The Use Of "Know" And "True" Within The Mormon Faith.

[CASteinman]

When did he say that?

D&C 1.

[zerinus]

My only real gripe in this general direction is that statements like "the church is true" aren't really very communicative. They do work in a community environment like church - but in fact, church's are never true. Rocks aren't true. Trees aren't true. Churches aren't true.

The expression “the only true . . .” occurs twice in scripture; once in relation to God Himself, and the other in relation to His Church:

John 17:

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

D&C 1:

17 Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;

18 And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—

19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—

20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;

21 That faith also might increase in the earth;

22 That mine everlasting covenant might be established;

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

In the latter case, the “trueness” of it can be said to relate to how it was organized and established—i.e. by the commandment of the Lord Himself, and with due authorization from Him—as distinct from those who “build up churches unto themselves to get gain . . .” etc. (Mormon 8:33; D&C 10:56). It is true in the sense that it has authorization direct from Him, and He will “show forth his own works in it” (3 Nephi 27:10); whereas other churches have no direct authorization from Him, and cannot speak or act on His behalf because He has not “sent them”.

Edited July 27, 2012 by zerinus

[DBMormon]

I don't think one can know something one day and then not know that same thing at a later point when the thing known is of eternal nature without having really not known it in the first place.

There are things I know, Things I believe, and things I hope.

If you watch general conference, you will find very few leaders saying I know this, and I know that when it comes to truths solely found in the restored gospel. For example this past General Conference

Elder Eyring:

I testify that God the Father lives and that His Beloved Son is our Redeemer. The Holy Ghost has confirmed truth in this conference and will again as you seek it, as you listen, and as you later study the messages of the Lord’s authorized servants, who are here. President Thomas S. Monson is the Lord’s prophet to the entire world. The Lord watches over you. God the Father lives. His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, is our Redeemer. His love is unfailing. I so testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Elder Holland: My beloved brothers and sisters, to those of you who have been blessed by the gospel for many years because you were fortunate enough to find it early, to those of you who have come to the gospel by stages and phases later, and to those of you—members and not yet members—who may still be hanging back, to each of you, one and all, I testify of the renewing power of God’s love and the miracle of His grace. His concern is for the faith at which you finally arrive, not the hour of the day in which you got there.

So if you have made covenants, keep them. If you haven’t made them, make them. If you have made them and broken them, repent and repair them. It is never too late so long as the Master of the vineyard says there is time. Please listen to the prompting of the Holy Spirit telling you right now, this very moment, that you should accept the atoning gift of the Lord Jesus Christ and enjoy the fellowship of His labor. Don’t delay. It’s getting late. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

President Monson: Let us learn and contemplate our duty. Let us be willing and worthy to serve. Let us in the performance of our duty follow in the footsteps of the Master. As you and I walk the pathway Jesus walked, we will discover He is more than the babe in Bethlehem, more than the carpenter’s son, more than the greatest teacher ever to live. We will come to know Him as the Son of God, our Savior and our Redeemer. When to Him came the call of duty, He answered, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.”¹⁶ May each of us do likewise, I pray in His holy name, the name of Jesus Christ, the Lord, amen.

Elder Uchtdorf: My prayer is that as bearers of His priesthood, we will ever stay attuned to the why of priesthood service and use the principles of the restored gospel to transform our lives and the lives of those whom we serve.

As we do so, the infinite power of the Atonement will purify, cleanse, and refine our spirits and characters until we become the men we are meant to become. Of this I testify in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Elder Neil Anderson: With great love and admiration for the many disciples of Jesus Christ who are not members of this Church, we humbly declare that angels have returned to the earth in our day. The Church of Jesus Christ as He established it anciently has been restored, with the power, ordinances, and blessings of heaven. The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ.

