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.)
Van,
No, a spiritual witness doesn’t connotate the “same absolute certainty” as a direct personal visitation or vision. It connotates much much more than that. Remember that Laman and Lemuel had seen a vision, they had seen angels, and yet they still murmurred, complained, and didn’t know the truth. Their physical witness of God’s power, message, and angels meant absolutely nothing to them (1 Ne. 7:9–12). When Christ Himself walked on the earth there were many who saw Him, and even witnessed many miracles by His hand, and yet they did not know that He was the Son of God, and the Messiah who was prophesied that would come. It is only a revelation of the Spirit that can communicate that knowledge, even if the Savior stood directly before your eyes (Matt. 16:15–17).
Consider President Joseph Fielding Smith’s words:
The witness of the Spirit is anything but similar to the empirical knowledge of science, or the legal system, or any other worldly method. Please read Elder Oak’s last Conference talk entitled “Testimony” on the subject. Here is a selection:
You compare Joseph’s knowledge of God in the same terms that the world does, by an empirical witness by our physical senses, particularly through the eyes. But a knowledge of God does not come exclusively through these senses. Quite to the contrary; He reveals Himself by and through His Spirit, something which the world cannot understand. But that knowledge which comes through the Spirit is just as sure, and just as real, as anything that we can perceive through our physical senses.
Our testimony is NOT based on physical empirical claims of knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).
God reveals Himself to us through His Spirit. Those who have had a witness of His Spirit know that He is. That witness is not physically discerned; it is spiritually discerned. But it IS sure.
If you choose to be a secularist, then I suppose that a physical empirical knowledge will suffice. But the Saints, those who have taken upon themselves the name of Christ, have been called out of the world, and we understand and know the things of God on much different terms than they ever will.
I hope you will give the URL to this site and article on your show/website tonight so that your listeners can hear and read both sides of the coin. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to listen because of home teaching appointments.
Today during church I had this thought – The Lord will never make His abode with you, unless you have already come to know that He is by His Spirit.
I read the following account from Ether 3-4 which illustrates this. In this chapter the Lord is speaking with the brother of Jared. The Lord tells him that he was able to see the finger of the Lord because of his faith (v. 9; count 3 “knows” in verses 2, 4 and 5). The Lord then asks,
The brother of Jared answers,
Then the following exchange happens:
Then the Lord showed himself to him:
Moroni adds his insight about the brother of Jared:
Then Moroni relates a revelation from the Lord in which the Lord gives the following promise to all:
He also says:
Lest you think that the brother of Jared had a perfect knowledge of everything about God before seeing Him, Ether 3:6–9 tells us that he didn’t even know that the Lord had a body “like unto flesh and blood.” What he did know was that the finger was the Lord’s (v. 19). The perfect knowledge that the brother of Jared possessed was that God was real, and that He lived, a knowledge and witness he could only have received by the Spirit. It was only then, and not until then, that the Lord manifested Himself unto him.
I’ve read back over this post and I think that it’s becoming clear that Van Hale’s basic argument is an argument in epistemology–how we know. He is taking the secularist position that knowledge through the physical senses is the path to the most sure knowledge. I’ve also noticed that Van Hale has hardly quoted a single scrap of scripture or the words of modern prophets to back up his position (just 1 scriptural quote). In contrast, those who have responded with what I deem as more convincing arguments have copiously quoted the scriptures and the modern prophets to do so in a very cohesive way.
To say Joseph Smith’s experience was sure because he saw and that we cannot have that same type of knowledge is faulty and unscriptural. Why did Joseph Smith believe the vision? Because his heart was prepared. Laman and Lemuel had miraculous visitations, but here’s what happened:
Van Hale’s argument that if he saw he would know like Joseph Smith simply does not hold water. It is clear in this verse that seeing something physically when the heart is not prepared results in no knowledge at all.
Remember Bruce R. McConkie’s final testimony:
Bryce,
I did not read your last post before I went on the air. I am sorry you did not have a chance to listen to my program. I did give out the address of this site and recommended that those interested should come here and read the several opinions posted here.
I would like to present you with some of the sources I cited for your consideration. I would like you to reconsider your judgmental comment:
"If you choose to be a secularist, then I suppose that a physical empirical knowledge will suffice. "
I would hope that our discussion would not deteriorate by resorting to such comments.
