Should “I Know” the Church is True?
I just listened to the podcast of the Mormon Miscellaneous radio show by Van Hale from August 17th talking about Mormon apologetics and with guest Mike Ash about his new book Shaken Faith Syndrome. This post isn’t a critique of Hale’s show or of Ash’s book, but it is about one tenet expressed during this particular program that is false.
I consider myself an apologist in the Church, meaning that I have covenanted to sustain and defend it from error. I always bear my testimony that “I know” the Church is true, and that “I know” the Book of Mormon is true, and that “I know” Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that “I know” that President Monson is a prophet of God, and that “I know” that Jesus Christ is our only Savior and Redeemer. The reason why is that I have received an unmistakable witness from God, through His Spirit, that it is so. Come rain or come shine, I will always hold on to this sure witness. Should it be any different?
One of the initial comments that Van Hale made on the radio program, which was emphasized several times throughout the program, was that this kind of talk that “I know” is not good to have as a Mormon, and it seems that Mike Ash concurred (although at one point Ash said that we should “know,” and Hale corrected him). The sentiment was expressed that it is better to say that “I believe” something is right and from God, than to say that “I know” it is, for doing so would be setting oneself up for disillusionment, disaffection, and doubt in one’s gospel learning and development in the Church. This just isn’t right. It seems to me to be a concession of true principles. Indeed, it seems to be an oxymoronic position to take for a believing apologist, or a believing disciple of Christ, by promoting a more doubtful view over a sure knowledge of the gospel. Now, I know that the “I believe” position is taken to seemingly open oneself up to be able to better receive historical facts about the Church that one has not encountered before, and to not be “shaken” in one’s faith by them, but, on the other hand, where does it leave us? It leaves us without a firm testimony of the gospel.
Consider the talk given just recently in the last April 2008 General Conference by Elder Oaks entitled “Testimony.” I counted over 50 times that Elder Oaks used the word “know” in his talk, in one form of the word or another. His very first sentence was this:
A testimony of the gospel is a personal witness borne to our souls by the Holy Ghost that certain facts of eternal significance are true and that we know them to be true.
Elder Oaks goes on to explain how we come to “know” these truths. It would seem to me that a testimony that doesn’t “know” certain truths is not much of a testimony at all. In that case, it would be a belief, but not a firm conviction of truth. Elder Oaks seems to be teaching us that we need to “know” the doctrines of the gospel are true, not just “believe” in them. If we are new in the Church, and do not yet “know” truth but “believe” in it by the faith and words of others, then we should be striving diligently to gain such a testimony of the Spirit so we can say, each individually, that “I know.”
In closing his talk Elder Oaks said this:
I close with my testimony. I know that we have a Heavenly Father, whose plan brings us to earth and provides the conditions and destiny of our eternal journey. I know that we have a Savior, Jesus Christ, whose teachings define the plan and whose Atonement gives the assurance of immortality and the opportunity for eternal life. I know that the Father and the Son appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore the fulness of the gospel in these latter days. And I know that we are led today by a prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, who holds the keys to authorize priesthood holders to perform the ordinances prescribed for our progress toward eternal life.
Of course this does not mean that we must believe that prophets are infallible, or that they can never speak opinion, or that they are never wrong. But the fundamental principles and doctrines of the gospel we can know with a surety that they are true, and we should not be shy in proclaiming it, over the pulpit, to our friends, online, over the airwaves, and in every medium we can. This is true missionary work. Should we not emulate the example of the prophets? Should we not have a goal to be like them (Num. 11:29, cf. Rev. 19:10)? Should we not strive to “know” with a surety, by a continual revealed witness of the Holy Ghost? I know what I believe. It seems to me that proclaiming otherwise is heading down the same path of doubt that we are trying to prevent against, as well as stating things contrary to the words of the prophets. “Doubt not, fear not” (D&C 6:36).
Christ once asked his apostles, “But whom say ye that I am?” And Simon answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” He didn’t say “I believe that thou art the Christ…” And how did Christ respond? “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 16:15-17). Alma also agreed that we should “know,” by the Holy Ghost, and bear testimony of such (Alma 5:45-48). Moreover, the most often quoted scripture in the Church teaches us that we can “know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:3-5).
