Hope, Faith, and Knowledge in Testimony

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Tex's arguments about how to treat people who use words inaccurately are a different matter. And frankly, he's stepping around the issue of context and why, in the context of a testimony meeting, people often feel inclined to put their declarations of religious sentiment in terms more strongly than can be empirically demonstrated. Why do Mormons often use the word "know" instead of "believe" in this context? His nonchalance covers up an interesting aspect of Mormon testifiying, the performance of conformity and dogmatism--which is exactly what Dehlin alluded to.

Then permit me to disagree on this point as well.

Are there people who say "I know" due to social pressure, who otherwise feel less than convicted? Undoubtedly. Just as there are people who go to the temple, participate in ward activities, and show up to help re-paint elderly Sister Smith's home because they feel a social or cultural obligation to do so. I've never thought a testimony was typically created in a social vacuum.

But extrapolating this on to the membership at large is narrow and illogical. Dehlin seems to think truly knowing is an impossibility, and anyone who says otherwise is robotically "parroting" (his word) things they were programmed with in Primary. Instead, it seems to me that his own lack of conviction prompts him to project on to others. "If I cannot be sure, none of them can possibly be either."

All of us who believe have had to lean on someone else's faith at one time or another. Sometimes even when we do not know, it's enough to believe that someone else does, which is part of the point of a testimony meeting. Just because some among us might struggle, and thus adopt "inaccurate" language as a means of social conformity, does not mean such knowledge is unattainable.

Indeed, I distinctly remember Boyd Packer emphasizing that a testimony can be found in the bearing of it.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Indeed, I distinctly remember Boyd Packer emphasizing that a testimony can be found in the bearing of it.

You realize you just cited Boyd K Packer, don't you?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Member: I'd like to bear my testimony that I know the church is true.
Me: You say you "know" the church is true. Is this something you were able to witness with any of your own senses?
Member: Huh?
Me: Was it something you saw?
Member: No, I didn't see anything.
Me: Did you hear it?
Member: No, but I felt it.
Me: You mean you touched it? With your hands?
Member: No, I felt it in my heart.
Me: Like heartburn?
Member: No, I prayed about it and felt a burning in my bosom, telling me it's true.
Me: Move to strike - hearsay, lack of foundation. How do you know that the feeling in your heart was a witness of the truth of the church as opposed to, say, a reaction to the chili dog you had for lunch?
Member: Because that's what I've been taught is how the Holy Ghost witnesses to you that the church is true.
Me: Move to strike - hearsay, lack of foundation. Can you say for a certainty that this warm feeling in your heart was not due to some physiological event in your body?
Member: Huh?
Me: Can you say for a certainty that the warm feeling was the Holy Ghost rather than a hot flash?
Member: I don't know. I guess I can't say that for an absolute certainty, but I don't believe it was a hot flash.
Me: Did the Holy Ghost talk to you?
Member: No. It speaks in a still, small voice.
Me: So it did talk to you. You heard a voice.
Member: No, I didn't actually hear it - I felt it.
Me: You felt the voice of the Holy Ghost in your heart?
Member: Yes.
Me: Do you, by chance, have a prescription for anti-psychotic drugs?
Member: Of course not.
Me: When you "felt" the voice of the Holy Ghost . . .
Member: The still, small voice.
Me: When you "felt the still, small voice of the Holy Ghost in your heart, did it say "The church is true"?
Member: No.
Me: What did it say?
Member: It didn't actually "say" anything. It was just a warm feeling testifying to me that the church is true.
Me: So, you felt, not heard, a voice, not with your ears, but with your heart, which testified to you in some manner, without saying anything, that the church is true. Is that correct?
Member: I guess.
Me: So, what words did the Holy Ghost use in telling you the church is true?
Member: I told you, it didn't use any words.
Me: If the Holy Ghost didn't use the words, how do you know that it was telling you the church is true?
Member: Because that's how I've been taught that it testifies to you.
Me: Move to strike - hearsay. Isn't it true, therefore, that your "knowledge" that the church is true is based entirely on some ambiguous feeling you had in your heart, although you can't for a certainty rule out that it was a hot flash, which you didn't hear, but instead felt, informing you, but not telling you, that the church is true.
Member: Well, when you put it that way . . .
Me: Isn't it true, then, that you do not actually "know" that the church is true, although you believe that the church is true?
Member: I guess that's accurate.
Me: Isn't it true, then, that every time you stood in front of the congregation and said, "I know the church is true," you lied?
Member: I didn't lie - that's what I believe.
Me: Then why didn't you say you "believe" rather than you "know".
Member: I don't know.

