I Know That Fill In The Blank Is True

[Jim108]

Sadly, Mormons have no monopoly on this kind of behavior.

Very True, Jim

[Jim108]

So, what are you saying? That a child cannot receive revelation from God? That God can't/won't speak to children?

I didn't know the church was true at 8 years old, but I knew that Jesus loved me and that He was real. I certainly don't remember my parents dangling a brownie in front of my nose to help me realize that.

I don't think I said any of that. Lets love each other, Jim

[Snow]

Sorry to disagree but when I say I know the church is true that is exactly what I mean. Everyone of us is at a differnt stage of our progression ... on a different line and a different precept. What I know you may not have gotten to and what you know I may still be working on.

When children say they know something in the gospel is true I think we have to take them at their word because we cannot know that they don't know it anymore than we know an adult is just using faith. That is between them and their Savior and not for us to judge. it is for us to listen for the Spirit to comfirm the belief in our own lives. For me that's usually a warm tingley feeling from head to toe and I love getting it!

What you say you "know" wouldn't be sufficient to convict a person of petty theft.

How do you know the defendant is guilty?

I know he is guilty because I have a feeling that he is guilty your honor.

People confuse knowledge with conviction. You believe that such and such is true, but your belief is belief - not knowledge, no matter how convinced of it you are. And your conviction - belief - is based principally on your feelings - feelings which you believe are supernaturally caused by God. That's not knowledge. That's not to say that your convictions may not be true, but they are not based on evidence and fall very short of any classical epistemological concept of knowledge.

There are Baptists and Muslims and Jehovah Witnesses and Catholics who are every bit as convince of their truth as you are of yours. The only difference you can point to in the certainty of your beliefs is that you really really feel you are correct, and if they also feel really really correct, then you feel really really really really correct.

What you have is conviction. Not knowledge.

Of course, I could be wrong and if I am, you will certainly be able to demonstrate/prove that I am wrong.... Care to prove me wrong? It is simple enough as knowledge is a very easy thing to prove.

[Maxel]

People confuse knowledge with conviction...

What you have is conviction. Not knowledge.

Knowing the Gospel to be true is a fruit of asking God in faith. A person can know- really know, and not just have conviction. Signs follow those that believe for a reason. I know because I have had spiritual witnesses, visions, and witnessed miracles. However, these are all personal experiences and are not subject to the same outside scrutiny that other facts of nature are.

Of course, I could be wrong and if I am, you will certainly be able to demonstrate/prove that I am wrong....

No once can prove it one way or another to you. It has to be learned personally. Edited April 3, 2009 by Maxel

[Snow]

No once can prove it one way or another to you. It has to be learned personally.

That doesn't qualify it as knowledge. A person really really feels something is true and there is no evidence of it - that's faith, but not knowledge.

[GingerGolden]

Is Knowledge, Intelligence?

Is Intelligence, Spiritual?

Are we not Spiritual Intelligences?

[Maxel]

That doesn't qualify it as knowledge. A person really really feels something is true and there is no evidence of it - that's faith, but not knowledge.

Faith becomes knowledge after it is acted upon.

Belief ==> Action ==> Faith ==> Knowledge

==> Belief (in another, deeper doctrine) ==> Action ==> Faith ==> Knowledge

And the process continues ad infinitum.

Like I said, signs follow them that believe. Those external signs provide the evidence you claim there is a dearth of. The faithful receive enough evidence to solidify their faith and turn it into knowledge.

[Snow]

Faith becomes knowledge after it is acted upon.

Belief ==> Action ==> Faith ==> Knowledge

==> Belief (in another, deeper doctrine) ==> Action ==> Faith ==> Knowledge

And the process continues ad infinitum.

Like I said, signs follow them that believe. Those external signs provide the evidence you claim there is a dearth of. The faithful receive enough evidence to solidify their faith and turn it into knowledge.

That's a nice flowchart but does it really mean anything?

How about the So Baptist or JW that has faith that his Church is true, acts upon that, becomes convinced of it all, receives signs, etc.

Does he now have knowledge?

If not, how is it different for a Mormon?

[Maxel]

That's a nice flowchart but does it really mean anything?

Yes. It means a lot.

How about the So Baptist or JW that has faith that his Church is true, acts upon that, becomes convinced of it all, receives signs, etc.

Does he now have knowledge?

It all depends on the situation. Since this example is all in your mind, perhaps you could explain just how this imaginary situation proves anything.

