Ordain Women and the Powers of Heaven

Last Sunday, for the first time in several months, I had to get up and leave Relief Society. It wasn't because I was upset, it was because I was angry. The well-meaning woman in the front of the room, addressing the concept of woman's ordination, chose to mock the entire idea. Met with laughter from other sisters in the room, she declared, "Who wants the priesthood? I have enough to do!" She went on to suggest that the OW movement was stupid, faithless, and foolish. I finally left when she started listing all the "access" that single women have to the priesthood.

It would probably take some who only know me online by surprise that it bothered me as much as it did. Others are probably convinced I'm a sympathizer and agree with Ordain Women, though previous posts of mine should make it clear that I'm not. But while I am no sympathizer to the Ordain Women movement, I am an empathizer. Many of the same things that have led these women to "supplication" at the doors of the Tabernacle are things that I have felt.

As a single woman, I've experienced cradling a sick child in the middle of the night with no one to ask to give her a blessing. As a married woman, I experienced asking someone to offer a blessing only to be refused. I've been summarily overridden, my perspective and revelation in my stewardship discounted because I was not one of the ultimate decision makers. As a sister missionary, I've been subjected to ever-increasingly creative verses of "Sisters are Stupid," a song set to the tune of "I Often Go Walking" because the prevailing opinion was that sisters shouldn't bother themselves with priesthood duties such as sharing the Gospel. I've been judged and rejected for not being enough of an appendage. While none of these things SHOULD have happened under a priesthood organized as it is, they all did at least partly BECAUSE of how it is organized, giving those so inclined to interpret women as less-than.

I know the sting of possessing no organized authority in the Church of my Savior.

Recently, I listened to Kate Kelly's podcast where people were invited to "ask her anything." Listening to it, I changed some of my opinions about Kate Kelly and the movement, and others were confirmed. I may have nothing more to add to the discussion that has been going on around her and the Ordain Women movement. But I have felt the Spirit prompting me to write. Even as I type these words, I'm not sure what exactly I'm going to say.

The Oatmeal Solution

When reading others' discussions on gospel topics, especially those that people struggle with, I find it fascinating to see just how much our internal biases affect how we can listen to the Spirit. Most of those common issues are not problems for me. I've prayed about it and received answers that satisfy me, ways of looking at mortality, the Church, and God's dealings with His people which give me patience and a bit of a sense of humor about the whole thing. But many people struggle perennially.

While those aren't problems, I've been struggling in the same way with personal answers. It's as if I feel that an answer is out there, I'm just incapable of hearing it, no matter how I wrack my mind and heart. As a silly example, it is as if I hate breakfast cereal and am praying over breakfast to know what is healthier to eat, a doughnut or Cheerios. The whole time, the Spirit is trying to tell me to eat oatmeal, but I just don't have a paradigm for it.

Watching others makes me wonder how often I do this, and how to get around it.

For what sorts of problems are you waiting for an "oatmeal answer"?

Prayer as the Answer

This post over at Real Intent does a much better and kinder job of explaining some things I have been trying to say.

I have found this principle to be true, especially when combined with earnest entreaty.

Unrighteous Questions

As I am certain my parents would attest, I am big on asking questions. Even now, I have little shame in probing into the how and why of everything from human motivation to scientific knowledge, though I would hope I've developed a little more tact than I once had.

It is my parents' fault, of course. One of my earliest memories is, as a 3-year-old in Sunbeam class at church, sharing what I heard in Church that day only to have my dad ask me why I believed it. Because of that gift of a questioning spirit, at eight years old I was fully prepared with a testimony of the truthfulness of Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon, and the story of Joseph Smith's vision. I had actually read that book myself and prayed as he did.

That is a gift that every parent should try to give their children. I only hope that I do half as well as my parents did with me.

That burning need to understand, to experience and know things for myself, is a huge part of what draws me to internet discussions. There are fewer social courtesies online, things can be discussed that many people would hesitate to share in person. My beliefs are questioned and challenged, and I thrive on that.