If I understand your comments correctly, you would be prepared to declare that your witness of the Holy Ghost conveyed a certainty, in fact knowledge of God’s existence, superior to that which Joseph Smith claimed in his first vision. He claimed knowledge from his first vision. I suggest you re-read JS-H 21-25 in the context of our discussion.
I do not believe that any inspiration of the Holy Ghost conveys the same certainty as would a personal appearance of God or Jesus. There are a number of scriptures and statements which I have collected which I will present. Consider these two:
D&C 93:1 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;2 And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—
D&C 76:22–24 22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.
Note here that this ultimate testimony of Jesus they declared was not that they had been inspired by the Holy Ghost, but that they saw him.
D&C 76:113–119 113 This is the end of the vision which we saw, which we were commanded to write while we were yet in the Spirit.114 But great and marvelous are the works of the Lord, and the mysteries of his kingdom which he showed unto us, which surpass all understanding in glory, and in might, and in dominion;115 Which he commanded us we should not write while we were yet in the Spirit, and are not lawful for man to utter;116 Neither is man capable to make them known, for they are only to be seen and understood by the power of the Holy Spirit, which God bestows on those who love him, and purify themselves before him;117 To whom he grants this privilege of seeing and knowing for themselves;118 That through the power and manifestation of the Spirit, while in the flesh, they may be able to bear his presence in the world of glory.
I do not mean, in any way, to diminish the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. I am suggesting that there is substantial support from the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith and others that beyond the inspiration and promptings of the Holy Ghost is the knowledge which comes by the experience of direct visual communication with God and/or Jesus.
I must run, I will add more later. I would at least like to convince you that for me to believe that see and talk with God is a more sure does make me a secularist.
Van,
I hope that your last paragraph was a typo.
I disagree with you. I believe a witness from the Spirit is just as sure or more so of the existence of God than a vision would be, and I’ve quoted several of the Brethren above who have said as much on multiple occasions, including President Faust and President Joseph Fielding Smith.
Let me address the scriptures you’ve listed:
JS-H 21-25 – Do you think Joseph would have been able to have the faith to call down a vision of God if he did not already believe in His existence? No. Joseph knew that God lived with such a surety that God was able to reveal Himself to him.
D&C 93:1 – You’ll notice that we only get to see the face of God after we have forsaken sin, come unto Christ, called on His name, obeyed His voice, and kept His commandments. I would hope that we could know that He is while we are doing most of this, otherwise what would be the impetus to do it? What if in the end we find out He isn’t really there? Having a knowledge of God compels us to follow Him. We don’t follow Him so that we can gain a knowledge of His existence. That’s a faulty and backwards philosophy.
D&C 76:22–24 – Once again, do you not think that they already knew that God existed prior to this? A vision of God only confirmed their already existent faith in Him, and as a blessing for having had such faith.
D&C 76:113–119 – Did you miss the part which says that they saw the vision while "in the Spirit", "for they are only to be seen and understood by the power of the Holy Spirit"? The privilege of seeing and knowing with our physical eyes is only given to those who already know by the Spirit. God will not reveal Himself to you in order to prove His existence. Where would be faith in that case? There would be none.
We don’t base our testimony of truth by physical empirical knowledge. That is what the world does, what the secularist does. We have the Spirit to teach us the truth, something the world can never understand. If we wait to know that God lives until the day that we see Him, it will be entirely too late to exercise our faith in Him. He wants us to gain a knowledge by the Spirit long before that date, which we can most assuredly do, and which we have been promised time and time again.
Seeing and talking with God is NOT a more sure witness, “for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.” And what is faith? “Faith is things which are hoped for and not seen.” “Wherefore, dispute not because ye see not” (Ether 12:6). Saying that “I know” that God lives even if I have not seen Him is a trial of my faith in God and of the impressions of His Spirit. It is a hope that one day I will see Him with my eyes. One day we will have a visual witness of God, but it will be after we have already come to a sure knowledge of Him by His Spirit. God will not take away the privilege of exercising faith in Him unless we have already come to have that sure knowledge of His existence, in which case there is no point in the veil being held over our eyes any longer.
“Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? And now, behold, you have received a witness; for if I have told you things which no man knoweth have you not received a witness?” (D&C 6:23–24).