(Bryce Haymond is the editor of TempleStudy.com, a blog dedicated to sustaining and defending the LDS temple by comparative studies of religious worship found around the world and throughout history.)
Good thoughts Bryce. The gospel is inclusive of so many different pieces of knowledge and information, it sometimes can be overwhelming to process.
I think it would be worthwhile to separate the aspects of testimony that can can be acquired through experimentation (a la Alma 32) and those that are to be accepted by faith.
Following the commandments is a great way to “know” of certain principles’ veracity. Particularly, regarding the fundamental Christian principles of love and service. A man who loves his family dearly will experience the enriched life that comes from that, and will experience a portion of the love of God. I don’t think he would be bashful in saying that he “knows” of God’s love, and of the truthfulness of the commandments, because he has experienced it.
However, take the corporeal nature of God. One might very well say “I know that God has a body of flesh and bones,” but that knowledge is essentially hollow. What is God’s flesh like? How strong are his bones? An “I know” would be most inappropriate to either of those questions, yet one can still have a testimony of the physical aspects of God–through faith. It does one little good to know of of something so unknowable that the knowledge is useless, and perhaps even non existent.
Someone might feel the spirit very strongly when reading a revelation given to Joseph Smith, to the point that every rational sense in their being confirms to them that he was indeed God’s servant, but that doesn’t come with it a comprehensive catalog of everything Joseph ever did or didn’t related to secular or spiritual matters. A spiritual confirmation, while powerful, leaves a lot unknown.
I think this is the critical factor in why some are uncomfortable with the blanket “I know” statements. It requires a leap of faith to connect what confirming experiences they DO have with the abyss of the unknown—and this leap of faith must be done without full “know”ledge.
So to many, statements like “I know the Church is true” or “I know Joseph Smith was a prophet” are so ambiguous that they essentially are rendered meaningless. This is because they rely on qualifiers to obtain meaning: what makes a prophet? what makes a church true? And these issues are far more complex than binary thinking allows.
Also, since effective communication requires two parties, it is important to consider how the listener interprets these words. If they think that “true church” means a zionist city of enoch, fully endorsed by GOd, free from historical blemish, where everyone is without reproach where everything that has ever been taught is crystal clear and gospel truth, the speaker might think twice before saying this. Or if they think “true prophet” means a man who can do no wrong, who chats with God day in and day out, who never gets angry, who is in perfect accord with God’s will day in and day out, again the speaker might refrain from trowing them a bone that he knows is not fully true.
I think in the church there are many of these unrealistic idealist notions about what make something authorized by God. And this might discourage more educated members from saying things that perpetuate these ideas. Not because they don’t believe, or even know, that Joseph’s revelations are authentic, or that the Book of Mormon is truly divine, or that the Priesthood has actually been restored, and that the Church is the unique holder of it; but rather because, despite these known truths, they are aware of a greater scope of facts and issues, that don’t undermine, but do add complexity to them.
So, do I know that Joseph Smith was truly inspired of God? Yes. Do I know how many times he enjoyed a beer? No. Does Joseph Smith drinking beer undermine his claims inspiration? To me, no. To others, it very well could. So was he prophet or wasn’t he? So prophets can drink beer?
Do I know God’s love? Yes. Do I know what color his eyebrows are? No. Do I know he lives? Well, I know the eyebrow colors of those living people I do know, but not his…but how could I know God’s love if he didn’t live?
And so you see, these issues enter into labyrinths of logic, inferences, assumptions, faith, and reason, and sometimes, an simple “I know” does them terrible injustice.
Statements of “I know” or “I believe” can mean different things, depending on the context. While I agree in general with the post, “I know” can be inappropriate at times (as illustrated quite nicely by the Alma/Zoramites/faith as a seed discourse). The fact that I can know the truth of all things does not mean that I do know the truth of all things and there are times when making that distinction is important. That said, Hale’s suggestion that “I know” should never be used is simply wrong.
