Do You REALLY Know? Nope.

[Snow]

If your mom was standing next to you, or your spouse, or your bishop or your boss, would you:

-lie, when they knew you were lying?

-steal?

-waste time at work on the internet on message boards and playing games on your companies expense?

-steal?

-speak profanity?

-watch porn or HBO softcore, or look at nude pictures, take pleasure on the sly, etc?

-treat others poorly?

-gossip?

etc?

Something a poster on another thread said caught my eye. If you KNEW, as many claim they do, that God existed - that the Church/gospel was true, not believed, but KNEW, would you still behave the way that you behave?

I am far from perfect but I don't do any of those things above, or any other similar things if my mom or bishop is there watching me. I seriously doubt that most posters here would either. Yet many such posters claim to KNOW that God exists and the Church is true and persist in immature, idiotic, or immoral behavior with God right there studying their every move - so to speak. I've seem people here claim to know that God exists/Church true, who lie in their posts.

You could chalk it up to temptation or being human but if God were truly and verifiably by your side, watching you and you KNEW it, you could see/touch HIM, you wouldn't do half the things that you do. So why do people do such things - because they don't really KNOW. They merely believe, have faith, are convinced, but they don't 100% buy that an actual, real, personage is 100% aware of everything they do.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Snow

[Lstinthwrld]

Wow good thread.

[Guest]

I might not have understood your post Snow, but Peter denying Christ 3 times comes to mind. I mean, how can he do that after he has pledged his life and bore physical witness to the Christ? Also that one witness to the Book of Mormon (Cowedry?) who ended up inactive even if he never lost his testimony...

We are human prone to human failures.

[ferretrunner]

Can we ever know? Knowledge is like 2+2=4. It can be proven. I know Lady Tosca exists. I just gave her a treat and played with her. I've never seen God or touched God. All we really have is faith. Some people's faith is stronger than others. Would I behave differently if I had direct knowledge God exists and the Church is true? Probably. For one, I would have a testimony instead of the doubt-a-mony I'm struggling with now. That would make it much easier to pay tithing and accept some of the teachings I question now. But, would knowledge also interfere with agency? If God was standing, visibly, next to me every moment of every day, am I really choosing to do right? Or am I going along with the flow in order not to anger God? If we had perfect knowledge of God in this life, what would be the point? What would we learn? How would we grow?

Good post, Snow. Very thought provoking.

[pam]

I am far from perfect

I think that is the key thing right there. I think you can still "know" that the things are true..that God exists. I wouldn't do the things you listed if my mom, dad, Bishop or Heavenly Father himself were standing next to me.

Now you might argue that Heavenly Father is standing next to me at all times. Very true..he is always with me..But I can't physically see him with my own eyes. I think the saying "Out of sight out of mind" is appropriate in many cases.

As I was growing up and even as an adult..my own earthly father wasn't always standing next to me but I did an awful lot of stuff I shouldn't have even knowing that he would highly disapprove and be extremely disappointed.

[Ronster]

Interesting thought.

Consider the fact that many of the early church leaders witnessed such truths such as seeing the gold plates and visitations by angels, etc... yet still apostatized from the church. Laman and Lemuel are also good example. They actually saw an angel yet eventually still continued in their wickedness and sought to take the life of their brother and family. I guess in some sense a visitation by an angel still might not be 100% proof for someone but I think it would be pretty hard to deny it. Satin knows that God exists yet he has still rebelled against him. I think a lot of it has to do with our free agency and imperfect natures.

I think for the most part you are correct that some how actually having 100% knowledge of God would definitely have its benefits to lead you do to more righteous things and make it easier to avoid those things you listed. The only flaw I see is that none of us can be perfect, even with a perfect knowledge of God. I believe it is still possible to do those things you listed and to know 100% that God exists but it would probably be much worst for your soul to do such things and to have that knowledge.

[Guest missingsomething]

I might not have understood your post Snow, but Peter denying Christ 3 times comes to mind. .....We are human prone to human failures.

And if simply KNOWING Him was enough... then there would be no need for repentence. Yes Anatess... you are so incredibly right...

Even Joseph Smith KNEW Heavenly Father but STILL failed to heed every caution (ie missing sections).

And another thought comes to mind... him without sin, cast the first stone.... I think more than a chastisment this goes to say - we all have sin. And Christ has shown himself to many.. and many believed who did see him and preached and converted many - but it doesnt mean we dont have weaknesses and falter.

Thats what is so great about the atonement. When we do fail... and we will... we can learn from it, move on knowing that even if man judges us - HE will no longer remember it. Anyone who believes in our church must believe the prophets who have taught this is a life of being tested. You dont grow from never being challenged....

[Snow]

I might not have understood your post Snow, but Peter denying Christ 3 times comes to mind. I mean, how can he do that after he has pledged his life and bore physical witness to the Christ? Also that one witness to the Book of Mormon (Cowedry?) who ended up inactive even if he never lost his testimony...

We are human prone to human failures.

That's an excellent illustration of the point:

One one hand there is the almighty God, all-powerful, and all-knowing and on the other hand there is a slave girl who thinks Peter might have been a friend of Jesus.