I think the difference between Bryce’s and Van Hale’s position is becoming clear. Van Hale’s basic position is that seeing with the physical eyes is the ultimate form of knowing. This flies in the face of too many scriptural passages _and patterns_ to be true.
Joseph Smith saw angels. So did Laman and Lemuel. Joseph Smith believed the angels. Laman and Lemuel did not. They questioned the angels command to go back to Laban to get the plates, and eventually wrote off the entire incident to the "cunning arts" of Nephi. If seeing is such a sure way of knowing, how can this be explained?
It is easily explained. Seeing is not the ultimate way of knowing. The Spirit is superior. That is doctrinal sound and true. In fact, I would take it a step further. The state of the heart, ultimately, determines whether we are even capable of recognizing the truth. As Laman and Lemuel demonstrate, seeing without a prepared heart is actually worse than not seeing at all.
Now seeing _and_ knowing by the Spirit is perhaps even pinnacle. However, the Spirit is the crucial piece here, not the seeing. It is clearly demonstrated that seeing alone without the Spirit does not convince as demonstrated by Laman and Lemuel. The Spirit can be just as convincing as seeing, as demonstrated by Bruce R. McConkie’s final testimony.
Now seeing and knowing by the Holy Ghost surely is a great gift, which is why denying the Holy Ghost is an unpardonable sin (note it is _not_ denying what you see, but denying the Holy Ghost that is unpardonable). I simply am certain that Van Hale’s position is not correct. This is a strong theme that was hit on by Elder Oaks in the last General Conference. I can’t help but wonder in awe at the timeliness of the message of the modern prophets and apostles.
Can it be both?
BHodges question is something I was thinking about but did not write. I do believe that both seeing with the eyes and receiving a witness of the Spirit is a sure witness. It is a gift to those who are prepared, as was the case with the Brother of Jared.
"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. Wherefore, having this perfect knowledge of God, he could not be kept from within the veil; therefore he saw Jesus; and he did minister unto him." (Ether 3:19–20).
Note that his perfect knowledge came _before_ he saw Christ, not after. Because of his knowledge he could not be kept from within the veil. The knowledge came before. Now it’s not clear whether this refers to his knowledge of the Spirit and his faith alone or this coupled with having seen the finger of the Lord. Either way, the crucial component to this knowledge is the testimony and faith that brought about the sure knowledge. His was not a wishy-washy position. It was a position of certainty. He had heard the voice of the Spirit in the past, and he had this knowledge.
Of importance here, however, is that it was not the seeing that ensured, but the faith and the Spirit. Vision with they eyes coupled with the Spirit is the pinnacle of testimony. However, seeing without the Spirit can work to our condemnation, and as Laman and Lemuel point out, doesn’t convince an unwilling heart.
The original question was if knowledge of the Spirit is knowledge indeed. I believe the answer is a resounding yes. Seeing applies to such a select view in the history of mankind. To impose the necessity of seeing in order to have knowledge is almost, in my opinion, not different than the requirements of the sign seekers. "If thou be the Son of God…" It’s the fish in the fish bowl telling the owner the criteria he has to comply with to prove his existence and his truth.
I know for myself the profound spiritual experiences I’ve had have made a lasting impression on me, much more than anything I’ve ever seen or heard. While I am intellectually convinced of the truth of the gospel (not that I have all the answers to all the questions), when you get on your knees all of those tight logical arguments don’t instill faith in and of themselves. When we pray we put it all on the line. I believe it’s when we get on our knees that we truly get a gauge of our faith. What strengthens mine is the recalling of past communications with the Spirit more than anything else.
Speaking as an outsider to the discussion it appears like you are all talking past one an other because you aren’t being clear what the word "knowledge" means as you use it let along what "certain knowledge" means.A discussion of epistemology would be most helpful to clear up some of the discussion.
I think Alma 32 does a great job of explaining the terms (looking forward to that conference at BYU).
When we begin to exercise faith in something that is good and true, then we feel the Spirit. When we feel the Spirit, we can be sure that whatever thing we are exercising our faith in is good, and comes from God, indeed we can say that "I know that this is good" (v. 30, 33). Am I sure that it is good and from God? Yes! (v. 31). Is our knowledge perfect in this thing? Is it real? Yes! (v. 34-35). But do we have a perfect knowledge of everything? No (v. 35-36). That is why we continue to learn and grow, gaining more sure knowledge of things, step by step (v. 37). If we do not continue in the faith, but doubt this sure witness of the thing God has given us, then we will lose it and have to start over (v. 38-40). If we continue in this path gaining more sure knowledge of the truth of God bit by bit, word by word, thing by thing, then eventually we will have a perfect knowledge of everything, and become omniscient like our Heavenly Father (v. 41-43).
