Testimony & Spiritual Witness
Start: Introduction
Previous: Kinderhook Plates & Translator Claims
Contents for this section:
- Other churches
- Not every church can be true
- Reliability
- Deception
- Heart and Mind
- Paul H. Dunn
- A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it
- Can the Spirit be wrong?
- Movies
“We should not just go on our own feelings on everything…Granted, our feelings can be wrong; of course they can be wrong…We do indeed advocate the full use of the Holy Spirit to guide us to truth. How does the Holy Spirit work? How does He testify of truth and witness unto us? Through feelings…”
– FAIRMORMON BLOG, CAN WE TRUST OUR FEELINGS?
This quote serves as a preamble to Jeremy's argument that he will make in this section. He believes that since we can't trust our feelings, and the Spirit communicates by feelings, then therefore we cannot trust the Spirit.
However, this is a mistake. The flaw in the logic is that the Spirit does not solely communicate by feelings. And there's also the flaw—should we distrust all our feelings just because they don't all come from the Spirit? With these two ideas, the argument falls flat. J. Cooper Johnson actually presented these ideas in the source, but Jeremy cut them out with ellipses. Here is the full paragraph:
Granted, our feelings can be wrong; of course they can be wrong. But the LDS faith doesn’t solely advocate the use of our own subjective feelings. We do indeed advocate the full use of the Holy Spirit to guide us to truth. How does the Holy Spirit work? How does He testify of truth and witness unto us? Through feelings, but if you have ever felt a witness of the Holy Spirit, then you know it’s not just following your own subjective feelings. It is very different. And if you have never felt a witness of the Holy Spirit, then it’s impossible to fully explain.
I would also say that I think it is better to describe feelings as the result of communication by the Spirit, rather than necessarily the communication itself. Like, talking with a friend over the phone might make you feel a certain way, but you feel that way because of what they are saying, not the other way around. Personally, I would also say that it is a deficiency in our language. Like, when I say, "I feel cold" you know I'm probably not talking about an emotional response—we just use the word "feel" for more than one thing. The same is true for when I say "I feel the Spirit." As in the quote, feeling the Spirit is very different from just feeling an emotion.
Because the context of the full article is to respond to other Christians who criticize our view to say that the Bible is all we need, I should point out to Christians who share the CES Letter that Jeremy is making the argument that the Spirit is unreliable, not that the Bible is all we need.
And before moving on, I think to answer the questions in this section, we need to understand a bit more about the Spirit. The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead, and is a personage of Spirit (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22-23). Jesus described the Spirit as the "Spirit of truth" to His disciples, and explained that the Spirit "will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). He also described the Spirit as "the Comforter" and that the Spirit "shall testify of me" (John 15:26) and "shall teach you all things" (John 14:26).
Paul taught that "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost" (1 Corinthians 12:3) and went on to describe the gifts of the Spirit. J. Cooper Johnson said that how one feels the Spirit is "impossible to fully explain" and I think that's one reason that makes it difficult, is because different people have different gifts of the Spirit.
Another reason is that people may feel the Spirit in different ways. Elijah recognized the voice of the Lord as a "still small voice" in 1 Kings 19:11-13. Referenced above, Jesus described the Spirit as the Comforter. Paul described the fruits of the Spirit as "love, joy, peace, longsufering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance" in Galatians 5:22-23. The Nephites told King Benjamin that the Spirit changed their hearts, that they desired to do good (Mosiah 5:2). Alma described the Spirit as feeling "swelling motions" inside, such that we would say within ourselves that it begins to "enlarge my soul" and "enlighten my understanding" (Alma 32:28). In a revelation from God, Oliver Cowdery was told "I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost" answers to his faithful prayers to receive knowledge (Doctrine and Covenants 8:1-3). He was also told after a failed attempt at translating the plates that he also had to study it out in his mind, and then after asking Him if it be right, that his "bosom shall burn within you" if it was right, but "a stupor of thought" if it was not right (Doctrine and Covenants 9:8-9). The Lord told Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith that He would put thoughts into their hearts (Doctrine and Covenants 100:5-8).
Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke on the "burning in the bosom" in a March 1997 message, saying
This may be one of the most important and misunderstood teachings in all the Doctrine and Covenants. The teachings of the Spirit often come as feelings. That fact is of the utmost importance, yet some misunderstand what it means. I have met persons who told me they have never had a witness from the Holy Ghost because they have never felt their bosom “burn within” them.What does a “burning in the bosom” mean? Does it need to be a feeling of caloric heat, like the burning produced by combustion? If that is the meaning, I have never had a burning in the bosom. Surely, the word “burning” in this scripture signifies a feeling of comfort and serenity. That is the witness many receive. That is the way revelation works.Truly, the still, small voice is just that, “still” and “small.”“The language of peace, as spoken by the Lord, embraces a sense of quiet confidence, comfort, and warmth. It is gentle and calm, amiable and sweet; it is temperate and kind; it is orderly and identified by happiness, joy, and feelings of love” (Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, The Holy Ghost [1989], 14).
From that, I would say that the part for us from Doctrine and Covenants 9 isn't necessarily that the Spirit is a "burning in the bosom" but that the Spirit will communicate to us in a way that we will "feel that it is right."
