At the beginning of each month, Latter-day Saint congregations hold what is called a “Fast and Testimony” meeting as part of their regular worship services. It is on this day that Latter-day Saints refrain from eating or drinking for at least two meals, donate the money they would have spent on these meals (generally much more) to the Church’s humanitarian efforts and have an opportunity to share their testimonies with the congregation. Quite often, these testimonies contain phrases such as: “I know that God lives” or “I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.”
A unique aspect of Mormonism, and one which differentiates it from many other Christian sects, is that Mormonism teaches that a knowledge of the truth claims of Mormonism come from without the actual teachings and sacred writings of the Church. In other words, Mormonism does not use the Bible, Book of Mormon, or teaching of its prophets to argue for its authenticity or authority. Rather, Mormonism teaches that each individual must seek for truth by directly petitioning God. God will then reveal truth to the individual who petitions. Such truth is revealed through some sort of spiritual experience or experiences. These spiritual experiences continue throughout a Mormon’s life as he or she continually asks God for confirmation of truth and thus, these continual experiences become the anchor of a Mormon’s faith; they are often what Mormons turn to in times of struggle, doubt, and fear.
As one who is a non-believer in the vast majority of Mormonism’s truth claims, yet remains a committed Latter-day Saint, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with how freely my community uses the word “know.” In my view, the word “believe” may be a more appropriate word choice as it more accurately reflects the experiences described and sentiments expressed. This is not to say that individual Latter-day Saints do not genuinely believe that they “know” God lives, but what does it really mean to “know” something?
I use the Mormon experience to introduce the broader notion of distinction between belief and knowledge. As human beings we are constrained in what we can know but there are absolutely no constraints on what we can believe or in the things which we can have faith. For example, I know that Seattle exists. I have lived there, walked its streets, seen and touched its buildings, and directly experienced the city. On the other hand, I do not know that Tokyo exists. I have never been to Tokyo, never seen its streets or buildings or experienced the city. Now, I can state with near-certainty that Tokyo does exist simply because of the preponderance of evidence which affirms its existence. I have seen pictures and films of Tokyo. I have met citizens of the city who describe their lives there and the city’s ambience. I buy and use products developed and manufactured in Tokyo. Yet, to know Tokyo exists I must walk its streets and experience the city myself. This case of my knowledge of Seattle and near-certain belief in Tokyo demonstrates a small, but important point: knowledge and belief – even strong, near-certain belief – are distinct. Knowledge requires a level of experience that exceeds that necessary to formulate a strong belief.
Allow me explore a more esoteric example. I am a theist; a believer in divinity. I do not know God lives any more than I know Tokyo exists. Yet, I believe in God. Why? Simply because my experience, what I consider evidence, leads me to this belief. Belief is akin to faith and faith represents a hope for something unseen or for something which our level of experience cannot provide absolute knowledge. In other words, because of my experience (educational, spiritual, etc…) I hope God exists; I have faith in God. Having said that, I must freely admit that the evidence of Tokyo’s existence far surpasses that for the existence of God. In matters of faith and belief there are varying degrees. I never doubt the existence of Tokyo but at times, I do have doubts about the existence and nature of God; degrees of belief are a function how much stock we put into the evidence for any assertion of truth.
I find your comments here quite interesting. I know you and your readers are smart people and I don’t wish to be condescending in any way. I do, however, believe that one can “know” that there is a God. As Paul taught in Acts, if we have an alter with the inscription “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD” perhaps we are only offering doubt and not “feel”ing. If one truly believes that there is a God, Paul argues that he’ll find him because he is not very far from any of us. Though I know we all want pure logic to answer our questions, there are times that God gives us enough and even more to actually “know” that he is there. I do not have to shake God’s hand to know that he lives, as powerful and meaningful as that would be, I still know he lives just as I know that Tokyo exists, but walking the streets would add a lot to my knowledge. I have often found that if you’re going to compared apples to apples, it’s best to only use apples. To “know” God (in my view) is to find God in the way God intended to be found. I do know, however, that those meetings can at times sound scripted. I appreciate your comments Seth.
HI TJ,
Thanks so much for your response. I think I may be drawing to strict a distinction between belief and knowledge. Perhaps we can know things in varying degrees — although I personally don’t know if I find that satisfactory. It seems that knowledge must include some sort of empirical experience. The resurrection of Jesus, for example. The Apostles were Apostles *because* they had this physical empirical experience of witnessing the resurrection. The same is true of the witnesses to the Gold Plates. The Apostles *knew* so that others could then believe.
Obviously I have a lot more thinking to do on this one!
Seth
Seth,
I appreciate and understand what you’re saying. Obviously there is a very important part to empirical evidence in the Church of Jesus Christ. Like you mentioned Apostles are “Special Witnesses of Christ.” They were given a very profound and special role. The greatest of which was to share or testify of what they saw and learned. The same is true of those that saw and held the golden plates. But what does that mean for the rest of us? Since I did not personally take part in the ministry of Christ or the holding of the plates, does that mean that I can’t really “know” of these things? As a Christian, I find John 14 to be a very “spiritual” solution to this posting. If anyone believes or has a desire to believe in the divinity of Jesus as the Christ, then it would make sense in my mind that we can know him as he intended to be known. As verse 22 reads “Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?” At this point Christ obviously points out how others will know him, even though they haven’t been in his company. It’s not extremely complex or intellectually challenging, but for those (as you mentioned above) who have had a “spiritual experience or experiences,” this is a great step to knowing that something or someone is delivering those experiences. When these experiences become more and more frequent and are direct results of petitioning Christ, is this because there is someone on the other end answering those petitions, or is it because we’ve fooled our minds into some type of psychological “spiritual” experience? I would argue that this process is the same process offered in Alma 32 of the Book of Mormon. As a committed Latter-day Saint, you are very familiar with this chapter. This may be the best justification for the use of the word “know” to testify of a point of doctrine. This is also a good chapter for spiritual empirical data or evidence. And as it mentions if you do something like plant a seed and you see a result, then “is not this real?” (vs. 35). I mentioned comparing apples to apples above because there are many ways to understand Christ. I’ve heard lectures of the history of Christ, the philosophy of Christ, the science of Christ, and unfortunately today everyone uses Christ as their evidence for whatever political party they personally pay tribute to, but is this really how we’ll know Christ? Is this how he intended to be found? Might I add that there is nothing wrong with placing Christ in a different angle of study, but if the question is really whether He exists (as the Christ) or that His gospel is truth, these question’s answers are supposedly reserved for those who find him in the way he intended to be found. I want to be sure to clear the last statement of any judgement. Anyone who feels that they have had an experience (like those mentioned above) and feel that that experience makes them better than those around them, is quite frankly missing the point. Thank you for your response Seth.
In some cases, trust is superior to knowledge because it motivates action toward the creation of desired knowledge, even if it’s not true yet.
Lincoln,
That is an interesting point….It’s like a synergy effect. When some other driving force (trust) is combined with or working toward knowledge, their interaction creates a combined effect greater than the sum of their individual parts. I like that thought. Not to mention far more brief than my posting as well.
TJ
I believe (but do not know) that what D&C 46:13 says about believing is applicable.