So I posted a pretty long post a few days back about what it means to really “know” something, but I felt like it was too long, too cynical, and too preachy of a post. It now exists only as a draft and it will probably stay that way. But I don’t want to completely abandon this train of thinking, so I’m going to give you the abridged version of The Dragon’s argument concerning knowledge: Our definition of “knowing” something in the church is different from the universal idea of “knowing” something. Knowing, in the universal sense, implies that one has evidence such that the truth of something is an indefectible certainty. In other words, there can be no doubt whatsoever and there must be undeniable proof. Knowledge is more than just belief or faith.
In the church we say that we “know” a lot of things to be true. In reality, we only believe that we know. Why is that? It is because our evidence for believing things (like the church is the only true church, the Book of Mormon is true, etc.) does not provide undeniable proof. It might be considered strong proof, but one can still doubt the verity of such things. This means we don’t know- we just believe.
But what about a spiritual witness? Doesn’t that provide certain evidence so that we can say that we really know? Spiritual experiences can also be doubted, so they cannot be used as indubitable evidence to claim sure knowledge. Again, they could be classified as strong evidence, but that still only lets us believe with reason- it doesn’t allow us to say that we know.
This is why I really disliked that General Conference talk about knowing that you know that you know. Not only is that confusing, but it is impossible when it comes to spiritual ideas. At best you can believe that you know that you know- but that doesn’t mean that your belief is true.
Then why are we so set on testifying that we know things? I think it’s because we are taught to say that we know and because it can be comforting- even empowering. And apparently it’s not enough to just have faith or believe. It’s almost taboo to say “I believe that…” during a testimony meeting. I had a talk with Luisa about this the other day and I really liked her explanation of things. She said that we come to the point where we believe so strongly that something is true, that the best word we can come up with to describe the feeling is knowing. I mean, come on- who wants to say I believe that I know…? She also pointed out that she thinks it’s refreshing when she hears someone say, “I believe that…” or “I have faith that…” –it sounds honest. I personally think the insistence on using “I know” so copiously in the church manipulates people into thinking that they know things. Maybe this is part of the reason that people (like my parents) think that our church brainwashes people.
Really, how can we say we know truths that the rest of humanity does not know when we, in the church, have created our own definition of knowledge?