James,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that we need to be thoughtful about everything in the gospel, and to analyze things in the light of the spirit. I will disagree with your analysis of some things, however.
I don’t think there is a separation between those things acquired through experimentation and those that are accepted by faith. You’ll notice that Alma 32 is a chapter about acquiring faith by experimentation on the word. They are inseparable subjects.
I don’t think it is inappropriate to say that “I know that God has a body of flesh and bones,” or that such a statement would be hollow. On the contrary, such truth is a fundamental principle of the nature of God and His restored gospel. If the Spirit has witnessed to us of this truth, then why not say that we know it? I’m sure there have been many General Authorities who have witnessed of this truth, then why not I? (I’d check but apparently LDS.org is down right now. Never seen that before!). The point is, if the Spirit witnesses to us of a truth, then we know it. We might not know all the intricacies, details, why’s and wheretofore’s of it, but we know the general principle is true, and that is fundamentally important to know. We build upon that step by step, line upon line.
I would say that a spiritual confirmation is the most powerful way that we can receive and understand truth. I believe it was once said that even if an angel was manifested to you, a spiritual witness would still be stronger, and leave a more memorable impression upon your soul.
Yes, I do believe that in many instances there is a “leap of faith” that must be taken to say “I know.” But it is precisely that “leap of faith” that is necessary to gain more faith. I believe Elder Packer gave a talk on the subject once where he said that you can’t gain more faith unless you take that step of faith into the darkness, into the unknown. That is faith, isn’t it, at least initially to have a hope of something that is unknown. Gradually our faith becomes more sure, until the perfect day. “And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true… Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. ” (Alma 32:21).
Saying that “I know that someone was a true prophet” leaves details unexplained, but that is why we continue to explore, learn, study, and pray, to extend the reach of our faith. Just because there is more to learn, however, doesn’t mean that we can’t “know” that the general principles are true, and to testify of them. It will be a great while yet until we know everything perfectly.
Brian,
Just because we can know something doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t say that we do know it, in the gospel. Clearly we don’t know all things, but the particulars that we have received a witness of we should know. A testimony is gained in the bearing of it. The Spirit will witness of truth as we speak it, even if we did not perfectly know it previously.
Testimonies seem to be a mix of three major routes; line upon line, intellectual exploration and personal revelation. I disagree that a testimony that doesn’t “know” certain truths is not much of a testimony at all. All three routes lead to the same place. “Knowing” simply means something different to each of these groups.
My intellectual and scholarly friends have a hard time saying that they “know” anything to be absolutely true, let alone something spiritual. Using their definition I would have to agree with them, they are referring to scientific proof not spiritual truth.
When I say that I know that the gospel is true, they know that I mean the truth of the gospel was revealed to me by the Spirit, that it seemed familiar and rang true in my heart and my mind.
Personally, I find the phrase “the church is true” odd, sure the gospel is true but what do you really mean when you say the church is true? Are you conflating the two?
To me, I decided in my late teens that there were things that I believed and things that I knew and I realized the difference. If you don’t “know” something, then it’s perfectly ok to ‘believe’ it. I then made a list, believe it or not, and determined to move things from my “believe” list to my “know” list. As time went on, I moved all of the items on that list to the “know” side and added new things to the “believe” side. Listen, if you know then you have no reservations about stating that you do. This is probably a distinction that should be clarified. I think many people say they “know” when they really “believe”. I can see where that would cause problems with people trying to reconcile their testimonies.
By definition a testimony is something that we have a winess of. If I were a witness to a car accident, of which I received personal knowledge by my senses, I wouldn’t testify in court that I believe that driver A’s car hit driver B. I know because of my witness and one’s belief would not be admissible as direct evidence.
I don’t see why we can’t testify that God has a body of flesh and bones, especially if the Spirit has testified to a person about that enternal truth. Did not Moroni say that the HG would testify of the truth of all things. Perhaps we won’t receive a knowledge about the color of his eyebrows, but the spirit surely would testify to a principle that is already canonized.
