Do You REALLY Know? Nope.

[Justice]

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 do see this. I see it all the time. I have concluded that only 3 possibilities exist:

1) one is right and the other is wrong

2) the other is right and the one is wrong

3) both are wrong

When two people say different things, for purposes of this discussion, they can't both be right. I realize you can find examples where each may only be giving part of the picture. But, I'm talking about eternal truth from God.

How do I know I am right?

That's the great question.

[Honorentheos]

You know, I believe those who "just" believe will be dealt with more mercifully at the last day than those who know. So, I'd love to take your bait and say I just believe. But, if I did, I would be lying to you, to myself, and to God.

I really do know. It scares me sometimes to think I do. But, the more I think about it and the deeper I ponder, I can't escape 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.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

The same way people had knowledge of the earth being flat. 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.

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

[Justice]

I suppose that you are making a point about the power of spiritual experiences. We don't much talk about them publicly but privately when I do talk to others, it is clear to me that the experiences I've been blessed with are typically much deeper and robust than those that most/many others in the Church experience. I don't deny the spiritual experiences but do understand the difference between them, faith and knowledge.

Yes.

Part of it is that people are different, and as such they just require different things.

The experience is only made more powerful to you because of the Spirit you feel. When we speak of our experiences to others they often fall short. I don't speak of my deeper or more meaningful ones either. But, sometimes I am prompted to share something for some reason.

I do see what you're saying. I mean, the whole point of this thread and topic. I do see it. Years ago I would have been right there with you.

But, the truth is I do know. As logical and reasonable as your argument is, I can't deny what I know. Maybe all it is is a word we attach to what we know.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

"Knowledge" in the sense that Snow is using it is, frankly, non-sequitur. You can say, and "prove", that 2+2=4. But that's just an arbitrary assignment of meaning to an arbitrary set of symbols. I can just as easily say that 2+2=7 and be equally correct - and prove it. You know it took Alfred North Whitehead 379 pages (in the first edition of Principia Mathematica) to "prove" that 1+1=2. None of us "knows" that 1+1=2 because we have never read the proof - we simply take Al's word for it. Honestly, I'm content to take Al's word for it, I'm not very keen on math.

If you consider knowledge to be what you have observed through first-hand observation, that also is non-sequitur. Schizophrenia and bi-polar regularly exhibit manifestations of compelling reality to those who suffer from these illnesses. These delusions are directly observed, seen, touched, and interacted with by those who have them. And yet we call them false and illusion because the rest of us can't see them. But who's to say we're the "normal" by which they should be judged? Now we enter to the realm of simulacrum that made The Matrix so popular - how do you know what is real? The fact is, we don't.

Knowledge, then, in any communicable sense is only a firm conviction. In more scientific terms, it must be a firm conviction based on experience. There are some people who have experience and yet never form that conviction. There are some who form the conviction without experience. And there are some who have the experience and the conviction.

But to settle the argument (or at least, to provide a solution that SHOULD settle it, even though most of you will probably ignore it):

Knowledge != truth. Knowledge does not equal truth.

[Gatorman]

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.

[rameumptom]

... see the problem here?

No one but Oliver Cowdery knows what Oliver Cowdery knew and no one but Joseph Smith knows what he knew. You simply have a dogmatic opinion. You can't very well prove "knowledge" as a factual matter by pointing to an unprovable assertion. That kind of argument is the very kind of thing that supports my point.

.

So, you are claiming that a person's testimony is just dogma? How sad it must be to live such a cynical life.

Yes, spiritual knowledge usually comes one person at a time. But isn't that also true concerning any other knowledge? I am an eye witness that Bolivia actually is a country, so I KNOW it exists. Have you ever been there? If not, does that make my statement dogmatic, even though there are a variety of witnesses and evidences available to you?

These "assertions" of the gospel ARE provable, to those who choose to look at the evidence and seek their own witness of it. This would also be true of the individual wanting to have "proof" of molecules, needing to look through a powerful microscope in order to view them for him/herself.

I could state the same for many other scientifically provable things. The Catholic Church rejected Galileo's knowledge and witness of the Earth revolving around the Sun. They too called it dogmatic. There are few today who believe in an Earth-centric universe, because the knowledge and evidence swings strongly the other way. Of course, you may think that it just seems like the earth is moving around the Sun, etc., but in reality everything else still moves and we do not. That would be one's prerogative to decide. Cynical, but still a prerogative.

[Gatorman]

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.

[Maxel]

Yay! More fighting!

