thinking which sets them up for a great fall in confidence when they discover that some aspects of LDS history or the Scriptures might have some kinks or problems which they had theretofore not known about.  We need to learn to be more tolerant of each other's foibles, as well as of the shortcomings of the Brethren.  The belief in infallibility (or absolute literalism) is often the starting point on the road to apostasy.

 

[Mystery Meat]

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

I agree with what you have written, especially your second point. You captured perfectly what I was hoping was said, but apparently wasn't. 

 

[Snoogins]

First off, thanks for the responses. I will try and touch a little on everyone's comments.

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

If you have ever had a visit from the Holy Ghost, then you can say without a shadow of doubt that you know it is true without lying. You are making judgments about what other people know based upon your own level of understanding and experiences and do not know what their experiences have been.

On the same token, if a non-believer told you they were visited by a spirit telling them that religion wasn't true would you take them at their word? Probably not, it would be the devil or false spirit trying to push you from the path. Maybe you can understand where I'm coming from when I hear a story like that. I do think there's an inherent mentality to believe the religious person especially over a non-religious person. Is it possible that you could have a spiritual experience through another religion? Furthermore a non-Chritian religion?

True, I do not know your experiences just as you do not know mine. Do you think an ex-Mormon takes that decision lightly? Some do but most of them don't. They have experiences that make them question or feel that it's not true. Are they wrong for following their heart? We all make judgments based on our level of understanding. You are judging me all the same. You don't know my experiences and why I feel religion is not true. Problem is everyone thinks they're right. I don't sit here and claim to have the answers and I never will and that's why I wouldn't say, "I know".

 

14 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Perhaps if while you were an LDS Church member you had more thoroughly familiarized yourself with the Book of Mormon you would now be able to answer your own question. Latter-day Saints who testify by the power of the Spirit that the Church is true are merely following in the footsteps of, and adhering to the same practice as, the Book of Mormon prophets who also knew and testified by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Gospel of Mormonism is true. It's likely that because you never experienced what it's like to have the Spirit powerfully testify to your spirit that the Restored Gospel is true that such spiritual KNOWLEDGE is beyond the scope of your comprehension. The Lord desires that each of his sons and daughters obtain the spirit of revelation and become prophets and prophetesses in their own right. The same Spirit that testified to Alma that the Gospel is true has also testified of the same to me, and, therefore, I do know.

This to me is the powerful psychology that religion uses. Saying it's YOUR FAULT that you didn't familiarize yourself enough with the Book of Mormon or the Bible. It's YOUR FAULT when the truth is not revealed to you. Making you think that YOU'RE just not trying hard enough or YOUR faith isn't strong enough and YOU'RE the problem. In essence that's really what you're saying and it's used in every religion. We all get it, we all believe, why don't you? Making someone feel as though "they're the problem" is a powerful tool.

Is the Buddhist who believes just as strongly in their God wrong? I'm sure they have something that make them feel their God is true as well. I do think there is knowledge beyond anyone's scope of comprehension but I don't think you have access to any knowledge that I don't. Be it through faith or elsewhere.

to Jeanne & bluebell

I was going to throw in the child aspect but left it out. I do agree no child should be giving testimony and I do hope they are discouraging this. This is a discussion that could have its own topic so I won't take it further.

to Traela

It's a clever analogy and I get what you're saying. I'll just say we'll have to agree to disagree.

to Robert F. Smith & Mystery Meat

I'm gonna tie both your posts together so I don't have quotes everywhere.

I'm sure most members, if any, have ever had this cross their mind before and I get that. My point is why not just say it as would be appropriate? Say “I believe” or “I have faith”, why leave it up to interpretation or act as though it's a little white-lie that doesn't hurt anyone? We have the appropriate words in our language so why not use the right words?

My take on it, church leaders of all religions know what they're doing and know what they're saying. They're intelligent people and why they are where they are. They understand that saying “I know” is a lot more powerful to a member's faith than saying “I believe”. Who's going to follow a religion who's leaders just “believe” it is true. They want the leaders to know it's true just as the leader wants a member to feel like they know it's true. They will be a much more dedicated member and less chance of them leaving. There is a lot of psychology that gets hidden in the words that I don't think most people realize. I also think that there is a peer pressure element to it as well.

