Honorentheos

The first part of this statement is wrong in that the "proof" of 2+2=4 can be played with by adding in a number of determinates but at it's simpliest expression two single objects make one unit of two. IMO, once you start getting into the more complex "proofs" that play with primes, infinities, etc., you start to demonstrate a non-tangible aspect to nature that becomes more like Buddhist dualism than western monotheism. Or you are using tricks to fool people with math.I do like your statement "Knowledge != truth. Knowledge does not equal truth." But I am curious how you would qualify this other part - Followed by this - ...without leaving the door wide open that a person can claim to be knowledgable of something that is completely false? One can have a firm conviction of something that is not true, and in fact we all have examples in our lives. The only real "proof" we have of the reality of something is in looking for external verifiers for our subjective, internally processed experiences. It's one of the reasons you guys bear testimony to each other - it is a process of confirmation. The challenge to me is that this can serve a confirmation bias if one only looks for, and views as valid, those who have similar experiences while discounting all non-conforming experiences. Having this "knowledge" of the world, when combined with humilty, shoud leave one to be able to honestly say, "This I believe and will act on, but given enough evidence I can change that belief." When you say, "I know", you are as damned as the devil. I get the sense that when we are speaking about knowledge here the belief is that the large, big picture view is solved within LDS theology and the work left now is to just fill in the details. I think there is more to it and view LDS history consisting of just as much change and "searching" as every other model of "truth". Truthfully, I think we're not really talking so much about "knowledge" as we are about humility. Your proof demonstrates this is the case by not recognizing the challenges it should present to the person who DOES see their view of knowledge as knowledge-prime (KNOWLEDGE).

Well said, Gatorman. Well said. Well, other than the underlined. But that's ok. The last part more than makes up for it.

I guess all I can say is, "Then I hope you make the most of it." I'm not one to go around destroying another's faith, so I am trying to back up a bit from the tension I feel in how stubborn people seem to be about the subject. To be fair, I was once fairly certain (at the time I would say "I knew") that my own religious beliefs were correct and that I knew God lived, that certain books of scripture were true. Life experience and access to different information had an effect, as did the fact that apologetics for belief seem very similar to the types of political propaganda that get tossed around to support fairly worldly, even potentially under-worldly, motivations for despicable actions. There are certain things that I've found people throw out on the internet that turn people off very quickly and the above is one, so I say it carefully so that you understand that I am not coming at this from a position of total ignorance of what you are saying, and am perhaps more similar to the case of someone who would not be left to greater leniency in the world of a just and unmerciful God. But I am not here to either bury Caesar nor to praise him. In this case, I put a dog in the fight because on the other thread you went after Lstinthewrld for making a good point that something that is unprovable is also unknowable in an objective sense. I made the case that there are first-person instances where this could be said (i.e. - I know I love my wife) but they are not indicative of actual objective facts. Instead these are cases of making statements regarding the then-existing state of one's mind or emotions. I think this is the case here as well. These statements regarding the idea one "knows" that God lives or that the Book of Mormon is true are state-of-being statements, not descriptions of objective facts. It's part of what makes you "justice" or your real world self. God doesn't have to exist for you to have this state-of-being, evidenced by the fact that you can be in this state without having any other external stimuli than your belief.

One of the other problems I have with this is I have seen it posted by many a former member of the LDS faith as well. I think I understand both views and, while I lean to one more than the other, I am pretty certain that both sides still just believe they are the ones that have it right. It just seems like knowledge from the inside.

I would offer a third option. You are using the word, "know" incorrectly to describe belief. When you were describing the second person (Either you believe...) you were more correct. It's a lot easier to see these things in others than in one's self.

I think this is a pretty good example, actually.Before Newton, I'm sure people figured out that what went up came down. Newton, being the conceited giant of thinker he was figured out the relationship of this phenomena to mass and made more than a few pretty accurate models for using this to predict certain future events. But he was wrong in a way and it took Einstein to develop the current model that is even more accurate. But IT isn't perfect yet, either. Over 90% of the observed gravity in the Universe is unaccounted for and we are almost guaranteed to have to revise our model yet again. Some argue that this is reason for dismissing science in favor of other kinds of knowledge. I would suggest that, despite his errors, Newton was on the right track and lead to Einstein, who will in turn lead us to the next level of understanding. Religion, when it gets out of it's better realm, seems to be backtracking instead. I think momentum is in Newton's et. al's favor here.

