Hope, Faith, and Knowledge in Testimony - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Sleeping in EQ · 06-29-2007, 04:15 PM

Since not all of you may have read Scottie's post and link to John Dehlin's article, I'm going to reproduce a chunk of it after my comments.

In Romans 8:24-26, Paul writes that "For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words." (NRSV).

1 Corinthians 13 is another favorite passage of mine, and one that speaks to knowing only in part and prophesying only in part (see verse 9).

Where is the scriptural support for making knowledge-based claims about the Church being true? (on a related note, there is some evidence that Jesus wasn't a hardliner on sectarian boundaries--Mark 9:38-40 and Luke 9:49-50--and the Jews weren't either. Did the Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, or any other Jewish group prevent members of other Jewish groups from worshipping in the temple? No. Did they have their own rites of initiation and internal organization? Yes. Just a little food for thought).

If by stating "the Church is true" someone means that "it operates with heavenly authority" I can follow, but the Church is simply an organization. It doesn't save you and it doesn't exhalt you. Merely being baptized or endowed by authority won't save or exhalt you either. What the Church does is help you endure to the end by deepening your understanding of, and commitment to, Jesus. It gives you opportunities to serve and love your fellow beings, and to make and keep covenants with God. The Church helps you (or should help you) "grow into salvation." (1 Peter 2:2, NRSV).

When people get up in testimony meeting and say (in that sing-songy voice) "I'd like to bare my testimony, I know the Church is true," a reasonable visitor could conclude that we're a bunch of brainwashed whack jobs.The apostles didn't even "know" that Jesus was going to be resurrected and there is exactly zero evidence of Jesus banishing them to hell over it. His apostles followed him, but didn't often know what the hell (heaven) he was saying. According to the New Testament accounts, they were in his presence, saw him perform miracles, and they knew very little. They followed because they hoped and believed. They had faith.

It seems that some would substitute unscriptural and philosophically untenable declarations of "knowledge" and blind obedience for faith. I understand that these declarations are often sincere, and I'm not out to condemn anyone. Many of the people who declare "knowledge" are some of the most dedicated followers of Christ I know. I am just out to share a little perspective.

I understand why the Church empasizes its exclusivity and encourages declarations of knowledge. Dehlin gives some good reasons why the Church is justified in doing so. Still, I like having faith. I like believing. Obedience flows from my faith. But it is not a substitute for it. I wait for knowledge with patience.

Here's Dehlin:

Faith (or hope) is an amazingly low bar. "Knowledge" and "true" are impossible ones.
For many, many years in the LDS Church, the conditioning for children, and the heavy emphasis for teenagers, has been to say, "I know this church is true." There are at least two very important things going on in that phrase:

We are taught to say we "know" before we ever really have a chance to even think about it, or to test its validity (especially relative to other faith traditions).
We are taught to characterize the church as "true," which implies both a comprehensive validity to the church, and an implicit non-validity to all other churches.
In other words, they've won your complete and total allegiance, and have discredited all other religious options, before you've even had the chance to mature and work things out for yourself.

This is not a bad thing. Again, it's simply what religions do. It may be exactly what many young children need to give them reassurance and certainty through the insecurities of young adulthood.

So while perhaps it has been healthy for the vitality of the organization to do this, and likely for some individuals as well, I believe that the heavy emphasis on "knowing" and "true" in this church, and the devaluing of "faith," is ultimately spiritually damaging to its members. When these children become adults, they begin thinking from an adult perspective about what they believe. As they realize that their convictions fall far short of empirically "knowing," they may experience deep feelings of inadequacy and inferiority. Faith has become devalued to the point of becoming almost an embarrassment.

Many, and this is particularly common with LDS missionaries, even feel compelled to lie about their testimonies, just to fit in and avoid feeling ostracized. If one were to stand up in the church today, especially as a missionary, and say, "I believe the church is true. I hope the church is true," they would likely be evaluated by their peers as being weaker in their convictions and inadequate compared to those who say, "I know." I think Christ would not share this view.

Faith is the first principle of the gospel. It is foundational -- and it is glorious. Christ Himself said, "because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." He didn't say "blessed are those who know." He said "believed." And He clearly is elevating those who do not know, over those who think they know. In other words, it is actually a "blessed" state to hope and believe, and not know. We should not in any way feel embarrassed by the fact that we don't know the church is true, or that God and Jesus live. We should feel proud to be believers, in spite of our lack of knowledge.