Do you see why I don’t need to see God to know that He lives? He has already given me a witness of His presence, of His existence. That I know by His Spirit.
But Alma uses the term in a non-standard way with English. That’s why I think you are talking past people. Plus I’m not convinced Alma’s usage is used everywhere in the scriptures. I’m sure the conference will address this. My own thoughts on Alma 32 (as part of a series on epistemology) can be found here.
How are we to understand scripture, particularly the Book of Mormon (since we don’t have the original language), if the words they use are used in non-standard ways?
Context and structure. The way we understand most conversations. We all recognize that some contexts have different linguistic usages. You’re talking about texts written under very different circumstances over hundreds of years. Do you really think understanding and use would remain constant?
To add, the other big problem is that Joseph will pick the words in English closest to the concept (with perhaps minor expansion). But that doesn’t mean it’s an exact match. So some familiarity with ancient Hebrew usage is very useful. To assume that it matches our usage (which generally arises out of the Greek conception of epistemology) is simply fallacious.(BTW – is there a way to turn off that new editor feature so I can enter in HTML directly?)
I’ve turned off the WYSIWYG comment editor. Sorry for the formatting problems.
I agree that an understanding of times/cultures, and ancient languages like Hebrew and Greek help us understand more fully what scriptures mean. But a fundamental understanding of the Book of Mormon should be feasible without it. Can we understand Alma 32 basically?
I think though we shouldn’t assume terms mean how we use them. I think that typically (although not always) we can pick up the meaning. For instance I think one reading Alma 32 will quickly see that Alma isn’t talking about knowledge as justified true belief the way it is often used.
To add there’s also the conflict between faith as found in many talks but particularly Lectures on Faith and faith as expressed in Alma 32.
Another quote I just came across from President Heber C. Kimball:
I don’t see anyone denying a witness and testimony is essential.
Van Hale doesn’t seem to think it is necessary to have a personal knowledge or witness of the truth. To him, and those he teaches, a belief in the gospel is enough, but not a knowledge of its truth.
If “knowledge” comes at different times in different ways for different people,who am I to force everyone into my own list of qualifications? I’ll leave that in the hands of God, who alone, ultimately is the judge. I guess that is what has disturbed me about this whole discussion is a slight tendency to judge the testimony of other people, to set up a solid standard all must conform to, a standard that has been constructed from various scriptures and statements apart from the vast context of a much more broad gospel than I see being promulgated in certain corners of the Church.
In short, who gives a rats tail if someone can say “I know such and such” if they can’t even fully manifest love for their fellow members and strangers? The two are not mutually exclusive, of course, but in this discussion I see such a heavy emphasis on simply being able to declare something rather than becoming what such a declaration ought to cause one to become. People who don’t even know that they know Christ actually may know Christ so much more than someone who is comfortable with saying they know Christ.
In short, orthopraxy, and who one is, exceeds orthodoxy, or what one believes one knows. Seeing through a glass darkly is the way we live, and faith without works is dead, as you well know. Again, they are not mutually exclusive, but they certainly can be.
Elder Oaks had it right in one of the most crucial sermons I’ve heard in my life:
The Apostle Paul taught that the Lord’s teachings and teachers were given that we may all attain “the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). This process requires far more than acquiring knowledge. It is not even enough for us to be convinced of the gospel; we must act and think so that we are converted by it. In contrast to the institutions of the world, which teach us to know something, the gospel of Jesus Christ challenges us to become something. …We qualify for eternal life through a process of conversion. As used here, this word of many meanings signifies not just a convincing but a profound change of nature. Jesus used this meaning when he taught His chief Apostle the difference between a testimony and a conversion. Jesus asked his disciples, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” (Matt. 16:13). Next He asked, “But whom say ye that I am?
“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, 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).
Peter had a testimony. He knew that Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah, and he declared it. To testify is to know and to declare.