Had Peter known that God was real and was was right there, observing him and his every word, he wouldn't have lied to the slave girl and bystander. Peter had faith - believed that Jesus was the Christ but that's what it was - belief, not knowledge. And remember, Peter was an apostle, and knew Jesus personally and yet his faith did not equate to knowledge that impacted his behavior. How much less than Peter's faith is the average member's belief? A lot.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Snow

[dorave]

And if simply KNOWING Him was enough... then there would be no need for repentence.

Actually, there needs to be a fall before repentence, as was brought about with the Fall of Adam, which we know happened in the absence of god. The absence of god therefore brings about choice, faith and individual knowledge.

We do know god, even if we do not know or think we do, we were all endowed with this at birth as our spirits are made of god-like material, and we have a 'divine' nature to know what 'feels' good and bad, that sense and small piece of knowledge in itself is a confirmation of our spiritual embodiment endorsing a living god.

Edited August 30, 2009 by dorave

[Snow]

We do know god, even if we do not know or think we do, we were all endowed with this at birth as our spirits are made of god-like material, and we have a 'divine' nature to know what 'feels' good and bad, that sense and small piece of knowledge in itself is a confirmation of our spiritual embodiment endorsing a living god.

That is an illustration of dogma, not knowledge.

You don't KNOW that you were endowed with it at birth or KNOW that you have a spirit or KNOW that your spirit is made of a god-like material. Those are things that someone has told you you should believe and so you believe it, but it's now KNOWLEDGE.

[BenRaines]

I have lived my life with that same thought about my actions. Do as you would if Christ were standing over your shoulder looking at all you do. Am I perfect? No. Do I think that thought often of "Would I be doing this with Christ looking over my shoulder? Yes.

I do these things as a love of Christ not as a fear of retribution.

Ben Raines

[Traveler]

I have often pondered what knowledge is – especially in the light of what is faith.

Some criticize Peter for denying Christ – but I wonder where the other 10 were? Peter put himself in great danger because of his love of Jesus and willingness to be as close to him as possible. There was no one on earth (no mortal) that put themselves in greater danger for Jesus than did Peter.

Now, with that aside – I agree very much with the intent of Snow’s post. In relationship to knowing G-d or knowing of G-d; it seems to me that there is an attempt by many to try to draw a line and say that everyone on one side really knows G-d and that people on the other side do not really know G-d. The interesting thing to me is that everybody that thinks knowing G-d is important will always place themselves on the positive side.

Along this line; it is also interesting to me that every indication there is in scripture concerning the “judgments” of G-d we are told that we will be judged for our deeds and works (not our beliefs or knowledge). Yet most argue their worthiness for salvation and living with G-d based on their beliefs or knowledge and not their deeds. I think this is because we all know our deeds fall a little short and even so, we can pretend our beliefs and knowledge are perfect.

The Traveler

[dorave]

That is an illustration of dogma, not knowledge.

You don't KNOW that you were endowed with it at birth or KNOW that you have a spirit or KNOW that your spirit is made of a god-like material. Those are things that someone has told you you should believe and so you believe it, but it's now KNOWLEDGE.

No, even as infants we know of hunger before we know what hunger is, theses type of revelations are not dogma.

We know what feels good and what doesnt quite early on in life even before we gain a mental knowledge, that feeling is a spiritual action not a mental one, you dig?

[Traveler]

I have lived my life with that same thought about my actions. Do as you would if Christ were standing over your shoulder looking at all you do. Am I perfect? No. Do I think that thought often of "Would I be doing this with Christ looking over my shoulder? Yes.

I do these things as a love of Christ not as a fear of retribution.

Ben Raines

My father use to tell me that the true test of character is not what a person does when they think others are watching but much more what they do when they think no one is watching or that no one will ever know.

The Traveler

[Gatorman]

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.

[Gatorman]

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. :)

[Justice]

Your claim is that you have to see in order to know. An alternative is that you can come to know, and therefore see.

Did you read the scriptures I posted in Ether 12? Moroni interjects his comments about the people of Ether who "believed not because they [saw] not."

Your argument is exactly the same as the people who did not believe Ether. Moroni interrupts his abridgement and for the rest of Ether 12 tells us how we can come to know. He makes a distinction between believing and knowing. He said we can come to know.

Check it out.

I know it's possible because I know the Book of Mormon is true. I know. I know the implications that come along with knowing. I accept them. All I can do is plead for mercy over my shortcomings, weaknesses, and sins.

It's a remarkable and amazing thing for me to say I know it's true. I know it is, and I also know there is no way I could come to know of myself. The witness came from something far greater than me. To convince a stubborn man that something unseen is absolutely true is past description to me.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Justice

[Guest Godless]

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.

And without proof, there can be no knowledge, only faith. As a non-believer, I find faith to be a peculiar thing indeed. People get so wrapped up in it that they mistake it for knowledge. They don't "believe", they "know" that God exists. If that were truly the case, then what would be the point of faith? You either believe (which requires faith) or you know (which requires definitive proof). I see little room for both positions.

[Gatorman]

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.

Your claim is that you have to see in order to know. An alternative is that you can come to know, and therefore see.