I witness that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. He suffered and died for our sins and rose the third day. He is resurrected. In a future day, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is the Christ.³³ On that day, our concern will not be, “Do others consider me Christian?” At that time, our eyes will be fixed on Him, and our souls will be riveted on the question, “What thinks Christ of me?” He lives. I so testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

I wish our testimonies in Testimony meeting parralled these special witnesses as it seems more aware of the meaning of words and the meaning being conveyed to others.

Know Know Know seems (unintentional of course) both boastful and naive of what pure Knowledge is versus faith. It also makes those who don't "know" and know they don't know very uncomfortable and left to feel second class.

[CV75]

Know Know Know seems (unintentional of course) both boastful and naive of what pure Knowledge is versus faith. It also makes those who don't "know" and know they don't know very uncomfortable and left to feel second class.

JSH 1: 25, 26 says, “…I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation. I had now got my mind satisfied so far as the sectarian world was concerned—that it was not my duty to join with any of them, but to continue as I was until further directed. I had found the testimony of James to be true—that a man who lacked wisdom [the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment and the application of said experience, knowledge, and good judgment] might ask of God, and obtain, and not be upbraided.” (Brackets and contents mine)

[Benjamin McGuire]

mfbukowski writes:

I know where you're going with this and I don't disagree in the slightest. But as long as the community understands what we mean the language is in context- we members understand each other and know what we mean.

I think it goes the other way. The community understands what it means specifically because it hides the details of personal belief. But it is the personal belief that matters, and in terms of what yootaw was suggesting it is the personal beliefs that have the ability to most profoundly affect the lives of others. We can say "I know the church is true" in a statement that means something entirely different for everyone who hears it. Or we can say that "I know that God loves me" or "I receive personal inspiration from God through the Holy Ghost every day of my life" or "The gospel makes me a better husband, a better father, and a better human being" (such a list could be very long). It is the self reflection that comes from replacing "I know the church is true" with this list of propositions that makes it valuable to us individually. It is the expression of how we understand the church to be true that makes it valuable to others.

Is saying that you know that paying tithing has blessed your life really better than saying that you know the church is true?

I think so. I think it certainly takes it out of the realm of a rote repetition, allows for some personal introspection. And I think its helpful within the congregation to understand what others value in their faith.

CV75 writes:

I would say that saying "the Church is true" is correct in that it asserts that the Church is in alignment with the way the Lord wants it organized (it conforms (or correctly positioned, aligned and level) to His standard. True is used this way in construction (carpentry, masonry).

This is probably correct, but, I don't think this is the sense intended by members when they stand up in testimony to declare that the church is true. At the same time, someone earlier mentioned the true and living church - a living church is going to change. The structure of the church has changed. Policies of the church have changed. We might understand that God wants these changes to occur, and that the current structure reflects God's will - but that doesn't mean that what we have will remain constant and unchanged, or that what we understand as the church now will be the same as what we understand as the church in twenty years.

Zerinus writes:

The expression “the only true . . .” occurs twice in scripture; once in relation to God Himself, and the other in relation to His Church

And the challenge is that where it occurs in scriptures, it still has to be read and interpreted. So the same issues still apply to scripture as they do in our testimony meetings. I didn't say that it wasn't useful (in fact, I suggested that it works within a community environment). It works because it can mean many things to many different people. The way the scripture can mean many things to many different people is dependent at least in part on the way that the spirit has helped us understand the various propositions and teachings of the church. But, I think particularly when we are speaking to our community, it helps for us to embrace our diversity and to share with others the specifics of our belief and our knowledge.

Ben M.

[sheilauk]

I wish our testimonies in Testimony meeting parralled these special witnesses as it seems more aware of the meaning of words and the meaning being conveyed to others.

Know Know Know seems (unintentional of course) both boastful and naive of what pure Knowledge is versus faith. It also makes those who don't "know" and know they don't know very uncomfortable and left to feel second class.

Just a thought but can this be said of all those who don't "know"? Perhaps, in fact, there are many who, when they hear testimonies of people saying that they know the Gospel and other important matters of faith are true are inspired by that certainty in others, find hope and comfort that certainty can be found and strive to seek it for themselves, rather than being uncomfortable?