I should also add that there are things that can prevent us from being able to hear the Spirit. If it is because of sin, we need to repent and live the commandments. A different sort of problem is depression, which can also block the Spirit, and may require help from medical and mental health professionals.
“Our unique strength is the ability to touch the hearts and minds of our audiences, evoking first feeling, then thought and, finally, action. We call this uniquely powerful brand of creative ‘HeartSell’® - strategic emotional advertising that stimulates response.”
Jeremy presumably gives this as an example that feelings don't only come through the Spirit, which is true. I would suggest that the purpose of all artwork and entertainment is to evoke an emotional response. The Church doesn't claim that all feelings come from the Spirit.
“Feelings Aren’t Facts.”
– BARTON GOLDSMITH, PH.D., PSYCHOTHERAPIST
And that's true. We don't teach that all feelings come from the Spirit. As Goldsmith also says, "Upon occasion, every now and then, some people get a feeling that isn't real." He is a therapist, and he recommends:
The best thing to do when you are feeling like something isn’t right is to check it out. Don’t sit on it, push it down, or try to ignore it; your emotions won’t cooperate. Sometimes the only way out is by getting into the feelings and first looking at how you might be creating them. Combine that with some gentle (not accusatory) questioning of the person or people who you believe may be the cause. Look for truth and be open to see how it’s possible that your feelings may not be accurate. It also can be helpful to get an outside perspective from someone you trust.
This is the process I went through and how I have learned to tell the difference between the Spirit and my own thoughts.
On the flip side, many of the arguments in the CES Letter appeal to emotion, but just because you are upset doesn't mean that your feeling is a fact. Look for truth and be open to see how it's possible that your feelings may not be accurate. Study it out for yourself, you don't have to take my word or Jeremy's word for it.
1. Every major religion has members who claim the same thing: God or God’s spirit bore witness to them that their religion, prophet/pope/leaders, book(s), and teachings are true.
Most other religions don't have as a core doctrine that revelation is how we can learn the truth, but for sake of the argument, I'll allow that one or more members of other faiths feel that way, since that's all that's being claimed. To this I would ask, "How does what another person says God told them have anything to do with what God told me?"
This point doesn't actually present an argument, it only serves as setup for point #2, so let's continue on.
2. Just as it would be arrogant for a FLDS member, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Catholic, a Seventh-day Adventist, or a Muslim to deny a Latter-day Saint’s spiritual experience and testimony of the truthfulness of Mormonism, it would likewise be arrogant for a Latter-day Saint to deny others’ spiritual experiences and testimonies of the truthfulness of their own religion. Yet, every religion cannot be right and true together.
I don't deny other's spiritual experiences. This doesn't mean that I think that they are equally valid, which seems to be Jeremy's justification for denying my spiritual experiences along with everyone else's. But just because they can't all be true doesn't mean that none of them are true.
I take it another way, that because different people disagree, that means that you cannot rely on another person's spiritual experiences to guide your life. Instead, you need your own spiritual witness. While I might disagree with others, I feel that that is between them and God. When I served a missionary, I invited people to read the Book of Mormon and pray if it was true, and never denied anyone their spiritual experiences.
LDS MEMBER IN 2017I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the one and only true Church. I know the Book of Mormon is true. I know that Thomas S. Monson is the Lord’s true Prophet today.FLDS MEMBER IN 2017I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I know the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the one and only true Church. I know the Book of Mormon is true. I know that Warren Jeffs is the Lord’s true Prophet today.RLDS MEMBER IN 1975I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I know the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the one and only true Church. I know the Book of Mormon is true. I know that W. Wallace Smith is the Lord’s true Prophet today.LDCJC MEMBER IN 2017I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I know The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ is the one and only true Church. I know the Book of Mormon and the Book of Jeraneck are true. I know that Matthew P. Gill is the Lord’s true Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Translator today.
Same method: read, ponder, and pray. Different testimonies. All four testimonies cannot simultaneously be true.
Note that all of these share a belief in the Book of Mormon, which invites members to read, ponder, and pray. Note also that these don't appear to be actual quotes, but what Jeremy imagines they might say.
Is this the best God can come up with in revealing His truth to His children? Only .2% of the world’s population are members of God’s one true Church. This is God’s model and standard of efficiency?
I would suggest that perhaps God's goal isn't to have everyone on the planet belong to His Church. If that were the case, then how would it be accomplished? Should believers kill off the infidels? Should the Church become state-sponsored, and membership be required? I imagine Jeremy is more likely going with the more standard atheist response that God should give some kind of sign or appear to everyone in such a way that there cannot be any doubt.
Jesus taught a parable in Luke 12 concluding "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." The problem with God revealing Himself is that would basically condemn everyone. Knowledge of God isn't suddenly going to make everyone repent, but it does bring everyone to a higher standard. We do believe that one day Jesus will arrive in glory in such a way that there will be no doubt—but at the same time, all the wicked will be destroyed.
One principle is in Latter-day Saint theology, freedom of religion is an important part of faith. Even after Jesus returns, we believe there will be other churches and missionary work.
