Via Times and Seasons, I read a post entitled “Epistemology: How We Know Things” by Nathan Richardson at Latter-day Saint Philosopher. Excerpt:
Second, according to the essay, each of the four sources of knowledge has both strengths and weakness; none of them can be used alone in every situation. I questioned this assertion at first, because so many prophets have affirmed the supremacy of revelation as the strongest source of pure knowledge.
…
The only weakness I could think of for personal revelation is that the Lord will not use it to tell us trivial things that we should figure out on our own, such as which brand of toothpaste to buy. But that is not a weakness of personal revelation, so much as a (possibly temporary) limitation the Lord had placed on its use. It left me wondering what weakness the essay referred to.
As it turns out, the weakness cited was that “intuitive events . . . may be difficult to describe to someone else. It is this privateness, this inaccessibility to public scrutiny, that is the weakness of intuitive knowledge.”
I have a suggestion: the weakness of personal revelation in particular, and intuition in general, is that it is as easily mistaken as any of the other four methods. Just as one may rely on an unreliable authority, or use faulty logic, or fall victim to misleading empirical phenomena, intuition can be led astray. One may intuit or perceive something that is not actually substantial or reliable (i.e. interpret as revelation something that is not). One may have spent his entire life forming his sense of intuition (or revelation) to be attuned to such things. One may intuit genuinely but incompletely; he may miss the point.
I don’t dismiss revelation or intuition; I believe it is natural, good, necessary, and designed and conducted by God. But I also believe that of all of our other God-given faculties of knowledge. Because they are all God-given, and because mistakes can be made with any of them, I think we need a more integral epistemology, where one form of knowledge is notexalted nor automatically trumps any or all of the others.
Thanks for the post Brad. Epistemology seems to be a recurring issue in interreligious dialogue. Although I’ve not heard anyone state this explicitly, one of the underlying assumptions appears to be that since adherents of different faiths have arrived at different conclusions about the nature of God and how God intervenes in human history, then there must be a divergence with the our epistemologies; therefore, if we can pinpoint this divergence and correct it, then perhaps we might be able to see eye to eye.
I know at times there have been others who have taken up this subject, but frankly I haven’t been able to see how Mormons, Catholics or Evangelicals use a different epistemology. While I understand there is perhaps frustration with the conclusions of each others epistemology, I’m not convinced these faith traditions use a different kind of epistemology. Even if one were to make the claim that some traditions emphasize certain kinds of knowledge over other kinds of knowledge, I’m not entirely convinced this is the case either. Rather, my impression is that in trying to sort out how people who read the same bible can come to different life experiences, we have come to the conclusion that epistemology probably has something to do with it. In some sense it is also a kind of meta-critique in which we aren’t necessarily critiquing anyone’s specific belief, but rather the manner or mode which lead them to such a belief.
I do appreciate you recognition of all methods of “how we know” and that we can make mistakes in our knowing of things because we are human. If I understand you correctly, I think perhaps you are advocating a balance and harmony of these various ways of knowing and I would advocate this as well, although I admit, what counts as balance or harmony in these cases seems to be relative. I dare say it might be hard for anyone to admit that the “religious other” is using a balanced and harmonious integration of modes of knowing if ultimately they believe differently than we do. In which case, we are right back where we began.
Aquinas,
Your last two sentences are quite correct, and maybe it makes the matter not worth pursuing very far. Still, I disagree with you that there’s no substantial difference in Mormon epistemology. A missionary’s first priority is to get the investigator to pray about the Book of Mormon so that God can speak to him directly of its truth. A Mormon child repeats a testimony when she hardly knows what the words mean. Nearly every service, prayer, and activity begin and end with somebody testifying how they know – through personal revelation – that the church is true.
I have seen real-life occasions when any doubt was overcome, any discrepancy resolved or passed over, any important decision made on the sole authority of the Mormon praying and believing that God directly revealed the answer to him or her. Generally, I don’t think most Mormons know how to know things any other way.
Brad, I really appreciate the response and your specific examples. It is true that the Book of Mormon contains an exhortation for the reader to ask God concerning the truthfulness of the contents and that the truth will be manifested by the Holy Spirit. However, from a Latter-day Saint perspective it seems odd that God doesn’t teach truth or that the Holy Ghost doesn’t teach truth or that the Spirit of truth isn’t the source of truth or that man should pray to God for all sorts of reasons, but truth should never be one of those reasons. What I have seen, for example, from the counter-cult movement is that they have recognized that many people reading the Book of Mormon pray for a spiritual confirmation and then join the LDS church. The conclusion is then “we need to get people to stop doing this” and then they marshal biblical verses to show how it is not biblical to pray to know things are true, or something along those lines. However, this is often quite difficult to do without downplaying the efficacy of prayer or the Paraclete as teaching truth.