Now before anyone gets upset by this... I'm not saying that they don't truly believe what they preach or anything of that nature. But I do think there is a psychology to making it seem more believable. In reality it is a pretty brilliant system. You have to have believe to get the answers. Can't get the answers without believing, so I guess I have to believe. A literal view is the road to apostasy. And of course a literal view is not the only view. It is kind of set up in a trap sort of way. If anyone tried to tell me that all this didn't influence what someone thought was true or untrue I would say they're kidding themselves. Plus any person has the pressure of family, friends, neighbors and their expectations. I'm not going to say anyone is on the wrong path or the right path. It does fascinate me how we all come to our different conclusions and why I like talking about religion, atheism, spirituality, whatever.

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I think "know" is perfectly acceptable if you accept the source of that knowledge as unquestionable.

Whether other people accept or believe your source is irrelevant.  We're talking about the religious and the supernatural here.  These are not things that can provide empirical proof to public audiences.
But that doesn't preclude God from proving to me that he exists.  It is then knowledge for me.  Someone else accepting my word would be operating on faith, but I have the evidence sufficient to call it knowledge for me.

If I say I KNOW Joseph Smith was a prophet, and I have something that proved that to me, then know is the right phrase.  If someone believes my testimony of Joseph Smith without finding out for themselves that become faith on their part.
It's not science, it's religion.

I have to give you credit, this is a great answer. With that being said, don't you think that whatever made this or that true for you is still based on faith? 

[Bobbieaware]

42 minutes ago, Snoogins said:

First off, thanks for the responses. I will try and touch a little on everyone's comments.

On the same token, if a non-believer told you they were visited by a spirit telling them that religion wasn't true would you take them at their word? Probably not, it would be the devil or false spirit trying to push you from the path. Maybe you can understand where I'm coming from when I hear a story like that. I do think there's an inherent mentality to believe the religious person especially over a non-religious person. Is it possible that you could have a spiritual experience through another religion? Furthermore a non-Chritian religion?

True, I do not know your experiences just as you do not know mine. Do you think an ex-Mormon takes that decision lightly? Some do but most of them don't. They have experiences that make them question or feel that it's not true. Are they wrong for following their heart? We all make judgments based on our level of understanding. You are judging me all the same. You don't know my experiences and why I feel religion is not true. Problem is everyone thinks they're right. I don't sit here and claim to have the answers and I never will and that's why I wouldn't say, "I know".

 

This to me is the powerful psychology that religion uses. Saying it's YOUR FAULT that you didn't familiarize yourself enough with the Book of Mormon or the Bible. It's YOUR FAULT when the truth is not revealed to you. Making you think that YOU'RE just not trying hard enough or YOUR faith isn't strong enough and YOU'RE the problem. In essence that's really what you're saying and it's used in every religion. We all get it, we all believe, why don't you? Making someone feel as though "they're the problem" is a powerful tool.

Is the Buddhist who believes just as strongly in their God wrong? I'm sure they have something that make them feel their God is true as well. I do think there is knowledge beyond anyone's scope of comprehension but I don't think you have access to any knowledge that I don't. Be it through faith or elsewhere.

to Jeanne & bluebell

I was going to throw in the child aspect but left it out. I do agree no child should be giving testimony and I do hope they are discouraging this. This is a discussion that could have its own topic so I won't take it further.

to Traela

It's a clever analogy and I get what you're saying. I'll just say we'll have to agree to disagree.

to Robert F. Smith & Mystery Meat

I'm gonna tie both your posts together so I don't have quotes everywhere.

I'm sure most members, if any, have ever had this cross their mind before and I get that. My point is why not just say it as would be appropriate? Say “I believe” or “I have faith”, why leave it up to interpretation or act as though it's a little white-lie that doesn't hurt anyone? We have the appropriate words in our language so why not use the right words?

My take on it, church leaders of all religions know what they're doing and know what they're saying. They're intelligent people and why they are where they are. They understand that saying “I know” is a lot more powerful to a member's faith than saying “I believe”. Who's going to follow a religion who's leaders just “believe” it is true. They want the leaders to know it's true just as the leader wants a member to feel like they know it's true. They will be a much more dedicated member and less chance of them leaving. There is a lot of psychology that gets hidden in the words that I don't think most people realize. I also think that there is a peer pressure element to it as well.

Now before anyone gets upset by this... I'm not saying that they don't truly believe what they preach or anything of that nature. But I do think there is a psychology to making it seem more believable. In reality it is a pretty brilliant system. You have to have believe to get the answers. Can't get the answers without believing, so I guess I have to believe. A literal view is the road to apostasy. And of course a literal view is not the only view. It is kind of set up in a trap sort of way. If anyone tried to tell me that all this didn't influence what someone thought was true or untrue I would say they're kidding themselves. Plus any person has the pressure of family, friends, neighbors and their expectations. I'm not going to say anyone is on the wrong path or the right path. It does fascinate me how we all come to our different conclusions and why I like talking about religion, atheism, spirituality, whatever.

