Quote:
Originally Posted by ERCougar
For as long back as I can remember, I've hated this phrase. It does nothing for me spiritually, and I've always felt a little alienated in a church where so many seem to know what for me is un-knowable.
That's not to mention the fact that the phrase itself is a little absurd. Obviously, an object can't be "true". But, if I look beyond that to what I assume they mean--that the principles of the Gospel are true--I'm still not sure that it's an honest statement. Do they mean ALL the principles of the Gospel? Or certain favorites? How do they feel about polygamy?
I guess in the Alma 32 sense, I can see how a principle of the Gospel that can be tried and tested, can be "known". For example, I know that compassion for others brings me joy. That is a principle of the Gospel. However, there are many principles of the Gospel that can't be known IMO--what happens after we die, that Christ died for my sins, that Joseph Smith was a prophet. We can have faith, hope, belief, etc, but in my opinion, it's not ever knowledge. And I'm not sure of any place in the Gospel where "knowledge" is required. Faith, yes. Knowledge, no.
I've always told myself that I can't judge others' testimonies. However, when they say something like "I know Christ lives", aren't they placing themselves, according to their own belief system, in a place where Joseph Smith said few men who have ever lived have attained, i.e. the ability to deny the Holy Ghost and become a son of perdition?
Does anyone else feel this way? I'm really not trying to nitpick here. To me, it's an important issue, in that I feel like it alienates people of other faiths, some of our own faith, and de-emphasizes the role of faith in our lives. Besides, it just seems dishonest. And even a little creepy.
|
I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if I retread some ground, but I have thought about this a lot so here goes.
I think the word know as used by most members of the church has a different meaning than it would have in other contexts. For example (and sorry to those who hate lawyer talk and analogies) but if I ever hear the word "know" in testimony or in a deposition I will cross examine to find out what the source of that knowledge is whether it be first hand knowledge, inference, hearsay, assumptions, etc. Often it will come down to a person not having first hand knowledge but is an amalgam of various sources which add up to knowledge in their minds. In the end though, most admit that there are aspects that they don't really know and that they are in fact relying on inference, supposition,speculation and second or third hand hearsay at least in part. First hand knowledge is the coin of the realm, and if you have less than that your testimony in court is at least subject to being questioned.
So when someone in church says they "know", if I am very literal, I can ask whether any of them have first hand knowledge of deity and the answer is that none of them do. I least I don't think so. This knowledge comes mostly from experiences where they felt an emotion and believed it was from God because they have been told that this is what that feeling means and that seemed right to them, or perhaps events unfolded in a way they would not have expected absent divine intervention and they attributed this to God. I think this is how most of us gain a "knowledge."
I was discussing this very thing with a friend who I respect a lot who is a far better scriptorian than and whose priesthood I respect, and he surprised me by saying that what people, in his opinion, really mean when they say that is that they accept the traditions that they have been taught. When they feel a certain way, they have been taught it is from God, and this tradition they accept. I like this formulation a lot and, in my opinion, this is pretty close to what the vast majority of people mean when they use that word.
I used to be much more bothered by the concept of "knowledge" because if taken literally it removes faith from the equation and the plan of salvation as I understand it, is all about exercising faith. About proving whether we will be obedient notwithstanding that we don't know. Perfect knowledge coupled with forced compliance was the adversary's plan. My friend's approach encourages me not to be literal about the words, but to take them as an expression that the person speaking is exercising faith, that is, hoping that certain things are correct or as one has been told they are.
In the course of thinking about all of this, I began to notice that an older gentlemen who is a counselor in my Bishopric and has been a Bishop more than once always expresses his testimony in terms of saying "I believe" rather than "I know." I could be wrong, but I don't get the impression that he is trying to split any hair by doing so, this is just what is natural to him to say.
So where I have landed on this is that I have adopted "I believe" rather than "I know." I don't begrudge anyone saying "know" because I have decided that I think I know what they are trying to say by this, and that it is also the same thing I am trying to say. Having thought it through, I can't really use that word myself because for me it would convey a concept that wouldn't be accurate. So to, I say the same thing, just in a different way. In a way that is more natural to my thought processes.
Now another topic for s separate thread is what it means to say something is "true." This is another word that has a very distinct meaning within the church.