If you have an actual example, perhaps we could peruse that for pertinent details to discover more. I have never come across a member of another religion (Christian or non-Christian) who claims to have followed the general process outlined in Moroni 10:4-5 (about how to ask and receive in faith) and received an answer that their religion is true. The only example I can think of is a former member (now atheist) who facetiously claims he received a witness (saying it felt like a 'fiery hot habanero burrito in his stomach!') that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet to ridicule members.

[Snow]

Yes. It means a lot.

Okay - what does it mean? Instead of merely stating a platitude, domonstrate what it mean, how.

It all depends on the situation. Since this example is all in your mind, perhaps you could explain just how this imaginary situation proves anything.

If you have an actual example, perhaps we could peruse that for pertinent details to discover more. I have never come across a member of another religion (Christian or non-Christian) who claims to have followed the general process outlined in Moroni 10:4-5 (about how to ask and receive in faith) and received an answer that their religion is true. The only example I can think of is a former member (now atheist) who facetiously claims he received a witness (saying it felt like a 'fiery hot habanero burrito in his stomach!') that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet to ridicule members.

The point is not that they have followed Mor 10, but rather that they claim that they know - how? they just do. They are as convinced, and often more so, than Mormons. You are making the claim that Mormon-knowing is qualitatively better than JW or Muslim-knowing.

So far your only demonstration of what you claim is to offer a platitude. It is really something better, you should be able to more that offer pieties.

[LittleWyvern]

Okay - what does it mean? Instead of merely stating a platitude, domonstrate what it mean, how.

I think Maxel is alluding to Alma 32. Alma gives a better explanation of how it works than I can, so I'll just paste the relevant parts here.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

[Maxel]

Okay - what does it mean? Instead of merely stating a platitude, domonstrate what it mean, how.

All right. Let me recreate the flow chart.

Belief ==> Action ==> Faith ==> Knowledge

1) Belief

We choose to believe something. Why we do so varies: I may believe an idea because it is convenient or easy for me to do so; I may believe because the idea seems to be rooted in fact; I may believe because I feel it to be true.

2) Action

We act on that belief. If I believe I can fly, I may choose to jump off the couch and fly around the house.

3) Faith

The step between action and faith is not as direct as the step between belief and action. While a belief may be equated to a hypothesis and an action may be an experiment, we do not arrive at 'faith' until our experiment's conclusions support our hypothesis. Thus, it may be required to re-evaluate our belief or change our action. If I believe I can somehow move my body to the center of the room, but I cannot do so by walking on my hands, I will have to approach the situation in a different manner and try a different experiment based on the belief. If, however, my belief/hypothesis is that I can magically transport to the center of the room, my action/experiment must accurately reflect the nature of the belief: I must honestly be able to move from point A to point B without ever occupying the space between the two points.

4) Knowledge

Knowledge is arrived at after faith has been tried and tested. Our faith is tried when we are faced with a situation where we are forced to make a choice: exercise the principles our faith is built on or not exercise those principles. When our faith is tested and tried often enough and we receive enough external evidences of our faith's validity, it transforms into knowledge. In spiritual matters- such as the existence of God- faith cannot become knowledge without the influence of the Holy Ghost, which helps mold our spirits to more accurately reflect Christ's.

-------

Now, let's take two examples: one that is not based in spiritual matters, and one based in them.

1) A little boy wants to learn to sing a certain song. First, he must believe he is currently able to make the physical actions required for singing and that he can learn how to do so better than he currently can- if he did not believe he could, then he would not try. Because he believes he can, he must act on that belief or he will never learn how to sing, and his belief will stay merely a belief.

The little boy sets out to sing. He has failings and setbacks, but he continues on, undaunted by failure. His general blanket belief- that he is physically able to sing and that he is physically able to learn to sing better- must be supported by smaller beliefs (e.g., if he thinks he is singing note A he is actually singing note A and not note C). Through a series of actions that either support or do not support individual beliefs, the child slowly becomes more proficient at singing and more able to sing the desired song.

Eventually, that continuing interaction of belief and action leads to faith. Before he has sat down to sing the song all the way through he slowly begins to have faith that he can do it. At this point, he now has faith that he can accomplish his original goal encompassed by his belief. Once he has sung the song all the way through, and can repeat the process on command, his faith is dormant (Alma 32:34) because it is replaced by knowledge that he can sing the song.