Later on, Jesus taught these same men about conversion, which is far more than testimony. When the disciples asked who was the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, “Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
“And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
“Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:2–4; emphasis added).
Later, the Savior confirmed the importance of being converted, even for those with a testimony of the truth. In the sublime instructions given at the Last Supper, He told Simon Peter, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32).
In order to strengthen his brethren–to nourish and lead the flock of God–this man who had followed Jesus for three years, who had been given the authority of the holy apostleship, who had been a valiant teacher and testifier of the Christian gospel, and whose testimony had caused the Master to declare him blessed still had to be “converted.”
Jesus’ challenge shows that the conversion He required for those who would enter the kingdom of heaven (see Matt. 18:3) was far more than just being converted to testify to the truthfulness of the gospel. To testify is to know and to declare. The gospel challenges us to be “converted,” which requires us to do and to become. If any of us relies solely upon our knowledge and testimony of the gospel, we are in the same position as the blessed but still unfinished Apostles whom Jesus challenged to be “converted.” We all know someone who has a strong testimony but does not act upon it so as to be converted. For example, returned missionaries, are you still seeking to be converted, or are you caught up in the ways of the world?…”
http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,89-1-138-15,00.html
Big deal. You “know” the gospel is true. Congratulations, that is a valuable gift, but it is not salvation or exaltation. The devils know and tremble, but without the conversion, the doing, loving, becoming, it is nothing but sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.
I’ll go as far as to say it is in fact extremely possible for someone to be exalted having gone through their entire lives not “knowing” the Church or gospel is true in the way LDS say it in testimony meeting. Ultimately that knowledge can come, but who we are through Christ (whether we know it cognitively or not) is what makes the difference at the judgment. And I have to stand by that.
What I don’t agree with, and I don’t think it is judging anyone to say so, is the idea that it is much better to say that you “believe” than to say you “know.” I don’t think that is right or in accord with what the Brethren have taught. A testimony, according to Elder Oaks in the last Conference, 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.” Why should we have any other standard than that? If we have had the Spirit witness to us of certain things, then we “know” them to be true. Why seek to declare otherwise?
Of course being able to declare that you “know” something doesn’t mean you are converted, which comes from living the gospel daily. But it is much harder to live the gospel when you don’t know it is true. As you pointed out in your example of Peter, he knew that Jesus was the Christ before he was converted. Imagine trying to become converted without knowing the truthfulness of the gospel. I don’t think it is possible. If we will not give heed to the Spirit which testifies of the truth all along the way, then we will not grow in our faith, or become converted.
I just watched the devotional which Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave just two weeks ago on August 19, 2008, for the commencement of BYU’s Education Week. Here were his closing words, which could not be more clear on this subject:
D&C 46:9–14
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/46/9-14#9
“To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful” (D&C 46:14).
Belief isn’t where we stop, nor is it what we shoot for. Knowledge is, as Elder Hales clearly taught. We’ve come to this earth to ultimately gain knowledge, not belief. President Kimball also said that we cannot endure on borrowed light. “It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance” (D&C 131:6). Knowledge must be our goal, not belief.
“Continuing faithful” says nothing about achieving the type of sure knowledge to which you are referring during mortality.
And what is the type of sure knowledge I’m referring to? The witness one receives when the Spirit testifies of truth, which is certainly possible during mortality.
I guess some people just aren’t good enough for you.
Why would you say that Blair?
You’re taking an issue like knowledge, which Mormonism clearly treasures, but ignoring the mortal paradox between searching and certainty. In so doing, the argument has become a straight-line standard that implies “if you can’t say ‘I know such-and-such’ then you are lesser than.” I appreciate the quotes you provide, but also seem to recognize or remain willing to acknowledge more nuance than your quotes provide. Even your sources recognize more nuance. Pres. Packer’s candle of the Lord is pretty explicit about not trying to force spiritual things. Elder Oaks’ talk about strengths becoming our weaknesses also touches on this. My setting a hard-line standard you eliminate a productive dialog with well-intentioned and faithful Latter-day Saints. Your view becomes a moral one in this regard, setting the ability to confidently say “I know” as a moral standard required for salvation, when in reality it is by the grace of God go we, and those who say “Lord, Lord etc.” may very well find themselves being asked to depart as workers of iniquity despite their knowledge. Sure, a man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, but that knowledge needs to be differentiated from simple declarative “facts.” And that isn’t all there is to salvation, not by a long shot. If you could concede any of these points I would feel extremely happy.