Another way to think about it is that we all knew Heavenly Father and the plan of salvation in the premortal life. We have already shown that we will follow Him with all the information. The purpose of life is to receive a physical body and grow spiritually by learning through our own experience (outside of God's presence) to choose good over evil. We are imperfect, but through the atonement of Jesus Christ we can become clean from sin. We do temple work for the dead so that all will have this opportunity to accept or reject the gospel.
Praying about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon does not follow that the LDS Church is true. The FLDS also believe in the Book of Mormon. So do dozens of Mormon splinter groups. They all believe in the divinity of the Book of Mormon as well.
I would say that there are several elements to a testimony of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Two is that the Book of Mormon is true. Three is that Jesus chose Joseph Smith to be a prophet and restore His Church. And fourth, that the Church continues to be led by a true prophet today.
I agree that a testimony of the Book of Mormon is insufficient alone, and that we should have testimonies of each aspect of the gospel. Although many find the claims of splinter groups to be weak, that shouldn't replace a spiritual witness that the current prophet is a true prophet of God.
Praying about the first vision: Which account is true? They can’t all be correct together as they conflict with one another.
As we discussed in the First Vision section, most of the differences are just different details and don't actually conflict with one another. I believe that they are all true.
James B. Allen described the history drawing from each account in the April 1970 Improvement Era. In April 2016, the Church published an synthesis by Steven C. Harper on the Church History website, a narrative history integrating from all the accounts. In March 2017, the Church released a video produced for the Church History Museum which also combined the accounts.
Although the 1838 account is the only one that is canonized, it is a mistake to think that the Church sees one as true and the others wrong.
3. If God’s method to revealing truth is through feelings, it is a very ineffective and unreliable method. We have thousands of religions and billions of members of those religions saying that their truth is God’s only truth and everyone else is wrong because they felt God or God’s spirit reveal the truth to them. Each religion has believers who believe that their spiritual experiences are more authentic and powerful than those of the adherents of other religions. They cannot all be right together, if at all.
This is mostly just a restatement of the last two points. I think I answered this well in the introduction that God doesn't reveal truth "through feelings" but by the Spirit.
Most other churches don't have a tradition of seeking spiritual confirmation regarding their denomination. A few believe they have received spiritual confirmation, sure, but certainly not billions.
They have other reasons for thinking that they are right though, and yes, they cannot all be right. That is what led Joseph Smith to pray and ask God which church was true. It is also what we promise today, that God does hear and answer prayers.
4. Joseph Smith received a revelation, through the peep stone in his hat, to send Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery to Toronto, Canada
Jeremy will say in a minute, but he is using as his source David Whitmer's book, An Address to All Believers in Christ published in 1887. Note that David calls it a "seer stone" and doesn't use the term "peep stone". In an 1885 interview, he actually corrects the interviewer who asked about Joseph's "peep stone" and says it was called a "seer stone" while the "interpreters" were taken due to transgression.
John Whitmer copied the original revelation in about March 1831 as he was keeping the history of the Church. The revelation was actually not only to Oliver Cowdery and Hiram page, but also Josiah Stowell and Joseph Knight Sr. and was to go to Kingston, Canada, not Toronto.
for the sole purpose of selling the copyright of the Book of Mormon, which is another concern in itself (why would God command to sell the copyright to His word?).
The same source Jeremy is using also provides an answer. David Whitmer claimed that the printer needed more money to finish printing it, and they were waiting for Martin Harris to sell a part of his farm. Hyrum got impatient and suggested that they could go to Canada and sell the copyright for enough money.
However, this doesn't line up with the surrounding history. John Gilbert said that Grandon would not begin work until Harris had promised to insure the payment for printing. He mortgaged his farm on 25 August 1829, Grandin considered himself paid in full, and printing began in September. (See historical background for Doctrine and Covenants 19.)
A better explanation is that in January 1830, Abner Cole began publishing part of the Book of Mormon in his newspaper, the Palmyra Reflector without permission, which was printed on the same press as the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith asserted his copyright authority, and the situation was resolved.
However, Joseph Smith only had a copyright in the United States—anyone could go into Canada and publish the Book of Mormon without an issue.
Another thing going on at the time, locals reportedly called for a boycott. With these things going on, Martin Harris became concerned that he would lose his farm property and asked Joseph for a new agreement that entitled him to a portion of the proceeds from book sales.
So that's the context why Hyrum suggested selling the rights to reproduce and distribute the Book of Mormon in Canada. They were concerned about financing the church they would soon organize. At Hyrum's request, Joseph received a revelation reassuring him that the Lord would deliver them out of every difficulty and affliction according to their faith and diligence. It also commanded them to secure the copyright "upon all the face of the Earth" and gave them permission to sell the copyright in Canada.
Joseph would retain control of the Book of Mormon, this would give permission to a Canadian publisher to publish and sell the Book of Mormon in Canada.
The mission failed and the prophet was asked why his revelation was wrong.
They traveled to Kingston, but were unable to secure a copyright, let alone sell it. British copyright law said a copy of the work must be physically registered with Stationers Hall in London. The Joseph Smith Papers suggest that they could have continued to York and enlisted a British subject to register the copyright in London, but that would have been an uncommon practice, and would not have helped, as copyright laws were not enforced at the time in Canada. No books were registered from the Canadian provinces from 1814 to 1835.
