“The problem is the oddity that we want knowledge to be symmetrical. That is if you know I must be able to know. That just doesn’t follow.”

This led me to think of an example that came to me whilst a missionary. Nearly every member of the Church has access to the same scriptures, the same general conference talks, the same Church magazines and other publications. In other words, nearly every member of the Church has access to the same information regarding what we like to refer to as “The Gospel of Jesus Christ”. Many aspects of that Gospel are universally accepted and recognized by the vast majority of Church membership. Yet there are anomalies. Personal experiences, both those we are subjected to and those we subject ourselves to, coupled with the unique individuality of every person, prevents each member of the Church from having an exactly symmetrical view/understanding of “The Gospel” with any other member. When my personal experiences with scripture and the words of the prophets and other Church leaders reveal a conclusion wholly unlike that of my peers within and without Mormonism, I am forced to accept the conclusion that my personal experiences are anomalous in the midst of humanity despite our shared heritage, and have led me down trails of thought either uncommon or entirely unheard of.

For those others in the Church who experience life anomalously, particularly for those who, like myself, have studied extensively inside and outside official Church publications, we have long since come to realize that there is no completely symmetrical Gospel once one takes into account all the various viewpoints, anecdotes and even “doctrines” which have been shared in “official” and “unofficial” Church settings by Church leaders since the Church was founded. One cannot judge the epistemology of such characters as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, or for that matter any other members of the human race, to be fact or fiction for the exact reason that their words reflect their personal experiences. Certainly there are similarities, enough so that, with a little (or a lot) of redaction here and there, we can pretend Mormonism to be a completely cohesive system with meaningless variations (anomalies) sprinkled throughout its history, but in the end, the anomalies are just as important for those wishing to understand the implications as well as the explications of “The Gospel of Jesus Christ”.

I try not to use my personal experiences as a fence within which the experiences of others are bound, but I admit I use them to attempt understanding the personal (and public) experiences of others. Joseph Smith seems to have been unable to understand the remainder of his life outside the context of the psychological and spiritual consequences of the vision he wrote of in various accounts. Whether or not his personal experiences with the supernatural were “true”, “real”, or “[insert your own epistemological evaluative here]”, they were for him and have been for thousands and even millions of others the source of innumerable “personal experiences” which are uniquely individual (even when unorthodox) and yet shared (mostly) within the confines of a somewhat pliable theological framework.

Summarily, I think we have been plagued by the idea that the empirical method of science is also applicable to personal experiences. You love and are loved exactly as I love and am loved. We spend so much time telling our children they are unique and special while simultaneously expecting that their lives will conform to that of others (even *gasp* our own, occasionally), whatever their personal experiences. Unfortunately for my parents, it is precisely the nature of my personal experiences which have assured that my life will, except for similar vital statistics, in no way conform to theirs. I am the totality of my personal and public experiences. This means that regardless of the nearness in proximity of any other person to me (even I had had siblings), my life as I’ve lived it has never and will never be duplicated either in part or whole. No one has experienced life exactly as I have and so, regardless of their ability to see through the eyes of others, I will die with personal experiences never shared in actuality, though I may have attempted to summarize them in some form of media.

Did Joseph Smith have the personal experiences he said he did? I don’t know. But what I do know is that at this point in my life, I believe God has told me, through myriad thoughts, feelings and yes, personal experiences, that he did, or at least that it is safe for me to believe he did and follow the implications of such in my life. Let the public judge as they will, for they always will, speaking as they unavoidably must from the point of view generated from their own personal experiences.

There are people who of course base arguments in a judgmental dogmatic way on private experiences. My experience is that in most cases this is counterproductive.

I should note that here I’m making a distinction though between testimony – saying “I believe X” or “I know X” – and persuasion. That might appear a subtle difference but I’m not sure it is.

It seems your point is thus less about private evidence than it is about leadership autonomy. My own view is that despite the bad failures, I think as a Church we’d be better off with more not less autonomy. However given concerns with failures the Church most likely will never do that and if anything will constrain Bishops more.

Thought provoking post, Clark, as always. Thank you for sharing.

Somewhat related to AM’s comments about using private knowledge as the basis to establishing law and policy, it seems to me there is a related question that applies to the way private knowledge should or shouldn’t be a legitimate form of knowledge when applied to a bishop’s or stake president’s judgment and decision-making process. To what extent is a bishop’s or a stake president’s private knowledge defensible when applied to judgments they make that affect church members within their stewardship?

A handful of times I have witness a bishop make a judgment “because it just feels right” (once, even, because it was in a dream) that had a significant social and material consequence on the member in question. The decisions were not rooted in church policy and there was no evidence the judgement was the product of a thought process based on recognized and shared church spiritual knowledge, at least not in any way that could constitute “argument.”

