I Know That Fill In The Blank Is True

[Madriglace]

Using Maxel's flow chart in a personal way. I always had a problem with tithing. Finally I decided to put my faith into action and I now for sure that tithing is devinely inspried and it works ... I have seen the results in my life. I can say I know tithing works with out the least hesitation ... this also applies to many other areas of the gospel. Putting faith into action gives one the knowledge they seek. Onbe can have knowledge.

[WillowTheWhisp]

All I know about knowing something is true is that once you have that knowledge you can't unknow it. Beliefs can be changed by outside influence from other people but knowledge just IS.

[Snow]

Getting back to knowledge vs faith or vs conviction...

In some measure, this is an issue of definition. If you define "knowledge" in such and such a way, it can include just about anything, including faith, including belief, including things you're only pretty sure about. However - and this is my own inadequate definition, for these purposes I define knowledge as the knowing of something that is discoverable (not hidden) verifiable, and reliable.

Epistemology is the study of what we know and how we know it. You can research it and there are lots of different theories about how we know what know but some of the traditional sources of knowledge are:

Empiricism: knowledge arises from experience... it emphasizes experience, evidence, sensory perception... I know that Jessica Simpson cannot sing, because I listened to her...

Rationalism... knowledge is arrived at by virtue of reason, logic etc. Mathematical truth is an exercise in reason... I know that Jessica Simpson is not human because humans can sing and I have listened to her try to sing...

Other Sources

Authority... knowledge can be learned from others... I know that Jessica Simpson is trying to destroy the world through music because my mother, who I trust, told me so. Ultimately "authority" is simply derivative of the other sources of knowledge like experience and logic.

Intuition / Contemplation... you can come to know something just by thinking about it, perhaps tapping in to some inner source of knowledge possessed by humans innately... insert Jessica Simpson joke here.

Revelation: You can come to know something because some supernatural source instills it in you...

The problem that I see in claiming that "I know God exists" or "I know that the Church is true" is that such belief is hidden, relies on mystery, is unverifiable by traditional sources of knowledge, is notoriously unreliable, and results in completely different and contradictory results depending upon who claims to have obtained the knowledge.

Ergo, it makes more sense to refer to mystical beliefs and faith as conviction, not knowledge.

By the way, it is undoubtable that many of the people who claim to KNOW that the church is true, would be just as convinced of their belief in some other church or tradition if they had been born into other circumstance... most of them, of course would deny it, but applying a little rationalism should make the point clear.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Snow

[Gwen]

Getting back to knowledge vs faith or vs conviction...

In some measure, this is an issue of definition. If you define "knowledge" in such and such a way, it can include just about anything, including faith, including belief, including things you're only pretty sure about. However - and this is my own inadequate definition, for these purposes I define knowledge as the knowing of something that is discoverable (not hidden) verifiable, and reliable.

you can define knowledge however you want. with the sources i gave it's clear how the lord defines knowledge. is it right to go and say to everyone that accepts the lord's definition that they are wrong? like it or not the arguments you make could shake the faith of someone that is very new at feeling the spirit and understanding these things. is that what the lord would have you do? is it really that important?

quite frankly this attitude reminds me of what i've seen young children do. they don't know the name for something and so they use a name they like (or they mispronounce it). then when they find out the real name they say "well, that's ok, i'm going to call it....anyway." that's fine you can call it that but no one will know what you are talking about. if you want to be understood you have to use the same name as the rest of us.

[Snow]

you can define knowledge however you want. with the sources i gave it's clear how the lord defines knowledge. is it right to go and say to everyone that accepts the lord's definition that they are wrong? like it or not the arguments you make could shake the faith of someone that is very new at feeling the spirit and understanding these things. is that what the lord would have you do? is it really that important?

I'll take capitalization for one hundred Alex.

Let's be honest... you gave some some verses that some people claim are from the Lord. God Himself isn't saying publicly what He thinks.

Let me get this straight... you somehow think that me discussing epistemology might possibly shake the faith of someone? Holy Smokes... what if they got ahold of a book or listened a college lecture or read a scholarly paper. Why, why, it would be armageddon.

You can denigrate the intelligence and free will of people all you like but I give them a little more credit than that.

quite frankly this attitude reminds me of what i've seen young children do. they don't know the name for something and so they use a name they like (or they mispronounce it). then when they find out the real name they say "well, that's ok, i'm going to call it....anyway." that's fine you can call it that but no one will know what you are talking about. if you want to be understood you have to use the same name as the rest of us.

Seriously now - do you think that you comparing me to a child is going to a successful tactic for you?

