know=believe

[JesusParadox]

Does know equal believe in LDS culture?

[Traveler]

Does know equal believe in LDS culture?

I believe that the expression "I know" is way over used in LDS culture. I do not know that - I just believe it. but then - What can we know?

We may think we know things when the Holy Ghost is with us but we really do not know such things and should the Holy Ghost leave is we will doubt.

The Traveler

[applepansy]

Traveler, I understand your skepticism. However there are things about the gospel I know, its more than just believe.

MasterOrator, yes sometimes the two are synonymous but not always. Those who have an experience which gives them knowledge know the difference between know and believe.

[bytor2112]

I think that our experience with the Holy Spirit is so beyond understanding that to communicate Spiritual communication to others we are left with....i know.

[skippy740]

There are 2 "I knows":

1) I know because the Spirit told me.

Then there's:

2) I know... "I won't know any more then than I know now that Jesus is the Christ."

One is a witness of the Spirit. The other is the Second Comforter.

Until one receives and knows that they've received a witness of the Spirit, they are left with "I believe".

[Vort]

If some are too cavalier with the word "know", others are far too picky about its use. A child can say he "knows" such-and-such, because his parents told him so. What, that doesn't count? How many here would claim to "know" that the Earth's south pole is in Antarctica? Really? How do you "know" that? Because your globe told you so?

If someone claims he "knows" something in the gospel to be true, the safest and most charitable (and reasonable) course of action is to take him at his word.

[the Ogre]

There is too much in your simple question that leads to issues of moral relativism. I can say I know Mitt Romney is an unfeeling rock, but to a lot of people he is a very thoughtful person. So what then is this idea of knowing about Mitt Romney. I can not know him since I have never met him and and only have an impression built by his image people and the media.

IS this any different than an idea about G-d? Do I know H-m or do I believe in H-m?

There are certain truths about G-d and religion that I take to be true, but many others will feel these are nonsensical and irrational.

Knowing is so much stronger sounding than believing. This is a problem with language.

So what then about the people who then bandy about the "know" word in FnT meetings? I interpret "know" then as "believe" even if the person in question might have a personal witness.

I trust the GAs--the 12 mostly. The rest . . .

[JesusParadox]

Interesting!

One thing that keeps popping into my head is the listeners of a testimony. What is more powerful saying I believe or I know? The answer to me is clear, when somebody says I know it is more powerful.

I don't think it is a lie to say I know when all I do is actually believe. When we say I know we are using the religious version. Which would be, we know because we have had spiritual experience and the Holy Ghost testify. That is as good as most people who bear testimonies knowledge is. It is not the same as a scientific knowledge which would be 100% with out a doubt.

The English language(maybe all) is what makes us use know instead of believe. The power that I know has is how Jesus would want us to bear our testimony. I am sure he would want us to say it with as much power as possible.

In short, we use know synonymously with believe because of the power the word has.

[Just_A_Guy]

If some are too cavalier with the word "know", others are far too picky about its use. A child can say he "knows" such-and-such, because his parents told him so. What, that doesn't count? How many here would claim to "know" that the Earth's south pole is in Antarctica? Really? How do you "know" that? Because your globe told you so?

If someone claims he "knows" something in the gospel to be true, the safest and most charitable (and reasonable) course of action is to take him at his word.

Indeed. If we're as stringent about assertions of knowledge outside of sacrament meeting as we are about such assertions inside of sacrament meeting, we quickly discover that we really don't "know" very much about anything at all.

[MsMagnolia]

This thread brings to mind the story of the Brother of Jared. Who, because of his faith or belief , saw God's finger and then had a wonderful conversation with God.

Ether 3:19 And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting.

So, I tend to think they are different but that again is just my opinion and semantics :)

Mags

[applepansy]

This thread brings to mind the story of the Brother of Jared. Who, because of his faith or belief , saw God's finger and then had a wonderful conversation with God.

Ether 3:19 And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting.

So, I tend to think they are different but that again is just my opinion and semantics :)

Mags

Its is through our experiences that we gain knowledge. Its possible to have spiritual experiences, more than a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost and less that seeing the finger of God, which give us the kind of knowledge that is more than belief.