Also, it is highly unlikely that those who say they know, actually do know. Instead, they are simply parroting what they were conditioned to say since Primary. There is clearly a certain status and prestige to be gained by bearing your testimony with deep convictions within your congregation (the whole "I know with every fiber of my being" thing).

Regardless, don't let the "knowers" bully you into thinking that you are inadequate, or in any way a second class citizen in the church. Be proud of your hope and belief. Be proud of your faith.

Finally, what in the heck does it mean to call a church "true"? What an odd usage of the word. To me, it's like calling a ham sandwich "true." It just doesn't mean anything.

Churches are made up of imperfect and constantly changing doctrines and policies, along with imperfect people, all struggling to do the best they can in a messy world. We all see through a glass darkly. All of us, the church leaders included. A church can be good, or even great -- but never true. (Ham sandwiches can be good, too.)

We simply need to find another word.

Regardless, stand up and take your place in the church as a proud, faithful, non-knowing believer. You are in every way as legitimate as the "knower" sitting next to you. If you don't believe me, believe Christ. He said so Himself.

BYU71 · 06-29-2007, 04:32 PM

I find some people who "know" to be interesting from a human nature perspective rather than a religious one. When someone tells me they know such and such to be true, I accept what they say for them. I just interpret what they mean as "know" to be the same as "I have strong faith that".

When I get testy is when they seem to have the unrestricted need to let others know they should "know" too. Some are so pushy one wonders if they aren't really displaying a need for peers to join in. If you "know" do you really need someone elses agreement. I don't think so.

Indy Coug · 06-29-2007, 04:37 PM

If you consistently experiment upon the words of Christ over your lifetime, your sample size becomes large enough that you can safely reject the null hypothesis that the Gospel of Jesus Christ isn't true.

Thus, one's "knowledge" isn't a perfect understanding of any and all things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, rather it's an accumulation of understanding (albeit incomplete), spiritual affirmations and practical applications of its tenets that leads one to believe it's "mathematically" impossible for the church not to be true.

SoCalCoug · 06-29-2007, 04:37 PM

I think it might be fun to cross-examine some of the members regarding their testimonies - particularly the most self-righteous ones.

BarbaraGordon · 06-29-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

...the Church is simply an organization. It doesn't save you and it doesn't exhalt you. Merely being baptized or endowed by authority won't save or exhalt you either. What the Church does is help you endure to the end by deepening your understanding of, and commitment to, Jesus.

...

I understand why the Church empasizes its exclusivity and encourages declarations of knowledge. Dehlin gives some good reasons why the Church is justified in doing so. Still, I like having faith. I like believing. Obedience flows from my faith. But it is not a substitute for it.

Thank you for taking the time to construct this. I very much enjoyed it, especially the two paragraphs above.

If I ever had to testify that I "know" anything is true (other than the song of that name by Spandau Ballet), I for one would be in deep doodoo.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old gained approval.

Tex · 06-29-2007, 04:45 PM

SIEQ, this may be the old missionary in my coming out, but how do you compare what you've said with D&C 1:30?

I've always kinda thought we get a little overly transfixed on the word "know." It doesn't bother me if someone says believe vs. know. That said, I disagree that teaching "know" is just a security valve for uncertain adolescents who are destined for inadequacy once they learn to think for themselves. I don't believe "knowing the church is true" is, pardon the choice of words, an unknowable thing.

BYU71 · 06-29-2007, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

SIEQ, this may be the old missionary in my coming out, but how do you compare what you've said with D&C 1:30?

I've always kinda thought we get a little overly transfixed on the word "know." It doesn't bother me if someone says believe vs. know. That said, I disagree that teaching "know" is just a security valve for uncertain adolescents who are destined for inadequacy once they learn to think for themselves. I don't believe "knowing the church is true" is, pardon the choice of words, an unknowable thing.

I think when a small child goes up to the stand and says "I know this church is true", it is a cute and aw moment. The child is expressing love and confidence in their parents. At that point in time they probably know and believe their parents are true and the parents are the church. Therefor I can even accept that statement from a child.

Lost Student · 06-29-2007, 04:52 PM

I guess I see "know" in testimony-bearing context as being equivalent to "have strong faith" or something similar (as 71 said).

We know that faith is not perfect knowledge, but hope for things which are not seen. When I say "I know" I do not mean a perfect knowledge, but one that is faith-based.

I disagree with Dehlin that the practice of using "know" in testimony devalues the importance of faith. Because under my semantics of "know," faith is included (as an essential part) in the equation.