They did hold the copyright under British common law, so it might be that they could have sold the publication rights without going through the trouble of obtaining a copyright from the United Kingdom.
But they did not find a willing buyer, and so returned. They failed to sell the copyright, but the revelation wasn't prophesying that they would be successful, but was giving them permission.
I grant unto my servent a privelige that he may sell <a copyright> through you speaking after the manner of men for the four Provinces if the People harden not their hearts against the enticeings of my spirit & my word for Behold it lieth in themselves to their condemnation&or to their salvation
The way I see it, the revelation was fulfilled in the Lord's promise that they would be delivered out of the difficulties they were facing. But anyway, that's apparently not how Joseph and others saw it, so they questioned its legitimacy.
Joseph decided to inquire of the Lord regarding the question. Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer testified:“…and behold the following revelation came through the stone: ‘Some revelations are of God; and some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.’ So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man.”How are we supposed to know what revelations are from God, from the devil, or from the heart of man if even the Prophet Joseph Smith couldn’t tell?
The Joseph Smith Papers says David Whitmer claimed that in a council held on 1 November 1831 Joseph Smith repudiated the revelation. The minutes for that meeting don't mention a discussion of the revelation, but the topic was the Book of Commandments, and may explain why the revelation to go to Canada was not included in the book. However, the revelation does include editing marks that appear to have occurred during preparations for publication in 1832-1833.
Hiram Page in an 1848 letter to William McLellin left no indication in his recollection that he had misgivings about the revelation or his trip to Kingston.
But when we got there, there was no purchaser neither were they authorized at Kingston to buy rights for the provence; but little York was the place where such buisaness had to be done, we were to get 8,000 dollars[.] we were treated with the best of respects by all we met with in Kingston—by the above we may learn how a revlation may be received and the person receving it not be benafited.
Rather than a false revelation, he remembered it as just not a beneficial one.
But Joseph did know how to tell the difference between a true revelation or not: David Whitmer described the process, even though he may not have realized it: you can ask God if it was a true revelation or not. David apparently had no issue believing the second revelation.
David goes on to describe how he had a witness of the Book of Mormon, but he did not have the same testimony regarding Joseph's role as a prophet, and he believed Joseph to be easily deceived. He disagreed with the whole concept of the Church having a leader, and so disagreed with the whole idea that Joseph could receive revelations for the Church and felt the Bible and Book of Mormon sufficient.
Oliver Cowdery was the first to challenge Joseph's authority in June 1830. He disagreed with the requirement for baptism in the revelation in what is now Doctrine and Covenants 20 that they "truly manifest by their works that they have received the gift of Christ unto the remission of their sins," saying it was not scriptural, and wrote to Joseph saying, "I command you in the name of God to erase those words, that no priestcraft be amongst us." Joseph traveled from Harmony to Fayette and with support from Christian Whitmer, he was able to convince Oliver and the Whitmer family the correctness of the revelation.
A similar thing happened in September 1830, when Hiram Page claimed to be receiving revelations through his own seer stone. Joseph was again planning to talk with them, but he found that many supported Hiram, including Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmer family, and so Joseph Smith thought it best to seek a revelation on the matter. This revelation is what is now Doctrine and Covenants 28, and instructs that Joseph Smith is like Moses, and he is the only one appointed to receive commandments and revelations for the entire Church. Oliver was instructed to tell Hiram Page privately that Satan had deceived him, and that what he had written from the stone were not from the Lord.
Joseph taught how to tell true from false revelations, and had experience in doing so. I have more to say on that, but I'll continue with another item from Jeremy before coming back to it.
Elder Boyd K. Packer said the following:“Be ever on guard lest you be deceived by inspiration from an unworthy source. You can be given false spiritual messages. There are counterfeit spirits just as there are counterfeit angels. (See Moro. 7:17.) Be careful lest you be deceived, for the devil may come disguised as an angel of light.
The spiritual part of us and the emotional part of us are so closely linked that is possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual. We occasionally find people who receive what they assume to be spiritual promptings from God, when those promptings are either centered in the emotions or are from the adversary.”
What kind of a method is this if Heavenly Father allows Satan to interfere with our direct line of communication to Him? Sincerely asking for and seeking answers?
Are we now expected to not only figure out when a prophet is speaking as a prophet and not as a man while also trying to figure out whether our answers to prayer are from God, from the devil, or from ourselves?
The idea that Satan can appear as an angel of light is a Biblical one. In 2 Corinthians 11 Paul feared that that just as the serpent beguiled Eve, that they might accept someone who came preaching another Jesus or another gospel. He warned against false apostles, saying, "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." Similarly, Paul told the Galations "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Joseph Smith taught many other things about telling the difference between true and false revelations. In the fall of 1830, many people had joined the Church in Kirtland, but were left without any experienced leadership until John Whitmer arrived in January 1831. He wrote
the enemy of all righteous had got hold of some of those who profesed to <be> his followers, because they had not sufficent knowledge to detect him in all his devices. He took a notion to blind their minds of some of the weaker ones, and made them think that an angel of God appeard to them, and showed them writingsandon the outside cover of the Bible, and on parchment, which flew through the air, and on the back of their hands, and many such foolish and vain things, others lost their strength, and somescooted<slid>andon the floor, and such like maneuvers, which proved greatly to th[e] injury of the cause.