That's not to say that there are none who would feel uncomfortable and second class and I have no idea how the proportions may be. Are there more who feel uncomfortable or more who are inspired? Are any inspired? I don't know. Do you? The problem is that what is difficult for one can be helpful for another and most people are not so well read and considered in their speech when they are testifying! They are usually passionate and speaking from the heart and if they think they know, they will say so. I have said for example I know the Church is true when giving my testimony because I feel it to be so. Perhaps I should say I believe or I think or I feel I know it to be true - but I don't think that's the way I or others naturally express ourselves when speaking, especially in a Testimony meeting, amongst friends.

[CV75]

CV75 writes:

This is probably correct, but, I don't think this is the sense intended by members when they stand up in testimony to declare that the church is true. At the same time, someone earlier mentioned the true and living church - a living church is going to change. The structure of the church has changed. Policies of the church have changed. We might understand that God wants these changes to occur, and that the current structure reflects God's will - but that doesn't mean that what we have will remain constant and unchanged, or that what we understand as the church now will be the same as what we understand as the church in twenty years.

Assaying the intent of the members in testifying (saying they know) the Church is true would make an interesting survey; however, whenever the Spirit carries the meaning of such words from one to another and the words are received by the Spirit, the Lord’s (and I’m sure the faithful testifier's) intent is met (the principle taught in D&C 50:17-19).

If my own personal case is relevant, I prayed about the Church (and the Book or Mormon) never having heard the phrase, stepped foot in a LDS building or having visited with the missionaries. I did not read or hear anyone say, “I know the Church is true” before I used the phrase quite frequently in describing my conversion experience with others. So it sounded natural to me when I finally did hear it several years later (during the missionary lessons or church meetings).

My comments relate to the fundamental standard where Christ is at the head and grants the priesthood keys to His servants. Of course the specifics under this broad organizational structure did and will change as the Church grows. I suspect the faithful that live throught these changes will continue to "know it is true" and say so.

[CV75]

I’ve always liked this idea: “As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints.” D&C 121:33).

[DBMormon]

Why do you think General Authorities normally do not speak in the same way as lay members when bearing testimony?

They seem to say "I Know" very little.

What % of 8-13 year olds really know compared to % of them that say that?

I think much of the use of "know" is simple habit from culture and is engrained in us. I also think we should llow for less knowledge and more faith without feeling bad.

[CV75]

Why do you think General Authorities normally do not speak in the same way as lay members when bearing testimony?

They seem to say "I Know" very little.

What % of 8-13 year olds really know compared to % of them that say that?

I think much of the use of "know" is simple habit from culture and is engrained in us. I also think we should llow for less knowledge and more faith without feeling bad.

I agree that the more knowledge one has, the more faith one must exert to not only obtain more knowledge, but to properly use and share that knowledge.

“A testimony of the gospel is a personal witness borne to our souls by the Holy Ghost that certain facts of eternal significance are true and that we know them to be true. Such facts include the nature of the Godhead and our relationship to its three members, the effectiveness of the Atonement, and the reality of the Restoration (“Testimony,” by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, April 2008 General Conference).”

Are you saying that most people aged 8-13 don’t know enough to be saved if they were to die while saying they know the Church is true?

May I ask what’s with the blood all over your chin? (your avatar)

Edited July 27, 2012 by CV75

[Lamanite]

Knowledge and Truth, as discussed by Philosophers and Theologians for centuries, are goals so unattainable it makes them difficult to define or discuss.

Justified belief is pretty much all we are left with. And in a lot of cases a justified belief may not be the best truth bearer. At the very least the justification should be infallible, otherwise it remains a minor belief, even if the alleged Truth/Justified Belief is successful, meaningful, and rational.