2) A person wants to know if the Book of Mormon is true. They must first believe that it is possible to receive an answer from God. They must believe that if they go to God in faith and follow the process set forth in Moroni 10:4-5, they will receive an answer one way or the other. Then, they must translate that belief into action: this person must read the Book of Mormon, ponder it in his/her heart, and then ask God the Father, in the name of Christ, if it is true.

An answer is received. A person receives a witness- borne by the Holy Ghost- that the Book of Mormon is true. However, this person does not have a firm knowledge yet. Their faith must be acted upon and tested. It must be subjected to trials and testing and withstand opposition. Building and maintaining such knowledge is a lifelong endeavor, and in times of trial, if the person keeps a broken heart and contrite spirit, (s)he will receive the external evidence needed to keep that faith alive.

-----

Does that make sense?

The point is not that they have followed Mor 10, but rather that they claim that they know - how? they just do.

And any faithful, God-fearing Mormon's knowledge is based on more than knowing because "they just do". You don't seem to understand the argument.

They are as convinced, and often more so, than Mormons.

They are more convinced? How do you judge exactly how convinced a person is of something?

You are making the claim that Mormon-knowing is qualitatively better than JW or Muslim-knowing.

No I wasn't, although now that you've put the words in my mouth I guess it is- if the JW or Muslim-knowing is the 'just knowing' that you described earlier. Our knowledge is the result of the interaction of the Holy Ghost and our own souls; our knowledge is born of experience and not a lack thereof.

EDIT: I just saw LittleWyvern's quotation of Alma 32. The process I'm describing is the same one described therein; I appreciate the posting of it.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Maxel

[Dravin]

Question, can something told to person B by person A, but not directly seen by person B count as knowledge? So lets say a news anchor tells the people watching his show that Obama won the election and is now the president, can the people then say they know that Obama is the president?

I'm curious, cuz if that's not the case a lot of stuff I learned in school wasn't knowledge.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Dravin
Left out the all important 'not'

[Maxel]

I'm curious, cuz if that's the case a lot of stuff I learned in school wasn't knowledge.

You actually raise a valid point. In fact, we cannot know anything merely by learning about it from an external source: we must experience the phenomenon to know. I think in cases where information can be accepted as factual information- such as Obama being elected president- the word 'knowledge' is used differently than when it is applied to spiritual matters (especially in regards to testimony).

And for the record, I doubt anything I was taught in school was the absolute truth. Like all beings, children are taught line upon line. I distinctly remember the moment I learned about atoms and that molecules are not the smallest particles in existence- although my 4th grade teacher had said so the previous day. The lesson has not been lost on me.

And, if a factual relay of information from person A to person B can be counted as a legitimate source of knowledge, then many Mormons who have not yet received a testimony but who are given the gift of believing on another's words would also know that the Church is true.

Ultimately, the crux of the argument is whether or not the Church is true. It is the ultimate circular line of reasoning, but one that is based on testimony- the one thing in existence that is able to prove the truth of a situation beyond the shadow of a doubt. Of course, to one who does not have that testimony it all seems foolishness. No wonder that Paul said "the foolishness of God is wiser than men" (1 Corinthians 1:25).

Edited April 3, 2009 by Maxel

[Snow]

Question, can something told to person B by person A, but not directly seen by person B count as knowledge? So lets say a news anchor tells the people watching his show that Obama won the election and is now the president, can the people then say they know that Obama is the president?

I'm curious, cuz if that's not the case a lot of stuff I learned in school wasn't knowledge.

Seems elementary but I guess it needs to be explained.

Knowledge that Obama is the president can be checked, verified and tested independently.

If the only "proof" was that you truly feel in your heart that he was president, then that's not knowledge, that's faith.

[Snow]

I think Maxel is alluding to Alma 32. Alma gives a better explanation of how it works than I can, so I'll just paste the relevant parts here.

I understand how it works. I've given a talk to that effect in Church several times and taught it in Priesthood repeatedly.

Being really really convinced is not knowledge - not the kind of knowledge that epistemology classically defines as knowledge.

[LittleWyvern]

Being really really convinced is not knowledge - not the kind of knowledge that epistemology classically defines as knowledge.

You're applying what amounts to the scientific method on religious truth. Religion isn't science, and science isn't metaphysics. From a religious standpoint, truth is intimate and mostly self-reported, and cannot be proven using the classical methods.

[Dravin]

Knowledge that Obama is the president can be checked, verified and tested independently.

I haven't done that though, so if I say I know Obama won the election this is false. *shrug* Well, at least not like one would say, check the theroy of evloution, my verifying comes through additional news sources telling me such is the case, but that only changes the number of sources not the nature it still boils down to whether or not I think Fox, CNN, NBS , CBS and the AP are telling me the truth I've not been to the Whitehouse or asked the Supreme Court (though I'd have to assume they were telling the truth as well).

If the only "proof" was that you truly feel in your heart that he was president, then that's not knowledge, that's faith.

Okay, this part actually answers the question.

So no, until I independantly verify what I was taught in school (the question then becomes what qualifies as independant verification) or hear on the news it isn't knowledge its faith that the teacher/textbook/anchor is telling the truth. So according to you there are a lot of us using the word know incorrectly. Thats fine by me, most of us are very sloppy with language, of course the English language is pretty sloppy to begin with.

* I am not actually asking this of anyone.

Of course Princeton disagrees with your definition of the word know, see the third definition down under verbs. That is also okay though, we tend to have our own definitions of words, see the bruhaha over the definition of rebellion in the ramifications of name removal thread. *shrug*

So if somebody says they know as per Snows definition of the word they are incorrect, if they say they know as per Princeton's definition of the word they are correct. *once again shrug*

[Snow]

All right. Let me recreate the flow chart.

Belief ==> Action ==> Faith ==> Knowledge

1) Belief

We choose to believe something. Why we do so varies: I may believe an idea because it is convenient or easy for me to do so; I may believe because the idea seems to be rooted in fact; I may believe because I feel it to be true.

2) Action

We act on that belief. If I believe I can fly, I may choose to jump off the couch and fly around the house.

3) Faith

The step between action and faith is not as direct as the step between belief and action. While a belief may be equated to a hypothesis and an action may be an experiment, we do not arrive at 'faith' until our experiment's conclusions support our hypothesis. Thus, it may be required to re-evaluate our belief or change our action. If I believe I can somehow move my body to the center of the room, but I cannot do so by walking on my hands, I will have to approach the situation in a different manner and try a different experiment based on the belief. If, however, my belief/hypothesis is that I can magically transport to the center of the room, my action/experiment must accurately reflect the nature of the belief: I must honestly be able to move from point A to point B without ever occupying the space between the two points.

4) Knowledge

Knowledge is arrived at after faith has been tried and tested. Our faith is tried when we are faced with a situation where we are forced to make a choice: exercise the principles our faith is built on or not exercise those principles. When our faith is tested and tried often enough and we receive enough external evidences of our faith's validity, it transforms into knowledge. In spiritual matters- such as the existence of God- faith cannot become knowledge without the influence of the Holy Ghost, which helps mold our spirits to more accurately reflect Christ's.

-------

Now, let's take two examples: one that is not based in spiritual matters, and one based in them.

1) A little boy wants to learn to sing a certain song. First, he must believe he is currently able to make the physical actions required for singing and that he can learn how to do so better than he currently can- if he did not believe he could, then he would not try. Because he believes he can, he must act on that belief or he will never learn how to sing, and his belief will stay merely a belief.

The little boy sets out to sing. He has failings and setbacks, but he continues on, undaunted by failure. His general blanket belief- that he is physically able to sing and that he is physically able to learn to sing better- must be supported by smaller beliefs (e.g., if he thinks he is singing note A he is actually singing note A and not note C). Through a series of actions that either support or do not support individual beliefs, the child slowly becomes more proficient at singing and more able to sing the desired song.

Eventually, that continuing interaction of belief and action leads to faith. Before he has sat down to sing the song all the way through he slowly begins to have faith that he can do it. At this point, he now has faith that he can accomplish his original goal encompassed by his belief. Once he has sung the song all the way through, and can repeat the process on command, his faith is dormant (Alma 32:34) because it is replaced by knowledge that he can sing the song.

2) A person wants to know if the Book of Mormon is true. They must first believe that it is possible to receive an answer from God. They must believe that if they go to God in faith and follow the process set forth in Moroni 10:4-5, they will receive an answer one way or the other. Then, they must translate that belief into action: this person must read the Book of Mormon, ponder it in his/her heart, and then ask God the Father, in the name of Christ, if it is true.

