Originally Posted by BYU71 (Post 202288)

Do you think terrorists who kill themselves "know" they will be met with 99 (or whatever the number is) virgins?

There are reasons one would give their life for something. I just can't believe they do it for the 99 virgins. How about those religious types that commit mass suicide. Do they really know something or do they just have misguided faith.

One thing I do believe. The "I know" the church is true statement does not lead people to harmful conclusions or results as the examples given above.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 205301)

Anyone notice Elder Oaks' talk directly addressed this discussion? It was so specific, it makes one wonder if he's reading along.

Originally Posted by ERCougar (Post 202025)

For as long back as I can remember, I've hated this phrase. It does nothing for me spiritually, and I've always felt a little alienated in a church where so many seem to know what for me is un-knowable.

That's not to mention the fact that the phrase itself is a little absurd. Obviously, an object can't be "true". But, if I look beyond that to what I assume they mean--that the principles of the Gospel are true--I'm still not sure that it's an honest statement. Do they mean ALL the principles of the Gospel? Or certain favorites? How do they feel about polygamy?

I guess in the Alma 32 sense, I can see how a principle of the Gospel that can be tried and tested, can be "known". For example, I know that compassion for others brings me joy. That is a principle of the Gospel. However, there are many principles of the Gospel that can't be known IMO--what happens after we die, that Christ died for my sins, that Joseph Smith was a prophet. We can have faith, hope, belief, etc, but in my opinion, it's not ever knowledge. And I'm not sure of any place in the Gospel where "knowledge" is required. Faith, yes. Knowledge, no.

I've always told myself that I can't judge others' testimonies. However, when they say something like "I know Christ lives", aren't they placing themselves, according to their own belief system, in a place where Joseph Smith said few men who have ever lived have attained, i.e. the ability to deny the Holy Ghost and become a son of perdition?

Does anyone else feel this way? I'm really not trying to nitpick here. To me, it's an important issue, in that I feel like it alienates people of other faiths, some of our own faith, and de-emphasizes the role of faith in our lives. Besides, it just seems dishonest. And even a little creepy.

Originally Posted by Solon (Post 203214)

Epistemology has never really been all that interesting to me: I'm not a philosopher. But Sterling McMurrin was - in addition to a CES employee, US Commissioner of Education, and a U of U Prof.[listed here in ascending order of significance]. So, I share this Sterling McMurrin story from his book Matters of Conscience.

[McMurrin and Jackson, Matters of Conscience (Salt Lake City: 1996), pg. 117]

Originally Posted by FMCoug (Post 205422)

I would answer with a question.

Do you know you love your spouse?
How about your children?
Parents, grandparents, etc.?

If you can you "know" you love them, where is the evidence for that? How can one "know" anything that is at its root spiritual / emotional.

In short, if you think it's "wrong" to say you know something becuase of spiritual witness, then I would submit you need to answer in the negative to the above questions.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 205428)

Whether or not you love someone is at its very core a subjective question. When you say you "know you love your spouse" you are making a strong expression of how you feel. Whether or not God exists, whether the BOM is a historical record, etc. are not subjective questions. Not in the ultimate sense, anyway. God either exists or He doesn't, independent of anyone's personal feelings on the matter.