I think that the most interesting aspect of the OP is that it suggests an objective way of determining if a person actually did know rather than just believed.For example, most americans have knowledge concerning nutrition and the effects of eating certain ways. And many if not most have access to eating in a manner after their choosing rather than being reliant on fate or good fortune to bring them a meal. Yet, most americans are in a less-than-ideal situation when it comes to health, LDS not excluded. Ice cream should be in the WOW. Why is this? You could argue it is not lack of knowledge since most if not all americans do know enough to "know" that eating that bowl of ice cream may lead to a shortened life span or at least a bigger waist size. But the truth is, when a doctor looks a man in the eye and says, "If you don't change your eating habits, the problems that prought you into my office will kill you in a year" that man has a new ability to eat right and change. Why? He/she didn't "know" that their eating habits would effect "them"...they just had broad bits and pieces of information on nutrition. I think that if you actually KNEW God existed, you wouldn't have to say it. If you know how to eat right, no amount of big-bones in your family will obscure this from people around you. It will be pretty obvious. You might not be a size 4, or wear 32" waist pants or whatever, (or a monk) but it will still be obvious. Judging from your contempt of Snow, I have my doubts regarding your level of actual knowledge of God. You may have a good deal of information regarding what the LDS church teaches about God, and you may have had expriences that confirm that you are on the right track. But I don't think you actually know God. Not in any real sense.

This is all very true. Sadly so, but true.One could ask what it is about personal experience that can fit the definition of objective truth, but I get the feeling this is not a welcome point of discussion on this topic. Yet, if one can not say that this proof is objectively verifiable but must be subjectively achieved through experience, is it a good basis to claim, "I know..."? I am still interested in why so many must "KNOW!!!!" when there does not seem to be any really difference in saying, "I believe". The things I know are very, very few. I have learned in life to find the ability to act on belief as has been suggested to me through the Alma 32 example. I think that is a nice way of putting it. It's this jump to how small bits of experiential "knowledge" lead to claims of knowledge on universal truths. I don't think this is a very mature way of dealing with the world as a whole. If it is a matter of semantics and a cultural thing internal to the LDS faith, so be it. But if one can not differentiate between this type of thinking internal to faith and how one interacts with one's fellow man I think this becomes a larger issue.