To me, I prefer the type of 'knowing' that comes from faith that has matured into knowledge. All the time I learn what I 'know' about the Earth through science and personal observations are wrong or slightly off base (and maybe that's simply the result of an uneducated mind).

This fine line being drawn between belief and knowledge- and saying that others do not know that God exists because it is supposedly unprovable- reminds me of Korihor (and no, I'm not comparing Snow to Korihor here) in Alma 30:48:

"Now Korihor said unto him: I do not deny the existence of a God, but I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God; and except ye show me a sign, I will not believe." (Comment: could the sign Korihor be asking for also be considered "physical proof"?)

Interesting to note verse 42, in which Alma says "thou art possessed with a lying spirit, and ye have put off the Spirit of God that it may have no place in you; but the devil has power over you, and he doth carry you about, working devices that he may destroy the children of God". Even though Korihor believes in God (in verse 52 he says he has "always known" that God exists). Despite Korihor's belief and knowledge about God's existence, he still lead the people astray because he chose to listen to the devil instead of the spirit of Christ.

One other thing- the idea that a knowledge of God's existence will lead someone to always act correctly doesn't explain Cain's actions in slaying Abel, or any of the Sons of Perdition. The more obvious answer is that human weakness is to blame for wrong actions- not a lack of faith or knowledge.

One more thing- I doubt anyone who has seen the Father and/or the Son in this lifetime would casually share that fact over an internet forum to show that they know that They exist. The knowledge of eternal things is a very personalized and sacred matter.

While ya'll are chewing on what's been written so far, let's also try a different tact...

Certainly you are aware that there are Catholics and Evangelicals and Muslims who also KNOW that they and their version of theology are correct and true. They know just as undoubtedly and certainly and absolutely as do Mormons...

CHALLENGE to all who claim that they "KNOW:"

Please explain objectively and non-dogmatically why the Catholics and Evangelicals and Muslims sorely mistaken in their "knowledge" and you are not.

I've actually yet to meet anyone other than a Mormon that claims to KNOW their religion is true in the same way we claim to know. There is no witness wrought by a process of inquiry; there is usually a (sometimes blind) faith in the traditions of their fathers, who were the same religion. In the case of those who converted to another (non-LDS) religion from their original (non-LDS) religion, I've still never heard of anyone receiving a witness of the truth in the same manner that the LDS do.

It seems to me that if the process of conversion and gaining a knowledge of the truth is categorically different between Mormonism and other religions, then that is proof enough that there is some sort of difference. I believe that difference is the difference between a real witness of the truth and intellectual/spiritual fondness for a set of doctrine.

[Gatorman]

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.

[Guest Godless]

I've actually yet to meet anyone other than a Mormon that claims to KNOW their religion is true in the same way we claim to know. There is no witness wrought by a process of inquiry; there is usually a (sometimes blind) faith in the traditions of their fathers, who were the same religion. In the case of those who converted to another (non-LDS) religion from their original (non-LDS) religion, I've still never heard of anyone receiving a witness of the truth in the same manner that the LDS do.

It seems to me that if the process of conversion and gaining a knowledge of the truth is categorically different between Mormonism and other religions, then that is proof enough that there is some sort of difference. I believe that difference is the difference between a real witness of the truth and intellectual/spiritual fondness for a set of doctrine.

Actually, it's quite common among born-again Christians. Their conversion process may be different from the LDS version, but the level of passion is often similar. Once they've been "saved", many of them will claim to "know" that God exists.

[Gatorman]

Actually, it's quite common among born-again Christians. Their conversion process may be different from the LDS version, but the level of passion is often similar. Once they've been "saved", many of them will claim to "know" that God exists.

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.

[Maxel]

Actually, it's quite common among born-again Christians. Their conversion process may be different from the LDS version, but the level of passion is often similar. Once they've been "saved", many of them will claim to "know" that God exists.

You yourself admit that the process is "different". Having heard various accounts of the experiences of Evangelical Christians who claim they are "saved", I sitll contend that there is a categorical difference between the LDS witness of truth and the born-again conversion process. The two are simply different processes.

[Gatorman]

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>

[Honorentheos]

"Knowledge" in the sense that Snow is using it is, frankly, non-sequitur. You can say, and "prove", that 2+2=4. But that's just an arbitrary assignment of meaning to an arbitrary set of symbols.

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 -

If you consider knowledge to be what you have observed through first-hand observation, that also is non-sequitur. Schizophrenia and bi-polar regularly exhibit manifestations of compelling reality to those who suffer from these illnesses. These delusions are directly observed, seen, touched, and interacted with by those who have them. And yet we call them false and illusion because the rest of us can't see them. But who's to say we're the "normal" by which they should be judged? Now we enter to the realm of simulacrum that made The Matrix so popular - how do you know what is real? The fact is, we don't.