How can the member impacted by the decision know if the bishop’s “private knowledge” constitutes legitimate spiritual knowledge and instead not the product of his personal biases or capriciousness. While I understand private knowledge is a legitimate form of knowing on a personal level and can come in many forms, even such that it cannot be verbally articulated, I am uncomfortable placing faith in private knowledge expressed in judgments which affect a third party, which cannot be articulated and which does not appeal to shared and recognized spiritual knowledge. Perhaps I am being too critical and not acknowledging the legitimacy of private knowledge within the context of called judges in Israel and its potential role in their decisions. However, the impact of the judgments I witnessed were so significant to the member, it made me question the morality of the private knowledge upon which the decision-making process was based.

I’m wondering if you have any thoughts on this.

I do think I see what you’re saying. I do believe that the truth surrounding the path of love and salvation is most clearly laid out in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do believe it is the Kingdom of God set up to be a blessing to all who live, will live, or ever have lived on this earth, and that it will be the vehicle and means by which one day all truth will be gathered in one and Zion will be established on earth. At the same time, as it still continues to progress, and it is far from its perfected state, on and individual by individual case it would not be surprising to me that according to someone’s particular needs, they might find it easier to learn and progress in principles of light and truth in other places. I don’t think the wide variety of religious beliefs and practices we find in the world are by accident, in my mind it is by divine design and serves a greater overall purpose in God’s plan for His children.

My belief is that spiritual knowledge and love are one and the same (beyond knowledge in the brain, to Clark/Ondi’s discussion above). And when we practice that love, it is like playing strings on an instrument, which music is the cause of joy. If somebody grows in light and love by learning truth in any place it can be found, they will surely find joy in it and I am happy for that person.

It doesn’t mean you have to experience every sin and every joy in life to be able to have mortality quicken your understanding so to speak. But I would definitely push back that Satan has anywhere close to the same understanding of God that you or I can have as a result of experiencing mortality.

Still, I’m glad enough that you haven’t chosen to totally delegitimize non-knowers like me with your use of “more likely.” I believe, however, that if you spent more time with non-knowers, your “more likely” would turn into a “like others.” But perhaps you have, and still sense something missing in our lives, even despite our frequent assertions to the contrary.

However one might say that often knowledge is a necessary step towards fulfillment either in the here and now or in the future. So if I lived a few hundred years ago before vaccines I might have had a fulfilled life until my child caught whooping cough and died in a tragic and painful way. The knowledge required to produce a vaccine might not have improved my feeling of fulfillment at the time I felt fulfilled, but certainly contributed towards my ability to stay fulfilled later.

To the degree that Christ is teaching us objective truths of course we can learn many of those independent of any particular narrow religion. So, for instance, we know that killing others is typically wrong regardless of whether you grow up Mormon or in an atheistic home. To the degree that many of those truths lead us to behaviors that help our flourishing then we can flourish independent of Mormonism. I certainly don’t want to say that only Mormons have truth. Far from it.

I know your question was directed at Clark, but I think I understand what you’re getting at, so I’ll take a stab at it.

“How does knowing the Church’s leadership and initiated members have exclusive (available to all of they join) access to the divine make your life more fulfilling than…”

First, a quick qualification, I don’t believe the church teaches exclusive access to the divine, but rather that God grants a portion of His spirit / light and knowledge, to all his children in varying degrees as quickly as they are seeking for and able to handle it. But I do think the church teaches exclusive access to certain portions of the divine – such as the higher authority of God’s government set up on earth that provides sacred rights that are at some point necessary for progression in the highest realms of salvation in the life hereafter. This authorized government also provides a way and means that God’s community/Kingdom can be organized for macro-progression of the whole, which can benefit each individual part of that whole if they take advantage of that progression in light and knowledge.

Given these points of exclusivity, your point still stands. What is the benefit of knowing that?

I would say knowledge of these facts would impact the individual as they would tend to then participate in this community, take more seriously those things presented as truth that they might experiment upon them, learn of the truths for themselves and integrate them into their lives, enabling them to live more truths and a higher plane of love and joy than they might otherwise. The same could be said of believe in Christ generally. Knowledge of Christ’s divinity is not necessary to believe in and do good in the world. Yet a knowledge of Christ’s divinity would likely bring a more serious consideration of the teachings and truths taught by Christ such that it is more likely those principles of truth are integrated into the individual’s life, and they will enjoy the fruits of abiding in greater truth and love. So it is with a knowledge of those things exclusive to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the knower will more likely seek and access the truths being openly taught, particularly in a community that is also progressing line upon line under the direction and watch of Christ, and will if prophesies are correct culminate in gathering all truth in one in Christ and the establishment of Zion. Many blessings of truth, knowledge, and joy associated with being part of that great work. And personal knowledge of these facts will certainly tend to greater participation in that labor of love – the work of love being the source of joy.

My sense is that you want to talk about belief in terms of how it makes one feel. Or perhaps to argue belief doesn’t matter that much. Which is fine. I’m not sure that’s a good way to characterize belief though. Take scientific knowledge. Does that make for a more fulfilled life? Probably not but it sure comes in handy indirectly.

As to whether following justifies, it can in part. Alma 32 makes that point. But then the question becomes what is justified?

But perhaps I’m just missing your point. Could you perhaps clarify a bit?