Parley P. Pratt reported similar things. In addition, a woman referred to as Mrs. Hubble claimed to receive revelations for the Church. Joseph arrived in February and spent time regulating the Church. In response to the things I've mentioned, Joseph received revelations in February and May that would become Doctrine and Covenants 43 and 50 that would help people not be deceived.
The first said that only Joseph was authorized to receive revelations for the Church, affirming the revelation from the September previous. The second one provides instructions on how to find out the source of those spiritual manifestations:
Wherefore, it shall come to pass, that if you behold a spirit manifested that you cannot understand, and you receive not that spirit, ye shall ask of the Father in the name of Jesus; and if he give not unto you that spirit, then you may know that it is not of God.
And it shall be given unto you, power over that spirit; and you shall proclaim against that spirit with a loud voice that it is not of God
In the months that followed, the Saints followed these instructions, including Joseph Smith. According to Levi Hancock, after Joseph ordained Harvey Whitlock to the high Priesthood, his skin went black, his eyes went wide and he acted strangely. Hyrum told Joseph that it was not God, but Joseph at first said "do not speak against this." But Hyrum insisted he inquire of God. Joseph bowed his head a short time, then got up laid his hands on Harvey's head, and commanded Satan to leave.
This wasn't the first time that Satan had attempted to deceive Joseph. In a September 1842 letter (now canonized as Doctrine and Covenants 128) Joseph mentioned "the voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light." We don't have any further record of this event. I am reminded of the Book of Moses where Satan appeared to Moses attempting to deceive him, but Moses recognized that he had no glory, and was unable to resist when Moses commanded him to depart in the name of the Only Begotten.
Joseph continued to teach how to detect Satan. In a 27 June 1838 discourse, he taught that angels have resurrected bodies that you could feel, and those who are not yet resurrected would never offer their hand. Parley P. Pratt and likely Orson Pratt were not there when the instruction was given. In February 1843, he shared these instructions with them, which was later canonized as Doctrine and Covenants 129.
In short, yes, Satan will try to deceive us. But Heavenly Father has given us ways to be able to tell the difference between true and false messengers, and between true and false manifestations of the Spirit.
5. As a believing Mormon, I saw a testimony as more than just spiritual experiences and feelings.
And it is. The Lord told Oliver Cowdery in Doctrine and Covenants 8 "I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost," and that is the spirit of revelation. In Doctrine and Covenants 9, the Lord told him that He wouldn't just give it him, but that he must "study it out" in his mind. The Spirit is more than just "feelings"—Joseph Smith described it as "pure intelligence flowing unto you".
I saw that we had “evidence” and “logic” on our side based on the correlated narrative I was fed by the Church about its origins.
The "correlated narrative" is that a testimony only comes from God, and should not be based on evidence alone, and in my experience, the Church largely doesn't focus on outside evidence.
Personally, I find the evidence that supports the Church compelling, but I recognize that it serves to support the spiritual witness I have received, and doesn't prove anything on their own. The only way to learn about spiritual things is by revelation from the Spirit.
I lost this confidence when I discovered that the gap between what the Church teaches about its origins and what the primary historical documents actually show happened, and between what history shows what happened and what science shows what happened…couldn’t be further apart.
So Jeremy says that he lost confidence in evidence and logic that supported the Church after learning more about history. Given that that is his primary focus in the CES Letter, I can't say I am surprised. However, as we have reviewed his criticisms, it seems that he has some unrealistic expectations of scripture and of how history gets recorded, not to mention it appears he has a preconception that prophets must be infallible.
Beginning in September 2018, the Church began publishing a new four-volume history of the Church, called Saints, available in the gospel library which I recommend. It is a narrative history, telling the history of the Church from the perspective of the women and men who lived it, without going beyond the historical sources.
I read an experience that explains this in another way:“I resigned from the LDS Church and informed my bishop that the reasons had to do with discovering the real history of the Church. When I was done, he asked about the spiritual witness I had surely received as a missionary. I agreed that I had felt a sure witness, as strong as he currently felt. I gave him the analogy of Santa; I believed in Santa until I was 12. I refused to listen to reason from my friends who had discovered the truth much earlier…I just knew. However, once I learned the facts, feelings changed. I told him that Mormons have to re-define faith in order to believe; traditionally, faith is an instrument to bridge that gap between where science, history and logic end, and what you hope to be true. Mormonism re-defines faith as embracing what you hope to be true in spite of science, fact, and history.”
I'm not sure how old I was when I stopped believing in Santa, but it was for a combination of reasons. Movies depicting Santa had different explanations of his origin. My parents knew to swap my gift with a sister, saying "Santa made a mistake." I found a stack of presents in my parent's closet while I was playing hide and seek. We had no fireplace, so we had no real Santa tradition anyway. One day my parents sat us all down to tell us there was no Santa, and we laughed and said, "yeah, we know."
My experience gaining a testimony of the restored gospel was different. When I was 15 or so, I read the Book of Mormon for the first time. Before then, I didn't actually know the Church was true, I was just going through the motions. But the Church asks a lot and it is a big commitment to sacrifice so much for something you aren't sure of. I read and prayed. One day as I specifically prayed for forgiveness, I received a spiritual manifestation that I had been cleansed of my sins. As I continued to read the Book of Moron and Doctrine and Covenants, I learned through the Spirit that the Book of Mormon was true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and this was Jesus Christ's restored Church. Because of these experiences, when I share my testimony that "I know the Church is true" I'm not just saying words, and it is more than just a belief.
This person uses the analogy of Santa to suggest his or her testimony went like: believe → doubt → just accept it → can't maintain faith anymore. They say they felt a "sure witness" of the restored gospel as they did about Santa. But did they pray about the restored gospel? They didn't mention praying about Santa.
I said earlier that I don't judge others on their spiritual experiences. On the flip side, if someone claimed they "felt a sure witness, as strong as he currently felt" about me, that implies they know how strong my witness was, which they cannot know. When they compare their sure witness to believing in Santa, although I don't know what their experience was like, but I know it was different than mine.
Mormonism doesn't "re-define" faith—like other faiths it does bridge the gap between what you see and do not. They suggest that it is different, but they seem to be unaware that all religion has "problems" with science, fact, and history.
Steve "Dusty" Smith had left the Church after studying and discovering things he didn't believe and hadn't heard before. He began fighting against the Church, and was anti-Mormon for at least 20 years. He eventually rejoined the Church because he prayed about it and the Spirit taught him answers to each of his concerns. The Spirit is more than just feelings, and faith isn't about "ignoring problems" but is about believing what you can't see.
6. Paul H. Dunn: Dunn was a General Authority of the Church for many years. He was a very popular speaker who told powerful faith-promoting war and baseball stories. Many times Dunn shared these stories in the presence of the prophet, apostles, and seventies. Stories such as how God protected him as enemy machine-gun bullets ripped away his clothing, gear, and helmet without ever touching his skin and how he was preserved by the Lord. Members of the Church shared how they strongly felt the Spirit as they listened to Dunn’s testimony and stories.
Unfortunately, Dunn was later caught lying about his war and baseball stories and was forced to apologize to the members. He became the first General Authority to gain “emeritus” status and was removed from public church life.
What about the members who felt the Spirit from Dunn’s fabricated and false stories? What does this say about the Spirit and what the Spirit really is?
Paul H. Dunn served as a Seventy from 1964 to 1989, and before that he worked as a seminary teacher. During that period of time, he told many stories about his life that he embellished. The biggest exaggerations were that a friend died in his arms in the war, and stories about playing for the St. Louis Cardinals. In fact, the friend was still alive, and Dunn only played baseball in high school, the Army, and "semi-pro" leagues, a euphemism for commercial league.
For some history, the first General Authorities given emeritus status were in October 1978. The November Ensign had a brief article explaining what that meant. A 2012 Deseret News article goes into more detail about how people feel about emeritus status. Paul H. Dunn was given emeritus status along with seven others in October 1989, the second batch to be given emeritus status.
President Hinckley said it was "in consideration of factors of age and health," but Lynn Packer believes it was because of a speech he was going to give a couple weeks earlier at the Sunstone Symposium. The speech was cancelled, but he says rumors triggered an internal investigation into Paul Dunn.
Over two years later in February 1991, Elder Dunn admitted that he had embellished stories, saying that he didn't even think of it that way, that he was combining true stories and exaggerating events to be more relatable or to illustrate a point. The Church issued a statement, which was published along with the Associated Press article in the Deseret News reporting on the story the same day which affirmed that he was given emeritus status for age and health, and they had no way of fully or finally verifying the accuracy his accounts, and offering their appreciation for Elder Dunn's service.
In October 1991, Paul H. Dunn requested the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to send an open letter to members of the Church, where he confessed to not always being accurate, and apologized to those he may have offended. He said that after being investigated by other General Authorities over a long period of time that they "censured" him and "placed a heavy penalty" upon him.
Given that these stories were shared before my time, and as far as I know, no one has claimed that the Spirit testified that the stories Elder Dunn shared were true, I don't know that it says anything about the Spirit's capability of testifying of truth. As I maintain from an earlier paragraph, when it comes to the Spirit, I can only rely on my own experiences, not anyone else's.
7. The following are counsels from members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on how to gain a testimony:
These are all going to be quotes on bearing a testimony as a way to gain a testimony, and Jeremy will criticize it saying we are just convincing ourselves. However, I want to say in advance that this is just one way to gain a testimony. And I would argue that it is only effective if you already believe. One quote that Jeremy doesn't share, I think explains it best.
"At your meetings you should begin at he top of the roll and call upon as many members as there is time for to bear their testimonies and at the next meeting begin where you left off and call upon others, so that all shall take part and get into the practice of standing up and saying something. Many may think they haven't any testimony to bear, but get them to stand up and they will find the Lord will give them utterance to many truths they had not thought of before. More people have obtained a testimony while standing up trying to bear it than down on their knees praying for it."
– Brigham Young, "Historic Sketch of the Y. M. M. I. A."
The scriptures teach that the Lord will give us what to say "in the very hour, yea, in the very moment," and this is putting that principle into action.
“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!”
