A Mormon Just Believes

One of the many discoveries made by those coming out of Mormonism concerns the fundamentally flawed nature of Mormon epistemology.  Mormons often claim to "know" certain things about their religion.  During the first Sunday of each month, a portion of church services is dedicated to allowing members to get up in front of the congregation and "bear their testimonies."  Now, this "testimony" is nothing like what is normally associated with that word.  To a lawyer, for instance, "testimony" is typically an assertion of personal knowledge, belief, or opinion that someone makes under oath.  If an assertion is mere belief or opinion, it must be distinguished from knowledge. Knowledge must be based on your own sensory perception and cannot be based on hearsay (subject to certain exceptions).

For Mormons, a testimony is a statement of their "knowledge" of the truthfulness of the church or some aspect thereof.  So during this "testimony meeting," you will hear Mormons get up and say "I know the church is true" or "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet" or "I know that the Book of Mormon is true."  The problem with all of these knowledge assertions is that they conceal the mechanism by which the Mormons allegedly gained such knowledge.  You see, Mormons (and perhaps all religious/spiritual people) believe that they can deduce knowledge/truth by way of feelings.  They will often pray to God, or engage in some church-related activity, and simultaneously have some kind of inward feeling of peace, joy, or serenity.  This emotional experience can be interpreted in a number of ways, but in the Mormon context, it invariably will be seen as a confirmation of the "truth" of some proposition.

So when a Mormon gets up and says "I know the Book of Mormon is true," they're being intellectually dishonest.  They don't "know" the Book of Mormon is true in the same way that you know that you're staring at a computer screen right now, or that you know you had fruity pebbles for breakfast this morning.  Their "knowledge" is not based on objectively observable evidence, as is the case for virtually all acceptable claims to knowledge.  Instead, their "knowledge" is based on the interpretation of a subjective feeling.  To make an honest statement, they would have to describe the mechanism by which they allegedly gained their knowledge, such as "I was reading the Book of Mormon last night and had a strong feeling of peace and serenity.  I interpreted that feeling as coming from the spirit of God, and I believe the feeling signifies that the Book of Mormon is true."  It's important to note that this honest statement uses the words "interpret" and "believe," not "know."  All that Mormon really knows is that he/she had a feeling while doing a particular activity.  Anything beyond that is necessarily a reflective process of interpretation and belief.

I tried to illustrate this important distinction recently with one of my sisters.  During a road trip, she asked me what my thoughts were about the church (I recently "came out" to my mom regarding my disbelief, and thus word had gotten around).  I told her that I no longer believed it and that I viewed all religions as man-made.  A few more hours transpired on the road trip without further discussion on the topic, but when we were almost to our destination, my sister asked if she could "bear her testimony" to me.  I of course said yes.  She then proceeded to assert knowledge of various things, such as the truthfulness of the church, the gospel, and so forth.  When she was done, the following conversation took place (roughly paraphrased):

Me:  How do you know?
Sister: Because I feel that it's true.
Me:  How do you know those feelings signify that something is true?
Sister:  Because the spirit of God confirms it through feelings.
Me:  How do you know the spirit of God confirms the truth of things through feelings?
Sister:  Because I believe . . .
Me:  Exactly.  What you have is belief, not knowledge.

Now I didn't engage in this little Socratic exchange for the purpose of tricking my sister.  I did it for the purpose of making an important point: ultimately, Mormons just believe.  Mormons are not accustomed to having their claims to knowledge (testimonies) challenged; at least, not past the first level.  But the regression incited by a series of "How do you know" questions will ultimately result in an admission of belief, not knowledge.

Many readers might be thinking "Well of course, all religious claims require faith/belief."  True!  But in that case, call it what it is.  Don't claim to have knowledge of something when all you really have is belief.  That is dishonest, confusing, and even a little arrogant.  If I claimed to "know" that Alex shot Bob, but then upon further inquiry it is revealed that my basis for knowledge is that Carl told me that Alex shot Bob, then you would rightly resent my initial misleading statement.  All I know is what Carl told me.  Anything beyond that is, of necessity, belief.  (Even worse, what if my claimed knowledge was based on a feeling/hunch!)  Similarly, if Mormons claim to know that Jesus lives, then I would hope their basis for knowledge is that a bearded guy with marks in his hands and feet walked across their swimming pool, introduced himself as "Jesus," shook their hand, and then turned the water in the pool into wine.  If their claim to knowledge is simply that they had some kind of emotional experience while praying or thinking about Jesus, then all they have is belief, and that is all that they should claim.

As the following video hilariously illustrates, a Mormon just believes.