Why I Say I Know the LDS Church Is True

[High Spy]

God doesn't do math.

Math does what God tells it to do.

[Marcus]

God doesn't do math.

Math does what God tells it to do.

so... god does math. as usual, you make no sense.

[IHAQ]

What would your organization have to do to be Not True?

I think this is a key question that gets right to the heart of the matter. Kevin, can you answer Doc's question?

[Chap]

Rather than deceive people by saying something other than what you mean, have some integrity and say what you mean: That you have a very strong hunch that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.

What you've been doing is straight-up lying.

Many years ago, the Oxford philosopher A.J. Ayer wrote a paper entitled 'Knowing as Having the Right to be Sure'. Whether or not one agrees in all respects with Ayer's analysis of how the word 'know' is used and understood', I think most people who hear the claim 'I know X' will in general feel entitled to respond by asking:

"How do you know X?"

If you respond by simply saying:

"I have a very strong hunch that X is true"

... most people will, I think, feel that you have let them down somewhat.

Is "know" then a useless word? An ideal that can never be reached?

Not at all. Thus in the following exchange, the word "know" is used in a claim, and the questioner is given an answer that, in any normal understanding of the word, would be taken as a satisfactory justification of its use:

A: "I know that Mr. Smith has paid the bill for $50,000 we sent him last week."

B: "How do you know that?"

A: "I just checked our bank account online, and it shows a payment by Mr. Smith of $50,000."

But if A had responded that he had just had a very strong hunch that Mr. Smith had paid his bill, then if B is a normal English speaker he or she might well reply:

"So you don't really know, then. You'd better check with the bank."

[Chap]

What would your organization have to do to be Not True?

I think this is a key question that gets right to the heart of the matter. Kevin, can you answer Doc's question?

Agreed. KevinSIm, please answer that.

Does your "hunch" over-ride all other evidence about the CoJCoLDS, or is there some fact that, if discovered to be true, would lead you to conclude that the CoJCoLDS was not true?

[dastardly stem]

Not at all. Thus in the following exchange, the word "know" is used in a claim, and the questioner is given an answer that, in any normal understanding of the word, would be taken as a satisfactory justification of its use:

A: "I know that Mr. Smith has paid the bill for $50,000 we sent him last week."

B: "How do you know that?"

A: "I just checked our bank account online, and it shows a payment by Mr. Smith of $50,000."

But if A had responded that he had just had a very strong hunch that Mr. Smith had paid his bill, then if B is a normal English speaker he or she might well reply:

"So you don't really know, then. You'd better check with the bank."

But religionists actually think they have more than a strong hunch. It's more like they think they actually checked the bank account. That is when they say they know Christianity is true, or on Mormonism the Church is true, they actually feel like God's inner witness is like checking their bank account.

When the accusation is lying, we have to take into account intent.

[Morley]

Forgive me, Stem, but I have to take exception to this.

When the accusation is lying, we have to take into account intent.

No, we don't, nor should we. Said lie does just as much damage if it is spread innocently as if done so knowingly. Stupid, willful ignorance does more damage to the world than malice ever could.

[dastardly stem]

Forgive me, Stem, but I have to take exception to this.

When the accusation is lying, we have to take into account intent.

No, we don't, nor should we. Said lie does just as much damage if it is spread innocently as if done so knowingly. Stupid, willful ignorance does more damage to the world than malice ever could.

I agree with your comment but I think mine still stands. I'm addressing someone's accusation that another is lying. I think to support the accusation that one has lied, the subject's intent needs to be taken into account. If someone says something that is not true, we most definitely ought to make comment in hopes to stop the spread of the falsehood. I don't think that confirms the falsehood as stated by the subject was that subject's lie, even if it was someone else's lie. A person could very well believe a lie is true and repeat it as if it were true. In this case, I don't think a believer is necessarily lying if they say they know their religion is true, or God is there or any such thing. they actually believe they have knowledge on the matter, or as close as we can get to knowledge.

[Dr. Shades]

I don't think it's lying. I know it as much as I know anything.

So, you have a strong hunch that South America is south of North America? You have a strong hunch that 2 + 2 = 4? You have a strong hunch that you’re reading this on a screen?

[MG 2.0]

I don't think it's lying. I know it as much as I know anything.

So, you have a strong hunch that South America is south of North America? You have a strong hunch that 2 + 2 = 4? You have a strong hunch that you’re reading this on a screen?

I think that conversations such as this are nipped in the bud simply by coming to a resolution as to whether or not President Ezra Taft Benson was teaching the truth about the Book of Mormon.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

I posted this link on another thread but I think it’s applicable to this conversation. I don’t want to take away from the thrust of the direction or particular emphasis being placed on Kevin’s experience with God…because that is important…but I do want to reemphasize the importance in recognizing the importance of the Book of Mormon in “knowing that the church is true”.

Regards,
MG