[MsMagnolia]

I agree with that too applepansy. I know many things through experience. One day I hope to have an experience like the brother of Jared :)

[Sicily510]

I agree with Applepansy, "I know" is equivalent to the outcomes of tribulations and our faith, faith allows individuals to bear testimonies based on morally challenged experiences. Some will be in the process to strengthen their faith/spirit to understand by learning and seeking via the scriptures. Some already faced an experience that attested Jesus Christ's teachings and gospels giving them knowledge, a sense of knowing.

A summary of 1 Corinthians Chapter 1:

True saints are perfectly united in the same mind and in the same judgment

Preach the gospel and save souls

The gospel is preached by the weak and the simple.

1 Corinthians Chapter 1:18-19

18. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

This supports the thesis that the weak and the simple will learn the gospel, striving to be faithful and understanding. It makes sense....everyone has experienced trials and tribulations in their own certain ways some that when they are in there lowest point they have no one to turn to, I would think the only solution is our heavenly father. Once we grasp this "sunbeam" (Jesus Christ & the Holy Ghost) that turns into a radiant light. This allows members of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of These Latter-days to convey such blessings, services, gospels, and understandings. It's only through the gospel of Jesus Christ that we can do such things or what some may think is "Wonders". :)

"For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God' (Moroni 7:16).

"There is a perfect manner of communication through the Spirit, 'for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God' (1 Corinthians 2:10)."

Jacob 4:13

Behold, ye brethren, he that prophesieth, let him prophesy to the understanding of men; for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls. But behold, we are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old.

I would like to conclude that "I know = to understand from experience or attainment reflecting Jesus Christ's teachings and gospels."

[HEthePrimate]

Those who have an experience which gives them knowledge know the difference between know and believe.

Those who look it up in a dictionary know the difference between "know" and "believe."

Knowing and believing are not the same thing, and the scriptures recognize this. Moreover, the scriptures indicate that believing is just fine.

D&C 46:13-14 says that some people have the gift of knowing by the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, while others have the gift of believing on their words, "that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful."

When Ammon is talking to King Lamoni's queen, he asks her if she believes what he says. She replies that she has had no witness other than his word, but she believes him, and he praises her for her faith (Alma 19:9-10).

And of course, in the ever-popular Parable of the Seed, we are instructed to plant the seed in our heart and nourish it. If it grows and produces good fruit, then we know it was a good seed, "and your faith is dormant; and this because you know" (Alma 32:34).

Belief and knowledge are two different things. And if you don't "know" something for sure, that's okay. You can still do fine in the gospel and even receive eternal life, according to D&C 46:13-14. If people really do know something, I have no problem with their saying so. However, I suspect a lot of people use the wording "I know" when in fact they mean "I believe" because it's what they hear other people say all the time at church, and maybe subconsciously they feel it would be unacceptable to say "I believe" instead. I'd rather people "be real" and honest and say they believe if that's what they mean, and that might offer a sense of relief to others who feel they are somehow deficient for not having a sure knowledge.

HEP

[JesusParadox]

There is a difference in meaning of the word and also power of the word. If believe had the power know has I think the Holy Ghost would prompt us to say that. When someone believes that is very powerful and saying it should be as powerful as saying I know. According to language believe does not have the same power as know. Therefore, the Holy Ghost uses words according to their power. Really, we do know from the Holy Ghost, just not according to world standards.

That is just my apologetic argument to all those who don't like that part of testimony meeting. Just something I thought of in a few second and admit it is weak.

[Traveler]

Traveler, I understand your skepticism. However there are things about the gospel I know, its more than just believe.

MasterOrator, yes sometimes the two are synonymous but not always. Those who have an experience which gives them knowledge know the difference between know and believe.

What I posted is not nor does it have anything to do with skepticism. It is reality. My understanding and "knowing" is so delicate that in reality it does not belong to me but rather belongs to that spirit that enlightens my understanding from time to time into knowledge. Whenever that spirit leaves me so does my so called knowledge and I am filled with doubt and misunderstanding.

I have, in my lifetime, had the privileged to converse with Apostles at a very personal level; that have expressed to me that their experience in "knowing" is no different than mine.

The Traveler

[mnn727]

Does know equal believe in LDS culture?

Yes, it sure appears to be. I have a very strong belief, but until I die I won't 'know'.

Many people claim to know for a fact, but I would challenge them to compare how they use 'know' in the physical world to how they use it in the spiritual sense.