I have to give you credit, this is a great answer. With that being said, don't you think that whatever made this or that true for you is still based on faith? 

First of all, just for the record, Buddists do not believe there is a God. Buddhism is system of religion that does not embrace the concept of a God who rules and reigns as a supreme being in the universe.

Second, you came to this LDS discussion board and asked why do the Latter-day Saints so often testify that they KNOW the Restored Gospel is true rather than say they only BELIEVE it is true? From the perspective of a Latter-day Saint with a profound testimony. I answered your question by pointing out the fact that the LDS scriptures repeatedly testify that if an individual gains a witness of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel through revelation from the Holy Ghost, then he can KNOW the Restored Gospel is true and not just merely BELIEVE it is true. I am one of those who through repeated revelations from the Holy Ghost knows the Restored Gospel is true.

If you don't want your questions answered from the perspective of Latter-day Saints, who know by divine revelation that the Restored Gospel is true, then why have you come to a discussion board populated with some Latter-day Saints who will do just that? Did you really think testimony-bearing Latter-day Saints would answer your question as if they were agnostics, skeptics or doubters just to please you? I'm not miffed about the fact that though you were raised as a Latter-day Saint you do not believe what you were taught. So why should you be appear upset with members of the LDS Church if they testify that they know by the revelations of the eternal Spirit that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true? Will you insist that I deny the surety of the testimony of what I know to be true just to to avoid offending your sensibilities?

[Snoogins]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

First of all, just for the record, Buddists do not believe there is a God. Buddhism is system of religion that does not embrace the concept of a God who rules and reigns as a supreme being in the universe.

Second, you came to this LDS discussion board and asked why do the Latter-day Saints so often testify that they KNOW the Restored Gospel is true rather than say they only BELIEVE it is true? From the perspective of a Latter-day Saint with a profound testimony. I answered your question by pointing out the fact that the LDS scriptures repeatedly testify that if an individual gains a witness of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel through revelation from the Holy Ghost, then he can KNOW the Restored Gospel is true and not just merely BELIEVE it is true. I am one of those who through repeated revelations from the Holy Ghost knows the Restored Gospel is true.

If you don't want your questions answered from the perspective of Latter-day Saints, who know by divine revelation that the Restored Gospel is true, then why have you come to a discussion board populated with some Latter-day Saints who will do just that? Did you really think testimony-bearing Latter-day Saints would answer your question as if they were agnostics, skeptics or doubters just to please you? I'm not miffed about the fact that though you were raised as a Latter-day Saint you do not believe what you were taught. So why should you be appear upset with members of the LDS Church if they testify that they know by the revelations of the eternal Spirit that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true? Will you insist that I deny the surety of the testimony of what I know to be true just to to avoid offending your sensibilities?

I came to this board to hear different perspectives other than my own. It's easy to go to a message board where everyone agrees with you. I feel I learn more from opposing opinions, ideas, whatever rather than talking to people who already share them. Yes, I'm on your court and yes I do not expect anyone to agree with anything I have to say. I don't care whether or not anyone agrees. I'm not here to find out if religion or particularly Mormonism is true or untrue, or if there's a God or not. I'm also not here to disprove anyone beliefs. But I can learn more about why people think the way they do, myself included. Maybe someone in some given topic makes a point that I would never have come to on my own. Hopefully I can further my knowledge in one way or another. Don't worry, I'm not that sensitive and I doubt you could offend me.

I'm not saying your perspective of how you view it is wrong. It is simply just a question to debate. I don't care if you or anyone who gives testimony says they KNOW it's true. I mean no offense by the question or by my response to you. If that's how you took it then I apologize for that. But by your response, while you are explaining how you feel you KNOW, you are also basically saying it's my own fault I didn't have these experiences which is unfair. You don't know how devout I was, how strong my faith was or how much effort I put into it. If I didn't share the same experience as you had it doesn't necessarily mean you commitment or whatever you want to call it is/was any greater than mine was.

