Hope, Faith, and Knowledge in Testimony

[ChinoCoug]

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?

Me as in SoCal? Dang trial lawyers, laying the foundation for the destruction of this people.

[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.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mmmm, I think this is an exaggeration in the other direction. The lines are not as crisp as you seem to imply, and western civilization will not end if Mormon testimonies blur the lines a little. We're not dealing with linguists, these are human beings.

Put a bunch of lawyers in a testimony room, and you'll end up with SoCal's amusing cross-examination. Which of you, upon hearing someone say "I know the Church is true" will be first to line up and browbeat that person to confessing they don't really "know" by the textbook definition?

The bottom line here is, spiritual knowledge is very difficult to quantify or to convey. Discerning the Spirit vs. plain old human emotions is a notoriously difficult affair. People use the language they think best describes the impressions they have. If one person uses "know" and another person uses "believe" you won't find me guffawing at one or the other.

I tend to agree with you on this. The terms that we use in our church testimonies are probably not the most accurate. But in the context of a testimony meeting, I think the spirit in which it is shared is the most important.

For those of us who are concerned with accuracy (a valid concern which I share), it's not wrong to teach our children to be more accurate in the words they use, and I think the principles of faith vs. belief vs. knowledge are important.

I guess I'm in the middle on this one.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mmmm, I think this is an exaggeration in the other direction. The lines are not as crisp as you seem to imply, and western civilization will not end if Mormon testimonies blur the lines a little. We're not dealing with linguists, these are human beings.

Put a bunch of lawyers in a testimony room, and you'll end up with SoCal's amusing cross-examination. Which of you, upon hearing someone say "I know the Church is true" will be first to line up and browbeat that person to confessing they don't really "know" by the textbook definition?

The bottom line here is, spiritual knowledge is very difficult to quantify or to convey. Discerning the Spirit vs. plain old human emotions is a notoriously difficult affair. People use the language they think best describes the impressions they have. If one person uses "know" and another person uses "believe" you won't find me guffawing at one or the other.

He's assuming what linguists call an intentionist model of language. It's been repeatedly and consistently debunked. I'm arguing from a constructionist position, which has strong and consistent support.

A word like "knowledge" is meaningful to an English speaker because it positions ideas in relation to each other in a way that is sufficiently consistent throughout the culture. There is a constellation of attributes of "knowledge" in all English speakers' heads that they conjure up as the meaning of the signifier, and that must be fairly consistent if people are to actually exchange information that even approximates what both a sender and a receiver think is being communicated. This constellation can shift over time and in different contexts, as conservatives have learned to their dismay over the signifier "gay."

He was arguing from a position of, "I think these means such and such, and I'll conflate and differentiate them as I like and call this knowledge, faith, hope, and perfect knowledge." He's denying the validity of the constellation of "knowledge" in english and is embracing linguistic relativism. This is the road to meaninglessness, where knowledge claims are self-refuting (I could go into a long regression into Derrida here, but this is already getting stuffy).

I don't mean to imply that Western Civilization will come to an end or that everyone needs to be a linguist. It's just that using words and making knowledge claims idiosyncratically isn't what you want to embrace if you want "knowledge" to mean something in society. Bottom line: I'm just advocating better attention to accuracy in word usage. I'll add that the idiosyncratic use of language is an important stumbling block in Mormon's dialogues with Evangelicals, Protestants, and Catholics. Language and meaning are one way to position Mormons outside of Christianity.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mmmm, I think this is an exaggeration in the other direction. The lines are not as crisp as you seem to imply, and western civilization will not end if Mormon testimonies blur the lines a little. We're not dealing with linguists, these are human beings.

Put a bunch of lawyers in a testimony room, and you'll end up with SoCal's amusing cross-examination. Which of you, upon hearing someone say "I know the Church is true" will be first to line up and browbeat that person to confessing they don't really "know" by the textbook definition?

The bottom line here is, spiritual knowledge is very difficult to quantify or to convey. Discerning the Spirit vs. plain old human emotions is a notoriously difficult affair. People use the language they think best describes the impressions they have. If one person uses "know" and another person uses "believe" you won't find me guffawing at one or the other.

I have to agree with Tex on this.

[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.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I have to agree with Tex on this.

As an English speaker, I posit that the word "belief" is a more accurate description of spiritual claims in the English language than is "knowledge."

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.