Sleeping in EQ · 06-29-2007, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

SIEQ, this may be the old missionary in my coming out, but how do you compare what you've said with D&C 1:30?

I've always kinda thought we get a little overly transfixed on the word "know." It doesn't bother me if someone says believe vs. know. That said, I disagree that teaching "know" is just a security valve for uncertain adolescents who are destined for inadequacy once they learn to think for themselves. I don't believe "knowing the church is true" is, pardon the choice of words, an unknowable thing.

A great question, Tex, and one that I've spent alot of time on. My answer will deserve a post all it's own, but I'm skimming over my thinking on this issue when I go into the sectarian stuff above.

jay santos · 06-29-2007, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lost Student

I guess I see "know" in testimony-bearing context as being equivalent to "have strong faith" or something similar (as 71 said).

We know that faith is not perfect knowledge, but hope for things which are not seen. When I say "I know" I do not mean a perfect knowledge, but one that is faith-based.

I disagree with Dehlin that the practice of using "know" in testimony devalues the importance of faith. Because under my semantics of "know," faith is included (as an essential part) in the equation.

I kind of agree with this, though I think in general our testimonies could stand to be less dramatic.

06-29-2007, 04:15 PM	#1
Sleeping in EQ Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto Posts: 3,085	Hope, Faith, and Knowledge in Testimony Since not all of you may have read Scottie's post and link to John Dehlin's article, I'm going to reproduce a chunk of it after my comments. In Romans 8:24-26, Paul writes that "For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words." (NRSV). 1 Corinthians 13 is another favorite passage of mine, and one that speaks to knowing only in part and prophesying only in part (see verse 9). Where is the scriptural support for making knowledge-based claims about the Church being true? (on a related note, there is some evidence that Jesus wasn't a hardliner on sectarian boundaries--Mark 9:38-40 and Luke 9:49-50--and the Jews weren't either. Did the Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, or any other Jewish group prevent members of other Jewish groups from worshipping in the temple? No. Did they have their own rites of initiation and internal organization? Yes. Just a little food for thought). If by stating "the Church is true" someone means that "it operates with heavenly authority" I can follow, but the Church is simply an organization. It doesn't save you and it doesn't exhalt you. Merely being baptized or endowed by authority won't save or exhalt you either. What the Church does is help you endure to the end by deepening your understanding of, and commitment to, Jesus. It gives you opportunities to serve and love your fellow beings, and to make and keep covenants with God. The Church helps you (or should help you) "grow into salvation." (1 Peter 2:2, NRSV). When people get up in testimony meeting and say (in that sing-songy voice) "I'd like to bare my testimony, I know the Church is true," a reasonable visitor could conclude that we're a bunch of brainwashed whack jobs.The apostles didn't even "know" that Jesus was going to be resurrected and there is exactly zero evidence of Jesus banishing them to hell over it. His apostles followed him, but didn't often know what the hell (heaven) he was saying. According to the New Testament accounts, they were in his presence, saw him perform miracles, and they knew very little. They followed because they hoped and believed. They had faith. It seems that some would substitute unscriptural and philosophically untenable declarations of "knowledge" and blind obedience for faith. I understand that these declarations are often sincere, and I'm not out to condemn anyone. Many of the people who declare "knowledge" are some of the most dedicated followers of Christ I know. I am just out to share a little perspective. I understand why the Church empasizes its exclusivity and encourages declarations of knowledge. Dehlin gives some good reasons why the Church is justified in doing so. Still, I like having faith. I like believing. Obedience flows from my faith. But it is not a substitute for it. I wait for knowledge with patience. Here's Dehlin: Faith (or hope) is an amazingly low bar. "Knowledge" and "true" are impossible ones. For many, many years in the LDS Church, the conditioning for children, and the heavy emphasis for teenagers, has been to say, "I know this church is true." There are at least two very important things going on in that phrase: We are taught to say we "know" before we ever really have a chance to even think about it, or to test its validity (especially relative to other faith traditions). We are taught to characterize the church as "true," which implies both a comprehensive validity to the church, and an implicit non-validity to all other churches. In other words, they've won your complete and total allegiance, and have discredited all other religious options, before you've even had the chance to mature and work things out for yourself. This is not a bad thing. Again, it's simply what religions do. It may be exactly what many young children need to give them reassurance and certainty through the insecurities of young adulthood. So while perhaps it has been healthy for the vitality of the organization to do this, and likely for some individuals as well, I believe that the heavy emphasis on "knowing" and "true" in this church, and the devaluing of "faith," is ultimately spiritually damaging to its members. When these children become adults, they begin thinking from an adult perspective about what they believe. As they realize that their convictions fall far short of empirically "knowing," they may experience deep feelings of inadequacy and inferiority. Faith has become devalued to the point of becoming almost an embarrassment. Many, and this is particularly common with LDS missionaries, even feel compelled to lie about their testimonies, just to fit in and avoid feeling ostracized. If one were to stand up in the church today, especially as a missionary, and say, "I believe the church is true. I hope the church is true," they would likely be evaluated by their peers as being weaker in their convictions and inadequate compared to those who say, "I know." I think Christ would not share this view. Faith is the first principle of the gospel. It is foundational -- and it is glorious. Christ Himself said, "because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." He didn't say "blessed are those who know." He said "believed." And He clearly is elevating those who do not know, over those who think they know. In other words, it is actually a "blessed" state to hope and believe, and not know. We should not in any way feel embarrassed by the fact that we don't know the church is true, or that God and Jesus live. We should feel proud to be believers, in spite of our lack of knowledge. Also, it is highly unlikely that those who say they know, actually do know. Instead, they are simply parroting what they were conditioned to say since Primary. There is clearly a certain status and prestige to be gained by bearing your testimony with deep convictions within your congregation (the whole "I know with every fiber of my being" thing). Regardless, don't let the "knowers" bully you into thinking that you are inadequate, or in any way a second class citizen in the church. Be proud of your hope and belief. Be proud of your faith. Finally, what in the heck does it mean to call a church "true"? What an odd usage of the word. To me, it's like calling a ham sandwich "true." It just doesn't mean anything. Churches are made up of imperfect and constantly changing doctrines and policies, along with imperfect people, all struggling to do the best they can in a messy world. We all see through a glass darkly. All of us, the church leaders included. A church can be good, or even great -- but never true. (Ham sandwiches can be good, too.) We simply need to find another word. Regardless, stand up and take your place in the church as a proud, faithful, non-knowing believer. You are in every way as legitimate as the "knower" sitting next to you. If you don't believe me, believe Christ. He said so Himself. __________________ "Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies. Last edited by Sleeping in EQ; 06-29-2007 at 04:36 PM.