All I'm meaning by the Buddhist comment is what if you were born somewhere else? Most likely you would believe something entirely different and quite possibly just as passionately. So does that mean your view and your revelation is true, your imagination, or something else? I'm sure there are many Buddhists who claim to have had a spiritual revelation. So are they right, are you right, is the non-believer right or the atheist? Is there a way that somehow maybe we are all right in one sense or another? These are just questions, I'm not doubting your honesty or what you feel you experienced. But that's what they are, your experiences not mine and I believe my own experiences.

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, Snoogins said:

First off, thanks for the responses. I will try and touch a little on everyone's comments.

On the same token, if a non-believer told you they were visited by a spirit telling them that religion wasn't true would you take them at their word? Probably not, it would be the devil or false spirit trying to push you from the path. Maybe you can understand where I'm coming from when I hear a story like that. I do think there's an inherent mentality to believe the religious person especially over a non-religious person. Is it possible that you could have a spiritual experience through another religion? Furthermore a non-Chritian religion?

True, I do not know your experiences just as you do not know mine. Do you think an ex-Mormon takes that decision lightly? Some do but most of them don't. They have experiences that make them question or feel that it's not true. Are they wrong for following their heart? We all make judgments based on our level of understanding. You are judging me all the same. You don't know my experiences and why I feel religion is not true. Problem is everyone thinks they're right. I don't sit here and claim to have the answers and I never will and that's why I wouldn't say, "I know".

 

I assume that you are speaking of a non-believer as a religious person that does not believe in the LDS religion, and not a total unbeliever. (If a non-believer in religion told me that a spirit had informed him or her that such and such religion is not true, I would have some questions in my mind about that.) I am not going to get into a debate with another person and try to tell them that their spiritual experience was a lie. I just know what my experiences have been. I just know, from my own experience that "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:5) I do not know the truth of all things yet. But the things that have been revealed to me are as real to me as the fact that one plus one equals two.

I have not questioned you as to why you do not feel religion is not true. I was only responding to your idea that a person is "technically lying" when he or she gets up and states in testimony that they "know the church is true."  That is why Boyd K. Packer could say "Of all that I have read and taught and learned, the one most precious and sacred truth that I have to offer is my special witness of Jesus Christ. He lives. I know He lives. I am His witness. And of Him I can testify. He is our Savior, our Redeemer. Of this I am certain. Of this I bear witness in the name of Jesus Christ, amen." ("These Things I Know", Saturday Morning Session of General Conference, April 2013)

You do not have to defend or debate your decisions and beliefs or unbeliefs with me. Your beliefs are between you and God.

Glenn

 

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, Snoogins said:

I came to this board to hear different perspectives other than my own. It's easy to go to a message board where everyone agrees with you. I feel I learn more from opposing opinions, ideas, whatever rather than talking to people who already share them. Yes, I'm on your court and yes I do not expect anyone to agree with anything I have to say. I don't care whether or not anyone agrees. I'm not here to find out if religion or particularly Mormonism is true or untrue, or if there's a God or not. I'm also not here to disprove anyone beliefs. But I can learn more about why people think the way they do, myself included. Maybe someone in some given topic makes a point that I would never have come to on my own. Hopefully I can further my knowledge in one way or another. Don't worry, I'm not that sensitive and I doubt you could offend me.

I'm not saying your perspective of how you view it is wrong. It is simply just a question to debate. I don't care if you or anyone who gives testimony says they KNOW it's true. I mean no offense by the question or by my response to you. If that's how you took it then I apologize for that. But by your response, while you are explaining how you feel you KNOW, you are also basically saying it's my own fault I didn't have these experiences which is unfair. You don't know how devout I was, how strong my faith was or how much effort I put into it. If I didn't share the same experience as you had it doesn't necessarily mean you commitment or whatever you want to call it is/was any greater than mine was.

All I'm meaning by the Buddhist comment is what if you were born somewhere else? Most likely you would believe something entirely different and quite possibly just as passionately. So does that mean your view and your revelation is true, your imagination, or something else? I'm sure there are many Buddhists who claim to have had a spiritual revelation. So are they right, are you right, is the non-believer right or the atheist? Is there a way that somehow maybe we are all right in one sense or another? These are just questions, I'm not doubting your honesty or what you feel you experienced. But that's what they are, your experiences not mine and I believe my own experiences.

Excellent response. More later when I return from work.

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, Snoogins said:

I have to give you credit, this is a great answer. With that being said, don't you think that whatever made this or that true for you is still based on faith? 

No, not necessarily.