I like this quote from Elder Ballard’s talk in the April 2004 Conference:
“My experience throughout the Church leads me to worry that too many of our members’ testimonies linger on “I am thankful” and “I love,” and too few are able to say with humble but sincere clarity, “I know.” As a result, our meetings sometimes lack the testimony-rich, spiritual underpinnings that stir the soul and have meaningful, positive impact on the lives of all those who hear them.”
Corey-
I really like your idea of making a list of things that you believe and things that you know. I think that provides a very concrete way to strengthen and work on aspects of our testimonies that often seem abstract. Your exercise highlights the fact that testimonies do not have to be achieved by seemingly abstract and mysterious means. We can work on them, through study and faith, and, in that way, turn beliefs into knowledge.
Anyway, just wanted to say that I thought your idea was an excellent one, Corey. I’d like to see that one used in the Church curriculum.
Bryce, now it seems that you and I agree and disagree at the same time—which probably means that I am misreading you.
“Clearly we don’t know all things, but the particulars that we have received a witness of we should know.” I could have written exactly those words myself (in other words: I agree.)
Where I am balking is when you talk about saying that we know a thing that we do not know—or do not yet know. You quote the oft-used phrase “a testimony is gained in the bearing of it,” but I’m not so sure I really understand that. I can imagine a time when one is prompted to go out on a limb and say “I know” before one has actually received a witness, and in doing so one’s words would be confirmed by the Spirit, but without that prompting it seems that a knowledge claim would be false. Without that cautious approach, what is to prevent the following:
“I know X…{waits for Spirit to witness}…{Spirit does not witness}…Uhhh, actually, I take that back.”
I posted a related discussion a while back. Find it here if interested.
For all intents and purposes, I think this is more about semantics. In context of epistemology it is beneficial to acknowledge ground rules of what constitutes knowing. Often times, believers and doubters talk past each other when they speak of knowing. To a secularist, a believer cannot “know” because they cannot provide unequivocal empirical evidence. Thus, according to the rules of a secularist, I cannot “know.” I
don’t mind granting that to them as long as we are clear that we differ on what it is to know and what counts as evidence.
In the end, belief is more than a hope of a mental guess, it is action in life. So believing, in that sense, can actually be more important than knowing. The devils tremble because they know, but that knowledge does not save them. Belief; ie faith unto repentance, beats out “knowledge” when we use the terms in the way I have here.
There are times when we should step out into the unknown and say that “I know” before we have received a witness, for it is by doing so that the Spirit will witness and our faith will be strengthened in that thing.
I found the talk by Elder Packer, entitled “The Candle of the Lord” given at a seminar for new mission presidents, June 25 1982, and reprinted in the January Ensign 1983. It is an excellent discourse on faith and how to gain it. This is how he put it:
The whole talk is wonderful.
As a convert, one of the things that has been interesting for me is the change I have in attitude toward death. Before I converted I was very unsure about death and what happens after — now I am sure I will be OK (and perhaps much happier) after I die than on the Earth (as long as I endure to the end). So, do I KNOW something new? Definitely — something inside of me has confirmed this undeniably. I look at my wife and I KNOW we will be together after this life because of the sealing ordinances of the temple.
Having said that, there is no way you could ever prove to an unbeliever that I know anything at all. There is no empirical evidence available that will show that I have any true knowledge EXCEPT for my actions since my conversion. Have my actions shown that I believe in good works and therefore have I done more good works since my conversion than before? The answer is undeniably yes. Have I stopped drinking and am I healthier? Undeniably yes. Do my friends say I am happier, and do I have goals and try to achieve them? Undeniably yes.
So maybe there are ways of proving that a religious conversion has real, undeniable benefits and that faith involves knowledge on some level.
I think D&C 46 especially verse 13 suggests all won’t know. After all it would be very odd for God to say there’s a spiritual gift to some to know while for others it is a spiritual gift to believe the knowledge of others.
Who is to say who is the greatest? It’s much easier to stay faithful when we know. Those who are faithful on the basis of far less knowledge are probably more praiseworthy.