By using philosophical definitions the Mormon experience with the Holy Ghost is not a proper truth bearer. It is a divine assurance that plants and nurtures belief (Alma 32). It is a personal subjective experience that by no means justifies an expression of Truth or Knowledge.

Now if you all want to redefine the classical definitions of Truth and Knowledge (which is what most of you seem to be doing) then by all means go ahead; and by so doing you make my OP irrelevant. If however, you want to accept and operate within classical definitions of Truth and Knowledge then the OP may be something worthy of discussion.

"Religious doctrines would do well to withdraw their pretension to be dealing with matters of fact. That pretension...is the source of the conflicts of religion with science...When [religion] seeks its sanctions in the sphere of reality, [it] forgets that its proper concern is to express the ideal...The excellence of religion is due to the idealization of experience which, while making religion noble if treated as poetry, makes it necessarily false if treated as science" George Santayana, Interpretations of Religion and Poetry

Big UP!

Lamanite

[zerinus]

They seem to say "I Know" very little.

When they say I "testify" it means the same thing. You testify of what you know to be true. It is a stronger term than saying "I know".

[wenglund]

I wish our testimonies in Testimony meeting parralled these special witnesses as it seems more aware of the meaning of words and the meaning being conveyed to others.

If you are really interested in paralleling the special witnesses, perhaps you might want to consider following their lead in terms of not concerning yourself with the relatively insignificant matter of how others may use the words "know" or "believe" when bearing their testimonies. If the special witnesses, whose business it may be to concern themselves with the actions of the saints under their stewardship, do not think it deserving of mention, then all the more so for people like you and I, whose business it isn't.

Know Know Know seems (unintentional of course) both boastful and naive of what pure Knowledge is versus faith.

Epistemologists, who specialize in the study of knowledge, can't even agree about what exactly knowledge is. So, why should we expect it of average citizens?

Now, I can understand getting real particular about word usage with things like post-graduate dissertations and the like, but it strikes me as impractical and perhaps even irrational (if not down right silly) in cases of informal communications such as the bearing of testimonies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 27, 2012 by wenglund

[Lamanite]

If you are really interested in paralleling the special witnesses, perhaps you might want to consider following their lead in terms of not concerning yourself with the relatively insignificant matter of how others may use the words "know" or "believe" when bearing their testimonies. If the special witnesses, whose business it may be to concern themselves with the actions of the saints under their stewardship, do not think it deserving of mention, then all the more so for people like you and I, whose business it isn't.

Epistemologists, who specialize in the study of knowledge, can't even agree about what exactly knowledge is. So, why should we expect it of average citizens?

Now, I can understand getting real particular about word usage with things like post-graduate dissertations and the like, but it strikes me as impractical and perhaps even irrational (if not down right silly) in cases of informal communications such as the bearing of testimonies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree that the discussion may be a tad bit academic, however, the use of these words in our expressions of faith convey certain ideas and attitudes to both those in and out of the Church. Whether good or bad, or right or wrong, is not something I'm willing to make a judgment on. But I'll debate the merits and disadvantages without causing much harm to myself, others, or the Church. I think some public discussion and a bit of introspection is harmless.

Ultimately, this topic is not very important when viewed in comparison to Gethsemane. Indeed we should focus less on the words we use and more on what we are becoming. (Maxwell, Oaks 2000) How we testify is not as important as whether or not our testimonies help produce the ever needed conversion.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Gervin]

"Indeed we should focus less on the words we use and more on what we are becoming."

you're sounding a bit like a Christian existentialist ... and I consider that a good thing.

[AddamS]

Does anybody else reject the premise that "I belive" is weaker than "I know"?

I sometimes go to Sacrament Meetings, hear Testimonies, eulogies, etc... because my wife's family is part of the LDS church. I've learned that the use of "I know" before bearing witness is a cultural (if not religious) tradition within the church. I don't overthink it, I've just always assumed it was something that developed over the years as part of the LDS identity.