Questions help me delve more deeply into myself, help me reach out to my God more fully. They keep me from ever being satisfied with what I know and who I am.

There is a darker side to questioning, however, which I am beginning to see more clearly.

The Tenth Day: A Living Prophet

"On the tenth day of Christmas,
my true love gave to me
ten lords a-leaping."

There is a unique tension between the principles of agency, personal revelation, and a living prophet. Most people prefer their prophets dead, unable to argue with them and their choices. It is much more comfortable to direct our own spirituality without another source of input.

When we used to teach investigators into our Church, the first thing we taught them was Joseph Smith's vision. The second thing was the pattern by which they could find out for themselves if their Father in Heaven and His Son, Jesus Christ did actually visit Joseph in the grove.

That same pattern, the ability for us to ask God directly if something is from Him or not, is not just a test of truth, it is also a way for us to learn to listen to the Lord.

General Conference Questions

At a response from a challenge in a post on Segullah, I'm going to break from my Articles of Faith posts to post my questions for General Conference. I will come back and edit this post later, as they are answered.

1) The ward doesn't really want my input, and my time is very limited. What can I do to serve in my ward?

2) There are many people struggling with "issues" in the Church, some of which I can empathize with. How can I help them feel God's reassurance and love within the Church?

3) What should I do next to deepen my spiritual relationship with God?

4) What can I now do to deepen my family's relationship with God?

5) How can I eliminate negativity when the negativity is continually refreshed, but the positivity is always being depleted?

6) What must I do to gain the blessing given to Nephi by God? Is it possible for me to have such a blessing, since I do not hold the priesthood?

7) Will it be enough?

When "Funny" Isn't

Once upon a time, I prided myself on my ability to make a person feel two inches tall in less than ten words. I was good at using sarcasm and "wit", and built quite a reputation for myself. I was careful to use my linguistic power only when the situation warranted it and the object of my censure was fully deserving of it. I thought that made me safe, excused me from any sin. A long series of experiences gradually led me to change my opinion, culminating with my husband's explanation of his extreme distaste for any form of sarcasm.

I've recently had an experience with a blog post that has led me to think about this topic again. I observed a once-admired person ridiculing a group of people I do not agree with. Despite being superficially on the "side" of the ridiculer, I felt uncomfortable and finally felt that I should speak up, lest my silence be construed as tacit approval. As a result, I put myself in a position to also be ridiculed. I have mixed feelings of disappointment and hurt about this. Gradually, the hurt is fading, though I'm still disappointed. I thought perhaps I was wrong in my stance, so I decided to make it the topic of study in my scripture study this morning. Since I think best when I write, I thought I'd share my conclusions here. It's not meant as an attack or justification; it's just a way for me to cope with what happened and to resolve my internal concerns. I have found that both scriptures and leadership, with one exception, seem to agree with me.

There is an undeniably bitter chasm between those who have left the LDS Church and those who still profess to believe. Often, those who have left mock and point fingers at those who believe in the Gospel. Sometimes, this mockery becomes downright attack. Unfortunately, mockery is not the sole prerogative of the disaffected. In fact, sometimes mockery creates the disaffected. President Hinckley in 1986 said "Everywhere is heard the insulting remark, the sarcastic comment, the verbal attack against the reputations of others. Sadly, these are too often the bases of our conversation. . . . In the Church it sows the seed of inactivity and finally apostasy." Those who become inactive and/or leave the Church can be either source or subject of the mockery. Ofttimes, they either begin to mock sacred things, even in jest or, when they find themselves doubting or with questions, they find themselves denigrated and shunned by those who should be their brothers and sisters in the gospel. In the latter case, the situation often seems to prove to those who are doubting that the Church is not founded by God. Some find it hard to believe that the Church of God would include those who do not practice His charity, and so they stop believing and they leave.

There is no doubt that not all humor is wrong, but sarcasm is a particular brand of so-called "humor" of its own. Peter B. Rawlins in his 1974 New Era article explains,

"A most damaging form of humor is sarcasm, or cutting, hostile, or contemptuous remarks. Such humor is usually based on inordinate pride and is usually aimed at some person or group thought to be inferior, such as minority races, ethnic groups, and the physically handicapped. Occasionally some good comes from these jokes when taken in good humor by the object of the joke . . . . but this occurs only when the feelings of all concerned are considered.