Furthermore, by forcing others with a shoehorn into saying “I know” when they fit better in the latter category as mentioned in that revelation, one can actually damage the belief of another; something testimony is not intended to do, but can. Thanks for your post, Clark.
I don’t think we should force others into saying “I know,” but in the progression of one’s testimony in the Church, I think it is a worthy goal for each to strive earnestly for. As Elder Packer points out, often it is a “leap of faith” to say it the first time. Peter taught us to “give diligence to make your calling and election sure,” which can only come by knowing (2 Pet. 1:10).
I like the way Robert Bohn explains:
In the process of studying the German and English languages, I have gained some insight into my perception of what “knowing the gospel” means. When testimonies are shared in German using the present tense, we are limited to one way of expressing wissen, “to know,” in that we would say Ich weiss, dass das Evangelium wahr ist (I know that the gospel is true). However,
in English we have three ways of sharing the present tense of “to know.” In the simple English present tense of expression we say “I know.” In the emphatic present tense we say “I do know.” In the present progressive tense we say “I am knowing.”
I like the added dimension of the progressive tense in English. Rather than being limited to saying ‘I know the gospel is true,” we can more meaningfully say “I am knowing that the gospel is true.” In other words, knowing is a changing progressive process—rather than a static event. We are each on different rungs of the progressive ladder of “knowing.”
The awareness of the present progressive tense “am knowing” helps us become tolerant of little children who say “I know,” while accepting our own level of knowledge. It should also motivate us to attain higher levels of knowing which others have already achieved.
Part of the issue depends on how ‘high’ we want to set the bar in terms of what counts as ‘knowledge’. If seeing and experiencing something firsthand is the only thing that counts as knowledge, then there are in fact very few things that we can say “we know” (I’ve never seen or experienced Antarctica for instance, and probably never will, so this line of reasoning would mean that I can never know the existence of Antarctica). I imagine we don’t want to set the bar that high. On the other hand, if we set the bar too low then just about anything will count as ‘knowledge’ (if for instance a random stranger were to tell us that a new continent was discovered). Our challenge is to articulate the degree in which the bar is set within the discourse of testimony bearing. We tend not to think about this very clearly. IMO, I may be able to say that I know that the ’seed’ in Alma’s sense is good because it brings forth good fruit. However to say that “I know I lived with my wife in the pre-existence” due to the great feeling I had when we met, is a little specious. I think feelings can testify of the goodness of things/trueness of things, but not the details.
There are times when we should step out into the unknown and say that “I know” before we have received a witness, for it is by doing so that the Spirit will witness and our faith will be strengthened in that thing.
Bryce, this takes us right back to our discussion on the usage of ‘only’, where you want ‘the only true church’ to mean ‘the church with the most truths’, except here you cannot leave my comments in moderation. This is an explicit equivocation of terms. Saying “I know”, when one in fact does not “know” can be considered a falsehood. You can of course refer me back to Elder Packer’s talk, but even there he says, “Bear testimony of the things that you hope are true, as an act of faith.” I don’t see how this necessitates a statement that begins “I know…”.
But it is precisely that “leap of faith” that is necessary to gain more faith.
How odd that you follow this quote with Alma 32 where ‘faith’ is explicitly made ‘dormant’ as one gains knowledge!
SmallAxe, I actually could put your comment in moderation, but I won’t. I think most people will see my statements, read Elder Packer’s words, and understand what I am saying.
If the brethren repeatedly say that they “know” something is true, I think it is rightly appropriate and encouraged for me to also take that “leap of faith” and say that “I know” it is true too. The Spirit will witness to the truth in that case, and my faith will grow. This increases faith; but it is not a perfect knowledge. When we have that perfect knowledge, our faith is dormant, but it is not lost. Our faith becomes perfect. We don’t “lay aside our faith” thereafter (Alma 32:36). The seed of our faith has grown up into a full tree, but it is not hewn down. God has a perfect knowledge - He is omniscient - and yet it is by the principle of faith that he created and currently holds the universe in order. Yes, bearing testimony of your knowledge of truth increases faith (Alma 32:29). When our faith has increased to a perfect knowledge, then will we eat of the fruit thereof (Alma 32:42).
