Jacobs observations about truth fact (http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,898435) reminded me of something I compiled a couple of years ago. I think I have posted it here before, but not for a couple of years.


1. The definition of "Knowledge" is believing without doubt.
- Ether 3:19
2. You have to WANT to believe in a the proposition/principle.
- Alma 32:27
3. You have to ACT as though you believe in the proposition/principle
- Alma 32: 28-34
4. You have to CLAIM that you believe in the proposition/principle
- Boyd K. Packer: The Candle of the Lord," Ensign, Jan. 1983, pp. 54-55
- Dallin H. Oaks: General Conference, April 2008
5.a Don't have doubts
- Mormon 9:21
5.b Don't not believe
- Alma 32:28
6. Don't let your guard down, even AFTER YOU KNOW the proposition principle is true, you have to keep on making an effort to believe.
- Alma 32: 38
7. If you don't believe, the problem is not that the proposition is false, the problem is with you. You didn't try hard enough.
- Alma 32: 38-39, Moroni 10: 3-5
8. Believing without doubt is virtuous, the key to unlocking access to God
- Alma 32: 40-41
- Ether 3: 19-28
9. The definition of truth: truth and knowledge are not always treated as independent concepts. Truth is what a belief is potentially about, knowledge is a subcategory of beliefs (beliefs that are true and justified). Failure to distinguish truth from knowledge can explain why somebody could say “well whose truth are we talking about?’ or “what’s true for you is not true for me.”
- D&C 93:24

sigh

I took my mission preparation terribly seriously. I completed seminary, read the Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, based on President Benson’s advice on the centrality of the Book of Mormon to the LDS faith, I particularly studied Book of Mormon. To ensure I had the most adequate understanding of the Book of Mormon I possibly could, I took an Institute class and read the book multiple times—sometimes focusing on the theology, sometimes the history, sometimes on the relevance for the latter days, etc. But the institute class suggested an entirely different approach to studying the Book of Mormon. The Book, we were told, was not just a book, it was a tool for personal revelation, that it contained keys that could uncover hidden truths.


The extent to which this is official doctrine is open to discussion, especially considering the definition and body of official doctrine is a bit of a slippery subject.

One of the central keys is Alma 32—the great lecture on faith; instructions on how to build a testimony. As a teacher who lectures in areas relating to the nature of knowledge, I have had a number of students make reference to Alma 32 as being something that is quite insightful. Sometimes they echo a sentiment. In a lecture that involved trying to derive the necessary conditions for a knowledge claim, one student, without directly referring to the Book of Mormon, suggested that true knowledge is when you no longer have doubt. Another student referred specifically to Alma 32, and tried to make a case for it being a revolutionary concept in epistemology.
(BTW, both students have since left the church)

That is what this note is about: epistemology and Alma 32.
Definition: epistemology is a branch of philosophy that tries to define and understand knowledge. My contention is that Alma 32 adds nothing to our real understanding of knowledge, and can impede the acquisition of true knowledge in at least two ways. First it convinces us that we have knowledge when we only have belief, and second, it inoculates us against evidence that might demonstrate to us that we are mistaken.

Alma 32 is set out like an experiment. It suggests that we try the experiment, and see if our belief can’t be grown into certain knowledge.

First observation is that the whole notion of using Alma 32 as a blueprint for the acquisition of knowledge is logically dubious.

Why should I accept the Book of Mormon as a guide to figuring out what is true? I would do so only if I already believed that the Book of Mormon is true. Hence, I need to be convinced of the results before I even start the experiment.

At the same time, any other book (Quran, Bible) could be making similar claims. Even if the results are positive, I have no way of knowing if I wouldn’t have gotten exactly the same result using the Bhagavad Gita, for example. In order to figure out if the experience I have using Alma 32 and the Book of Mormon is unique, I would have to apply the same test to any other book that makes similar supernatural claims. The same can be said of Moroni’s Promise (Moroni 10: 3-5).

So, this experiment that Alma 32 describes, what is it? It is quite simple. He says to plant a seed in your heart—-meaning try living a gospel principle. If you live it sincerely, the seed will grow—-meaning you stop having faith in the principle, and your faith will be replaced by knowledge of that principle. You will know that the principle is true.
It appears to me that there are some important issues with this experiment.

First, the fact that you are willing to try the experiment means that you already have decided that you want to believe in the principles taught in the Book of Mormon, and you have already decided that the Book is what it purports to be, and therefore have already determined that what it teaches is true. It seems unlikely that if you desire to believe a principle, that following the principle could lead to anything but affirmation.

Second is the implied definition of knowledge that is derived from this process, and widely accepted throughout the church (if fasting testimony meeting is any indication). The definition of knowledge, in the LDS faith (at minimum informally) is to believe without doubt. While it may be true that whenever we have true knowledge, belief without doubt follows, but belief without doubt on it’s own is not enough to constitute knowledge. I could, based on faulty information, believe without doubt that there has been an assassination or an earthquake. After my son robs a liquor store, he might cry to me that he’s been set-up, and I could believe him without doubt. So although belief without doubt is a necessary condition for knowledge, on it’s own it is not a sufficient condition.

But there is a couple of important pre-condition that must be met in order for the experiment to succeed:
Alma 32: 27 …even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
In order for the experiment to work, and to determine if a principle is true, you have to want it to be true.

