I have full confidence that what I believe is "true" for me. Therefore, for myself, I know it to be true. I have no confidence that what I believe is "true" for anyone else, since they have to discover what they feel to be true.
That's not a relativistic stance, as it sounds initially. I just look at it like Nephi did: I know what I have seen and felt and experienced. It's truth "as I understand it". I'm not a bit perturbed that my current "knowledge" differs from my earlier knowledge - or that it differs from what my future knowledge will be. I'm not concerned at all that others will read this and say that I don't "know" anything, but that I merely "believe". It feels like knowledge to me, so I accept it as knowledge for me. If I explain it to others and they translate it as "belief" for them, fine; if they feel what I feel and translate it as "knowledge", fine.
Some have the gift to know; others have the gift to believe those who know. For what it's worth, everything I have read on all the blogs I frequent convinces me that such a distinction pretty much covers everyone - those who follow what they feel they know and those who follow whoever is the most convincing to them. I'm fine with both, and I try not to force one on the other.
I just think that many people are too stuck on quibbling over definitions that they want to impose on others and not open enough to letting individuals self-identify as honestly as they can on a personal level - and that "natural man" tendency is alive both inside and outside the Mormon Church. It certainly is alive and thriving in the Bloggernacle.