Though often meant to be harmless, sarcasm denotes insensitivity to the feelings of others, stemming either from thoughtlessness or maliciousness."

In other words, the very nature of sarcasm includes insensitive thoughtlessness or maliciousness, depending on whether or not the person is aware that they are hurting others. To say that someone deserves the sarcasm is to admit, perhaps without conscious realization, to intentional hurting of another child of God, no matter how far led astray that child of God may be.

That is not to say that one should never criticize behavior. As President Hinckley later says,

"I am asking that we look a little deeper for the good, that we halt the sounds of insult and sarcasm, that we more generously compliment virtue and effort. I am not asking that all criticism be silenced. Growth comes of correction. Strength comes of repentance. Wise is the man who can acknowledge mistakes pointed out by others and change his course of action."

The trick is to make certain that criticism is being done in a spirit of love and not one of mocking sarcasm. ANY time criticism is necessary, the criticizer must show an increase of love towards the person if they wish to criticize righteously. One should try to evaluate and see if their love is stronger than death. Otherwise, one should probably refrain from criticizing, unless otherwise directed by the Spirit. (And if you're in the frame of spirit necessary to be directed by the Spirit, you are probably also filled with love for the person needing to be criticized!)

Those who are struggling with questions and doubts need that love more than anyone. It is too common (and easy) to label people with doubts as near-Apostates, and then to ignore and revile them. After all, Korihor was not allowed to teach among the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, and Christ did not always give the Pharisees nothing but warm fuzzies. Most of the time, however, if the situation is examined with a prayerful heart, it will be discovered that the people in question are not nearly anti-Christs and are almost never deliberately misunderstanding the Gospel as the Pharisees did. Usually, people with doubts are just like every other person in the Church. Can any long-term member honestly say that they have never had questions or doubts and yet still have a strong testimony? If there are any, they are rare.

I guess that most of the time, those members who overreact to questions and doubts do so because they do not have a true understanding of agency and the Atonement, or faith in their own testimony. They are afraid of questions and doubts because they are afraid that if they are exposed to questions, their testimonies will be undermined.

Of course, my last two paragraphs do not apply to those few souls who are truly anti-Christ. These are people whose only goal is to lead others away from the Church and from Christ. It is usually quite easy to tell the difference. Anti-Christs are rarely questioning, but they often pose rhetorical questions. They rarely seem as though they are searching, but will exude confidence in the answers they have already received. If nothing else, if you can feel the Spirit's true love and sorrow for a person, but still feel that you should not engage in discussion, the Spirit is directing you away from a conversation, rather than your own fears acting to categorize and revile a person who is honestly seeking to know.

What I have found is that sarcasm is not compatible with Christian discipleship. I could find no references to God or Christ mocking anyone. The one exception I found in the scriptures is when it mentions in Proverbs and Psalms that the Lord will laugh at the wicked. Given the nature of these two books of scripture, I think that is a bit of literary word painting on Solomon's and David's (or others') parts, and not literal.

Meekness is compatible with discipleship, and as Elder Maxwell stated in his 1982 BYU address, the meek know how to not speak. They have nothing to prove and no need to revile others. "The meek think of more clever things to say than are said. And it’s just as well, for there is so much more cleverness in the world than wisdom, so much more sarcasm than idealism."

Rawlins says later in his article:

"Would it not be better to “lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees” (D&C 81:5) than to humiliate and disgrace one of our neighbors? When humor is such a powerful tool in building subtle bonds of brotherhood, in cheering those who suffer, and in teaching profound and memorable lessons, why should it be used to belittle and discourage?

Those who profess belief in Christ should shape their humor in the light of Christ’s teachings. Being rejected from His kingdom because of a warped sense of humor would not be funny."

