Gatorman

That is just it Ben. You don't 'know' 2+2=4 then. You can't, until perfect knowledge is attained. Perfect knowledge is only attained at the time Heavenly Father has determined. But, that means that Joseph Smith does not 'know' he saw Heavenly Father. He merely observed, perceived, and believed that his perception was that he saw them. At least, based on the apparent definition Snow is working from. Yet, by the dictionary, I know that Heavenly Father is real. I have perceived his existence through the sense granted by the Holy Spirit. I have direct cognizant impact by that. I understand that he is real. I recognize who and what he is, though understanding him completely is beyond my ability at this time. I am also familiar and acquianted with him. I speak with him through prayer and receive answers back. I am certain and convinced that he is. Based on this and the dictionary defintion, I know he is. So, based on the definition provided in at least one dictionary, I can know he is real. Based on the defintion Snow has granted us, I do not know. But, Snow is not the authority on 'know'. Now, when I try to understand Snow's meaning, I came to a different idea. Perfect knowledge. That is the knowledge that Heavenly Father has that we are not meant to have until that time. We can not have that perfect knowledge. I do not know if it is possible to have perfect knowledge of anything even. Which means, by Snows defintion of 'know', we do not know 2+2=4, we do not know the sky is blue, and we do not know anything. We simply understand, are aware of, and believe these things. So, we simply have faith, no knowledge.

Actually, I need to back up here for a minute. Where does anything say that 'know'ing means you are right? This is the first time I have ever heard it suggested that to 'know' something, you have to be right. I would put the original supposition back on the table and consider that closely. It is possible for two people to know something about a situation or 'science' or whatever and both to know something different. Does the fact that one or both wrong change the fact that they know? From Marriam-Webster Online: Main Entry: 1know Pronunciation: \ˈnō\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): knew \ˈnü also ˈnyü\; known \ˈnōn\; know·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cnāwan; akin to Old High German bichnāan to recognize, Latin gnoscere, noscere to come to know, Greek gignōskein Date: before 12th century transitive verb 1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of 2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write> 3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with intransitive verb 1 : to have knowledge 2 : to be or become cognizant —sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech — know·able \ˈnō-ə-bəl\ adjective — know·er \ˈnō-ər\ noun — know from : to have knowledge of <didn't know from sibling rivalry — Penny Marshall>

Well, we do not disagree with them there, so they may know. Funny thing, even Satan knows God exists. So, knowing such a thing does not require sharing my beliefs.

Thank you Maxel. It is good to see that I am not completely off base and that someone else sees the same things I do, even with regards to Korihor.

And Snow, for the record, I believe most people who agree with the assumptions I have made that you use 'dogma', because of the negative connotations it evokes. While that may not be your intent, it is the outcome for many you achieve. Part of the message being lost in the method. You use dogma and faith interchangeable. Most people view dogma as something negative and bad. Just an FYI. So, now you know.

Agreed with puf. As near as I can understand what Snow is saying, he is referring to the perfect knowledge the scriptures speak of, not the knowledge of the world we speak of. Because, frankly, we, as a society, a world, a race, know nothing per the plausible understandings of Snow's point. We don't KNOW that the sky is blue, because, we may be proven wrong later.

I can not give you my proof Snow. Just as I can not give you my testimony. I can share my testimony. I can share what I know. But, Snow, there is nothing I can hand you to measure and study, beyond the things you already have. This is a knowledge that you have to achieve for yourself. You want sceintific knowledge to prove something that is not scientific. But, science is not the only knowledge. And, you speak from a position of your own experience. But, your authority is no more than my own. Unless you are claiming to be the Holy Spirit, Heavenly FAther, Christ, or some authority who is given to know my heart and mind, and not merely make assumptions based on teh evidence you see, then, you do not have the position of authority and experience you think you do.

The same way people had knowledge of the earth being flat. The same way Newton had knowledge of gravity. But, now we are talking semantics. The facts of today can easily be the myths of tomorrow. But, by the argument, we have no sure knowledge. Your science knowledge is just as unreliable as our faith knowledge. The knowledge is only as good as the evidence at hand and the methods to test. Everything pointed to a flat earth, as far as the people of that day could understand, comprehend, and measure. The scientists of that day thought they were very smart. Many of them look like simpletons to us today in their methods and mistakes. Imagine the geniuses of the future as they look back at us and think us the simpletons, because of the science we have today. For whatever reason, I can not provide you the evidence and proof I have. Can I admit I may be wrong? Sure. But, that does not mean I don't know. It means I recognize that my knowledge is limited to my current understanding, etc. If to know means to have perfect knowledge, then, we know nothing at all. Because, we will not have perfect knowledge of anything until the time it is made known to us.