– Boyd K. Packer, The Quest for Spiritual Knowledge
This is a shortened version of the talk quoted earlier, The Candle of the Lord. Elder Boyd K. Packer quoted Moroni when he taught that "ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith" and that bearing your testimony can be considered a trial of faith. He also was aware that this idea would be criticized, and he says:
The skeptic will say that to bear testimony when you may not know you possess one is to condition yourself; that the response is manufactured. Well, one thing for sure, the skeptic will never know, for he will not meet the requirement of faith, humility, and obedience to qualify him for the visitation of the Spirit.Can you not see that that is where testimony is hidden, protected perfectly from the insincere, from the intellectual, from the mere experimenter, the arrogant, the faithless, the proud? It will not come to them.Bear testimony of the things that you hope are true, as an act of faith. It is something of an experiment, akin to the experiment that the prophet Alma proposed to his followers. We begin with faith—not with a perfect knowledge of things.
All of this comes after talking about how it is likely our testimonies are stronger than we realize. I don't think he's asking us to bear testimony of things we don't know, but of things he thinks we actually do know, and we just don't know that we know yet.
“Another way to seek a testimony seems astonishing when compared with the methods of obtaining other knowledge. We gain or strengthen a testimony by bearing it. Someone even suggested that some testimonies are better gained on the feet bearing them than on the knees praying for them.”
– Dallin H. Oaks, Testimony
Here, Elder Oaks teaches several ways one can gain a testimony for those that desire to have one. The Lord promises revelation to those who ask. Alma fasted and prayed many days. Jesus taught that "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."
Everyone has different gifts of the Spirit, and so the way we gain our testimonies will also be different.
“It may come as you bear your own testimony of the Prophet…Consider recording the testimony of Joseph Smith in your own voice, listening to it regularly…Listening to the Prophet’s testimony in your own voice will help bring the witness you seek.”
– Neil L. Andersen, Joseph Smith
This is also just one of many ways he gives to receive a testimony, in addition to prayer, reading the first vision, the book of Mormon, or going to the temple. One of his suggestions was to "find scriptures in the Book of Mormon you feel and know are absolutely true" and share them. Clearly his intended audience has some degree of testimony already.
In other words, repeat things over and over until you convince yourself that it’s true. Just keep telling yourself, “I know it’s true…I know it’s true…I know it’s true” until you actually believe it and you have a testimony that the Church is true and Joseph Smith was a prophet.How is this honest? How is this ethical? What kind of advice are these apostles giving when they’re telling you that if you don’t have a testimony, bear one anyway? How is this not lying? There is a difference between saying you know something and saying you believe something.
I posted Brigham Young's remarks first, because that's the way I see it. It is not repeating things over and over until you convince yourself it is true, it is sharing what you already know to be true, and the Spirit confirms to you that what you shared was true.
For me personally, I did not gain my testimony in this way, but I have experienced something similar. On two occasions, I answered questions that people asked me about the Church with what I believed to be true, but the Spirit instead taught me that what I was teaching was not correct. Later on, I studied what I was trying to share and I learned the truth for myself, that I really was wrong. If sharing testimony really was just self-deception, then that shouldn't have happened. The Spirit only teaches truth, and in my experience, the Spirit will let you know when you are wrong just as He will let you know when you are right.
Speaking of being honest, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland gave a talk on testimony where he reminded us of the figure in the Bible who said to Jesus, "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." He taught that we should be honest in our desire for a testimony.
When doubt or difficulty come, do not be afraid to ask for help. If we want it as humbly and honestly as this father did, we can get it. The scriptures phrase such earnest desire as being of “real intent,” pursued “with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God.” I testify that in response to that kind of importuning, God will send help from both sides of the veil to strengthen our belief.
… A 14-year-old boy recently said to me a little hesitantly, “Brother Holland, I can’t say yet that I know the Church is true, but I believe it is.” I hugged that boy until his eyes bulged out. I told him with all the fervor of my soul that belief is a precious word, an even more precious act, and he need never apologize for “only believing.” I told him that Christ Himself said, “Be not afraid, only believe,” a phrase which, by the way, carried young Gordon B. Hinckley into the mission field. I told this boy that belief was always the first step toward conviction and that the definitive articles of our collective faith forcefully reiterate the phrase “We believe.” And I told him how very proud I was of him for the honesty of his quest.
And yes, there is a difference between knowing and believing something. As Elder Oaks taught, it is a different kind of knowledge, but when I say I know Jesus is my Savior, I use that word intentionally. No, it doesn't mean I have seen with my eyes, but I have received an undeniable witness of the Spirit, and that is the only way to know the truth about spiritual things.
What about members and investigators who are on the other side listening to your “testimony”? How are they supposed to know whether you actually do have a testimony of Mormonism or if you’re just following Packer’s, Oaks’, and Andersen’s counsel and you’re lying your way into one?
I don't think it really matters how strong their testimony is, or even whether they have one. Like, I don't think Jeremy is saying, "If apostles clearly instructed to only share a testimony if you have one, then that would mean members and investigators know that you actually have a testimony."
The purpose of bearing our testimony isn't really to let people know we have one, it is to invite the Spirit to witness of the truths of the gospel.