In regards to children’s testimonies, children like to do things they see their parents do, and this is definitely not limited to what people do in church. I would not consider this a source or insight into Mormon epistemology, but rather family pragmatics. Some parents have a hard time denying their children from getting up and bearing testimony. It is difficult to tell little Timmy, “No, I don’t want you to bear your “testimony” because you are too young to know anything really. You only believe because I do, and you can’t even tie your shoe on your own, and so no, sit down and stop asking me, and if you cry we are going home.” However, it does raise the question: what age are we willing to say that a child can actually have a witness of divine truth enough to articulate it to someone else?
Lastly, when a Latter-day Saint says “I know by personal revelation” it might be better to understanding it in terms of “I know for myself that this is true, and I’m not solely relying on anyone else’s witness.” It is true that a hallmark of Mormonism is that people can know things for themselves, but I don’t really see how that warrants a separate category called “Mormon epistemology.” I’m not denying your experience with people who don’t know how to know anything other than via prayer, but it hasn’t really been my experience. Maybe there is a kind of penchant for the phrase “personal revelation” to the exclusion of listing other means that they are using. However, Latter-day Saints could equally say, “I know this is true because I’ve fasted and prayed and studied the scriptures, studied history, and reasoned it out using the faculties of my mind, learned from trial and error, and have life experiences that tell me it is true.” Perhaps there are different approaches to evangelism, or fellowshipping, or worship services, but, in my view, I still don’t really see anything different in terms of epistemology.
Aquinas,
Let me reiterate that I believe intuition to be “natural, good, necessary, and designed and conducted by God.” I don’t think its utility as a teacher of man should be ignored. But, as I said, it must not be exalted. One would be a fool to ignore smell, taste, and touch reporting “hydrochloric acid!” when the eyes report “it looks just like water.” Likewise, even if I have the strongest intuitive sense of my life that God is telling me Mormonism is true, I must not twist, ignore, or dismiss empirical, logical, and authoritative data that say otherwise. God gave me all those faculties, and they ought to be in harmony. In the aforementioned scenario, I think it’s my duty to keep exploring things and working on the intuitive side. I ought to patiently wait and strive until all my God-given intellectual faculties are satisfied.
My comment on children was not meant to say, “Do not let the little ones come to Jesus.” It was meant only to point out that lifelong Mormons receive lifelong conditioning to believe that they are receiving revelation a certain way and saying a certain thing; this is one of the things that may lead intuition astray.
Finally, part of my basis for setting apart Mormon epistemology is Mormon tendency to do the same. Your own statement is telling: “It is true that a hallmark of Mormonism is that people can know things for themselves …” This implies that other faiths cannot; in other words, their epistemology is not only different but inferior. This sentiment is supported by my experience of LDS meetings, prayers, and discussions. Any given Mormon may, as you say, equally cite study and reason. But if you survey ten thousand of them who have just given a passionate testimony (“I know the Church is true…”), asking “How do you know,” how many would give any answer but personal revelation? Zero would not surprise me.
Brad, thanks again for the response. We all receive conditioning from our environment. To that extent, lifelong Mormons receive conditioning, but no more than lifelong adherents of any other faith. I simply don’t see evidence that this warrants different epistemologies. It merely suggests that we receive conditioning as we grow up in our respective environments whether religious or cultural.
Joseph Smith wrote in his history that after his vision he spoke with a Methodist: “I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.” (JSH 1:21). In contrast to this cessationist preacher, one of the messages of Joseph Smith is that people can receive visions and revelation and that it isn’t true that there would be no more of them.
He later wrote: “[M]ust I not rather obtain for myself, by my own faith and diligence in keeping the commandments of the Lord, an assurance of salvation for myself? And have I not an equal privilege with the ancient saints? And will not the Lord hear my prayers and listen to my cries as soon as he ever did to theirs if I come to him in the manner they did?” This is the message that he preached, and he encouraged others to do the same, and it is this context that I made the statement: “It is true that a hallmark of Mormonism is that people can know things for themselves.” It doesn’t imply nobody but Mormons can, nor can I imagine anyone who would make such a statement. Plus, I began my comment by saying I’m not convinced Mormons and others have different epistemologies.
I suppose I just don’t see this “exaltation” of intuition that you mention. I don’t equate an encouragement to know something for oneself with an exaltation of intuition as a means of knowing. Are you are equating “intuition” with manifestations of the Holy Spirit?
And if you’re going to say that a lot of lay Mormons exalt “sheer gut instinct” over other methods, you have to demonstrate that Catholics, Evangelicals, Anglicans, et al don’t have the same problem with their lay membership.