Do We Even Know What "I Know" Means?

In my previous post, I shared some thoughts about the harmful consequences of teaching our children to claim to know things prematurely. Based on my observations, it is not only children who misuse the phrase "I know" in the church. At times, it seems to me like many members are just going through the motions, saying traditional phrases such as "I know" without even listening to what they are saying or considering what it actually means. Unfortunately, insisting that we know things for which we have no objective or verifiable evidence diminishes our credibility among our neighbors and fellow-Christians.

As an attorney by profession, evaluating the competency and credibility of witnesses is relevant and important to me. In court, if a witness claims to know something for which there is not an objective, verifiable basis, the testimony can be stricken from the record unless the witness can persuade the Judge that there is adequate foundation for the purported knowledge. Likewise, testimony must be based on personal experience and knowledge rather than hearsay or speculation.

Although I do not believe the exact same standard needs to be strictly enforced in Latter-day Saint dialogues, I do feel our testimonies would become much more powerful and effective if we were to use more accurate language. For starters, I would propose that we should use the phrase "I know" far less often and much more accurately. It seems that the phrase "I know" is treated as a direct synonym for "I believe or have a lot of faith" in Latter-day Saint circles even though it should not be. In reality, there is a significant difference between knowing something and believing something, and that difference should not be ignored.

I would propose that we know what we have personally experienced, but what those experiences mean is left to personal interpretation and is more accurately described as belief or opinion than knowledge. For example, I know that I have felt wonderful feelings and experienced inspirational thoughts while reading The Book of Mormon or listening to general conference. I can testify of that with confidence and it would be completely accurate. However, interpreting those feelings to be the Holy Ghost or attempting to define precisely what those feelings mean requires a significant leap of faith and I should acknowledge the same. It would be perfectly appropriate to testify that: "I have faith that those feelings came from God to help me know what I was reading is actually true," or "I believe God provided me that experience on purpose to help me get through a current trial." However, to claim that I literally know either of those things would be an overstatement of the truth.

Let me share some examples of common phrases that are shared in testimony meetings around the world that would make any visitor who is actually listening with an active mind question if we are listening to ourselves.

• I know that families can be together forever.

• I know that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet.

• I know that Jesus Christ lives and will return again.

• I know that God is real and that He hears our prayers.

• I know that I am a literal child of God.

• I know that the Book of Mormon is true.

Each of these statements require a leap of faith to interpret our personal experiences to justify the correlating assertion. For example, somebody only literally "knows" that Jesus lives if she has personally seen the living Jesus. What the person is really saying is, "I know I have had multiple experiences (perhaps while reading the scriptures, praying, or worshipping in the temple) in which I have felt sacred things, and because of how I interpret those experiences, I believe with all of my heart that Jesus Christ lives." I would submit that the spirit will bear a more powerful witness of our testimony if we share it more honestly and vulnerably, humbly and unashamedly acknowledging that we realize we do not know even though we feel so much faith about the matter it seems that we do know.

I realize that DC 46:13 states, "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." So if the scripture says we can "know" by the Holy Ghost, why shouldn't we boldly proclaim we know? We should first acknowledge that this scripture may be referring to people who are given the privilege of literally seeing Jesus by the Holy Ghost, and not just those who claim to know because of a subjective feeling from the Holy Ghost. More importantly, the fact that we have developed what we call knowledge based on subjective, unverifiable spiritual experiences DOES NOT mean it is appropriate or accurate to say "I know" when discussing our personal beliefs, particularly if our audience doesn't embrace the same nuanced definition of knowledge. In other words, just because we subjectively feel enough confidence to say we know something does not mean it would be truth (things as they really are) to declare that we actually know.

Another scripture I believe we should consider in connection with this topic is Luke 18:8, which asks the profound question: "when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" I fear many latter-day saints have rendered faith inoperative in their lives by believing they have actual knowledge of so many doctrines and principles when in reality they do not. However, by convincing themselves they have actual knowledge they become unable to deliberately choose to believe through faith. You see, a prerequisite to exercising faith is an awareness of what we DO NOT KNOW, or at least that there are things we do not know. Only when we are aware we do not know something do we have the agency and ability to choose to act in faith based on what we believe without seeing.

I have felt so much liberation as I have become more aware of and acknowledged how little I actually know. You see, when we are unwilling to acknowledge that there is a lot we don't know, we end up having to try to go down rabbit holes to justify our positions. In contrast, by simply acknowledging that we are choosing to believe a particular claim even though we don't actually know (and perhaps cannot know) with certainty that eliminates the need for faith, our belief becomes insulated and protected from attack. Acknowledging that we are choosing to believe despite being aware that faith is required to make that choice is a position of power and is much more sustainable than a self-deceived suggestion that we have actual knowledge of things that cannot be known due to the absence of verifiable evidence.

Now, when you do actually know something, you should absolutely testify accordingly! For example, I joyfully testify that I know I am a happier and better person when I am consistently studying The Book of Mormon and trying to follow its teachings. I can say "I know" about that because it is based entirely on my personal experience and does not require any leap of faith or personal interpretation to get from my experience to the testimony given. And although I do not feel comfortable saying I know The Book of Mormon is true, I can boldly declare that because of the experiences I have had while studying it, and because of how my life has been blessed by having it in my life, I have great faith that God played a role in the creation and bringing to light of The Book of Mormon. I can likewise testify with confidence that I know I become a better person each time I sincerely worship in the temple and that I feel what I believe to be an endowment of the power of godliness flow into my life when I think about and deliberately strive to live the covenants I have entered into. And although I do not feel it would be accurate to say that I know that families will be together forever because of what is done in the temple, I can testify that I have faith and hope that God has prepared a plan that enables familial relationships to continue beyond the grave. Similarly, I can testify that I know I have felt edifying and empowering feelings as I have pondered about the prophetic call of Joseph Smith and that I believe those communications came from God, and that because of those feelings (among other things) I choose to believe that Jesus Christ called Joseph Smith to be a prophet and helped him accomplish what he did despite Joseph's many imperfections, flaws, and mistakes.

Without in any way trying to diminish the glorious role of the Holy Ghost in testifying of truth, I invite you to vulnerably reevaluate your testimony and to honestly acknowledge where faith is required to draw the conclusions you have drawn. I also invite you to more honestly acknowledge that reality when sharing your testimony. Although it may seem counterintuitive, I believe with all my heart that the Holy Ghost will bear a much more powerful witness of our declaration of faith than of a disingenuous and inaccurate assertion of knowledge that does not, in reality, exist.