This last Christmas, we were given a collection of video clips from church history. As we were watching it, one titled “A Man without Eloquence” came on and we realized it had special significance, because it was about my ancestor, Eleazar Miller. He was depicted as a simple, non-talented man, not having any training in eloquence or public speaking. And yet he stood and bore solemn witness that he KNEW the restored gospel was true, through the power of the Holy Spirit. And it was through his simple declaration and testimony that Brigham Young was converted to the gospel. I’ve known all my life that Brigham Young (the 2nd prophet in the restored gospel) was baptized by my ancestor so it was a neat discovery that there was actually a video clip made about it.
Up to now, I’ve never felt the inclination to shout upon the rooftops that I know the gospel is true. It’s not really in my character. And I've never really felt the need to preach my religion to others. I’m more of a share it through my example, kind of person, and if anybody wants to know more, they can ask me about it. I know it…, so I live it (at least to the best of my ability). I so want to live the consecrated life, talk the talk and walk the walk, or BE the change I want to see in the world.
I’m not claiming to have any type of mastery here – I’m just stating my preference in how to share the great plan of happiness. But recently, my ‘walking the walk’ was referred to as my feelings and my opinion. It made me consider that maybe I need to be a little more forthcoming and testify that this opinion in their eyes is actually a fact in mine.
In school, we learned the difference between fact and opinion. 
* A fact is something that is true about a subject that can be tested or proven.
* An opinion is something that one thinks about a subject.
But we were never taught the standard of the sources or the validity of what can be tested or proven. I've since learned about epistlemologies - the study of defining what is true knowledge. In other words, HOW one defines a fact . It's where our opinions/beliefs intersect with absolute truth. And it has not only opened my eyes to my own epistlemologies - it has also made me aware of other professed facts that may or may not be consistent with my epistlemology.
Here's the list of common epistlemologies:
*Revelation (knowledge revealed directly from God)
*Credentialism (Revelation from an expert - someone with credentials, rather than from God)
*Mandarinism (An official or supposed authority declares facts)
*Imperisism (the scientific method proves knowledge)
*Pragmatism (the knowledge has stood the test of time and it works)
*Aesthetisism (the fact is too ordered and symmetrical to be anything but true)
*Reason (the use of one's own logic to prove something)
*Historicism (lessons from history and cycles prove the knowledge as true)
As I considered each of these sources, it brought several questions to mind. All of them could be both a good standard or have some serious folly to the standard - with the exception of Revelation. For instance, if a person is the source (credentialism, mandarinism, reason), there is always the chance of a corrupt application. Consider Obama as an authority figure who speaks facts -lol. Or a professor - or the media - who teaches truth (isn't that an oxymoron). If interpretation is the source (imperisism, pragmatism, aesthetisism, historicism), there is always a chance of error. If God is the source (revelation), the only error is man's interpretation of the revelation - not the revelation itself.
Another concern was the idea that with all these sources, and their potential to error - all (except revelation again) could be considered opinion. So what exactly is the difference between fact and opinion? One man's fact could be considered another's opinion.
I noticed that at times, we use a variety - jumping from historicism to credentialism, or from revelation to imperisism. Basically, we are wishy-washy as to what our standard is or we feel different facts seem to work best with different standards.
I began to notice - first in others and then in myself - that one epistlemology is claimed, but then give heed to one of the others, even when in conflict with it. For instance, a member of my church claims revelation as their standard of truth, but then when a news report, or current statistics indicate something contrary to that revelation, their actions respond in fear and doubt of the revelation. And vice-versa. We've all heard the expression - 'There's no such thing as an athiest in foxholes'. As I considered my own claimed epistlemology - Revelation, and whether I applied that standard of truth in my every day life. It was an eye-opening experience.
Now that I've philosophized the point to death, and come to the conclusion that Revelation trumps all other epistlemologies, I reflect on what 'facts' I have received from Revelation.
*Revelation (knowledge revealed directly from God)
*Credentialism (Revelation from an expert - someone with credentials, rather than from God)
*Mandarinism (An official or supposed authority declares facts)
*Imperisism (the scientific method proves knowledge)
*Pragmatism (the knowledge has stood the test of time and it works)
*Aesthetisism (the fact is too ordered and symmetrical to be anything but true)
*Reason (the use of one's own logic to prove something)
*Historicism (lessons from history and cycles prove the knowledge as true)
As I considered each of these sources, it brought several questions to mind. All of them could be both a good standard or have some serious folly to the standard - with the exception of Revelation. For instance, if a person is the source (credentialism, mandarinism, reason), there is always the chance of a corrupt application. Consider Obama as an authority figure who speaks facts -lol. Or a professor - or the media - who teaches truth (isn't that an oxymoron). If interpretation is the source (imperisism, pragmatism, aesthetisism, historicism), there is always a chance of error. If God is the source (revelation), the only error is man's interpretation of the revelation - not the revelation itself.
Another concern was the idea that with all these sources, and their potential to error - all (except revelation again) could be considered opinion. So what exactly is the difference between fact and opinion? One man's fact could be considered another's opinion.
I noticed that at times, we use a variety - jumping from historicism to credentialism, or from revelation to imperisism. Basically, we are wishy-washy as to what our standard is or we feel different facts seem to work best with different standards.
I began to notice - first in others and then in myself - that one epistlemology is claimed, but then give heed to one of the others, even when in conflict with it. For instance, a member of my church claims revelation as their standard of truth, but then when a news report, or current statistics indicate something contrary to that revelation, their actions respond in fear and doubt of the revelation. And vice-versa. We've all heard the expression - 'There's no such thing as an athiest in foxholes'. As I considered my own claimed epistlemology - Revelation, and whether I applied that standard of truth in my every day life. It was an eye-opening experience.
Now that I've philosophized the point to death, and come to the conclusion that Revelation trumps all other epistlemologies, I reflect on what 'facts' I have received from Revelation.
I know what I know because God, himself, has witnessed to me that it is true, the same way it was revealed to my ancestor. What greater authority can I have than from God? What other method can be used to prove this is a fact – not an opinion, a feeling, or a belief. I know that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he atoned for my and all of mankind’s sins so that we can return back to live with Heavenly Father – and that he did it because he loves us, he loves me personally. I Know that Jesus lives today and governs the affairs of his kingdom. I Know that it’s never too late, never too bad, never too far gone to turn to him and repent. I Know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and he restored the Church of Christ in these last days. I Know the Book of Mormon is the word of God, as well as the Bible. I Know that the power of God (the priesthood) was restored as well, and that a living prophet leads the church today. I know that this is God’s true church and that his Kingdom will continue to grow until Jesus himself comes to reign over all the earth.
Now, I have no desire to tell others what to think, but I am professing what I Know is a fact - and without eloquence.
Now, I have no desire to tell others what to think, but I am professing what I Know is a fact - and without eloquence.