But there is a part of me that wonders two things whenever I hear someone start off their oration with the phrase "I know":

1) It is way harder to believe something than to know it. I would think in matters of spirituality it is, in a way, a stronger expression of faith to begin the statement with "I believe". It shows you have chosen a path and are steadfastly heading in the direction of the faithful. The idea that having any opening at all for doubt in any circumstance is a bit proud for my tastes (not that my tastes need be reflected in others). But after all, if Jesus himself had a lapse of faith in God's plan, who is anybody else to say they cannot?

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46

2) Why even use "I know" or "I believe" in the first place? Outside of a religious discussion, this would seem unnecessary.

"I know I went to the store" vs. "I went to the store"

[Ahab]

After discussing what "Truth" is in my epistemology thread it seemed natural to want to discuss how we use the words "know" and "true" within our religion. This discussion may be extremely short if the ultimate answer is simply explained away as cultural practices and definitions, with no desire to evaluate and possibly change how we express ourselves.

However, for those open to discussing these notions, do you think it would be valuable to begin a shift towards using words like "believe" and "faith" in order to more accurately reflect the nature (subjectivity) of truth and the religious experience in general?

If by this you're referring to how someone says I "know" something is true when someone else "knows" what is being said isn't true, sure, that would be of some help in some cases. I know it can really annoy me when someone says they "know" something is true when I know it isn't true, but if they simply said they "believe" it is true I wouldn't have as much of a problem with them telling their lies false knowledge.

How might a shift in how we express our "testimonies" affect members and those outside of our faith?

Sometimes it's good to say we know something is true even if someone else doesn't know the same thing, like maybe so the Spirit can bear witness of the truth we are sharing, but I believe there are times when we should simply say we "believe" or have "faith" on an issue rather than using the "know" word. It can help to make things go over a little smoother when we're discussing things with people who don't have the same "knowledge" or "faith" that we have.

Placing emphasis on belief and faith may also change the lens through which we view revelation and our personal communion with the Divine.

Yes, I can see how it may do that, and in some cases it may be a good thing.

Over time there may be a theological shift, to a greater or lesser degree, as to how we understand Truth, revelation, faith, and our understanding of those of other faiths.

Yes, and our own faith too.

Just a few thoughts.

One other thought I'd like to share is that knowing something is true doesn't necessariliy mean what we know is a good thing. It may be good to know it from the perspective of just having a greater knowledge of things in general, but you can know something evil is true, too, just as you can know something is good, so it's beneficial to know the difference between good and evil.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Ahab

[Deborah]

1) It is way harder to believe something than to know it. I would think in matters of spirituality it is, in a way, a stronger expression of faith to begin the statement with "I believe". It shows you have chosen a path and are steadfastly heading in the direction of the faithful.

An excellent point. If we "know" something what challenge is that to our faith. We may be more accountable for our actions but our faith is no longer being tried. It is after all faith which gives us power over trials, enemies and the unbeliever.

[DBMormon]

Are you saying that most people aged 8-13 don’t know enough to be saved if they were to die while saying they know the Church is true?

I am saying a high percentage of people in the church who use "know" don't have a knowledge of it's truth but a faith in it. Don't get me wrong. I see faith as indicating more strength then knowledge. I think we (lay members not church leaders) make primary kids, youth, converts feel like one must "know" for their testimony to be counted. I think youth feel special when they are able to say "I know"

May I ask what’s with the blood all over your chin? (your avatar)

= Zombie. I like Zombies

Does anybody else reject the premise that "I belive" is weaker than "I know"?

The event with doubting Thomas, Alma Ch:32 and many other places in scripture agree that while working towards a pure knowledge is the goal, faith and belief are a stronger indicator of desire to come unto Christ then pure knowledge.

[KevinG]

Well, there is Know:

D&C46:13 To some it is given by the ^aHoly Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

...and there is know:

D&C 46:14 To others it is given to ^abelieve on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

...and then there is know:

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/know?lang=eng&query=some+given+know

[KevinG]

Then there is True:

D&C 93:24 And ^atruth is ^bknowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is ^amore or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a ^bliar from the beginning.