It's a good topic you have started, Snow. Thanks! It reminded me immediately of the quote from William James - "Religion is a monumental chapter in the history of human egotism." I think that it is interesting that people get up in arms when someone suggests that it is ok to say, "i believe such-and-such" rather than "I know". But, my friend Moksha in his quiet wisdom reminded me why - a weather man who doesn't know for sure if it will rain won't have a job. So he hedges his bets using probabilities but couches it in the language of knowledge to walk the thin line. Lucky for most weathermen/women today we have chaos theory working for them. So good point Moksha, the cultural context in this case has to place a higher value on certitude and claimed knowledge that predisposes the non-knowledgeable individual to be at a disadvantage if they are simply honest. Take Snow here for example. I, as an agnostic, am at liberty to claim lack of knowledge because it fits the label I use to describe my religious belief. I get a few interesting points and scriptures shown me that are supposed to make the case and am left to my own ignorance/agency to fend for my eternal destiny as I may. Snow, as a member of the LDS community makes an honest point and is not as fortunate. Snow's understanding is considered inferior though unlike me his/her position is probably the very similar to other members in the broad sense. Actually, based on his/her understanding of the New Testament I think Snow is probably more knowledgeable than most and is using this to develop a better understanding of how it all fits together. And that is interesting. I would offer the thought that no one seems to be arguing against the existence of God, but rather that it's ok to say, "I believe". And why is that so bad? When I was a child, I thought as a child. If one were to develop a scale of belief with 1 being absolute knowledge that something was not true and 10 being absolute knowledge that something was true with a 5 being a state of not leaning either way, most things in my life as a child fell very close to the 1's and 10's. Most children's do. But when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Justice, First, thank you for the long post. It was interesting. I would like to compare something that was said in the Alma scripture you provided with something I said earlier - Alma 32:33-34 33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good. 34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.(my emphasis) My earlier statement - "Certainly true. I guess my point is that the process that you suggest a person follow may not be from God at all but still work in achieving a certain result using the proscribed method within the bounds of this life. In other words, we have no real way of knowing that the ultimate question of the true nature of God to the point of knowledge is answered when we choose to follow certain directions, provided by another human being. We just know that it caused a certain effect. And I am not challenging this or the goodness of the effect. I take the view of Sterling McMurrin that religions are not true or false, but basically more good or less good, some maybe even bad, but that's about it." So I think we can agree that by experimenting on something we can determine whether or not we get a desired effect or if something else happens. And as your scriptural reference indicated, the process of the "seed" growing is something that takes time to bear fruit. And it's the fruit that matters. The reason I linked to the other thread was because, when I read it I was bothered by how quickly so many other posters focused in on the apparent past life of the person who was obviously looking for help. And not really stopping on the road to Jericho, more interested in other things. My past has left more than a few scriptures rattling around in my head, and though I am not one for believing in the veracity of scripture as the literal words of God, I think they have power to help and heal as one is inclined, just as poetry can do so or good literature. I thought the scriptures that came to my mind as I read the thread would help, and if so I think good, if not, I hope my heart was in the right place. When I came back to this thread, your last post before mine struck a chord with why it bothered me - it seems very possible that you may consider this the sort of thing that God would be concerned about. I have to say, I hope that isn't so and hope this clarifies why I brought it up so we can discuss this more.

I think there is value in really looking at someone's point of view and not discounting it immediately because it doesn't match one's own. We are all holding different parts of the elephant, as the saying goes, though most if not all of us think we have figured out what it is. I don't think we can know what an elephant is even if we could grab hold of all the parts. But by assuming anothers view, we get closer in both understanding our own ignorance as well as better defining what in fact may be "true" - at least as far as we are capable. Certainly true. I guess my point is that the process that you suggest a person follow may not be from God at all but still work in achieving a certain result using the proscribed method within the bounds of this life. In other words, we have no real way of knowing that the ultimate question of the true nature of God to the point of knowledge is answered when we choose to follow certain directions, provided by another human being. We just know that it caused a certain effect. And I am not challenging this or the goodness of the effect. I take the view of Sterling McMurrin that religions are not true or false, but basically more good or less good, some maybe even bad, but that's about it.It's an interesting struggle that our inherent ignorance presents in that we have to make certain basic assumptions in life to be functional. I can say I believe certain theories of Einstein or Smolin or even Jung or Kant. But I ultimately end up taking some things on faith as to their value. Otherwise, books really become useless. But it is best, IMO, to be honest about this. To say, "I believe" based on experience rather than "I know". I guess I just haven't seen anything here that challenges this view. But I have found what I think may be a point of discussion we can agree on without debating the authenticity of scripture - that being how the things of God should manifest themselves in a person. If a person "knows" God, and we assume the Platonic idea that a person would not choose to do something knowingly that is bad for them (which we can discuss in further detail but is based on the Dialogue of Plato with Meno) could we suggest that actual knowledge of God would change behaviour in a manner that should reflect this type of knowledge? And if so, should we expect that this type of behaviour would more closely reflect the nature of God than that of a person (trying to build on your obedience pathway idea)? I would submit this thread on this forum for discussion, then. Read it and let me know what your thoughts are first. http://www.lds.net/forums/advice-board/25207-someone-went-bishop-about-me-please-help.html Thanks, (p.s. - I am still interested about the question of placing a higher value on "knowing" rather than "believing".)