What does it mean to put a comment in moderation?
lol…
I think most people will see my statements, read Elder Packer’s words, and understand what I am saying.
This is exactly my point. The same point I was making in our previous discussion. Your statements do not cohere with Elder Packer’s words.
Part of the problem, as I allude to above is a definition of terms, or coming to a consensus of where the bar is set. How do you define ‘know’?
What does it mean to put a comment in moderation?
BHodges, I don’t know you very well (although I’ve read and appreciate your blog), so I’ll assume that you’re being serious. It means that your comment awaits the blog owner’s permission to appear before it appears. My comments used to appear automatically on Bryce’s blog, but they now await his ‘moderation’.
Just to clarify, all commenters on my blog who have been approved once are allowed to post comments freely without moderation. Those who I feel cannot be given such leeway I have put into moderation, such as SmallAxe.
As for defining “know,” I think Reed explained it very well above.
Smallaxe,
You try to place nice with these people, look how they treat you. Ignore them.
I assume you’re referring to this passage:
“I am knowing that the gospel is true.” In other words, knowing is a changing progressive process—rather than a static event. We are each on different rungs of the progressive ladder of “knowing.”
Does this mean then that we should instead be saying “I am knowing that the gospel is true”? That doesn’t seem to meet your “General Authority” test. In other words I don’t see the brethren bearing their testimonies this way. I’m not convinced that this provides a definition of “know”, or “knowing” for that matter.
I think it helps define well or explain what “know” means in gospel terms, for it is an ever-changing, constantly-progressing thing, as Reed wisely noted. But no, we would not necessarily express our testimony like that.
I am not blessed with the same certainty that many in the Church have or profess. I am comforted, though, that the core and primary principles of the gospel focus on faith and belief.
With commenter James, above, I can comfortably affirm that I “know” God lives and loves me and all of God’s creations, because I have experienced God in my life and felt of God’s love. Similarly, I can comfortably affirm that I “know” God wishes me to continue to participate in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and accept and follow its teachings as best I can. There are very few other things that I “know” with that level of certainty. For some this may not be worth much; for me it is enough and I am at peace with myself and with God.
I differ in my reading of President Packer’s statement that a testimony is gained as we bear it. I used to think that he and others who encourage testimony bearing to gain one meant that we should, to put it crassly, “fake it until you make it.”
I chose to interpret President Packer’s advice to be that we should “bear testimony” in an honest way from our hearts. The “leap of faith” consists of standing to bear testimony of what we do know, believe, and feel. And that as we strive to articulate to others the feelings of our heart about God and the principles of the gospel, we may be surprised at the depth of our feelings and beliefs. I know that I have. And I know that I personally find myself uplifted, strengthened and touched by the Spirit by those who have born honest and heartfelt testimony even if it is incomplete or not absolutely certain.
Well, regardless, I am still going on the approach that it isn’t meet to shoehorn people into saying they “know” when they don’t yet feel comfortable to do that. As the D&C clearly state, belief is a viable way to God; belief indicating assent, obedience, hope, faith, resulting in charity, etc. I’m not advocating for weak testimonies, but a verbal declaration is not a magic spell or a way to coerce the Spirit into witnessing that what we say is true. If you are sure you don’t know, you actually may be lying by saying “I know,” and I believe lying, being dishonest, is deception and not of God. Pres. Packer actually makes the same assertion in the Candle of the Lord:
It is not wise to wrestle with the revelations with such insistence as to demand immediate answers or blessings to your liking. You cannot force spiritual things. Such words as compel, coerce, constrain, pressure, demand, do not describe our privileges with the Spirit. You can no more force the Spirit to respond than you can force a bean to sprout, or an egg to hatch before it’s time. You can create a climate to foster growth, nourish, and protect; but you cannot force or compel: you must await the growth.
Do not be impatient to gain great spiritual knowledge. Let it grow, help it grow, but do not force it or you will open the way to be misled.