Good. So, how would you feel, Snow, if at that day you gain perfect knowledge, you find out that the sky is orange. That knowledge you have would prove to have been wrong. So, did you truly know? You evoke things that can be seen, perceived, measured. Well, I can't measure wavelength. I don't have the tools or equiptment. Does it change the fact that those equipped with the tools and equiptment can measure nanometers? I don't understand light that deeply, so I don't 'know' it. Does that change the facts for you Snow? No. Just because I can't prove it does not mean it is not true. Same as here. Just because you don't understand this or understand how we can know it and prove it for ourselves, does not make it less true. Call it dogma. Call it faith. Call it whatever you want. I could really care less Snow. As I said earlier, it is pointless to try to go any further. It is a journey you have to make on your own. Until you know, you likely won't understand how others know. You will be like many others, looking for the answer. I do wish you well on that journey. But, you lack of knowing does not change it. I know Christ lives, just the same as I know I live. It is part of me. It exists IN me. Not a belief. A certain knowledge. I know I will have the opportunity to work towards celestial glory. Here is the kicker Snow. I knew most of the things we are taught in the BoM and in church...BEFORE I ever read the book of Mormon. Now, explain that. How can I KNOW, without ever having been taught. I was raised around the Episcopal and Catholic churches. I knew infant baptism was wrong. I knew Christ died to deal with Adam's sins. How could I 'know' that if I was not taught it? How do I prove I knew it? I don't. I am satisfied with my own understanding that I know it. I share that fact and knowledge with the world. Then, I leave you to your agency to accept it, deny it, ponder it, or ignore it. But, in the end, I know what I know.

That is difficult to know Snow. Perhaps because Justice has shown greater faith. Perhaps because Justice needed to know at some point, based on experience. Perhaps because Justice spent more time listening than talking. By your reasoning, how come Joseph Smith knew? How come Sidney Rigdon knew? Perhaps Justice has some greater purpose. Or, perhaps, as the scriptures teach, it is possible to know by the Spirit. His words seem reasonable and correct to me. I get his point. He knows things I don't. I probably know things he doesn't. And, we both can know things as well. But, that does not mean we can help you know. In some cases, especially this, knowing is not a matter of physical senses, as it were. It is a matter of evidence given by the Spirit. As such, we can teach OF it, but, we can not give it to you. That is your responsibility, not ours. And, that is the journey the scriptures say that we are to be on. We are on a journey to know that these things are true for ourselves. To do that, I kneeled in prayer, I went to the temple, I pondered quietly, I ignored the world and the intelligence of men. These are some of the things that helped me prove and know that the Gospel is true, that Christ lives, and the Heavenly Father is real. I can not prove it to you, because, the evidence is personal.

Thank you Justice. You have said what I was trying to get across so much more clearly.

Well, this type of discussion leads back to any type of knowledge. How do we know that the sky is really blue? What if it is really orange? Or, one of my favorite lines from a movie, essentially ends with, imagine what we will know tomorrow. Not everyone knows the same things at the same time. That does not mean that the facts are any less true or that because only a few have the knowledge, that it is not true. Did the fact that the Queens and Kings of the world not 'knowing' about gravity mean that Sir Isaac Newton did not know it. Did him teaching it to them change that somehow? So, even the word know can have different understandings. So, perhaps the OPs position on Snow is more strict. But, it does not change my position on know. Nor does it make either of us wrong. So, yes, it may be semantics.

There is nothing wrong with saying 'I believe'. I have no issue with that side of Snow's comments. Nor would I ever question anyone who said that. Instead, Snow's post appears meant to suggest that we can not know. He is deciding for all of us that it is impossible to have the knowledge that is told us that we can have. Or, suggesting that we don't have the necessary witnesses to know. But, the fact is, just because he, or anyone else, does not believe it or understand it, does not change the fact that I know. And, if he doesn't get it, my trying to prove it would prove fruitless. I would be tilting at windmills, as it were. Snow does think and study a bit. I do not fault study by people. I fault when they attempt to use that study to make themselves superior and to suggest that everyone else is wrong. I believe that most of the people on these forums know that the Gospel is true. But, there is no evidence of it that would appear to allow some to have such knowledge. Instead, they are left with belief only. I congratulate them on their belief and applaud that they live by it. But, anyones lack of knowledge does not change that I know it is true. That is my point. As a scriptural example, Nephi saw and knew. His brothers saw and knew. Yet, they still did not follow. But, they did not know it all. So, they believed that Nephi and his father were trying to lead them astray. Just because they did not know and they believed that Nephi and Lehi were whacked out, does not change the fact that Nephi and Lehi knew. Just because someone else does not understand how I know or that I know, does not change the fact that I know.