Sarcasm is never funny. "Remember, too, that no matter what you see in the TV sit-coms and movies, put-down, cutting humor is not good humor. While it may be entertaining to watch, in real life, cutting humor and sarcasm are too unkind to be funny. They can only injure, never uplift." (Chris Crowe, New Era 1986)

What disciple of Christ would wish to harm any of the souls for which He died? Whether or not those souls accept His sacrifice is irrelevant; He died for them unconditionally, should we not give them the benefit of the doubt and love them unconditionally? Let their choices push them away from the Church and the comfort of God, if that is what they wish. Never let your choices force that decision upon them. If you criticize, criticize with love, not sarcasm. You might be surprised how many "near-Apostates" only need that love to give them the courage and strength they need to come back to Him.

Other interesting and pertinent articles:
Brad Wilcox 2000
Rex A. Skidmore 1988
James E. Faust 2000
Russell Wilcox 2007
FHE Book 1997

The Glory of Self-Censorship

Another thought sparking across my mind lately is the topic of censorship. Censorship is a bad word, right? I have seen a friend of mine (if I'm allowed to use the word, BiV?) talk about beginning to censor herself only to get jumped on by a few people. "What?! You can't censor yourself! What a travesty! What a disaster!!!" I'd like to disagree. Self-censorship is a sign of maturity and well-developed self-awareness.

Now, I'm not advocating censoring something merely because it is controversial. The ability to censor oneself and to think before one speaks (or writes), however, is vital. Mind-vomit, whether oral or written, can cause irreparable damage. Internet mind vomit, for the best example, can easily become immortalized. Your bad day might translate into quotations spread across the internet and used in ways you couldn't possibly have imagined, sometimes to attack the things you hold most dear. Before we invent mental gunpowder, I believe we ought to at least examine the possibility that it might be used for more than just pretty fireworks.

With the advent of the internet, suddenly people with no qualifications necessary are streaming information out into public space. Some of this information is better than other information. Often opinions are spread as facts - the more controversial they are, the faster they spread. The drive to titillate, to be recognized in the wider world, often supersedes our better sense. It is vital that we literary laymen think before we write.

Venting has its place, but that place is not the internet. Not unless you want your periodic venting to illustrate others' perceptions of you until the end of time. As members of the Church we have a particular responsibility to represent the Lord "at all times and in all things, and in all places" of our lives. We have promised God that we would do so by our baptism. Those times, things and places include the internet. If we use the internet - the most public forum conceivable - to spew forth every petty criticism our minds can think up, we not only endanger our own testimonies, we are also responsible for all who read those words. Once it's out there, you can never erase it.

No, you shouldn't hide the questions and the problems you have. But, rather than criticizing and complaining, demonstrate how to work through these problems with faith, patience and humility. Show them how a disciple of the Lord behaves. We all have our own Lights of Faith to shine out into the darkness. Don't replace the pure light of faith with the neon sign of controversy. Don't cover your light with the basket of discontent. You'll find if you cover it long enough, it will go out.

Lacunae, Part 2b - The Spirit, Charity and the Law

Okay, I know it's been a long time coming, but here it is. For this second part, I'd like to preface it with an admonition. When examining the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law in others (the most readily available research source) do not judge their hearts, always look at them in the most charitable light. By this I mean that in seeking to become like God, never forget that you cannot be like Him without love for His children. That is His single, greatest attribute. All else radiates from this quality. This is not the Relief Society "I love you sisters" sort of love. This is a bittersweet, lay-down-your-life but be-willing-to-live-your-life-for-them sort of love. Christ didn't just die for us, He lived for us. That is what the Gospel holds at its core. When you feel His love, even in the smallest part, the tenets of the Gospel suddenly fall into place. It is important to understand that in a discussion like this, because it is far too easy to begin examining others and categorizing them. (Often people do this by labeling the "Liahonas" and the "Iron Rodders".) This only serves to divide, when I hope to bring points of doctrine together.