Leaving aside the issue of saying we “know” as a leap of faith (though belief is also a leap of faith in its own sense), I submit that above the whole discussion, even knowing won’t matter anyway if someone doesn’t live the gospel. And ironically, doing is the best way to come to “know,” anyway.
Two possibilities that I haven’t seen in the comments yet, (sorry if they are there and I missed them):
Scenario “A”:
1. A person _believes_ that the gospel/church/BoM is true.
2. The person states (to another) that he _believes_ the gospel/etc is true.
3. Upon stating that, the Holy Ghost gives him a witness that what he said is in fact true.
4. The person says: “Uhhh, actually, I take that back. I _know_ that the gospel/etc is true.” (Hat tip to BrianJ’s comment.)
===================
Scenario “B”:
1. Same as above.
2. The person leaves out the “I believe” or “I know parts”, and merely makes a declaration:
“The gospel/church/BoM is true.”
3. Same as above.
4. Same as above.
==================================
In a casual or public situation (not a formal missionary discussion, not in private, not time enough for a full or detailed converstation, etc) the “I know…” preface can often get in the way of non-members understanding you.
The “I know” part is very foreign to most people. They don’t believe that one can know, or how one can know. The concept of _knowing_ is just inconceivable to them. And it can be a stumbling block without further explanation of _how_ you came to know.
So while “I know that…” statements are excellent for private or personal teaching moments in a setting where everyone can feel the Spirit. “I believe” can also be acceptable in some circumstances.
Or a simple declarative statement “The Book of Mormon/Church/Restored Gospel is true” can also be acceptable in most circumstances. With such a statement, you let the context, your tone of voice, your confidence, your actions and your attitude be the conveyor of the un-spoken introductory clause “I believe that… ” or “I know that… ” Or let the listener use their own assumptions as to how to fit your statement into their frame of reference.
Another point: Emphasizing “believe” or “know” makes the speaker the subject (gramatically and figuratively), and there may be an egotistical implication. Whereas a simple declarative “X is true”, leave “X” as the subject and focus.
-==================
Just came up with Scenario “C”:
1. “X is true, and there’s a way you can find out for yourself.”
“…but a verbal declaration is not a magic spell or a way to coerce the Spirit into witnessing that what we say is true.”
I agree with you. However, let me offer this from President Marion G. Romney:
If we learn something from what we have said, that means that we must not have known it prior to saying it. The Spirit must do this. I experienced this on my mission, when I would occasionally teach things that I had not heard or known before, but felt compelled to say it anyways.
I would also say that knowing without doing isn’t really knowing, at least defined in terms of wisdom, for “faith without works is dead.” Truly knowing should compel us to doing.
Here is a good word on the subject from Elder Carmack of the Seventy:
I think that “knowing” something has its own inherent risk. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with wandering around searching for truth. I think that there can be problems the moment we stop wandering and invest in some narrative the authority of absolute truth (thus ending - among other things - the need to continue searching).
Wow! This discussion got away from me and I will never catch up.
Clark, thanks for your comment about D&C 46:13.
Here is another good word from Elder Brough of the Seventy:
Elder Carmack: “Testimony isn’t achieved by logic and study.”
Maybe, but I know a ex-professor who sat out to disprove the BoM and ended up with so many proofs that he became convinced it must be true. His testimony is primarily based on that effort alone.
Bryce, the Carmack quote, when taken as it stands, shows the weakness of its own position. I agree that at times we can be given utterance, or learn from what we say, but to equate that as “always” happening when the Spirit speaks through us would mean we cant retain any knowledge. Every time we bear testimony, did we forget, and then have to say it again and learn anew? It doesn’t really make sense.
By now it should be clear that the accumulation of information from our five physical senses is very unlikely, by themselves, to produce the ability to say “I know!” But there are what I will call “spiritual” senses…. In explaining His use of parables, Jesus identifies two spiritual senses: understanding and perception.
Bryce, I imagine you agree with this position. Would you mind explaining how “understanding” and “perception” work, and how they are more reliable than our five physical sense?
Ok, just one more. Good news from Elder Neuenschwander of the Presidency of the Seventy: