Spiritual Investigations

1

Loyd EricsonRel 429

–

Wittgenstein and ReligionMarch 22, 2010Spiritual Investigations:Wittgenstein and the Mormon Concept of Feeling the SpiritThe belief that a person can know the truthfulness of certain propositional claims liesnear the center of Mormon religious life. Latter-day Saints are encouraged to gain testimonies of things such as the reality of God, the saving atonement of Jesus, the prophetic calling of JosephSmith and other Mormon leaders, and the scriptural authority of the Book of Mormon. Thesetestimonies are

usually gained through the ―feelings‖ or promptings of the Holy

Spirit, or what

Mormons often refer to as ―the still small voice.‖ As a believing Latter

-day Saint and aprofessing Wittgensteinian, I am interested in the type of clarification and elucidation of thispractice that might be brought on by a Wittgensteinian exploration. Thus, the intent of this paper

is to explore the grammar of this aspect of Mormon religious practice using Wittgenstein‘s

writings in his

Philosophical Investigations

.

1

While seeking propositional knowledge by the spirit is certainly not exclusive toMormonism, its role within the faith is perhaps more prevalent than among other Christiantraditions.

2

The final verses of Mormonism‘s found scriptures

, the Book of Mormon, asks

readers to ―ask God . . . if these things [the writings in the Book of Mormon] are not true‖ withthe promise that God ―will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost‖

1

Ludwig Wittgenstein,

Philosophical Investigations

, rev. 4

th

edition, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker, andJoachim Schulte (Chichester, West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009). All references are to the propositionalnumbers in the text. Italics are original unless noted.

2

Though this analysis focuses on the spiritual language-games of the Mormon tradition, I am sure that it could becarried over into the language-games of most religious traditions.

2

(Moroni 10:4). Potential converts

—

as well as members

—

are encouraged to attain truths aboutthe Book of Mormon and other Mormon claims through this process. Once a month in worshipservices, the pulpit is opened up for members to share the testimonies which they have gained bythis. These testi

monies typically close with declarations of belief such as: ―I know the Book of Mormon is true;‖ ―I know that Jesus is the Christ;‖ and ―I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.‖

Because my own understanding of this concept my vary from the larger Mormontradition (and may be

tainted

by my own philosophical perspective), for the purposes of thispaper, I will be utilizing and responding to a 1983 talk written by Mormon apostle Elder Boyd K.

Paper, ―

The Candle of the Lord.

‖

3

While this is by no means a philosophical piece, it is perhapsthe most popular commentary on the topic by a contemporary Mormon leader, and in my viewbest exemplifies and illustrates the Mormon language-game of spiritual knowing.Packer begins his talk

by stating: ―We do not learn

spiritual things in exactly the same

way we learn other things that we know.‖

Here it already seems to be the case that talk of knowing things of a spiritual nature involves a different language-game than talk of knowingother sorts of things. While showing how words might be used differently with differentlanguage-games,

Wittgenstein points out that the certainty that a ―man is in pain‖ is different

from the

certainty ―that 2 x 2 =4.‖ He concludes that the ―kind of certainty is the kind of

language-

game‖

(PPF 332). Because our various language-games use shared words that act as

―clothing‖ for our language

-games, confusion arises when we fail to recognize their differences.Thus, when a person says, (

1) ―

I know that Jesus died for my sins

;‖

(

2) ―I know tha

t Claremont

3

Boyd K. Paker, “The Candle of the Lord,”

Ensign

, January 1983, 51ff. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints, http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale= 0&so urceId=b4bbc5e8b4b6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 (accessed March 20 2010).All citations from Packer are from this online version. Italics are his unless noted.

3

is located in southern Californi

a;‖

(

3) ―I know that 28 plus 50 is 78;‖ and

(

4) ―I know that I amlooking at a computer screen,‖ she is

using the same word ―know‖

in four different language-games. Just as Wittgenstein says that the difference in language-games between motive andcause might be seen in how they are discovered (335), the differences in the language-games of knowing can be seen in

how

they are

known

. For (2) the person might say that she knows thisbecause she has lived there her entire life, has seen it located in the southern part of a map of California, etc. For (3) she might say that she learned arithmetic in grade school and feelsconfident in her abilities to make simple calculations. For (4) she might simply say that this iswhat she sees with her eyes and has no reason to doubt her senses. While each of these ways of knowing differ from each other and represent a different language-game of knowing, none of them seems to be ways in which she might know that Jesus died for her sins.Recognizing that spiritual knowing is a different type of knowing from its more casualsense, Packer attempts to elucidate this by recounting an experience that he had with an atheistwhile traveling a plane. After listening to the atheist press his disbelief in God, Packer says thathe responded by

bearing his testimony: ―‗You are wrong,‘ I said, ‗there is a God. I

know

He

lives!‘‖

The atheist, in turn, responded, ―You don‘t

know

. Nobody

knows

that! You can‘t

know

it! [If] you say you know. Tell me

how

you know.‖

Appealing to a difference in language-games,

4

Packer asks the atheist if he knew what salt tasted like. With the assurance from theatheist that he did, Packer then asked the atheist to describe the taste of salt.After several attempts, of course, he could not do it. He could not convey, in words alone,

so ordinary an experience as tasting salt. I bore testimony to him once again and said, ―I

know there is a God. You ridiculed that testimony and said that if I

did

know, I would beable to tell you exactly

how I

know. My friend, spiritually speaking, I have tasted salt. Iam no more able to convey to you in words how this knowledge has come than you are to

4

I should be clear that Packer does not use the wor

ds “language

-

games,” and it is more than likely that he has

never read Wittgenstein. However, how he refers to different types of knowing seem to appeal to a concept akin