When trying to discover how to more fully follow the will of the Lord, it quickly becomes obvious that the law leads to the spirit which leads to the law. There is no one place to start. When you read scriptures such as Galatians 3, it begins to seem that there is no need for law if one is faithful enough. According to Paul, the law is a temporary measure when one is in a state of sin, a taskmaster to teach those who do not have the Spirit how to behave. When reading this, however, it is important to remember that Paul is talking to a group of people affected by the Pharisaical Mosaic Law. The Pharisees took the laws of God and turned them into a god of their own merits - a god that could be interpreted and manipulated at their pleasure. They did not understand that when Christ came, He fulfilled the law and gave the law of the Spirit. He did not change the law, he fulfilled it. There was nothing in the law of the Spirit that contradicted God's principles behind the law of Moses. The spirit of the law does not supersede the letter. You cannot live the spirit of the law while breaking the letter of it. Even Nephi killing Laban was within the bounds of the law under which he lived.

Although one cannot live the Spirit without living the letter, it is obvious how easily one can begin redefining the letter of the law to suit one's own purposes. Simply watch any time a conference speaker says something controversial. In the world of LDS blogs, for example, the pattern of outrage, reasoning and rejection will quickly emerge. It is so easy to define the words of the prophets by one's own understanding, yet we have been taught not to lean unto our own understanding. Yet, learning is not evil. As we discussed before, it is necessary to know the Gospel in order to live it. So, how do we live the Spirit of the law AND the letter without falling into our own trap? How do we approach from the side of law without losing grasp of the spiritual goal? The answer is "easy": we become learned, but listen to the councils of God. To do that, we must be humble. To be humble, we must not only know the gospel, we must understand it. To understand it, we must reach a deeper rapport with the Spirit than simple yes-no answers. We must realize that we have the same access to complete Spiritual revelation as the prophets. We must come to the place between humility and the vision of glory. We must fill the gap between the Law and the Spirit with patience and humility. We must remember that our lack of understanding pales in the light of the love of Christ - an attribute that can only be felt through the Spirit.

Lacunae, Part 1b - Faith & Knowledge

Knowledge can seem to be one of the trickiest concepts in the Gospel. On the one hand, you have the Tree of Knowledge which fruit Adam and Eve ate and as a result were punished “for their sakes” by being banned from the Garden of Eden and from the Tree of Life and put in a position of labor and toil for the rest of their days. On the other hand, we are taught to seek knowledge and learning. With this dichotomy within knowledge itself it is no wonder that though the possession of knowledge is generally seen as good, the seeking of knowledge can be seen as very bad. Rather, to explain further, the methods of seeking knowledge are strictly proscribed. As spoken of in my last post, we have two sides of this coin, those who (in the extreme) believe that faith exceeds a need for knowledge (the “sheep”), and those who believe that knowledge is the ultimate necessity (the “unfaithful”). In the eyes of the faithful, we are allowed and encouraged to seek knowledge, but we must do it in a certain way in order to remain on the “Lord’s side”. Such a search for knowledge may even be seen as unnecessary. To the seekers, knowledge is vital, and restricting the methods of knowledge seeking is often considered oppressive and blinding. I’d like to fill this gap within the concept of knowledge before attempting to fill the gap between knowledge and faith.

To begin to sift through the meaning of knowledge, I would first like to examine two types of knowledge separately. For simplification, I will call one type of knowledge Fact and the other Truth.

Facts are simple statements that cannot be refuted (without delving into hyperphilosophy). For example, I can state that I am tall. Including enough qualifiers to satisfy any arguments of relativity (such as to say that I am tall in relation to the average human female), this is a statement of fact. It is irrefutable. Common facts include statements such as “the sky is blue,” “an apple falls when dropped,” or “during gamete formation each member of the allelic pair separates from the other member to form the genetic constitution of the gamete,” otherwise known as Mendel’s First Law of Genetics.

Science, by definition, is a method by which to pursue the discovery of facts. In science, the qualifiers are examined and controlled in an effort to determine what, exactly, causes observable effects. Once all contributing factors are examined and a final understanding of a given situation is achieved, science is 100% accurate. It is irrefutable. (Note that I said ALL contributing factors. Scientific conclusions often change because factors not previously accounted for or properly understood have to be included. Assuming that every contributing factor has been included and accounted for, science is 100% accurate.)

