Hope, Faith, and Knowledge in Testimony

[Sleeping in EQ]

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]

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.

[SoCalCoug]

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

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

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

I have that exact thought every fast and testimony Sunday.

Imagine, if you will, that a certain man is on trial for murder, and the defense calls its star witness. He is sworn in, and then asked for his understanding of the facts of the case. He gives his testimony: "I know that he didn't do it. I am so grateful to know that he didn't do it. I love the judge, and I love the jury. Knowing that he didn't do it just blesses my life so much."

What jury, upon hearing such a "testimony" and being given such a poor defense, wouldn't fail to convict the defendent?

A testimony needs to be WHAT you know, and HOW you know it. For example: "I know the church is true because I've read the Book of Mormon, prayed to ask if it is true, and felt the confirmation of the Holy Spirit testifying of its truth."

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

I have that exact thought every fast and testimony Sunday.

I note this; very few people in Church or otherwise speak well. In fact, if one were to listen to a cross-section of most of society, by virtue of the extra public speaking even the lowest of members receives, our members actually convey their thoughts and feelings better than most.

We tend to judge their expressions a bit too harshly given the fact not everybody speaking is college professor, a Phd in Philosophy or Theology, a lawyer or physician.

I would prefer our members understood the differences from and among knowledge, belief, hope, conviction and partial understanding, but it is only with great effort that I have begun to understand the differences and distinctions in my own epistemology. Thus, for those not similarly interested, I'm impressed that they often serve better than I and will dismiss their inartful expressions, if they dismiss my laxness on some issue of service.

However, if we who claim to understand strive to make distinctions, I wager others will pick up on the distinctions and we would begin to see a transformation to better expressions.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

However, if we who claim to understand strive to make distinctions, I wager others will pick up on the distinctions and we would begin to see a transformation to better expressions.

That may be, and I would welcome it, but I see it more as an intellectual exercise than a spiritual one. The most wonderfully crafted expressions of faith are of no use except for the power of the concept on which they are based. God will be more concerned IMO that we were actually filled with love, more than he will worry if we properly expressed it over the pulpit.

Dallin Oaks made some wonderful comments on this over a decade ago, in his counsel about the language of prayer.

We are especially anxious that our position on special language in prayers in English not cause some to be reluctant to pray in our Church meetings or in other settings where their prayers are heard. We have particular concern for converts and others who have not yet had experience in using these words.

I am sure that our Heavenly Father, who loves all of his children, hears and answers all prayers, however phrased. If he is offended in connection with prayers, it is likely to be by their absence, not their phraseology.

When one of our daughters was about three years old, she did something that always delighted her parents. When we called her name, she would usually answer by saying, “Here me is.” This childish reply was among the sweetest things her parents heard. But when she was grown, we expected her to use appropriate language when she spoke, and of course she did. As the Apostle Paul said, “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” (1 Cor. 13:11.)

The same is true of prayer. Our earliest efforts will be heard with joy by our Heavenly Father, however they are phrased. They will be heard in the same way by loving members of our church. But as we gain experience as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we need to become more mature in all of our efforts, including our prayers.

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/me...____&hideNav=1

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

That may be, and I would welcome it, but I see it more as an intellectual exercise than a spiritual one. The most wonderfully crafted expressions of faith are of no use except for the power of the concept on which they are based. God will be more concerned IMO that we were actually filled with love, more than he will worry if we properly expressed it over the pulpit.

Dallin Oaks made some wonderful comments on this over a decade ago, in his counsel about the language of prayer.



http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/me...____&hideNav=1

That quote cuts both ways.

First, it cuts in favor of leniency, because the intentions of our hearts are more important than the words of our mouths.

Second, it points out that if our intents are pure and if we seek to progress, progress is expected. This would suggest that we should do the best we can to express ourselves and not be satisfied with out inadequate expressions. But we should not allow our inadequacies to inhibit us from trying.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That quote cuts both ways.

First, it cuts in favor of leniency, because the intentions of our hearts are more important than the words of our mouths.

Second, it points out that if our intents are pure and if we seek to progress, progress is expected. This would suggest that we should do the best we can to express ourselves and not be satisfied with out inadequate expressions. But we should not allow our inadequacies to inhibit us from trying.

Yep, and I agree with that approach.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by All-American

A testimony needs to be WHAT you know, and HOW you know it. For example: "I know the church is true because I've read the Book of Mormon, prayed to ask if it is true, and felt the confirmation of the Holy Spirit testifying of its truth."

I agree. those are the best testimonies. Tell us how you found out. Just standing up and saying you know it doesn't give me much to work with in trying to learn from your experience and compare it to my own.

[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.