Try boning up on epistemology... I think you'll find that my understanding of knowledge is a tad more in line than yours.

Would you trust your potentially life-saving, but highly controversial, surgery to a diagnostician and surgeon who was convinced, because of his feeling of your condition and the solution but couldn't verify empirically whether you even had such and such illness or whether the surgery would work?

I'm not saying that faith, your faith for example, isn't important or true, but it is different than knowledge.

[Dravin]

Would you trust your potentially life-saving, but highly controversial, surgery to a diagnostician and surgeon who was convinced, because of his feeling of your condition and the solution but couldn't verify empirically whether you even had such and such illness or whether the surgery would work?

Actually that happens. You have a list of symptoms and the doctor tries to gather as much information as possible but in the end its a judgment call, is it disease A or B that fits. Now of course some things are more obvious than others, a compound fracture or something like AIDS that can be directly tested for.

Or maybe I've watched way to much House, the later is a distinct possibility.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Dravin

[Maxel]

Your position makes more sense to me now, Snow. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it. I now understand where my own hesitation to accept your logic stems from.

Two big things. First- your explanations seem to discount the Holy Ghost (the great Testator) and place the feelings and knowledge it brings us somehow 'below' empirical evidence gained through the physical senses. I believe this idea subverts the very method in which God has revealed to us about how to gain a living testimony and returns the argument to the circular, never-ending attempts to (dis)prove God's existence based on external evidences. I see this as relying upon the arm of the flesh, and the wrong way to go about building faith. A faith based on temporal, empirical evidence will not uphold us through the extremes of life.

Second, the hesitance to use the term 'knowing' when the prophets use the term (for instance, in Alma 32:34) to describe a person's state of knowledge about God after having tested His word. I believe that building a testimony requires the gathering of evidence from inside our own souls: how do we react to the good word of the Lord after we plant it in our hearts? Ultimately, building a testimony is just as arduous- and far more important- than any lab experiment proving a hypothesis, and the results are far more concrete.

Also, it is through the process of the Holy Ghost infusing us with the intelligence of God that we are able to better discern between good and evil. A knowledge of good and evil doesn't come from the study of ethics or philosophy, but by living a godly life: ultimately, the evidence for what constitutes 'goodness' and 'wickedness' is intrinsic.

One more thought: the difference between the Mormon 'knowing' and the 'knowing' of other religions is that we understand the process better, and through receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost we are given the right tools. While following a similar process might result in mere conviction for others about their religion, it produces real knowledge in someone seeking to learn about the LDS Church. Ultimately, the real deciding factor is: what's the truth?

Also, I wouldn't prefer to trust my life to a doctor who just had a 'strong feeling'. However, I trust my own soul to the feelings and knowledge given me by God.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Maxel
Clarification

[Snow]

Your position makes more sense to me now, Snow. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it. I now understand where my own hesitation to accept your logic stems from.

Two big things. First- your explanations seem to discount the Holy Ghost (the great Testator) and place the feelings and knowledge it brings us somehow 'below' empirical evidence gained through the physical senses. I believe this idea subverts the very method in which God has revealed to us about how to gain a living testimony and returns the argument to the circular, never-ending attempts to (dis)prove God's existence based on external evidences. I see this as relying upon the arm of the flesh, and the wrong way to go about building faith. A faith based on temporal, empirical evidence will not uphold us through the extremes of life.

Please don't misunderstand me... I do not believe that the Gospel is true because of the empirical evidence. I believe the Gospel to be true because I exercise faith, faith that I believe has been confirmed by the Holy Ghost. I don't just don't find it accurate or useful to refer to that confirmed faith as knowledge.

Theoretically, of course, perhaps there are people that do in fact "know." But I know a good many Mormons who are less converted than me (including the child I referred to in the OP) that claim knowledge when, imo, they are merely going along with the program and saying what's expected of them to be said, but rationally speaking, they don't know, they are merely convinced.

Another thing... I have run across people who have a general testimony of something (unclear what) because they believe the have gotten spiritual confirmation and then they extrapolate that testimony to all sorts of things about which they haven't prayed, ie they have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, so now they also have a testimony about President Monson as prophet even though they have never prayed about it.

... on the other hand, I also believe that the HG is capable of delivering actual knowledge, formerly not known, not just confirming yes or no to questions prayed about. That is - I was once part of a special experience on the Plan of Salvation where, through the HG, I was able to see and learn something about the Plan that wasn't spoken by the the teacher (my Mission President) but was revealed to me, albeit fleetingly - good think I took notes.