8. There are many members who share their testimonies that the Spirit told them that they were to marry this person or go to this school or move to this location or start up this business or invest in this investment. They rely on this Spirit in making critical life decisions. When the decision turns out to be not only incorrect but disastrous, the fault lies on the individual and never on the Spirit. The individual didn’t have the discernment or it was the individual’s hormones talking or it was the individual’s greed talking or the individual wasn’t worthy at the time.
I'm not going to presume to judge others in their experiences with the Spirit. The Spirit has always been reliable in my life. While it is true that it is important to learn to tell the difference between the Spirit and your own thoughts and feelings, there are also examples in the scriptures and modern-day teachings where the Spirit provides a lesson that appears incorrect or disastrous.
Sometimes God gives us what we ask for, even knowing it would be disastrous. Look no farther than the lost 116 pages. Joseph Smith petitioned the Lord three times on Martin Harris' behalf to take the manuscript so that he could show his wife. He was told "no" the first two times, but the third time, the Lord permitted him to show five named family members. But Martin broke his promise, and the pages were stolen. This served as a lesson to them on the importance of putting the Lord first and following His counsel.
I believe that the Spirit is a teacher. And the Spirit will teach us in a way that is more effective than what we would have thought. That's another reason I don't deny other people their spiritual experiences, because I don't know what sort of lesson the Spirit might be teaching them right now.
I am reminded the story of Wrong Roads and Revelation, published in the July 2005 New Era where a boy and his father prayed about which turn to take. In that story, the Spirit took them down a wrong road which immediately led to a dead end. But although it was the wrong road, it immediately taught them it was wrong, and therefore when they turned around, they were confident they were on the right road.
The Spirit is perfect, we are not. But we can know whether something was from the Spirit by praying and asking. We can also pray to learn what sort of lesson the Spirit was teaching us.
This poses a profound flaw and dilemma: if individuals can be so convinced that they’re being led by the Spirit but yet be so wrong about what the Spirit tells them, how can they be sure of the reliability of this same exact process and method in telling them that Mormonism is true?
How are faith and feelings reliable pathways to truth? Is there anything one couldn’t believe based on faith and feelings?
If faith and feelings can lead one to believe and accept the truth claims of any one of the hundreds of thousands of contradictory religions and thousands of contradictory gods...how then are faith and feelings reliable pathways to truth?
Feelings are not the Spirit. The Spirit is reliable, but our own emotions are not. I recommend getting in tune with the Spirit, and then gain experience with the Spirit, and then it becomes a lot more clear how to tell the difference.
9. I felt the Spirit watching Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List. Both R-rated and horribly violent movies. I also felt the Spirit watching Forrest Gump and the The Lion King. After learning these disturbing issues, I attended a conference where former Mormons shared their stories. The same Spirit I felt telling me that Mormonism is true and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet is the same Spirit I felt in all of the above experiences.
Does this mean that The Lion King is true? That Mufasa is real and true? Does this mean that Forrest Gump is real and the story happened in real life? Why did I feel the Spirit as I listened to the stories of “apostates” sharing how they discovered for themselves that Mormonism is not true? Why is this Spirit so unreliable and inconsistent? How can I trust such an inconsistent and contradictory Source for knowing that Mormonism is worth betting my life, time, money, heart, mind, and obedience to?
I'm not one to judge the spiritual experiences of others, but based on Jeremy's questions, I'm inclined to think he is confusing "feeling good" for "feeling the Spirit." Not every time you feel good means it is the Spirit. And when you do feel the Spirit, He is there to teach you something. You feel the Spirit in both your mind and your heart.
So no, Mufasa is not real and true. But perhaps the Spirit is reminding you of who you are: a child of a King.
I remember a lesson I learned from watching a piece of fiction which also serves as a lesson on how faith works. It comes from "Yesterday's Enterprise" which is an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. In it, they were in an alternate reality, but only Guinan realized it. Even though she didn't have any evidence, Captain Picard followed her advice. The Spirit taught me that that is what faith was. Captain Picard didn't follow her because he was brainwashed, not thinking for himself, or just doing what he was told. He had developed experiences with Guinan over the years, and so trusted her.
And that is also how I have come to trust the Spirit.
The following mind-blowing video raises some profound and thought-provoking questions about the reliability of “a witness from the Holy Ghost” for discerning truth and reality: CESLETTER.ORG/SPIRIT
It's not really mind-blowing, it's a video where a guy talks about how people in other faiths also claim to have spiritual guidance, and so he claims that the Spirit is therefore unreliable, which is what Jeremy has been talking about all along.
Again, I can't judge other people's spiritual experiences because that's between them and God. I only know what God told me, and He hasn't told me what he may or may not have told these others. Instead, I can only ask you to consider: what other method can we know God exists, except He reveals Himself to us?
On my mission in the South, I was also told that I cannot rely on prayer, that the Bible was all I needed. When asked how they know the Bible is true, they typically gave me the circular answer "because it says it's true." Maybe you have a long list of evidence, but I also find my long list of evidence for the Book of Mormon compelling. But lets say that even if the Bible and/or Book of Mormon were proven to be true, how do we know the doctrine they teach comes from God, and wasn't written by the Devil?
Paul taught that "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost" and I agree. The only way to know about spiritual things is by revelation from the Spirit.
Next: Priesthood Restoration
No comments:
Post a Comment