To answer your question about why I would say “some people aren’t good enough for you”: It clearly took my argument from rational to emotional/moral grounds, something that made you uncomfortable.
from my perspective, that is what several of your points have felt like as well, and as you know, it doesn’t feel very good.
Elder Hales didn’t seem to recognize more nuance – “I give you my testimony that God lives and that we can learn, not just to believe, but to know that God lives. Seek that learning; it will be granted to you. Seek to know…” I believe that each of us can and should seek sure witnesses of the truth by the manifestations of the Holy Ghost, for that is what the Holy Ghost teaches, truth. I don’t think anyone is above that principle. Each and every person that has been born is capable of knowing the truth through the power of the Holy Ghost. Seeking to believe is good, but seeking to know is better. As Elder Oaks taught, there is good, better, and best. I think to “know” is best.
The “some people aren’t good enough for you” comment, well, you know better.
One thing is sure, if anyone is teaching precepts that are not in harmony with the gospel as taught by the prophets and apostles, however well-intentioned or faithful they are, I will challenge them on it. One of those things is that it is better to say “I believe” than “I know.” That is fundamentally false.
Hello all – I’ve never commented here before, but I’ve found this discussion very interesting and it is something I’ve thought a bit about, so I figured I would throw a couple of my thoughts into the ring.
Assuming that we are talking about *knowing* in the sense that one is 100% certain of something, let me use an example. I know, 100%, that no matter how hard I flap my arms I’m not going to fly. I don’t need to try this every week to make sure I still can’t do it – I know I can’t. On the other hand, my testimony of Gospel truths is not perfect in that sense: through obedience, prayer, and study my faith and testimony strengthen. If one *knows* Christ lives, can his testimony or faith in Christ increase? I would suggest that it cannot. Knowledge, in this sense, is the end of the line – absolute certainty.
The experience of the Brother of Jared has been raised in support of the “pro-know” viewpoint – but I actually see it differently. 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.”
The key is the last part. “and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting.” In this mortal life, aren’t we to live our lives through faith? Faith is essential, not knowledge. If you “know, nothing doubting” you aren’t living by faith. Knowledge is a higher plane, one that we are not necessarily required to reach.
Lastly, I just wanted to touch on the spiritual gifts outlined in D&C 46. It is interesting to me that believers are divided into two groups: those that know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and those that believe on their words. This seems to reflect the relationship between our Apostles, special witnesses of Christ who testify to us on a regular basis, and us. Of course, we have the Spirit to confirm and strengthen their witness within us. But if there are those that *know*, and those that believe, I would put the apostles and prophets in the first category and myself in the latter; they probably have a greater witness than I do.
Anyway, I’ll freely admit that my $0.02 here could be totally nutty. I welcome rebuttals if anyone feels that is the case.
Thanks Ross for your comments. I think you’ve said some valuable things.
Knowledge of the gospel is progressive. We do not know with 100% absolute certainty and perfection everything about God while in this life. But should this prevent us from saying that “I know that God lives”? I don’t think so. Even if our knowledge is progressive, we can still testify of the limited knowledge that we do have. Knowledge doesn’t have to be perfect in order to have it. It comes precept by precept, as we allow the Spirit to teach us. If we do not know that what the Spirit teaches us is truth, then that is not faith. It is doubt.
I noted in another comment that even God Himself must still exercise the principle of faith in order to hold the universe in order (cf. Lectures on Faith). There will never be a time when we will not have any faith anymore. As you said, we are to live our lives by faith, but where does that faith lead us? It is to more knowledge. The Brother of Jared did not have a perfect knowledge of everything (Ether 3:8). But he did have a knowledge that God lives, gained through faith. Hopefully we are gaining more knowledge in this life, and not just more belief. As Van explained in his radio program, belief is more comfortable, because one might choose to change that belief at any moment, but that is not what the gospel calls for. Seeking a conviction of the basic truths of the gospel is what we are taught. The theophany and atonement that the Brother of Jared experienced is the ultimate goal of the Latter-day Saint, and is what we are taught in the temple. A perfect knowledge, like our Heavenly Father, should be our ultimate goal (Matt. 5:48). If the Apostles have a greater witness than we do, then what are we doing to gain that same witness ourselves? I think this is what the gospel is teaching us (cf. Num. 11:25–29).