26 The Spirit of ^atruth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He ^breceived a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

27 And no man receiveth a ^afulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

Read all about it: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93?lang=eng

[CV75]

I am saying a high percentage of people in the church who use "know" don't have a knowledge of it's truth but a faith in it.

That is an interesting paradigm to have of others. What can you do about what you do? I have difficulty conversing about what others actually know and have faith in.

Don't get me wrong. I see faith as indicating more strength then knowledge.

I see them as two different but equally strong principles working in tandem. I can go so far as to say they are in opposiiton to each other in a mutually beneficial way. Strong faith yields strong knowledge, strong knowledge (of the right things) demands strong faith to progress.

I think we (lay members not church leaders) make primary kids, youth, converts feel like one must "know" for their testimony to be counted.

That is an interesting paradigm to have of others. What can you do about what you do? I have difficulty conversing about what others actually know and feel.

I think youth feel special when they are able to say "I know"

Shouldn't anyone feel special about the kind of knowledge we are discussing (testimony)? If by "special" you mean "better" or successfully manipulating approval and admiration, then your paradigm for others is a bit condescending and judgemental.

The event with doubting Thomas, Alma Ch:32 and many other places in scripture agree that while working towards a pure knowledge is the goal, faith and belief are a stronger indicator of desire to come unto Christ then pure knowledge.

This has not much to do with the language one uses to expresses his testimony (and who are you suggesting is using the indicator other than the seeker of truth and God?"

Where the OP has asked us to discuss this subject only in terms of classical philosophy, I am not going to post any further in this thread.

[AddamS]

Shouldn't anyone feel special about the kind of knowledge we are discussing (testimony)? If by "special" you mean "better" or successfully manipulating approval and admiration, then your paradigm for others is a bit condescending and judgemental.

I can't speak for the poster, but I didn't take the statement as being condescending. I took it as an acknowledgement that the kids who acheive this level of believed progression as an accomplishment they are proud of.

[KevinG]

I never pressured my children to gain a testimony by age 8. I led them to the way they should go to find their own.

My son who is now 23 has come back to me many times in his life to share that he thought he knew and now he knows more.

Knowledge is a progression and the word know can mean one thing at the start of our faith journey than it does at the end. We are not required to have a full knowledge of all things before we can say we know some things. Indeed we see through a glass darkly.

That does not mean that even a child cannot know some things about God and His nature. My son knew his Father in Heaven from a very young age.

It is illuminating to me that those who struggle in their faith take offense at the use of the words Know and True. I detect some projection on those who declare our practice of saying we know the church is true offensive or misleading in any way.

Again read D&C 93 for a great definition of "know" that all LDS should follow.

Edited July 27, 2012 by KevinG

[Ahab]

I am saying a high percentage of people in the church who use "know" don't have a knowledge of it's truth but a faith in it.

When you have faith you have an assurance, or you feel sure, about whatever you have faith in. That's what faith gives you. It's an assurance or a sure [pick a word: feeling, understanding, comprehension, knowledge] about something, or someone. Even if a person is wrong about whatever he or she has faith in - like feeling sure that there is no God, if that were the case - he or she would still have faith or feel sure that there was no God even though in matters of fact he or she is wrong about that.

Now with that understood, if you understand that, please tell me what you think is the difference between faith and knowledge.

An even stronger assurance, or a more sure understanding/comprehension, maybe? Okay, but based on what?

What do you think it is that transforms a person's "faith" into "knowledge", if one is indeed a stepping stone to the other?

I think it's even possible for a person to say they "know" something is true even when what they "know" about something is wrong, or untrue, too. I know lots of people who have some false knowledge, or who at least claim to know something when what they "know" is false, or false knowledge.

Truth is something as it really is, or was, or will be in the future, whether or not what is true is good or evil.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Ahab