The CES Letter

[The Fourth Nephite]

Yes, a figure of speech. It means "I deeply and firmly believe this." If you are not comfortable saying that, that is totally fine. I strongly believe that we should allow for all kinds of expressions of faith. But to sit and judge fellow members as being "intellectually dishonest" because they use this particular phrase strikes me as uncharitable. Or worse.

The first definition of figure of speech I found on the internet is: a word or phrase used in a nonliteral sense to add rhetorical force to a spoken or written passage. This seems like a reasonable definition. Whether we quibble about the definition, I think most of us would agree when a person uses a figure of speech, the speaker doesn't mean it literally. If I say, "Gee, you're a crab today", I don't think you're a crustacean, I think you're grumpy.

From what I can tell, most Mormons don't use the phrase "I know" in a non-literal fashion. If anything, they often take great pains to show that they are being literal by embellishing how much they know and comparing the breadth of their knowledge to situations where they would have actual knowledge.

For example, I know ABC as strongly as if I had been there and seen ABC happen with my own eyes.

There may be some less orthodox or more open minded Mormons that consciously mean "I believe" or "I feel" when they say "I know", but since they're more aware of what they're saying and meaning, I think they are more dishonest than the Mormon that uses it casually.

I think I am being charitable. I mentioned that I didn't believe they were bad people, but I think they are exaggerating to a high degree and not exercising anything remotely resembling due diligence when they speak, and I think one reason they do it is to convince themselves and others that it is true.

If you have ever born testimony that something is true in the hopes that your belief in that something will increase, that is intellectually dishonest. If you use strong words like "know" to convince other people to believe in something that you believe in, that is intellectually dishonest.

[The Fourth Nephite]

The adult whispering in the ear is a fair point-- it's creepy even without worrying about the "I know" verbiage (and I get the impression it's something the church is trying to cut out anyway).

As for the rest, that's my point-- when they say "I know," they say they believe that burning in the bosom is as real and reliable as looking at the nuclear clock. It's not dishonesty if they sincerely believe it. What you seem to be saying is that nobody can honestly believe that.

If they really believed in in their hearts, would they go around all the time saying over and over how much they believe it? I don't know, but I wonder. I don't see scientists walking around telling other scientists how much they believe in gravity all of the time. Can you imagine:

"So that's my presentation on the latest research on exo-planetary systems. In closing, I would just like to say that I believe in gravity. I know gravity is there. Gravity is true. I know without any doubt at all, that if I drop this pen, it will fall. I can't see gravity, I can't hear it, but, my fellow scientists, I know it's real. Thank you."

[Bo Diddley]

If they really believed in in their hearts, would they go around all the time saying over and over how much they believe it? I don't know, but I wonder. I don't see scientists walking around telling other scientists how much they believe in gravity all of the time. Can you imagine:

"So that's my presentation on the latest research exo-planetary systems. In closing, I would just like to say that I believe in gravity. I know gravity is there. Gravity is true. I know without any doubt at all, that if I drop this pen, it will fall. I can't see gravity, I can't hear it, but, my fellow scientists, I know it's real. Thank you."

They should really work to come up with something unique to fill the time in that 1st Sunday meeting every month.

[taekwondave]

Yes, a figure of speech. It means "I deeply and firmly believe this." If you are not comfortable saying that, that is totally fine. I strongly believe that we should allow for all kinds of expressions of faith. But to sit and judge fellow members as being "intellectually dishonest" because they use this particular phrase strikes me as uncharitable. Or worse.

What's worse than uncharitable? Or are you twisting that word as well..

[The Fourth Nephite]

Just for the record, I don't think all these people using the word "know" incorrectly are bad or evil. In fact, I'm pretty sure the vast majority have good intentions, but they are playing fast and loose with what the word means and they should know better (most of them, anyways).

[taekwondave]

I looked at my clock a second ago. It said the time was 1:26. I know that at that moment it was 1:26. I know because I looked at a clock and that's what time it said. I don't believe anybody here would think that by saying it was 1:26 I was being dishonest. I believe we'd all agree that seeing a clock provides a sufficient foundation for my statement of knowledge.

When somebody stands and states that they know the church is true, etc., they likewise base that statement on some foundation-- spiritual manifestations, etc. You believe that is not a sufficient evidentiary basis to use the term "know"-- and I won't argue that this is an unreasonable belief. They believe it IS a sufficient evidentiary basis.

That's not dishonesty. That's a different belief. Unless you think that belief is not sincere, I don't think your accusation is fair.

These read like good points. For me I think part of the problem is in the church we are taught to phrase it like that, even when doing so makes us uncomfortable. My (troop? branch? group? I forget the word) in the MTC being a perfect example. We all talked about it one night--how wrong it felt to say that to each one of us. Next day we were all handed copies of Boyd K Packer's THE CANDLE OF THE LORD talk where we were taught that we could come to know by saying we already did over and over and over and over a million times. Good talk, Boyd.

[The Fourth Nephite]

Good points.

Boyd K. Packer said:

“It is not unusual to have a missionary say, ‘How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?’

Oh, if I could teach you this one principle: a testimony is to be found in the bearing of it!

Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that ‘leap of faith,’ as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and stepped into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two.”

I have heard variations of that many, many times.