Did you read the scriptures I posted in Ether 12? Moroni interjects his comments about the people of Ether who "believed not because they [saw] not."

Your argument is exactly the same as the people who did not believe Ether. Moroni interrupts his abridgement and for the rest of Ether 12 tells us how we can come to know. He makes a distinction between believing and knowing. He said we can come to know.

Check it out.

I know it's possible because I know the Book of Mormon is true. I know. I know the implications that come along with knowing. I accept them. All I can do is plead for mercy over my shortcomings, weaknesses, and sins.

It's a remarkable and amazing thing for me to say I know it's true. I know it is, and I also know there is no way I could come to know of myself. The witness came from something far greater than me. To convince a stubborn man that something unseen is absolutely true is past description to me.

[dorave]

You could chalk it up to temptation or being human but if God were truly and verifiably by your side, watching you and you KNEW it, you could see/touch HIM, you wouldn't do half the things that you do. So why do people do such things - because they don't really KNOW. They merely believe, have faith, are convinced, but they don't 100% buy that an actual, real, personage is 100% aware of everything they do.

Of course you can chalk it up to being human, and being tempted thats the expected part of mans existance. The fall (the seperation) was essential.

But you cannot excuse that fact.

If god was phsyically present all of time we would learn much in theory, but little in practice, we will learn much about faith but know nothing about it, its the same in regards to ur other thread, without being seperated from god we would never really know him.

Its like when we live at home, growing up, and then we leave home n' get married or whatever, we then know and appreciate our parents 100x more than when we lived at home.

Edited August 30, 2009 by dorave

[Justice]

[Moksha]

Snow, if many members admitted in a post-cartesian world that they believed rather than knew, would that not put them at a disadvantage in terms of Church advancement or even getting a Celestial Helpmeet at BYU? Given those factors, wouldn't it be easier to run with the herd and leave the truth of these espistemological problems to the philosophies of Men?

Just trying to help clarify your position...

[rameumptom]

I think knowledge and obedience are two separate things. Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith had absolute knowledge of the resurrected Christ, yet both sinned. Joseph saw God the Father, yet faltered on many occasions afterward.

So, I see no correlation in the Snow's statement. In fact, all it shows is that most of us do not stay walking our lives with the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost 100% of the time. And it shows that we still require Christ's atonement, even after a perfect knowledge.

Alma 32 tells us that people can "know" things from the Spirit, and to the level they've received a testimony have a knowledge of those specific things. When I bear testimony and say, "I know" it is on the things I've received a spiritual witness of. No longer is it a belief issue on certain things for me. Is it provable to Snow or others who may doubt another's witness, or be focused on the individual's weaknesses (yes, Snow, a person can have a perfect knowledge AND still sin)?

Snow, As for those who claim to "know" God and then do sinful things like "lie" in their posts, are they any different than you or I, who tend to quickly judge others with the beams in our own eyes? Perhaps if we were a little more charitable and forgiving, we also could "know" as they do that Christ is our Lord. At least if they are sinners, theirs is the lesser sin, because their lying in posts doesn't compare to our great snobbish judging of them, eh?

[Snow]

No, even as infants we know of hunger before we know what hunger is, theses type of revelations are not dogma.

We know what feels good and what doesnt quite early on in life even before we gain a mental knowledge, that feeling is a spiritual action not a mental one, you dig?

No?

Well that is easily enough determined.

Dogma is an unproved or unprovable assertion.

Prove that you were endowed with it at birth or KNOW that you have a spirit or KNOW that your spirit is made of a god-like material - please.

[Snow]

I think knowledge and obedience are two separate things. Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith had absolute knowledge of the resurrected Christ, yet both sinned. Joseph saw God the Father, yet faltered on many occasions afterward.

So, I see no correlation in the Snow's statement. In fact, all it shows is that most of us do not stay walking our lives with the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost 100% of the time. And it shows that we still require Christ's atonement, even after a perfect knowledge.

Alma 32 tells us that people can "know" things from the Spirit, and to the level they've received a testimony have a knowledge of those specific things. When I bear testimony and say, "I know" it is on the things I've received a spiritual witness of. No longer is it a belief issue on certain things for me. Is it provable to Snow or others who may doubt another's witness, or be focused on the individual's weaknesses (yes, Snow, a person can have a perfect knowledge AND still sin)?

... 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.

Snow, As for those who claim to "know" God and then do sinful things like "lie" in their posts, are they any different than you or I, who tend to quickly judge others with the beams in our own eyes? Perhaps if we were a little more charitable and forgiving, we also could "know" as they do that Christ is our Lord. At least if they are sinners, theirs is the lesser sin, because their lying in posts doesn't compare to our great snobbish judging of them, eh?

I don't know about you but they are certainly different than me in that they claim to KNOW that God exists. I do not. I have the same back ground as they - raised in the gospel, devote my whole life, obedient, studious, prayerful, meditative, mission, spiritual experience, temple marriage, temple goer, etc, and yet I realize that what I have, is not knowledge, but faith. Sure it could be that God has singled me out to withhold knowledge while blessing so many others with it... but you can guess what I think of that notion.