If I witness and experience an event or occurrence that proves a religious belief to me that is sufficient to change faith to knowledge.  Paul after Damascus, Nephi after his vision, Joseph Smith after the grove (or Kirtland temple, or D&C 76), and thousands of other people all had their faith replaced by knowledge.  Why should we not?  And it doesn't require the heavens to open either. Just for God to reveal things in a way you cannot deny.

Then it is know, not believe/faith, no matter if another says "he maketh no such thing known unto me".

[Snoogins]

40 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I assume that you are speaking of a non-believer as a religious person that does not believe in the LDS religion, and not a total unbeliever. (If a non-believer in religion told me that a spirit had informed him or her that such and such religion is not true, I would have some questions in my mind about that.) I am not going to get into a debate with another person and try to tell them that their spiritual experience was a lie. I just know what my experiences have been. I just know, from my own experience that "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:5) I do not know the truth of all things yet. But the things that have been revealed to me are as real to me as the fact that one plus one equals two.

I have not questioned you as to why you do not feel religion is not true. I was only responding to your idea that a person is "technically lying" when he or she gets up and states in testimony that they "know the church is true."  That is why Boyd K. Packer could say "Of all that I have read and taught and learned, the one most precious and sacred truth that I have to offer is my special witness of Jesus Christ. He lives. I know He lives. I am His witness. And of Him I can testify. He is our Savior, our Redeemer. Of this I am certain. Of this I bear witness in the name of Jesus Christ, amen." ("These Things I Know", Saturday Morning Session of General Conference, April 2013)

You do not have to defend or debate your decisions and beliefs or unbeliefs with me. Your beliefs are between you and God.

Okay, I will be the first to admit I'm not always the best at articulating what I mean when it comes to putting it on paper or in this case the internet. A lot of times I feel like if people heard me say it instead of reading my words it would come out more appropriately. Like taking someone's text message the wrong way. Also I can come off a little strong and sound more attacking than I intended to be.

I'm not saying you're lying in your experience and I understand you were just answering the original question. I like to push it a little further sometimes. But you hear claims of spiritual revelations from all different religions, faiths and even cults. It is natural for anyone to ask, are all of these experiences true? Can only one true religion have these experiences? Does it mean someone from another faith is lying about their experience? Or could they all be right? Is it possibly a dream or figment of their imagination? While I do not have any reason to believe or disbelieve your experience, the point is that it is your experience.

A few of my closest friends are Mormon (and as religious as they come) and I've never heard them talk of an experience like you have had. At least in the sense of what you seemed to experience. I have asked them all at different times and they all seem to have the same answer of "it's just a feeling". Is it a feeling they're manifesting in their own minds? I don't know and I'm not saying they're wrong. I never experienced any feeling of truth. I get varying responses on this "experience". I'm not asking you to defend your experience and I appreciate you sharing. 

Despite any problems or disbeliefs I have with the Mormon faith I do generally find most Mormons to be friendly people. A little corny sense of humor sometimes.

[Jeanne]

15 hours ago, Snoogins said:

First off, thanks for the responses. I will try and touch a little on everyone's comments.

On the same token, if a non-believer told you they were visited by a spirit telling them that religion wasn't true would you take them at their word? Probably not, it would be the devil or false spirit trying to push you from the path. Maybe you can understand where I'm coming from when I hear a story like that. I do think there's an inherent mentality to believe the religious person especially over a non-religious person. Is it possible that you could have a spiritual experience through another religion? Furthermore a non-Chritian religion?

True, I do not know your experiences just as you do not know mine. Do you think an ex-Mormon takes that decision lightly? Some do but most of them don't. They have experiences that make them question or feel that it's not true. Are they wrong for following their heart? We all make judgments based on our level of understanding. You are judging me all the same. You don't know my experiences and why I feel religion is not true. Problem is everyone thinks they're right. I don't sit here and claim to have the answers and I never will and that's why I wouldn't say, "I know".

 

This to me is the powerful psychology that religion uses. Saying it's YOUR FAULT that you didn't familiarize yourself enough with the Book of Mormon or the Bible. It's YOUR FAULT when the truth is not revealed to you. Making you think that YOU'RE just not trying hard enough or YOUR faith isn't strong enough and YOU'RE the problem. In essence that's really what you're saying and it's used in every religion. We all get it, we all believe, why don't you? Making someone feel as though "they're the problem" is a powerful tool.