Edited June 14, 2012 by mnn727

[Sicily510]

Those who look it up in a dictionary know the difference between "know" and "believe."

Knowing and believing are not the same thing, and the scriptures recognize this. Moreover, the scriptures indicate that believing is just fine.

D&C 46:13-14 says that some people have the gift of knowing by the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, while others have the gift of believing on their words, "that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful."

When Ammon is talking to King Lamoni's queen, he asks her if she believes what he says. She replies that she has had no witness other than his word, but she believes him, and he praises her for her faith (Alma 19:9-10).

And of course, in the ever-popular Parable of the Seed, we are instructed to plant the seed in our heart and nourish it. If it grows and produces good fruit, then we know it was a good seed, "and your faith is dormant; and this because you know" (Alma 32:34).

Belief and knowledge are two different things. And if you don't "know" something for sure, that's okay. You can still do fine in the gospel and even receive eternal life, according to D&C 46:13-14. If people really do know something, I have no problem with their saying so. However, I suspect a lot of people use the wording "I know" when in fact they mean "I believe" because it's what they hear other people say all the time at church, and maybe subconsciously they feel it would be unacceptable to say "I believe" instead. I'd rather people "be real" and honest and say they believe if that's what they mean, and that might offer a sense of relief to others who feel they are somehow deficient for not having a sure knowledge.

HEP

In regards to your statement:

"However, I suspect a lot of people use the wording "I know" when in fact they mean "I believe" because it's what they hear other people say all the time at church, and maybe subconsciously they feel it would be unacceptable to say "I believe" instead. I'd rather people "be real" and honest and say they believe if that's what they mean, and that might offer a sense of relief to others who feel they are somehow deficient for not having a sure knowledge."

I think it's unfair to suspect, it's believing someone to be guilty, false, fake and discredits peoples experiences that helped strengthen their faiths. Experiences holds a lot of credentials in work history, education, and even church services. It's great that their are those who can believe by only words, if they continue faithfully in the light of Jesus Christ. This would include good works, good deeds, reading the scriptures, pondering about the teachings, applying the gospel into our lives, then we are able to witness the spirit of the Holy Ghost. We are all Heavenly Fathers Children, however, we have to be obedient to his laws. Which is clearly living the gospel of Jesus Christ,preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, these cannot be done without the "Holy Ghost".

1 Corinthians 1:10

10. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

The verse that you shared regarding (D&C 46:13-14) is a verse to differentiate the people who are members from those who are earnest Truth seekers. There is a summary under Section 46, that distinctively points out that in the development of the church there wasn't a unified pattern for conducting Church services. There was a custom of admitting only members and earnest investigators to the sacrament meetings and other assemblies of the Church it became somewhat general. This revelation expresses the will of the Lord relative to governing and conducting meetings.

Verses:

1-2 Elders are to conduct meetings as guided by the Holy Spirit; 3-6 Truth seekers should not be excluded from sacramental services; 7-12, Ask of God and seek the gifts of the Spirit; 13-26, An enumeration of some of these gifts; 27-33, Church leaders are given power to discern the gifts of the Spirit.

Reading:

Alma 19:9

9. And Ammon said unto her: Believest thou this? And she said unto him: I have had no witness save thy word, and the word of our servants; nevertheless I believe that it shall be according as thou hast said.

From reading this verse she states "I have had no witness save thy word, and the word of our servants". Now, it's apparent that she was informed of this knowledge prior to when Ammon spoke to her by her servants.

Alma 19:2-5

2. Now the queen having heard of the fame of Ammon, therefore she sent and desired that he should come in unto her.

3. And it came to pass that Ammon did as he was commanded, and went in unto the queen, and desired to know what she would that he should do.

4. And she said unto him: The Servants of my husband have made it known unto me that thou art a prophet of a holy God, and that thou has power to do many mighty works in his name;

5. Therefore, if this is the case, I would that ye should go in and see my husaband, for he has been laid upon his bed for the space of two days and two nights; and some say that he is not dead, but others say that he is dead and that he stinketh, and that he ought to be placed in the sepulchre; but as for myself, to me he doth not stink.

This testifies that the queen wanted to inquire with the prophet Ammon. She sought for the prophet to come to her home and provide more information in performing the might works of Heavenly Fathers, and to verify whether her husband King Lamoni is dead or lives. King Lamoni was in a trance, he fell to the earth. The prophet Ammon told King Lamoni the gospel from the beginning how God created all, the redemption of our Savior Jesus Christ. Chapter 19 of Alma is a testimony of the queens faith and servants who were her witnesses of the gospel.