I don’t want to delve too deeply into all the what-ifs of science. That’s a subject for another discussion entirely and any further attempt to explain what I mean will probably only muddy the waters of what I’m truly trying to discuss, and that is the nature of knowledge. Hopefully, you’re with me so far.

The second type of knowledge I mentioned is Truth. Truth is more than fact. Truth describes the actual nature of a thing. Truth is what we are all actually yearning for, actually wanting in our search for knowledge. To illustrate my meaning, let’s assume that we are discussing my daughter. I could list millions of facts about her. She has a beautiful smile. She likes to eat dirt. She is tall for her age. I could go on forever, especially if I were to get down to descriptions about how her cells function. However, even were I to state every possible fact about her, it would fail to describe what she truly is, the essence of her that awes me every day of my life. There is something about her that is more than a sum of her facts. In order to get a sense of that something, one has to understand her true nature, at least in part.

Compare a fact to a stone. It is solid, real, and you can throw it at people’s heads. If you were to take all the facts about my daughter and pile them one on top of the other in an attempt to build a tower that eventually describes her unique nature, you would fail as assuredly as an attempt to build a tower to heaven fails. You can’t reach heaven by building a tower of stones, and you can’t reach the truth by merely assembling a pile of facts.

The Lord teaches us that in order to understand Truth, we have to be taught by the Spirit. No amount of secular searching will ever find the truth. Though the assembly of facts may prepare our minds to understand the truth, and the facts may round out the truth, they are not the truth, and never can be. No matter how well reasoned, no matter how compelling the argument, a purely secular learning will never encompass an understanding of things “as they really are.” That is why so many will learn and learn and learn and never know the truth.

Though it may offend the faithful, however, seeking facts is necessary to our existence. We cannot ignore the search for knowledge, and facts are part of that search. The Spirit cannot inspire you with knowledge of the ultimate nature of the universe if you don't even understand the scientific nature of the universe. You cannot get a sense of my daughter's true nature without possessing at least some facts about her. On the flip side, though this may be offensive to some who have dedicated their lives to factual seeking, such seeking cannot bring understanding. The simplest primitive can come to a greater knowledge of truth without ever seeing a book than the greatest professors of knowledge in the world. How this is accomplished is the subject for my next installment, which shall hopefully bring the concepts of faith and knowledge together.

Lacunae, Part 1a - Faith & Knowledge

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who do not question their faith and those who live by questioning. These two groups are most commonly referred to as the “sheep” and the “apostates.”

Between these two extremes, I have observed several points in LDS doctrine where something seems to be missing. Almost every personal struggle with the Gospel I have heard or felt manifests within these doctrinal lacunae. I have thought and prayed, seeking the Spirit to teach me about these things, some of which never bothered me until I realized I could not explain them to one who is bothered by them. Others have concerned me to the point of near obsession. This is the first installment of a series of entries I plan to write as I begin to try to reconcile these seeming gaps. They are not intended to trump or belittle any struggles someone may have, they are meant to illustrate and document my own search for understanding.

The first concern that I see lying under so many of the concerns of the questioning mind is that of faith. In theological disagreements, labels of “unfaithful” and “blindly obedient” are often applied. I would like to examine, briefly, the definition of faith. Whenever faith is presented as a topic, the speaker generally brings up Alma 32:21, “faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.” Mostly, the focus is given on “not seen” and “true.” This scripture seemingly dichotomizes faith and knowledge, placing them at two ends of the spectrum, other than their shared property of truth. It is important to note, however, that it is a perfect knowledge that exists in the absence of faith. As is clear when one reads the rest of the chapter, it is possible to possess both faith and knowledge. Lectures on Faith 1:7 gives a clearer definition of faith as a “moving cause of action.” Faith is actually the driving force behind the search for knowledge. If you did not believe knowledge was attainable, you would not seek it. Similarly, if you believed you had already attained all knowledge, your faith would be dead. A possession of faith is necessary to gain knowledge. This concept indicates that it is possible to be without true faith on both “sides” of the theological spectrum, and also indicates that it is possible to be faithful on both “sides” of the theological spectrum.

