What is true?

Lately, I've engaged in a number of conversations surrounding the nature of God, the definition of sin, the veracity of LDS doctrine, etc.  It occurred to me that it may be helpful for all parties involved to take a step back in our discussion -- go down a couple of rungs on our ladder, so to speak.  Instead of bantering about the truth of these various concepts, would it not be better to first address the question: 'How do we know something is true?'?

I think back to the single most influential experience of my life: a 6-credit course I took my first semester at BYU entitled Philosophical Skills and Doctrines of the Gospel, taught by Chauncey Riddle. There are two reasons why this class was the most influential experience of my life: 1) I met my wife there (and we studied 3-5 nights each week for the class); and 2) the professor and teachings impacted the way I look at life and approach thinking.

Dr. Riddle explored with us the nature of truth.  How does one come to the knowledge of the truth?  I recently found this article from a website devoted to Dr. Riddle's work.  I invite you to read the article in its entirety.  Here, I will offer a review and then my commentary.

The ways of knowing fall into the following epistemological categories: authoritarianism, rationalism, empiricism, statistical empiricism, pragmatism, mysticism, skepticism, scholarship, science, conscience, and personal revelation.

Using authoritarianism, a person knows the truth by asking an authority on the subject.  This is convenient, but who is to say who is an authority; 

With rationalism, a person uses reasonable (and widely accepted) premises and reason to reach certain conclusions.  This is helpful, but one must be careful that the premises are correct to begin with: 

Empiricism relies upon using the physical senses to determine truth.  The weakness here is that many important truths cannot be sensed with our physical bodies; 

Statistical empiricism combines empiricism and reason, using large data sets, to reach conclusions; 

Pragmatism is relying on what works, whether or not it can be explained with reason.  This is very useful when the goal is to get something done quickly; 

Mysticism is weird to me.  This branch of knowing asserts that the person knows because he/she is actually part of what he is knowing; 

Skepticism denies anything as truth that cannot be proved without a doubt.  This is more of an attitude of being careful and exhasutive in using any forms of epistemology.  It can be useful, but carried to the extreme leads to impassable obstacles; 

A scholar attempts to determine the truth by examining everything that has ever been written about a subject.  I see this as close to authoritarianism, because an authority many who are authorities have practiced good scholarship to achieve their status.  The weakness here is that not all truth has been written, or can be accessed by a scholar; 

Science seems to me a combination of empiricism, statistical empiricism, and rationality.  The weakness in science is that a conclusion can be faulty if built on a false premise, and those practicing science sometimes apply their findings to areas they cannot know about; 

The epistemology of conscience uses the Light of Christ to determine what is truth; 

And the epistemology of personal revelation is the communication of God to a person's heart or mind. 

<end of article review>

I fail to see what's missing from the list.  Any and all claims find their origin on one or more of the above epistemologies.  How can this be helpful in our discussions?  I find it most helpful to me as I consider how I know my truth.  I would say that I use authoritarianism and personal revelation as my primary modes of knowing, with some sprinkles of scholarship and pragmatism.

• Personal revelation:  I consider this the most influential of my epistemologies.  The truths that I hold most dear have to do with my nature as a human being, the nature of God, and my purpose here on earth.  These truths I've learned after study, prayer, and meditation through the influence of the Holy Ghost.  I believe that God has touched me with pure knowledge.  I wouldn't claim this knowledge to be a perfect knowledge--it is faith-based--but I believe it to be the closest thing to perfect knowledge that I can attain in this life.  
• Pragmatism plays an important role in my pursuit of knowledge, and it complements personal revelation.  My faith directs me to live a certain way, and the fruits of my living include the promptings and impressions from the Holy Ghost, testifying of the truth.  In this way, I am "doing what works" (pragmatism) as I pursue knowledge. 
• If I measured my epistemologies by most used (as opposed to most important), Authoritarianism would be highest on my list.  I fully realize that many of my political opinions come from those I consider authorities on the subject.  When I consider the authorities that I choose to trust, I consider their motives and their fruits.  I also consider my feelings when listening to them (this can tie into Personal Revelation).  What type of person do I want to be when I listen to them? What actions do these individuals encourage me to take?  
• I use some scholarship when reading primary source documents, as well as rationality.

 How could this knowledge (or post) help me in my debates and discussions?  I'm not sure, because another might look at the nature of knowledge completely different than I.

As a final note, I must admit that I find a lot of comfort and security in trusting certain authorities, especially when I deem them to be good men (and women).  And on the flip side, I tend to see those with whom I disagree as people who are following ignorant, poor authorities.  I don't write this to judge, but to candidly share my thought process.  I am aware of my bias, and I try to keep it in check as best as I can.