Some Excellent, Practical Advice to Help Us Find Peace

I almost never share things here that I find being forwarded on Facebook or other similar sites, but I came across this one today and want to share it with everyone here:

1. Make peace with your past, so it won't screw up your present. 

2. What others think of you is none of your business.
 
3. Time heals almost everything, so give it time.
 
4. Don't compare your life to others, and don't judge them. You have no idea what their lives are all about.
 
5. Stop thinking too much; it's okay not to know all the answers. Many of them will come to you when you least expect it.
 
6. No one is in charge of your happiness, except you.
 
7. Smile. You don't own all the problems in the world.

Knowing a God Whose Ways Are Not Our Ways

I have thought periodically about the tension between the idea that life eternal is to know God and the statement that God's ways are not our ways - as well as the complete and obvious lack of objectivity when it comes to human perceptions and conceptions of the divine.

I have been asked, in one way or another, about how I view God given this paradox, and I have struggled to answer that question concisely - as everyone who knows me will understand.

The following is my attempt to explain how I view God, given my recognition of the competing statements within our canonized scriptures:

I have solved the central dilemma for myself simply by acknowledging that I don't really know God objectively and avoiding any kind of dogmatic definition in the first place. Thus, I am free to take whatever I like from any and all views - even if that means I have conflicting, paradoxical "definitions" operating simultaneously.

It's really liberating to be able to say,

"I love the concept of God being my Father, but I also can see great value in Voltaire's absentee clockmaker God - and that God condescended to become human to know us at the most basic, intimate level - and that God is a condition that allows all of us to be gods - and that god is collective unity - and that God is the spiritual unifying essence of the universe - and that God is a conceptual ideal for which we can strive - etc."

I really don't have "a definition" - or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I accept and embrace an unrestrained definition that allows for alteration through addition as I encounter new views from which I can take something that resonates with me. I tend to reject the either/or constructs and accept instead a both/and framework.

For what it's worth, that is my basic approach to pretty much everything that I can't prove conclusively. It eliminates a lot of angst and adds wonderful surprises to my life.

Certainty, Not a Lack or Loss of Faith, Causes Many Faith Crises

I believe the expectation of knowledge over acceptance of faith causes a lot of crises. Those crises are not caused by losing faith; they are caused by losing certainly. 

In fact, I believe certainly breeds many crises. A crisis can't occur without the breaking of certainty - and certainty is a lack of faith, in a very real and important way. If we insist on knowing everything, we lose the ability to believe the unseen - and seeing something that doesn't fit our certainty shatters that certainty - since we can't hold on to what is left - that which still is unseen.

Working through a faith crisis is, to a large degree, an acceptance of uncertainty - a willingness to wait and not leap to conclusions (generally the opposite of previous conclusions, as in the example of a completely zealous Mormon who becomes an equally zealous Anti-Mormon).

Working patiently through a faith crisis involves patience and weighing of options (multiple, complex, mixed-up, paradoxical options), and that is opposed to certainly and the expectation of knowledge. It requires faith that an answer might exist beyond the simple, two-dimensional caricatures at the extremes of the spectrum - and that "the answer" might not come in the desired time frame.

My Talk Last Sunday: Testimony and Conversion

Here is the outline of my talk last Sunday.

I added my commentary to each numbered element.  If you have any questions about any element, let me know.

___________________________________________________________________

Testimony and Conversion 

1) "Testimony" means "witness" - which means something seen or experienced, felt or believed, certain or hoped. It does NOT mean "known intellectually". (Use court room example, then examples of spiritual witnesses: in church, in nature, in the temple, burning in the bosom, great peace or calm or love, sudden clarity, stroke of pure intelligence, etc.) Some people never have experiences they feel comfortable saying they can accept as proof of things others feel they know. Given this disparity of experience, I love the following verses:

2) D&C 46: 13-14

"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."

"The CofJCofLDS is a place for people with all kinds of testimonies. There are some members of the church whose testimonies are sure and burn brightly within them. Others are still striving to know for themselves. The church is a home for all to come together, regardless of the depth or the height of their testimonies. I know of no sign on the door of our meeting houses that says, "Your testimony must be this tall to enter." - Pres. Uchtdorf, October 2014 General Conference (Receiving a Testimony of Light and Truth)

Brothers and sisters, how true that is here in our ward depends on us and how completely we accept it.

3) James 1:22

"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only."

"In contrast to the organizations of the world, which teach us to know something, the Gospel of Jesus Christ challenges us to become something." - Elder Oaks, October 2000 General Conference (The Challenge to Become)

4) "I Am a Child of God" - The wording was changed from, "Teach me all that I must know," to, "Teach me all that I must do." I would love to see it changed once more, this time to, "Teach me all that I must BE."  (A friend suggested, "Teach me all that I CAN be."  I love that suggestion.)

