It might be semantics, but so much is wrapped in words - I was never an English major.
What do you mean by the phrase "degree of knowledge"?
I mean to say that knowledge often accumulates by degrees. An incomplete knowledge is not zero knowledge.
When I hear someone say "I know....", the word "know" implies complete certainty to me.
That is reasonable. But I don't think it's reasonable to infer from the statement "I know..." that the person is saying he's omniscient.
If someone uses language such as "I think that...", this to me would imply different degrees, with room to change, room to learn, to have a mutual 2-way conversation.
I agree.
When you say "I know...", should I really be hearing "I think..."? To what degree do you perceive yourself "knowing" your currently most cherished beliefs?
I don't claim to "know" what I "believe." I claim to believe what I believe and know what I know.
That word, "know"... I can say I'm a SME, can say I have x years experience working in y field, but we still seek cold eyes reviews if you are familiar with those terms? If "know" = familiar then Aristotle had it right "The more you know, the more you realize you don't know."
OK. I see what you're saying, and why what I'm saying may be confusing to you.
I have been using the term "know" to connote certainty, not just familiarity. If we were speaking Spanish, the difference would be "Ser" vs "Conocer," both of which mean "to know," but where Ser means to know a thing in the abstract and Conocer means to be familiar with. You don't use Ser, for example, when you're talking about knowing a person; that would make no sense; it would be like saying "I know Bob [exists]"; you'd use Conocer ("I am acquainted with Bob").
English doesn't inherently have this distinction in the words "I know."
I did not grow up in the Mormon faith, was from a different spirit filled group who used words like "know", truth, authority etc. in quite binary terms, no room to listen to another viewpoint, no room to question authority.
Thank you for adding that history. That helps me understand.
Do you feel free to question the authority of President Nelson?
I am free to question his authority, but I am not free to infect the body of the church with divisiveness on the basis of my views on his authority. Nor can I affect his authority as it pertains to his appointment by God. What I am fully free to do, however, is to unyoke myself from the authority I have consented to afford him, which I granted in the first place on the basis of my acceptance of his appointment (as the prophet) by God.
You may already know this, but this principle is referred to as "common consent" in the religion. The principle is practiced at every level of administration in the church, from the prophet to the persons who work with the toddlers in the nursery of the local congregations. No one is granted authority to act in a capacity without the consent of the persons of the congregation to which the authority is yoked. For example, the authority of the prophet is consented to by the entire body of the church; the authority of a local leader is consented to by his or her respective local congregation, etc. Or not—though unfounded declination of consent may necessarily result in restrictions on membership or participation (or revocation of membership in the most extreme cases).
Does that make sense, or help explain my relationship to the prophet's authority?
Do you believe your group is the only "authority" (as TR questions seem to say), or are you using the word "know" as something with degrees, such as experience with, thought patterns, something you are open to CER on? Just trying to clarify. I get knee-jerk trigger reactions to words like "know" and "authority" from religious folks.
I need you to expound on what you're asking relative to the acronyms TR and CER. Not sure what you're asking there.
As for the word "know," it is most common in my religion that people use the word to convey the idea of certainty, as opposed to familiarity. Though I cannot say that the distinction has much significance in the vernacular of our religion. We tend to differentiate most between "believe" and "know" rather than "know" (certainty) and "know" (familiarity). I don't know that this attribute is entirely unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I cannot think of another religion that emphasizes as strongly the importance of seeking to know the truth for oneself, as opposed to merely believing what others say or believe. The religion itself is the result of the effort of its first prophet to know the truth for himself.
All that said, within the canon of our scripture it is seen that God offers a clear and equal provision for salvation for those who "believe" the witness of those who "know":
"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. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 46:13 - 14)
I don't know if that answers your question... ?