Is the Buddhist who believes just as strongly in their God wrong? I'm sure they have something that make them feel their God is true as well. I do think there is knowledge beyond anyone's scope of comprehension but I don't think you have access to any knowledge that I don't. Be it through faith or elsewhere.

to Jeanne & bluebell

I was going to throw in the child aspect but left it out. I do agree no child should be giving testimony and I do hope they are discouraging this. This is a discussion that could have its own topic so I won't take it further.

to Traela

It's a clever analogy and I get what you're saying. I'll just say we'll have to agree to disagree.

to Robert F. Smith & Mystery Meat

I'm gonna tie both your posts together so I don't have quotes everywhere.

I'm sure most members, if any, have ever had this cross their mind before and I get that. My point is why not just say it as would be appropriate? Say “I believe” or “I have faith”, why leave it up to interpretation or act as though it's a little white-lie that doesn't hurt anyone? We have the appropriate words in our language so why not use the right words?

My take on it, church leaders of all religions know what they're doing and know what they're saying. They're intelligent people and why they are where they are. They understand that saying “I know” is a lot more powerful to a member's faith than saying “I believe”. Who's going to follow a religion who's leaders just “believe” it is true. They want the leaders to know it's true just as the leader wants a member to feel like they know it's true. They will be a much more dedicated member and less chance of them leaving. There is a lot of psychology that gets hidden in the words that I don't think most people realize. I also think that there is a peer pressure element to it as well.

Now before anyone gets upset by this... I'm not saying that they don't truly believe what they preach or anything of that nature. But I do think there is a psychology to making it seem more believable. In reality it is a pretty brilliant system. You have to have believe to get the answers. Can't get the answers without believing, so I guess I have to believe. A literal view is the road to apostasy. And of course a literal view is not the only view. It is kind of set up in a trap sort of way. If anyone tried to tell me that all this didn't influence what someone thought was true or untrue I would say they're kidding themselves. Plus any person has the pressure of family, friends, neighbors and their expectations. I'm not going to say anyone is on the wrong path or the right path. It does fascinate me how we all come to our different conclusions and why I like talking about religion, atheism, spirituality, whatever.

I have to give you credit, this is a great answer. With that being said, don't you think that whatever made this or that true for you is still based on faith? 

I'd love to give you a rep point for all of this.  I agree with you on so many levels.

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Snoogins said:

Okay, I will be the first to admit I'm not always the best at articulating what I mean when it comes to putting it on paper or in this case the internet. A lot of times I feel like if people heard me say it instead of reading my words it would come out more appropriately. Like taking someone's text message the wrong way. Also I can come off a little strong and sound more attacking than I intended to be.

I'm not saying you're lying in your experience and I understand you were just answering the original question. I like to push it a little further sometimes. But you hear claims of spiritual revelations from all different religions, faiths and even cults. It is natural for anyone to ask, are all of these experiences true? Can only one true religion have these experiences? Does it mean someone from another faith is lying about their experience? Or could they all be right? Is it possibly a dream or figment of their imagination? While I do not have any reason to believe or disbelieve your experience, the point is that it is your experience.

A few of my closest friends are Mormon (and as religious as they come) and I've never heard them talk of an experience like you have had. At least in the sense of what you seemed to experience. I have asked them all at different times and they all seem to have the same answer of "it's just a feeling". Is it a feeling they're manifesting in their own minds? I don't know and I'm not saying they're wrong. I never experienced any feeling of truth. I get varying responses on this "experience". I'm not asking you to defend your experience and I appreciate you sharing. 

Despite any problems or disbeliefs I have with the Mormon faith I do generally find most Mormons to be friendly people. A little corny sense of humor sometimes.

I cannot explain in words what I have experienced. It is something that one has to experience to understand how someone can "know" something, like the existence of Gdo, or the reality of the Atonement. If two people proclaim that they have had a spiritual experience concerning the same thing, such as the Book of Mormon being translated by the power of God, but claim to have had opposite answers, they both cannot be right. One of those people have been misled. But I would not try to debate that with such an one. It would be fruitless. I am very comfortable with what I have received and will wait upon the Lord to show all of us what is real in His own due time.

 

Glenn

[Garden Girl]

On 5/26/2016 at 10:36 AM, Jeanne said:

I will just contribute something that I feel is not a good thing.  Doesn't take away a true testimony.  But, telling a young child to say " I know the church is true" when giving a testimony is not a good thing. 

My objection was to parents who would whisper in their child's ear and the child would parrot the parent.  Everyone would oohh and aahh at how cute that was.  I didn't find it to be so... and our bishop finally put a stop to it.  He counseled that parents could help children develop and express their testimonies during family home evening, etc. until they were able to approach the podium on their own and have any concept of what they are saying...

GG