Some witness through their own testimonies, others witness through good works, good deeds, missionary works, church services, this must be conveyed in our daily lives.

:)

Also another parable that goes along with your seed parable...hehe

Matthew 7:20

20. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

[Vort]

Those who look it up in a dictionary know the difference between "know" and "believe."

Knowing and believing are not the same thing, and the scriptures recognize this. Moreover, the scriptures indicate that believing is just fine.

D&C 46:13-14 says that some people have the gift of knowing by the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, while others have the gift of believing on their words, "that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful."

When Ammon is talking to King Lamoni's queen, he asks her if she believes what he says. She replies that she has had no witness other than his word, but she believes him, and he praises her for her faith (Alma 19:9-10).

And of course, in the ever-popular Parable of the Seed, we are instructed to plant the seed in our heart and nourish it. If it grows and produces good fruit, then we know it was a good seed, "and your faith is dormant; and this because you know" (Alma 32:34).

Belief and knowledge are two different things. And if you don't "know" something for sure, that's okay. You can still do fine in the gospel and even receive eternal life, according to D&C 46:13-14. If people really do know something, I have no problem with their saying so. However, I suspect a lot of people use the wording "I know" when in fact they mean "I believe" because it's what they hear other people say all the time at church, and maybe subconsciously they feel it would be unacceptable to say "I believe" instead. I'd rather people "be real" and honest and say they believe if that's what they mean, and that might offer a sense of relief to others who feel they are somehow deficient for not having a sure knowledge.

HEP

Give me an example of something you know. Not something trivial or self-evident or true by definition, like 2+1=3.

Do you know what country Paris is in?

Do you know which is the southernmost continent?

Do you know the gross shape of the earth?

Do you know how many planets orbit the sun?

Do you know the speed of light in a vacuum?

Do you know who the President of the United States is?

Do you know whether drinking a tall, frosty glass of cyanide will kill you?

Now, please tell how you "know" these things, and explain how that is essentially different from those who "know" spiritual and religious truths, such as is commonly expressed in fast and testimony meeting.

[Traveler]

Give me an example of something you know. Not something trivial or self-evident or true by definition, like 2+1=3.

Do you know what country Paris is in?

Do you know which is the southernmost continent?

Do you know the gross shape of the earth?

Do you know how many planets orbit the sun?

Do you know the speed of light in a vacuum?

Do you know who the President of the United States is?

Do you know whether drinking a tall, frosty glass of cyanide will kill you?

Now, please tell how you "know" these things, and explain how that is essentially different from those who "know" spiritual and religious truths, such as is commonly expressed in fast and testimony meeting.

interesting you use 2+1=3. I posted in a previous thread that this "knowledge" is inaccurate and incomplete as a defination of the binary operation of addition defined in number theory. Someone that thinks that they know 2+1=3 does not really know what they think they know.

The sad and wonderful thing in life is; that the more you actually learn the more you realize that you do not know as much as you use to think you did.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Just for the record - if someone were to show me a truth (religious or scientific or whatever) I would love that truth and abondon any half truth I had. And I would not feel bad for one second in doing so.

The Traveler

[HEthePrimate]

Give me an example of something you know. Not something trivial or self-evident or true by definition, like 2+1=3.

Do you know what country Paris is in?

Do you know which is the southernmost continent?

Do you know the gross shape of the earth?

Do you know how many planets orbit the sun?

Do you know the speed of light in a vacuum?

Do you know who the President of the United States is?

Do you know whether drinking a tall, frosty glass of cyanide will kill you?

Now, please tell how you "know" these things, and explain how that is essentially different from those who "know" spiritual and religious truths, such as is commonly expressed in fast and testimony meeting.

It could be argued that one cannot know anything for sure, and I know people who do argue that. We could theoretically not even exist. No matter how much we feel like we exist, we could be a bad, food-poisoning-induced dream that God is having.

But some things are more probable than others, given our faculty of reason, physical evidence, etc., than others that don't make sense or which lack physical evidence.