Followed by this -

Knowledge, then, in any communicable sense is only a firm conviction. In more scientific terms, it must be a firm conviction based on experience. There are some people who have experience and yet never form that conviction. There are some who form the conviction without experience. And there are some who have the experience and the conviction.

...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).

[BenRaines]

I seem to remember reading that Faith is not a perfect knowledge. We have faith, we believe and with that can come a witness of the Holy Ghost that leads us to the knowledge that we have had a witness, spirit to spirit communication. Then I might say that this I know in a spiritual sense but not the same that I know that 2+2=4.

Ben Raines

[Gatorman]

I seem to remember reading that Faith is not a perfect knowledge. We have faith, we believe and with that can come a witness of the Holy Ghost that leads us to the knowledge that we have had a witness, spirit to spirit communication. Then I might say that this I know in a spiritual sense but not the same that I know that 2+2=4.

Ben Raines

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.

[john doe]

Oh gosh. Are we going to have a discussion now on what the definition of 'is' is? I think some of you are here to fight only because Snow is on the other side of the discussion. Grow up.

[BenRaines]

I understand your point Gatorman and agree that there is a difference in Perfect Knowledge and Knowledge. Sounds to me like your and Snow's difference is a difference in how words are defined and not in belief. I do believe, with all my heart that God lives, that his Son, Jesus Christ, came to earth, died and was resurrected. I believe I know these things from a witness that was given to me by the Holy Ghost. But I do not have a perfect knowledge. I have not seen them, not felt the marks in the hands and in the side of the Savior. Based on a witness spirit to spirit I know these things to be true but I admit I do not have a perfect knowledge. A perfect knowledge does not require faith. I must have faith.

Ben Raines

[Gatorman]

I understand your point Gatorman and agree that there is a difference in Perfect Knowledge and Knowledge. Sounds to me like your and Snow's difference is a difference in how words are defined and not in belief. I do believe, with all my heart that God lives, that his Son, Jesus Christ, came to earth, died and was resurrected. I believe I know these things from a witness that was given to me by the Holy Ghost. But I do not have a perfect knowledge. I have not seen them, not felt the marks in the hands and in the side of the Savior. Based on a witness spirit to spirit I know these things to be true but I admit I do not have a perfect knowledge. A perfect knowledge does not require faith. I must have faith.

Ben Raines

Exactly. But, that definition of knowledge applies to 'worldly' knowledge as well. Remember, people used to know, could measure and define, that the world was flat. Without perfect knowledge, we can not Snow-Know that 2+2=4. It may just be a matter of where our personal definition of know is. If Snow is referring to perfect knowledge, then, his post is correct. Because, we have perfect knowledge of nothing. If Snow is referring to 2+2=4 knowledge, then his post is mistaken, because I have that knowledge of my Heavenly Father. But, in the end it is semantics.

[Maxel]

Perhaps some of the confusion could be cleared if everyone (dis)agreed if it is possible to know for a surety whether God exists or not?

A person's level of faith may be debatable to others, but theoreticals can be instructive. If a person saw God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, in Their glory, would that be enough for them to know that God exists?

I think the simple answer is 'yes'. What do you guys think?

Edited August 31, 2009 by Maxel

[BenRaines]

Perfect knowledge does not require faith. There are things that are perfect knowledge. I can reach out and touch my children. I have perfect knowledge that they are standing there. When I hear them on the phone I believe it is them by the things they say and their voice, but it is possible for someone to imitate their voice so it is not perfect knowledge that they are there. I have faith based on the things they say that it is them.

As I recall one of the purposes of our existence, other than to obtain a body, is to live by faith. Prove ourselves worthy to return not having a perfect knowledge.

Ben Raines

[Gatorman]

Then, if it is not possible for the common person to know Heavenly Father, why do the scriptures say it is possible?

[Guest Godless]

You yourself admit that the process is "different". Having heard various accounts of the experiences of Evangelical Christians who claim they are "saved", I sitll contend that there is a categorical difference between the LDS witness of truth and the born-again conversion process. The two are simply different processes.

They are different means to the same goal: to know God and form a relationship with him. Even within the LDS faith alone, I think it's safe to say that everyone has a different way of building faith. There may be similarities in the methods of gaining a testimony, but ultimately no two paths are going to be identical.

[Just_A_Guy]

Wow. Ten pages is pretty long for a discussion that purports to be wholly about semantics.