I keep returning to Ether 4:11 because I think it teaches us well in regard to the Brother of Jared experience as it applies to each of us:
I know that Christ lives, yet I still have faith in Him. I have not seen Him and I do not know everything about Him, but by the many witnesses I have received of Him by the Spirit, I know that it is true.
The Bro. of Jared’s experience is illustrative in that he was not seeking to find such knowledge in the way he received it. He was going along in faith, doing his duty, actually in order to serve others. That is when he had his experience.
It was the conviction of knowledge that the Brother of Jared had that allowed him to see the Lord (Ether 3:11–13). The Lord asked him if he believed, and he said, yea, I know.
“One of those things is that it is better to say ‘I believe’ than ‘I know.’ That is fundamentally false.”
I want to make it clear: as for myself I have never asserted it is generally better to say “believe” than “know.” What I insist upon is that one must be as honest as possible. Either phrase could be faulty if there isn’t truth behind it.
“As Elder Oaks taught, there is good, better, and best. I think to “know” is best.”
I think to “be” and “know” trumps to simply “know” any day of the week, and as Elder Oaks taught in his excellent “Challenge to Become,” such a thing is incremental. (And it can remarkable happen without a person even being able to phrase it in the same way a Latter-day Saint might! See the parable of the laborers in the vineyard.)
Now that I agree with!
That has been my point all along!
Bryce:
I agree that we do not know with certainty everything about God – that isn’t quite what I was going for. Let’s look at a “simple” core doctrine that most people would say they know: that Christ died for our sins. For me, my testimony in this specific doctrine is continually strengthened by living in the Gospel, repenting, etc. I’m relatively inexperienced in the Church compared to most other people, but I would propose that most everyone experiences that continual strengthening of their faith and testimony in Christ’s atonement (correct me if I’m wrong here). Doesn’t this suggest that we are not 100% certain? Refer to my arm-flapping story – if we are 100% certain, there isn’t any need for strengthening. Now, some people would probably say that 99% certainty still qualifies for “knowing,” but I’m a little uncomfortable with that notion. How can there be multiple levels of knowing? You either know something, or you don’t. Colloquially we often refer to things we “know” that we really aren’t certain of, but I don’t think testimonies or spiritual truths are the right place for that loose definition of “know.”
“If the Apostles have a greater witness than we do, then what are we doing to gain that same witness ourselves? I think this is what the gospel is teaching us”
I agree. That knowledge and sure conviction is what we should strive for. But that is just like how we strive for perfection in our obedience to the commandments – we strive for it, but we don’t necessarily attain it. The Apostles have a greater witness because they are in a calling that requires it. Similarly, the Apostles have demonstrated great sacrifice and willingness to serve and be obedient to the commandments – probably far past what I have accomplished so far. So much of the Gospel is about eternal progress – why do we feel the need to *know* the truthfulness of things in mortality? As I said before, to know something is, in effect, the perfect state of understanding and belief.
RE: Ether 4:11. I really like that scripture. It does seem to support your viewpoint, but I feel like the qualifications for “knowing” something is true is somewhat variable, and not altogether clear. To be sure, there are lots of scriptures that refer to knowing the truthfulness of certain principles – for that reason, I’m not about to declare my view about this as the hard truth
. To quote the Bible Dictionary Entry on knowledge:
“Knowledge of divine and spiritual things is absolutely essential for one’s salvation; hence the gospel is to be taught to every soul. ‘How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?’” …”The scriptures, and also living prophets, are given so that the people might have knowledge of things of God and ‘know how to worship, and know what you worship’”
These two quotes seem to point to more of a declarative-fact statement type of knowledge, rather than the intimate knowledge that a testimony of “I know that God lives” conveys. There are other places in the BD entry that refer to the intimate variety of knowledge – I’m not saying that doesn’t exist in the scriptures – I’m just saying I think there is a distinction, and it isn’t exactly always clear which meaning is in use.
