I sometimes hear folks at church distinguish themselves from other Christians by asserting a difference between the LDS “I know that…” and the non-LDS “I believe that… The former, it is implied, is the stronger and therefore the better faith. At the level of individual intent, I am not sure that such is the case. But the real issue is a bit of a misunderstanding about the effectiveness of faith.
The efficacy of faith does not depend on its fervor, but on the trustworthiness of its object. It is quite possible to believe passionately in something or someone who is less than worthy of this trust. The results of such misplaced confidence can be quite devastating. On the other hand, a minimum of faith reposed in a trustworthy object or person is always rewarded. This, I believe, is one facet of what Alma meant when he insisted that our experiment with the seed must entail a “good” seed. For if the seed is good, then “a particle” of faith is all that is needed.
Faith-Promoting Rumor 
I think we overemphasize “knowing” in the Church. It’s partly semantic: we say “know” when, in similar circumstances (with similar evidence) others say “believe”.
I do think it hurts us, though. It causes us to de-emphasize faith. It makes us feel inferior for not knowing but trusting anyway, which is the very act that makes us worthy of salvation.
Nice point about the efficacy of faith. I’ve got something new to ponder for a while.
I think too often we in the Church forget one of the BoM’s primary contributions to our definition of faith- faith is the hope of things not seen, WHICH ARE TRUE. (Alma 32:21)
Sure, Alma tells us how to test the seed; if you give place in your heart and not cast it out by unbelief it will grow and strengthen your faith if it is a good seed. So a particle of faith is all that is needed to test the seed and if it is a good, a particle of faith is all that is needed for your faith to grow.
But faith is different than knowledge. Knowledge exceeds the growing faith that is swelling within your breasts; it comes from an enlightened understanding, it is a clear witness of the Spirit, personal revelation. And it is not limited to the Mormon faith.
Alma’s test tells us if the seed is good or bad. We know the seed is good if our faith swells within our breasts. Good means that the seed contains truth.
This is the hope of things not seen, WHICH ARE TRUE. At this point we know the seed contains truth but we do not know what the truth is.
Enlightened understanding is necessary to have this truth revealed, then you know rather than believe.
Mogget,
The efficacy of faith does not depend on its fervor, but on the trustworthiness of its object.
This is perhaps true, but it’s very easy to conflate the two in Mormon culture. Basically most people would agree with an assertion like, “One should believe in a proposition in proportion to the evidence that the proposition is true.” What’s the evidence for assenting to a theological position in Mormon culture?, the extent to which “The Spirit” witnesses to it. In Mormon culture spiritual witness it is almost exclusively associated with feeling and passion. More evidence is better than less evidence, so more feeling and passion manifesting itself as fervor is interpreted as being better and more efficacious.
While I no longer believe the reasoning in what I just wrote to be valid, I would have agreed with it in the past, and I assume many, perhaps most, members would also agree with it. You are correct that this misplaced confidence, once shattered, is devastating.
The efficacy of faith does not depend on its fervor, but on the trustworthiness of its object.
This is true. Determining if the seed good, if it contains truth can be performed with a particle of faith.
But obtaining knowledge in this context is a multi-step process, Alma tells us that our faith will swell, enlarge our souls and begin to enlightened our understanding. Isn’t this a description of fervor?
Thanks, all.
Right Trousers,
Yes, since the Enlightenment there’s been a good more that could be said about the distinction between “know” and “believe” in this context. If we (LDS) do have some privileged way of “knowing” about God that is unavailable to others, I am unable to articulate it. As you say, it puts us in a bind when we don’t know quite how to talk about it all.
David,
I agree with your reconstruction of traditional LDS thinking. I’d just like to add that I find this approach to the efficacy of faith to be tremendously liberating, as well useful in assisting folks who are trying to overcome disappointment. No need to try to measure faith or calibrate responses. The proper object of faith is God and faith works because God is trustworthy.
Mogs
Sometimes our intellectual pursuits interfere with our spiritual goals subduing fervor.
Excerpts from The Millennial Star, Geoff B.
“I sometimes hear folks at church distinguish themselves from other Christians by asserting a difference between the LDS “I know that…” and the non-LDS “I believe that… The former, it is implied, is the stronger and therefore the better faith.”
Elder Samuelson sure seems to think that way:
Good morning, Bryce,
Although the quotation you cite does contain the believe/know pair in opposing sentences, it is not clear that it actually supports your point. In fact, Elder Samuelson has used the believe/know pair as near synonyms in order to avoid the sort of repetition that modern English speakers find tedious. A better reading suggests that his intent is to assert the superiority of understanding Christ as the living Redeemer over a less specific affirmation of his divinity.
Had Elder Samuelson intended to make the point you imagined him to have done, he might have said something more along the lines of ” Many other Christian faiths believe in the divinity of Christ. But it is a special blessing to know that he is divine.” Or something like that…
Right…
Would you make the same argument about Elder Hales recent testimony too?
Bryce,
Prooftext
Cheers
Bryce, are you trying to say that Elder Hales and Elder Samuelson understand certain aspects of faith a little differently than Alma apparently did?
Hello Bryce,
As David says, all you have contributed so far are prooftexts. In addition to these logical fallacies, it is now also clear that in addition to not recognizing the inherent ambiguity of the quotation from Elder Samuelson that you selected, you don’t fully understand what I wrote, either. Here it is:
I sometimes hear folks at church distinguish themselves from other Christians by asserting a difference between the LDS “I know that…” and the non-LDS “I believe that… The former, it is implied, is the stronger and therefore the better faith.
Were we to pursue this, and I am not sure that that would be a productive activity, we would not interested in whether Mormons recognize a distinction between “know” and “believe.” The point of interest is the distinction between what Mormons mean when they say that they “know” and what other Christians mean when they say that they “believe.” In this last matter, the quotation from Elder Hale will be of no immediate interest.