Alma 32: 28 “…behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts…” (my italics)
In order for the experiment to work, one must not cast out the seed by unbelief. What is the object of the experiment? To determine if a principle is true. So one of the conditions for determining if a principle is true is *don’t not believe it?*
Hello? McFly?

So to sum these preconditions: in order to determine if a gospel principle is true, you have to want it to be true, and you have to not not believe it.

If the experiment is a success, a tree will grow, and the tree will be delicious. If that happens, know you longer have faith, now you know. But this knowledge is fragile, it can be damaged:
Alma 32: 38-39: But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out. Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.
So, even if you used to know that something is true
1. if you stop “knowing” it, the problem lies not in the truth value of the principle, but in your barren heart.
2. if you stop “knowing” it is because you did not try hard enough to believe. NOT BELIEVING IS A SIGN OF MORAL WEAKNESS! When the true believer assumes that your disbelief is a moral defect, he has scriptural support for his opinion of you,

One final point, from Social Psychology. Cognitive Dissonance Theory suggests that when our attitudes and our behaviors come into conflict, we feel a sense of unease, and feel compelled to change either our attitude or our behavior. And it turns out that it is actually easier to change attitudes than it is to change our behaviors. This means that if we act as though we believe something, our natural psychological tendencies will lead us to believe it.
So to sum up:
- we will follow the advice of Alma 32 only if we have already decided we want to be believers
- then we have to want it be true
- then we have to not not believe
- then we have to act as though we believe the proposition until our natural psychological defenses tell us that we do believe it
- and we set the bar low enough (that knowledge means simply having no doubt) we will believe that we know the truth of the principles
- and finally, if we don’t believe it, the Book of Mormon bullies us into believing because if we don’t, it’s a sign that there is something wrong with the non-believer, not that the principle is false
And that, as far as I can tell, is Alma’s contribution to the theory of knowledge.



Packer—A testimony is found in the bearing of it.
"We should be patient in developing and strengthening our testimonies. Rather than expecting immediate or spectacular manifestations, though they will come when needed, we should pray for a testimony, study the scriptures, follow the counsel of our prophet and other Church leaders, and live the principles of the gospel. Our testimonies then will grow and mature naturally, perhaps imperceptibly at times, until they become driving forces in our lives."
--Joseph B. Wirthlin, "Patience, a Key to Happiness", Ensign, May 1987, 30

In a talk by Richard Wirthlin, he quotes Elder Packer:
"A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it. Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that 'leap of faith,' as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and step into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two."

The citation for this in Wirthlin's talk is:
18. "That All May Be Edified" (1982), 340.
In the April 2008 General Conference, Dallin Oaks made the following statement:
"Another way to seek a testimony seems astonishing when compared with the methods of obtaining other knowledge. We gain or strengthen a testimony by bearing it. Someone even suggested that some testimonies are better gained on the feet bearing them than on the knees praying for them."

Hey, HTG I feel the need to stand up and applaud. I don't have anything to add, I just want to thank you for some brilliant analysis.

+1

Very nicely done, HTG! Thanks for sharing this here. It nicely describes why the church holds mental sway over so many. The perfect trifecta.

1. Dish out the bull
2. Control the bull and discourage investigation of the bull.
3. Call out any attempts to discredit the bull as persecution.

Me too. I will be copying for future use. Good analysis.

Interestingly, science and forensics have found that it is easy
for someone to fool themselves. Therefore they constantly erect
safeguards against fooling themselves. Double-blind studies and
control groups are just one of the ways.

Mormonism on the other hand purposely avoids the very safeguards
against fooling one's self that other scholars and researchers
have found to be necessary.

When safeguards against fooling yourself are considered evil and
to be avoided you can be sure that it's not a search for truth
that is being presented to you but a con.

To me the most damaging part of the equation is not the definition of knowledge; belief without doubt. The most damaging part is the depths to which things go to maintain knowledge.

The whole idea of wanting something to be true so hard that it becomes true isn't just limited to Mormonism. It is just surprising that they voiced it since it seems so counter-intuitive.

"The whole idea of wanting something to be true so hard that it becomes true isn't just limited to Mormonism. It is just surprising that they voiced it since it seems so counter-intuitive."

I agree. It is a well known psychological mechanism. Leon Festinger studied it out in great detail, and work continues today.

The upshot is that the advice of Oaks, Packer, and Alma 32 works! It works extremely well. If you want to believe it, and act like you believe it, then you will believe it. However, the resulting belief will be a result of the process and be utterly independent of the truthfulness of the claims in question.
Packer & Oaks both know this. They are intelligent and educated men. Shame on them for giving advice on achieving "knowledge" when they know that the end beliefs they are inculcating do not qualify as knowledge.

+100 Good stuff HTG.

Thanks, Casper. Good stuff...

Too many LDS don't know the meaning of the word, that's the first problem...

From the current prophet, seer, and revelator Monson in the most recent conference, (Sun AM session), titled "Obedience Brings Blessings:

"There is no need for you or for me, in this enlightened age when the fulness of the gospel has been restored, to sail uncharted seas or to travel unmarked roads in search of truth. A loving Heavenly Father has plotted our course and provided an unfailing guide—even obedience. A knowledge of truth and the answers to our greatest questions come to us as we are obedient to the commandments of God."