I've actually been to Paris, France. I've talked with people there. I learned French. I ate their food, pooped in their toilets, banged on doors, and lived that reality for 22 months. Based on personal observation of a wide variety of things that can be measured, I conclude that Paris is real and is in France. It is much easier to make a case for the existence of Paris than the Fields of Aaru (the heavenly paradise in ancient Egyptian mythology). But if you've received a revelation from God that after you die, you're going to the Fields of Aaru, I probably won't argue with you. Just don't expect everybody else to receive your personal gnosis as "The Truth," because it's something they can't measure or see, and they would have to receive their own revelation in order to believe/know it. Until they receive that revelation, they'd have no reason to believe you.

To be fair, I suppose it's possible that I, and the millions of other people who claim to have been to Paris, might have dreamed or hallucinated it, and so you can't know for sure that Paris exists--even if you yourself have been there! But it does seem rather unlikely, does it not?

Anyway, I didn't claim that religious knowledge is impossible. But it is attained by different means--namely, revelation--than empirical knowledge, and that seems obvious enough that I don't know why I bothered writing the above!

In an LDS book (I think it was published by F.A.R.M.S., but don't remember the title) I once looked at, the author listed five different ways of acquiring knowledge. If I remember correctly (please correct me if you've read it and I got the list wrong), they were as follows: observation, experimentation, authority (learning from an expert or authority figure), reason, and revelation. FWIW, I think using a balance of all those tools is a healthy way to go, rather than relying exclusively on one.

Edited June 14, 2012 by HEthePrimate

[LinuxGal]

Give me an example of something you know. Not something trivial or self-evident or true by definition, like 2+1=3.

Do you know what country Paris is in?

Do you know which is the southernmost continent?

Do you know the gross shape of the earth?

Do you know how many planets orbit the sun?

Do you know the speed of light in a vacuum?

Do you know who the President of the United States is?

Do you know whether drinking a tall, frosty glass of cyanide will kill you?

Now, please tell how you "know" these things, and explain how that is essentially different from those who "know" spiritual and religious truths, such as is commonly expressed in fast and testimony meeting.

France

Antarctica

Oblate spheroid

8

3 x 10^10 cm /sec

Obummer

Yes

All of these things are falsifiable assertions which have withstood repeated testing. But spiritual and religious assertions are not falsifiable; in the end, the person making these sort of assertions will fall back on the book, or revelation, and that's that, end of discussion.

[Vort]

All of these things are falsifiable assertions which have withstood repeated testing.

So you, personally, have verified each of these items through falsifiability testing? If so, please tell me about how falsifiability testing proceeded for the speed of light in a vacuum or for your drinking of a cyanide milkshake.

Or have you simply learned these things and accept them as real, based on the authority of your teachers and others who have told you they are falsifiable and have withstood scrutiny? In this case, it is no different from religious truths we teach to our children. In fact, I venture to guess more LDS children learn the truthfulness of gospel principles through their own experience than ever gain firsthand experience on the toxic nature of cyanide, the speed of light in a vacuum, or anything having to do with basic number theory.

And as Alma 30 plainly teaches, gospel principles are definitely testable and should be tested. "Falsifiable" is the wrong term; gospel principles are not falsifiable, they are verifiable.

[Vort]

Anyway, I didn't claim that religious knowledge is impossible. But it is attained by different means--namely, revelation--than empirical knowledge, and that seems obvious enough that I don't know why I bothered writing the above!

Because you are trying to argue a very weak point: Namely, that when we learn scientific "facts" and such in school, we are justified in saying that we "know" this or that, but when we learn religious truths at Church, we shouldn't say we "know" and instead ought to say we "believe". I challenged you with some simple and obvious examples, and you are trying to answer those examples while still holding on to your absurd premise.

The nature of what we "know" is similar in most cases: We have learned facts, procedures, and viewpoints from others -- usually superiors, such as teachers and parents -- and we accept their words at face value. In only a few cases do we do much testing to see how valid their teachings are. I doubt anyone on this list has at any time been to Antarctica, yet we still proclaim its existence as "truth" that we all "know".

This makes religious truth more robust than other "truth", at least in this sense: We can test it, personally and individually.

Those who say that the Latter-day Saints should not claim to "know" gospel truths and should instead claim only to "believe" them do not know what they are talking about. Their argumentation is inconsistent and, in some cases, even dishonest. They would do much better to keep their silly opinions to themselves in this matter and instead seek to deepen and broaden their own understanding of the nature of truth and how it is gained.