Second, the hesitance to use the term 'knowing' when the prophets use the term (for instance, in Alma 32:34) to describe a person's state of knowledge about God after having tested His word. I believe that building a testimony requires the gathering of evidence from inside our own souls: how do we react to the good word of the Lord after we plant it in our hearts? Ultimately, building a testimony is just as arduous- and far more important- than any lab experiment proving a hypothesis, and the results are far more concrete.

Not an issue as far as I am concerned. The prophets weren't parsing word meaning and epistemology. They were reporting gospel principles in the language they (and hopefully the intended audience) understood/understands. Here's an example: The AofF say we believe the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly. Church scholars understand that the "translation" is not the real problem. The problem is more in the editing, redacting, canon selection, copying (transmission) and translation.

Also, it is through the process of the Holy Ghost infusing us with the intelligence of God that we are able to better discern between good and evil. A knowledge of good and evil doesn't come from the study of ethics or philosophy, but by living a godly life: ultimately, the evidence for what constitutes 'goodness' and 'wickedness' is intrinsic.

Um, I'd have to think about that. I don't know if that is true - probably it is.

One more thought: the difference between the Mormon 'knowing' and the 'knowing' of other religions is that we understand the process better, and through receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost we are given the right tools. While following a similar process might result in mere conviction for others about their religion, it produces real knowledge in someone seeking to learn about the LDS Church. Ultimately, the real deciding factor is: what's the truth?

Umm - they'd say the same thing.

Also, I wouldn't prefer to trust my life to a doctor who just had a 'strong feeling'. However, I trust my own soul to the feelings and knowledge given me by God.

Yeah - I hear you and I feel the same way about my soul but it's all so nebulous. There's not even any real evidence that we have a soul.

[Maxel]

Hey Snow-

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. For me, I've gotten what I want from this conversation- I understand your position better and I've reflected on my own. I appreciate the opportunity to do so. Most of your post I agree with/consent to disagree, so I won't respond to anything but one point.

One more thought: the difference between the Mormon 'knowing' and the 'knowing' of other religions is that we understand the process better, and through receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost we are given the right tools. While following a similar process might result in mere conviction for others about their religion, it produces real knowledge in someone seeking to learn about the LDS Church. Ultimately, the real deciding factor is: what's the truth?

Umm - they'd say the same thing.

The fact that Mormons have the gift of the Holy Ghost makes all the difference. That, and the fact that we're right. (I'll take circular logic for 1,000 )

I think that a testimony is entirely structured in a circular path of logic. For example:

The Book of Mormon is true because I received a personal revelation from the Holy Ghost about it because I followed the advice found in the Book of Mormon which worked because the Book of Mormon is true.

Ultimately, the entire circle hinges on the one bit of evidence that is (to the person involved) demonstrable true or false: the spiritual witness given through the power of the Holy Ghost. In other words, the circle of logic is either based in truth or in falsehood: there's no other option.

In my opinion, that's why it's so crucial that a person believes (s)he knows that the Church is true; that the Book of Mormon is true; that President Monson is a prophet; etc. Once that circle has been ridden and the spiritual witness has been obtained, the next step is to move forward in faith, building upon that initial foundation. There are more circular paths to travel, each one stacking upon the previous (line upon line, precept upon precept, etc.) and building the character of the person making the journey.

Anyway, that's just how my thoughts were directed while writing this post. Sorry for the wordiness. Once again, I'm glad that I had this opportunity to discuss this with you, Snow.

[Snow]

Thanks Maxel,

I enjoyed the conversation too and gotten something out it.

[bmy-]

I hate the words "I know ______ is true". I'm sorry.. but you do not know that it is true -- you believe it to be so. Unless you are a special witness.. please refrain from using those words. "I believe that the ______ is true" or "I truly feel that the ______ is true" would make me a happy camper. I'm probably just being picky though.

As mentioned above.. it's based on circular logic. I'm not a fan of it.

[Dravin]

Unless you are a special witness.. please refrain from using those words.

I'd like to point out that even somebody who receives a personal visit or the like believes its true. Paul could has described his visit as a hallucination. He knows that he experienced something like he described, now whether it was from food poisoning, a trick of the devil or an actual visitation from Christ is not something he knows in the sense that he knows there is something in his sandal giving him a blister that is probably a pebble. Now witnesses I suppose make food poisoning highly unlikely but you get my point.

He knows he experienced X, he believes that X was Y and not Z. I 'know' my Mom loves me, she says so, she demonstrates so through actions she takes but I chose to believe that means she loves me and its not all part of a highly unlikely attempt to deceive me for some reason. Between the two of us only my Mom really 'knows' if she loves me or not.

Now I'm sure somebody will be along to explain to me the flaws in my above post.