With that in mind, I'm going to tender a possibility that some will consider quite offensive, but is an attempt to help bridge the lacuna between the “unfaithful” and the “blindly obedient.” It is often true that those who are the most obedient to the precepts of the Gospel possess the least faith. An easy way to judge this in yourself is to ask yourself the question, “Do I believe I understand the fullness of the Gospel?” If your answer is “yes,” your faith is absent, or “dormant” as Alma taught his listeners. Those deemed the “unfaithful” by other members of the Church must ask themselves a very similar question. An easy way to measure faith on this side is to ask yourself the question “Am I seeking answers, believing God will answer me?” Note that both of these two questions should be asked of yourself, on whichever “side” you believe you are.

Since this has already become quite wordy, and since I've not posted in some time, I would like to leave the examination of the knowledge side of this gap for my next post.

The Light That Has Been Given

I have been doing a great deal more reading than writing in the sphere of LDS blogs, lately. Primarily, I have not had time to write, or even to post as much as I would like. Also, however, I have lost the desire to contribute comments to posts. I don't feel that my comments really matter. People seem to be pretty cemented in their views, and quite hostile if you disagree with them.

One such view that has recently struck me is an overall tenet or argument against belief. Those using this argument have repeatedly suggested that no one can claim a knowledge of the truth because someone else could claim knowledge of a truth that is different or opposite to the original claim. Not only is this argument disingenuous, it is a religious belief disguised as reason used by many agnostics and atheists.

First, to examine a claim to knowledge of the truth. From a secular standpoint, knowledge is the act of knowing something. Know, by the word's very nature, indicates an understanding of something through reason or experience. If one is to claim that it is impossible to know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for example, is true, one would have to claim that it is impossible to know anything. Though true in its most basic sense, that conclusion is useless, leaving one in a state where learning is meaningless, since one can never know if they are learning absolute Truth. Since we are imperfect beings in an imperfect world (something even atheists can probably agree with) we are bound by that imperfection, and must learn to function within its bounds. If we are to reject all learning and knowledge on the basis that it may not be true, we stagnate in a state of self-satisfaction and voluntary ignorance. Therefore, the claim that someone cannot know the truth of anything is a useless statement. I find it interesting that those who summon this relativistic reasoning are almost always blind to the correlation that they cannot know that the other person doesn't know!

Secondly, let us look at the faults in the supposition that a seeker of truth must take others' answers into account. Let's say, for example, that I have sought for truth by seeking out a true religion. I have found a church, studied its tenets, earnestly prayed for confirmation from God and have received my answer that it is true. With some variation, this is the method religious texts have submitted to find truth over thousands of years. Many have claimed to find truth through this method.

Now, let's suppose another person does the same thing and receives an answer that the same church is not true. The argument would claim that the first person's confirmation of truth is invalid because the second person had the opposite experience. I would first ask myself why the first person should be expected to doubt his experiences based on the experiences of a second? The first person can't judge the sincerity of the second truth-seeker. The first person can't know God's motives in giving the second person their negative answer, assuming that the second person really did receive that answer from God. Most importantly, the second person's answer is not the answer the first person received. That may seem obvious, but think about the implications. Those claiming that truth cannot be known would seem to be telling the first person that they should believe another's answer over their own. When examined this way, it seems obvious that this is nothing but a ploy to cast doubt on an individual's own ability to seek and understand truth.

We are all human, with the same ability and responsibility to seek light, knowledge and truth. We have the same potential to receive spiritual confirmation. We have the same "chances" of finding the truth. In the end, we will be judged on the answers we have sought and received from the Lord, not on another's. In other words, If it seems stupid to you to claim a knowledge of a truth, if it seems necessary to believe that you can never know what is true and what is not, do what you will, but as for me, I choose to seek the light by the methods I know to be right.