[cougjunkie]

The adult whispering in the ear is a fair point-- it's creepy even without worrying about the "I know" verbiage (and I get the impression it's something the church is trying to cut out anyway).

As for the rest, that's my point-- when they say "I know," they say they believe that burning in the bosom is as real and reliable as looking at the nuclear clock. It's not dishonesty if they sincerely believe it. What you seem to be saying is that nobody can honestly believe that.

Every F&T meeting I have been in for the past 5+ years they start by reading from the CHOI about children unable to give their own testimonies without assistance should do it at home instead of at church.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The first definition of figure of speech I found on the internet is: a word or phrase used in a nonliteral sense to add rhetorical force to a spoken or written passage. This seems like a reasonable definition. Whether we quibble about the definition, I think most of us would agree when a person uses a figure of speech, the speaker doesn't mean it literally. If I say, "Gee, you're a crab today", I don't think you're a crustacean, I think you're grumpy.

From what I can tell, most Mormons don't use the phrase "I know" in a non-literal fashion. If anything, they often take great pains to show that they are being literal by embellishing how much they know and comparing the breadth of their knowledge to situations where they would have actual knowledge.

For example, I know ABC as strongly as if I had been there and seen ABC happen with my own eyes.

There may be some less orthodox or more open minded Mormons that consciously mean "I believe" or "I feel" when they say "I know", but since they're more aware of what they're saying and meaning, I think they are more dishonest than the Mormon that uses it casually.

I think I am being charitable. I mentioned that I didn't believe they were bad people, but I think they are exaggerating to a high degree and not exercising anything remotely resembling due diligence when they speak, and I think one reason they do it is to convince themselves and others that it is true.

If you have ever born testimony that something is true in the hopes that your belief in that something will increase, that is intellectually dishonest. If you use strong words like "know" to convince other people to believe in something that you believe in, that is intellectually dishonest.

I stand by my original post. You are not just being uncharitable, you are being extraordinarily cynical. Go ahead and use whatever phrasing you like, but you would be better off to stop obsessing about what other folks choose to say.

[The Fourth Nephite]

Every F&T meeting I have been in for the past 5+ years they start by reading from the CHOI about children unable to give their own testimonies without assistance should do it at home instead of at church.

That's remarkable. I think that's a good practice. I've seen something similar a few times.

[The Fourth Nephite]

I stand by my original post. You are not just being uncharitable, you are being extraordinarily cynical. Go ahead and use whatever phrasing you like, but you would be better off to stop obsessing about what other folks choose to say.

Cynical? Sure.

Uncharitable? Well, you obviously think so, but I don't.

Obsessing over what other people say? Well, I pop in here and share my opinion very rarely over the last few years. I wouldn't call that obssessing. I thought the whole point of a place like this is to discuss things like this.

I suspect that you might think I'm uncharitable and obssessive because you disagree with my opinion.

Why should I not care what others say? The things people say can affect other people. If somebody joins a Church in part because somebody bears their testimony to them, I think it's valid to examine the words they use and how they use them. You seem to care enough about what I say to criticize me.

Maybe I'm mis-interpteting, but it feels like a bit of a double standard.

My guess, and I could be wrong, but if I convinced an immediate family member of yours to join, oh, say the Fundamentalist LDS Church, by surrounding them with people that constantly told them they knew that Warren Jeffs speaks to and represents God, that you would probably be critical of my efforts to do that.

[CardiacCoug]

TFN has a point in that a lot of the men (women rarely do this which is telling) who "bear powerful testimony" in the form of "I know ....." over and over are pretty much the most pompous asshole types in a typical ward.

If it's done because of tradition or as a figure of speech that's one thing but it seems like it's often done by dudes who just want to impress everybody with their spiritual gigantism. The litany of I Knows is super creepy no matter if it comes from a kid or adult.

[The Fourth Nephite]

You're right. It usually is the men. I didn't realize that.

[old_gregg]

TFN has a point in that a lot of the men (women rarely do this which is telling) who "bear powerful testimony" in the form of "I know ....." over and over are pretty much the most pompous asshole types in a typical ward.

If it's done because of tradition or as a figure of speech that's one thing but it seems like it's often done by dudes who just want to impress everybody with their spiritual gigantism. The litany of I Knows is super creepy no matter if it comes from a kid or adult.

i agree with this, and i think the emphasis on knowledge is more than cultural usage for some people. someone should write a book about mormonism and its weird relationship with epistemology.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Cynical? Sure.

Uncharitable? Well, you obviously think so, but I don't.

Obsessing over what other people say? Well, I pop in here and share my opinion very rarely over the last few years. I wouldn't call that obssessing. I thought the whole point of a place like this is to discuss things like this.

I suspect that you might think I'm uncharitable and obssessive because you disagree with my opinion.

Why should I not care what others say? The things people say can affect other people. If somebody joins a Church in part because somebody bears their testimony to them, I think it's valid to examine the words they use and how they use them. You seem to care enough about what I say to criticize me.

Maybe I'm mis-interpteting, but it feels like a bit of a double standard.

My guess, and I could be wrong, but if I convinced an immediate family member of yours to join, oh, say the Fundamentalist LDS Church, by surrounding them with people that constantly told them they knew that Warren Jeffs speaks to and represents God, that you would probably be critical of my efforts to do that.

So we agree you are cynical. Thanks.

Now we are drawing comparisons to Warren Jeffs? Yikes.