An answer is received. A person receives a witness- borne by the Holy Ghost- that the Book of Mormon is true. However, this person does not have a firm knowledge yet. Their faith must be acted upon and tested. It must be subjected to trials and testing and withstand opposition. Building and maintaining such knowledge is a lifelong endeavor, and in times of trial, if the person keeps a broken heart and contrite spirit, (s)he will receive the external evidence needed to keep that faith alive.

-----

Does that make sense?

And any faithful, God-fearing Mormon's knowledge is based on more than knowing because "they just do". You don't seem to understand the argument.

They are more convinced? How do you judge exactly how convinced a person is of something?

No I wasn't, although now that you've put the words in my mouth I guess it is- if the JW or Muslim-knowing is the 'just knowing' that you described earlier. Our knowledge is the result of the interaction of the Holy Ghost and our own souls; our knowledge is born of experience and not a lack thereof.

EDIT: I just saw LittleWyvern's quotation of Alma 32. The process I'm describing is the same one described therein; I appreciate the posting of it.

So, and correct me if I am wrong, the whole argument is that you feel something inside, you attribute that feeling to The Almighty God of your own understanding, and you label that feeling as knowledge. It can't be tested, checked or verified by anyone, but you really know it, period. And if anybody else claims the same kind of knowledge that contradicts your knowledge, well then, they are just wrong, period.

Take something important in life you are asked to do - sentencing a man to death in court, building and detonating an atomic bomb, D-Day in WW II, investing your life savings in "a really good deal your hometeacher knows about, trusting the life of your ill child to a unheard of treatment ordered by doctor... whatever... if the sole source of evidence... that the man is guilty, that the never before medical treatement will work, that the invasion will be successful, etc, is that you have a really strong feeling about it - does your feeling rise above the level of belief and faith all the way to real, actual knowledge.

Hardly. No one would convict a man based on your feeling, or do any of those things.

If you want to define knowledge as feelings - go ahead. When you are so arbitrary with words, they lose all meaning.

[Maxel]

I understand how it works. I've given a talk to that effect in Church several times and taught it in Priesthood repeatedly.

So why are you questioning the validity of the flow chart?

Being really really convinced is not knowledge - not the kind of knowledge that epistemology classically defines as knowledge.

Could you offer the definition of knowledge that the kind of 'knowing' that Mormons possess about God is not? In talks about how Mormons don't really 'know', I've never seen anyone offer a concrete definition of knowing a fact that excludes the process of Mormon testimony. Perhaps you can be the first.

[Snow]

Of course Princeton disagrees with your definition of the word know, see the third definition down under verbs. That is also okay though, we tend to have our own definitions of words, see the bruhaha over the definition of rebellion in the ramifications of name removal thread. *shrug*

So if somebody says they know as per Snows definition of the word they are incorrect, if they say they know as per Princeton's definition of the word they are correct. *once again shrug*

I can find definitions that say just about anything:

knowledge

1. The state or fact of knowing.

2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.

3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.

4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.

5. Specific information about something.

6. Carnal knowledge.

Obviously I am not using the word to be familiarity or learning. I am using it in the context of testable, verifiable, knowledge that is based in fact and can be demonstrated.

... and by the way, to a point I was making earlier about testimonies - how many people have you heard say "I know that the Church is true" but are now non-members, or inactive, or such?

Plenty. And what's the difference between their really knowing and some of the posters on this thread really, really knowing?

One "really."

Conviction =/= Knowledge

Conviction = Conviction

Edited April 3, 2009 by Snow

[Maxel]

So, and correct me if I am wrong, the whole argument is that you feel something inside, you attribute that feeling to The Almighty God of your own understanding, and you label that feeling as knowledge. It can't be tested, checked or verified by anyone, but you really know it, period. And if anybody else claims the same kind of knowledge that contradicts your knowledge, well then, they are just wrong, period.

You are mostly wrong, except you are correct that such feelings cannot be tested by others. However, they can be tested by me. My testimony is not based solely on feelings (which are always accompanied by profound spiritual insight) but also on visions and miracles. I should rephrase: my testimony is based on my feelings and insight, and is strengthened by visions and miracles. These feelings are not my own creations, nor are the visions and dreams and miracles I experience. You also fail to address how I explain that the Mormon-knowing is qualitatively superior to (what you presented as) the JW and Muslim-knowing. My answer to that deals directly with the situation of others believing the opposite of what I believe.

One important factor is the source from which I learned how to gain my testimony. Like Alma has beautifully stated: a good seed will grow.