06-29-2007, 04:37 PM	#4
SoCalCoug Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Orange County, California Posts: 3,059	I think it might be fun to cross-examine some of the members regarding their testimonies - particularly the most self-righteous ones. __________________ Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug

06-29-2007, 04:45 PM	#6
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	SIEQ, this may be the old missionary in my coming out, but how do you compare what you've said with D&C 1:30? I've always kinda thought we get a little overly transfixed on the word "know." It doesn't bother me if someone says believe vs. know. That said, I disagree that teaching "know" is just a security valve for uncertain adolescents who are destined for inadequacy once they learn to think for themselves. I don't believe "knowing the church is true" is, pardon the choice of words, an unknowable thing. __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young

06-29-2007, 04:32 PM	#2
BYU71 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,084	I find some people who "know" to be interesting from a human nature perspective rather than a religious one. When someone tells me they know such and such to be true, I accept what they say for them. I just interpret what they mean as "know" to be the same as "I have strong faith that". When I get testy is when they seem to have the unrestricted need to let others know they should "know" too. Some are so pushy one wonders if they aren't really displaying a need for peers to join in. If you "know" do you really need someone elses agreement. I don't think so.

06-29-2007, 04:37 PM	#3
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	If you consistently experiment upon the words of Christ over your lifetime, your sample size becomes large enough that you can safely reject the null hypothesis that the Gospel of Jesus Christ isn't true. Thus, one's "knowledge" isn't a perfect understanding of any and all things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, rather it's an accumulation of understanding (albeit incomplete), spiritual affirmations and practical applications of its tenets that leads one to believe it's "mathematically" impossible for the church not to be true.

06-29-2007, 04:52 PM	#8
Lost Student Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Boise Posts: 261	I guess I see "know" in testimony-bearing context as being equivalent to "have strong faith" or something similar (as 71 said). We know that faith is not perfect knowledge, but hope for things which are not seen. When I say "I know" I do not mean a perfect knowledge, but one that is faith-based. I disagree with Dehlin that the practice of using "know" in testimony devalues the importance of faith. Because under my semantics of "know," faith is included (as an essential part) in the equation.