I know you are mistaken. I don't have a need to prove it, because I experience it. Whether or not you understand or believe it is immaterial. You and your beliefs are unimportant in my world. I have the proof I require. You have chosen to dismiss that type of proof. That is not for me to worry about.

Agreed. I have not attempted to attack Snow. I have simply posted the understanding his posts give to those of us who know. But, I said it in my first post, there are 10 types of people. Those who understand and those who don't.

Snow - You are wrong. Let me say it again, I know the gospel is true. I know Christ is real and that he lives. I know my Heavenly Father is real. Nothing you say, no matter your lack of understanding the faith excercised by members of our church or any church, your belief in the need for proof, or any other argument will make those statements any less true. I KNOW it. So, you and I have reached a point that we will have to agree to disagree. I can not understand your position. It is heretical to me. You can not understand my position. It is misguided, foolish, stupid, or whatever you believe. But, the fact is, you are wrong in regards to this, because, I do know. It was proven to me through study, through prayer, through faith, and through the Holy Spirit. Evidence of. Proof of. Facts about. You have no evidence or proof that would be able to dispute this. End of story. End of discussion.

I would hope you are right. Just as Snow's suppositions, accusations, and positions are off base. He just doesn't understand how we can know, just as it is not possible for me to believe that he believes. Doesn't change the facts for either of us. And, I am sure Snow will come after me, guns blazing, attempting to prove how stupid, foolish, or unintelligent I am. In reality, his posts come across as if his intention is to tear down the faith others have. Then, he hides behind the excuse that if his comments can tear down their faith, it was not strong to begin with. I 'know' that such actions would be against the counsel of the church and its leaders. So, I hope that it is not true. I hope that Snow will realize that this is the arrogance his posts come across with and that others are affected by his posts. But, I am not his judge. I just pity him and his posts and pray that he does not believe as he posts, because such beliefs, according to the LDS faith, will find him with a lot to explain.

Snow - Based on the things you have written here and in other posts, I am left to conclude the following: 1 - You don't know the bible the is true, because it is dogma and you can not prove what is written in it. You believe that 'dogma' is a bad thing, yet use it in the same way the rest of us use faith. 2 - You don't know Christ is real and living, because you can't prove it. 3 - You don't know Heavenly Father is real, because you can't prove it. 4 - Belief in things you can't prove is dogmatic and not real. As such, you do not have a testimony? How can you have a testimony if it is based on dogma and things you can't prove, when that is not a way to know?

Thank you Justice. It is good to see someone posting who truly gets it, rather than attempting to convince those who know this way as being misled, misguided, wrong, weak, or otherwise. I am sorry, but, you CAN know. And, if you don't understand how you can know without proof, then, you simply have not reached a point to get it. It is like the old binary joke. There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Wow...I KNOW I butchered my grammar in that post. Egads. But, I have faith that those with average intelligence will get it and will understand it. :)

Well, again, the message is lost in the method. After reviewing a number of times, I believe that Snow is unable of recognizing that not everyone reaches knowledge the same way. And, Snow will argue with me that there is only one way to gain knowledge, I would expect. But, I am one of the dogmatics he keeps insulting. To me, what Snow refers to as Dogma is true faith. It is the greater faith that Heavenly Father prefers. Those who have to have proof have appear to have a weaker faith, according to the scriptures. As to the point that knowing would stop us from sinning, that is a false position.

No on your first question that I did not copy. On this second one, I did answer it, but, let me go ahead and give your ego a further boost it does not need. I may have been mistaken. Snow, I may have made a mistake. You may have said widespread. Is that good enough for you Master Snow. Can you drop it now?

Oh, that seems like such dangerous advice. To 'move' the church? To 'tempt' Heavenly Father. You have been doing the right things. Stay faithful. Stay active. Pay tithing. Do not tempt the loss of your faith. I would think the right answer is to go up the chain. It is there for a reason. So, go to the Bishop and specifically ask what the delays are for, what is going on, etc. If you do not get answers, then, let him know you will be going to the Stake President. Etc...

Gatorman Standard Answer 3 - Consider the movie Fireproof and The Love Dare.

Tolerance falls in line with the other major teachings of the schools and government. That there is nothing 'wrong'. Everything is acceptable.