Take something important in life you are asked to do... if the sole source of evidence... is that you have a really strong feeling about it - does your feeling rise above the level of belief and faith all the way to real, actual knowledge.

Hardly. No one would convict a man based on your feeling, or do any of those things.

I'm glad they wouldn't. However, you continually reduce the idea of Mormon testimony to merely feelings. It is more than that.

Also, all your examples involve more than one person. My testimony is given to me because it affects my eternal soul and salvation: not anyone else's. We are each captain of our own soul, and a captain's job and learning is not transferred to the crew.

If you want to define knowledge as feelings - go ahead. When you are so arbitrary with words, they lose all meaning.

I don't define knowledge as feelings, and saying I do is dishonest. Would you kindly offer a definition of knowledge and give an example on how one comes to really know something?

Do you agree with Alma 32 and/or my aforementioned example of how belief, action, faith, and knowledge are all connected? I think if I knew where you're coming from- other than 'Mormons don't really know'- I would be able to discuss this better.

EDIT: Just saw your reply to Dravin- thanks for giving a definition. It seems the hang up is that you want to equate the knowing that comes from receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost as the carnal knowing that comes from temporal interaction. The two are not the same- the knowing that is bred from the Holy Ghost's whisperings are firmer and more concrete than the latter kind.

We may 'know' various facts about life and science, but if history has taught us one thing it is that humans have a knack for being scientifically wrong, but moving forward anyway. That is, the 'truth' that science presents us yesterday is not the same 'truth' that exists today, and is not the same 'truth' that will exist tomorrow. The kind of knowing that comes from the Holy Ghost is a witness of an absolute truth, and the knowing gleaned from study and earthly learning and interaction is a kind of 'transitory' knowing: it is the state of 'knowing' that we exist in until we learn a newer, more accurate truth.

Also, one more question: which do you think is better, Snow: conviction or knowledge?

Edited April 3, 2009 by Maxel

[Dravin]

I can find definitions that say just about anything:

Yes, yes you can.

[Snow]

, Snow: conviction or knowledge?

I have a very strong testimony. I stake my eternal life on my conviction... but I don't know. Instead I have faith.

I'll get back to you tomorrow nite on the topic. Thanks for your posts so far.

[Gwen]

*bold added by me... other than that not much for me to say.

D&C 46: 11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God. 12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

15 And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the differences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men.

16 And again, it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the Spirit may be given to every man to profit withal.

17 And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of wisdom.

18 To another is given the word of knowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge.

19 And again, to some it is given to have faith to be healed;

20 And to others it is given to have faith to heal.

Moroni 7:16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

1 Corinthians 12: 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

Dallin H. Oaks, “Testimony,” Ensign, May 2008, 26–29 (there is more this is only part)

What do we mean when we testify and say that we know the gospel is true? Contrast that kind of knowledge with “I know it is cold outside” or “I know I love my wife.” These are three different kinds of knowledge, each learned in a different way. Knowledge of outside temperature can be verified by scientific proof. Knowledge that we love our spouse is personal and subjective. While not capable of scientific proof, it is still important. The idea that all important knowledge is based on scientific evidence is simply untrue.

While there are some “evidences” for gospel truths (for example, see Psalm 19:1; Helaman 8:24), scientific methods will not yield spiritual knowledge. This is what Jesus taught in response to Simon Peter’s testimony that He was the Christ: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17). The Apostle Paul explained this. In a letter to the Corinthian Saints, he said, “The things of God knoweth no man, but [by] the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:11; see also John 14:17).

In contrast, we know the things of man by the ways of man, but “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14).

The Book of Mormon teaches that God will manifest the truth of spiritual things unto us by the power of the Holy Ghost (see Moroni 10:4–5). In modern revelation God promises us that we will receive “knowledge” by His telling us in our mind and in our heart “by the Holy Ghost” (D&C 8:1–2).

Those who have the gift to know have an obvious duty to bear their witness so that those who have the gift to believe on their words might also have eternal life.

I close with my testimony. I know that we have a Heavenly Father, whose plan brings us to earth and provides the conditions and destiny of our eternal journey. I know that we have a Savior, Jesus Christ, whose teachings define the plan and whose Atonement gives the assurance of immortality and the opportunity for eternal life. I know that the Father and the Son appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore the fulness of the gospel in these latter days. And I know that we are led today by a prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, who holds the keys to authorize priesthood holders to perform the ordinances prescribed for our progress toward eternal life. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.