“Christ died for our sins.” That is a great example. Do I know that it happened? Absolutely. Do I know all the intricacies of the Atonement, or fully comprehend it in all its infinite grandeur? Not hardly. I am constantly learning more about it, and it will be eons of time until I can understand it. This is the critical thing. We don’t need to have a perfect knowledge of things to know they are true. That is what the Spirit is for. The Holy Ghost teaches us what is true, in spite of our imperfection (John 16:13). I am confident enough in the witness of the Spirit that if it testifies to me of truth, then it is true, and I know it. The Spirit gives us 100% certainty of truth, even if we don’t have complete comprehension of it. Eventually, if we are faithful, we will arrive at perfection, just like our Heavenly Father, and we will comprehend everything perfectly (D&C 93:28). Until then, we must rely on the witness of the Spirit. I don’t think the Apostles have a greater witness because their calling has required it. They have a greater witness because of their faith and obedience. Theirs is an example of the path we should also follow. By the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things (Moro. 10:5). You said, “why do we feel the need to *know* the truthfulness of things in mortality?” Because a knowledge of truth leads us to God (1 Tim. 2:4).
I must not be clear in my remarks, because I totally agree with you that we don’t need to have a perfect knowledge of things to know they are true. Take my example: I don’t need to know the mechanics of lift and gravity to know I can’t fly by flapping my arms. I’ve got the experiences to prove it. Rather than reiterating my previous points, let me try a different tack:
Consider the “standard” testimony: “I know this Church is true. I know Jesus Christ lives and died for our sins. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God…” This isn’t the whole testimony, I know – but this is certainly the core of a testimony.
Now, consider this quote from President Harold B. Lee, “Testimony isn’t something you have today, and you are going to have always. A testimony is fragile. It is as hard to hold as a moonbeam. It is something you have to recapture every day of your life.” (Church News, July 15, 1972, 4.)
Isn’t this statement at odds with the standard “I know ____” testimony? Things that we *know* don’t need to be “recaptured every day of your life.” I don’t need to reconvince myself that I can’t fly, that I can’t walk through walls, or that I love my family – I know those things.
I don’t think it is at odds. A testimony is fragile. If we do not nourish that knowledge which we have received, we will lose it (Alma 32:38; 2 Nephi 28:30). That doesn’t mean that the knowledge wasn’t true, it just means that our faith that it is true has faltered, and has no more place in us (Alma 32:39). A knowledge and witness of spiritual things can be lost through carelessness, disobedience and sin, which is somewhat different than the knowledge we receive through our senses.
But even in other considerations as you’ve mentioned, our knowledge of these might not be as secure as you might think. Even this knowledge must be nurtured and given room to grow. A mortal physical body cannot fly nor walk through walls, but apparently a resurrected physical body somehow can (Luke 24:51; John 20:19; JS-H 1:30). I know a man who loved his family very much when he was married, but subsequently committed adultery, “fell out of love,” got a divorce, and now wants to marry his mistress.
I know a man who loved his family very much when he was married, but subsequently committed adultery, “fell out of love,” got a divorce, and now wants to marry his mistress.
Relating love to knowledge and faith fits well with my take that knowledge involves faith and action, etc.
“That doesn’t mean that the knowledge wasn’t true, it just means that our faith that it is true has faltered, and has no more place in us”
We must not be on the same page, because I see a fairly blatant contradiction there. You don’t have faith in something you know. I know I can’t walk through a wall. I don’t need the hope (expectation) that I can’t – I know I can’t. “and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting”…(Ether 3:19)
Regarding my examples: I was referring to this mortal life, if it wasn’t clear. Of course, outside of mortality or with divine intervention many more things are possible – but we’re living in this life, and God isn’t going to make me fly
.
With love, it is an instantaneous thing. It is more organic and can change (unlike, for example, “Jesus Christ is the Son of God”), so I probably shouldn’t have used that as an example.
So, let me reframe my situation. “I know I can’t fly by flapping my arms. I know I can’t walk through walls.” as compared to “I know this Church is true. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.” Does my testimony of walls and flying doesn’t need nurtured or room to grow? I don’t think so. Maybe it did when I was a child – but then that wasn’t really knowledge. I don’t need to try walking through a wall every morning to double-check my knowledge. Nor does running into a wall and stopping cold add any substantive testimony to my knowledge that I can’t go through them. I don’t need faith that I can’t walk through it – I know I can’t. It isn’t something fragile that needs to be recaptured daily.
You’re right. A testimony of the gospel is different than other types of knowledge.
I’m glad we can agree on that.