This might be why some people hate trial lawyers.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

This might be why some people hate trial lawyers.

Even viscerally.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You realize you just cited Boyd K Packer, don't you?

I knew even as I typed the name, CGers across the nation were whipping out their charms and amulets to ward off evil demons.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Even viscerally.

LOL.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I think you're a very wise dad, Meanie.

Now you jinxed me - watch all my kids turn out to be godless teenage-pregnant crackheads.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Now you jinxed me - watch all my kids turn out to be godless teenage-pregnant crackheads.

Phew. For a second there I thought you were going to say they'll all turn into Ute fans.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Phew. For a second there I thought you were going to say they'll all turn into Ute fans.

Which of course would be the ultimate unpardonable sin.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Then permit me to disagree on this point as well.

Are there people who say "I know" due to social pressure, who otherwise feel less than convicted? Undoubtedly. Just as there are people who go to the temple, participate in ward activities, and show up to help re-paint elderly Sister Smith's home because they feel a social or cultural obligation to do so. I've never thought a testimony was typically created in a social vacuum.

But extrapolating this on to the membership at large is narrow and illogical. Dehlin seems to think truly knowing is an impossibility, and anyone who says otherwise is robotically "parroting" (his word) things they were programmed with in Primary. Instead, it seems to me that his own lack of conviction prompts him to project on to others. "If I cannot be sure, none of them can possibly be either."

All of us who believe have had to lean on someone else's faith at one time or another. Sometimes even when we do not know, it's enough to believe that someone else does, which is part of the point of a testimony meeting. Just because some among us might struggle, and thus adopt "inaccurate" language as a means of social conformity, does not mean such knowledge is unattainable.

Indeed, I distinctly remember Boyd Packer emphasizing that a testimony can be found in the bearing of it.

Instead of just making the word "knowledge" mean what he wants it to, he's approaching "knowledge" philosophically. He's talking about provable, unquestionable, established fact, or as near humans can get to such. The earth orbiting the sun is a declaration of knowledge. Jesus being resurrected from the dead is a declaration of belief.

And you're playing with words here. Dehlin's lack of "conviction?" He doesn't lack conviction. He lacks knowledge. In your third paragraph you conflate knowledge and faith (and perhaps mean to imply that they're on some kind of continuim? Good luck with that). Moreover, Mormon's do understand a difference between knowledge and belief, as they so very much prefer to use the one, "knowledge" and not the other "belief" in testimonies. As I've said all along, you're conflating the terms at your convenience even as Mormons at other times distinguish them (and they think less of the one than the other in a testimony--as you have just done in your denigration of Dehlin's beliefs).

Game, set, match.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Instead of just making the word "knowledge" mean what he wants it to, he's approaching "knowledge" philosophically. He's talking about provable, unquestionable, established fact, or as near humans can get to such. The earth orbiting the sun is a declaration of knowledge. Jesus being resurrected from the dead is a declaration of belief.

Just curious, SIEQ. Is it possible in your mind for someone to "know" Jesus is resurrected from the dead? If so, what would it take to satisfy your definition?

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

And you're playing with words here. Dehlin's lack of "conviction?" He doesn't lack conviction. He lacks knowledge. In your third paragraph you conflate knowledge and faith (and perhaps mean to imply that they're on some kind of continuim? Good luck with that). Moreover, Mormon's do understand a difference between knowledge and belief, as they so very much prefer to use the one, "knowledge" and not the other "belief" in testimonies. As I've said all along, you're conflating the terms at your convenience even as Mormons at other times distinguish them (and they think less of the one than the other in a testimony--as you have just done in your denigration of Dehlin's beliefs).

No, you are playing with words. You're hiding behind textbook definitions to mask your condescension. I certainly didn't denigrate anyone's beliefs ... Dehlin is welcome to believe what he wants. I simply challenged his right to question mine.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Game, set, match.

Wow, I guess the debate is over.