WoefulRespite - I'm sorry to read about your dilemma. To be honest, I am not sure I have any good advice either. But I will point out a couple of things. First - it sounds like you bishop is not pre-judging you and was fair and honest about hearing your side of the story before it went past him. And he seems to want to be there for you. Second - you are self-aware enough to realize that confronting the person who is spreading gossip about you needs to be confronted in front of the third party to whom she spread this gossip who I am assuming is also an authority figure in her life as well. Third - while your work situation is not bettered by this, how you handle it will reflect on you as much as the story. So, taking these three into account I think it is justifiable that you want to get this cleared up asap. And I don't blame you. I think anyone who lost a credit card would get it canceled at the bank before it is used wrongfully. And we should be even more protective of our reputations when they have been wrongfully used. But have some faith that for points one and two to work together, you need to have some patience. And while I am not one who places a gold seal on scripture, I think there is comfort to be found in these words - 1 Peter 2:19-25 19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. 21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." James 1:2-4 "2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; 3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. 4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing." I wish you the best, and that patience may have her perfect work in your soul. Peace.

Justice,I am curious if you would consider there to be a higher value placed on the position of "knowledge" over one of admitted belief? What if, by following all of the threads we worked our way back and found out that at its core we meant the same thing in a broad sense when we were discussing this? (certainly our views are similar in that this subject falls outside of the range of what can be known through scientific means, or more rightly said what can be shown to not be true through scientific means) But is there a reason we could not say, "I believe" such and such, not just about the knowledge of God but on any topic? I think that if we were speaking on other subjects, we may agree that there is an element of pride that comes in when we can not do so. Why is this different here? One thing that challenges our discussion is that we also do not share a common base yet. I am not in a position to agree that any of the scriptural references are authentically "of God" and thus provide the foundation for your differentation between being of the world and of God, while you are certainly not in a postion (nor is it where I am asking you to go) where you would agree with my view. Can we find a common point where dialog is possible without getting into a discussion on the reliability of the scriptural referrences? I can't see that discussion being easy to have without a serious blow-by-blow of the points in favor of one view over the other. And I am under the impression that is not the intent of this board.

Thank you, Justice. I appreciate the welcome. :) I'm not sure that I can express accurately my thoughts on this beyond my last post. That being that it is difficult to say that in one of the most important questions of our time, reasoning should not be a significant part of a process ...I don't know. It is probably best to pause from this train of thought for a moment. I guess I stand by my thoughts on justification being the better term for having followed through on an action and finding the expected result confirmed. Does it mean that the source was good? At least in the case of giving accurate instruction I would say so. But does it mean this source is evidence for the divine? I hope not. Otherwise the guys I knew in college who always told me that if I would only smoke weed with them I would "get it" were right - and I missed out on free highes and chemically enduced enlightenment. At least in this case, my rational outsiders perspective told me they were acting stupid when high and were just too out of it to realize it most of the time. But in my career I have known many a pothead who still stands by the value of pot smoking and that doing so will give someone the inside knowledge they need to see why it isn't bad. Is this a bad analogy? I guess since owning pot is a crime, and not just smoking it, one could say there is no analogy. And I would certainly not be upset if my daughter took up religious belief some day where as being a pothead would sicken me. But try telling that to the potheads. I guess I would ask a simple question - is it bad to say you don't know? Honestly. Is there a higher value on affirming knowledge in this case over lack of knowledge? Or is it more of a discussion on linguistics or experience? I'm not asking you to confirm a lack of knowledge or otherwise, but I am just wondering. In my case, I consider a sign of maturity to begin to say, "I don't know" with sincerity. Most of the highly intelligent people I am fortunate to associate with do so regularly and I have sought to emulate this to as great an extent as my pride will allow. Personally, I know I place a higher value on saying I know, but have been in the process that this is really not the case at all. Seeking for knowledge within the vastness of human ignorance can be interesting and we all react differently. I'm sure I have much to work on, and this acceptance of my own ignorance is one of those processes I work on. So when I ask, it is also with an attempt to acknowledge the beam in my own eye.

Which explains the gleen on the penguin's face. :)