5) "Conversion" means "change" - as does "repent". Thus, one repents (acts / does) in order to become converted (be). In other words, one changes in order to become changed - or to be born and raised and grown up again - or to become a new creature in Christ - or to become Christ-like.

6) Discuss reactive repentance and proactive repentance. (For reference here, the following is a lesson outline from my Sunday School class last summer that dealt with reactive and proactive repentance:

Repentance: A Deeper, Fresh View

In conclusion:

"Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair." - Gilbert Chesterton 

Simple Belief is OK: or, You Can Stay Even if You Don't Know

I want to share the beginning of a conversation I had once with a friend who was struggling to accept the fact that he hadn't had an undeniable spiritual witness, even though he loved the Church and his life in it.  I hope it helps someone, somehow, who reads it - and I think it says something about our culture that de-emphasizes and even de-values faith in its near obsession with knowing. 

First, his description of his dilemma (bolding is mine):

I joined the church two years ago and I have never really known that the church is true. I was baptized as I believed everything I was taught (It all made complete sense to me) and I wanted so much for it to be true and thought I would get the confirmation as I lived my life as the best member I could. I love the church and I love the gospel, but I have still never had it confirmed to me that this is the true church. I have never felt the spirit, and as much as I want to stay in the church, having now been a member for two years and still not having confirmation is making it difficult to remain and making it difficult to keep lying to my friends.

I don't know what to do anymore. Everyone thinks I am this super strong member with a wonderful testimony, but in all reality I am just following the crowd. I have tried so hard and prayed so sincerely but have had no response. I have taught lessons on recognizing the spirit many times and know for a fact that I have never felt the spirit.

I am still active within the church as I love my life as a member and I love everything that I stand for as a member, but I am struggling so much with the basic fundamentals that I don't know how much longer I can continue lying.

Now, my response:

Just some questions for you to consider personally. Don't feel any pressure to answer them in writing, unless you want to do so. They are meant to cause introspection and challenge what I believe are unrealistic expectations.

1) Why do you need a strong spiritual witness if you love the Church and the Gospel taught in it? I mean that sincerely. Stop and consider why you feel you need something to justify your happiness.

2) Why do you need more than what you describe having? What you describe is wonderful.

3) Why do you feel you are lying? Are you saying things in a dishonest way - or do you equate others thinking differently about you than you feel about yourself as lying? If so, realize that nobody sees you like you see yourself, since they don't know you like you know yourself. It's unavoidable; it simply "is"; it can't be changed - and it certainly is not dishonesty for it to occur.

4) Think of this simple statement:

"To some is given to know . . . to others is given to believe . . ."

Why aren't you OK with believing without knowing, if the scriptures of your faith tradition say it's totally natural and acceptable for that to be the case - and go even further by calling your ability to believe without knowledge a "gift" from God?

5) For what it's worth, expectations are two-edged swords. My suggestion: Stop using the sword of unrealistic expectations against yourself. Easier said than done, I know, but at least recognize in hindsight what you are doing, so you eventually can work on letting go in the moment.

I think it would be a tragedy if you allowed yourself to guilt yourself out of the Church over something where there is no "wrong" about which to feel guilty. After all, God is credited as having said that to some is given to believe. Thus, according to our scriptures, you are completely "righteous" (right with God) in that state of simply believing.

Seek Diligently for Truth, No Matter Where It Is Found

I believe deeply in finding truth in everything.  I think that outlook is a fundamental part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (see Moroni 7: 5-19, especially) and Joseph Smith's philosophy that animated the Restoration and his role as a prophet.

I was asked once if organized religion loses potency when it admits there is truth in everything - that a religion doesn't posses or even understand all truth and that "the fulness of the Gospel" doesn't include an understanding of all truth. My response was that it does not, according to Joseph Smith - or the notion of a process called the "restoration of all things" through on-going / continuing revelation.

Part of the grandeur I see in pure Mormonism is the audacity to believe that all truth can be circumscribed into one whole - and that striving to comprehend that whole is worth the effort. Limiting that whole to what we know now, and denying that there still is truth outside our current understanding to be included in the circumscription process (including things that others know of which we are not aware), goes against the very core of the Restoration.

A good friend of mine once wrote the following when he was asked about believing there is truth in every religion, denomination, faith tradition, science, etc.

1. If something is proven to be true, or beyond reasonable doubt, it's simply part of the gospel. As we study the creation, and the processes whereby creation occurred, I come to be in awe of the creator. Scientific discovery does not diminish my regard for god, it enhances my understanding of the absolute miracle of god's inherent power: nature. That god works entirely through nature is part of what Joseph Smith said, at least, in section 88, one of his most important and thoughtful revelations.

2. If something true is in conflict with scripture, then we need to re-evaluate our literal understanding of the scripture. I have to recognize how scripture was written in the mind and heart of the revelator, and thus, it's going to include the revelator's worldview. Obviously, this is controversial to those who believe that scripture is literally and forever true. Scripture is the milk -- it is not the meat of the gospel. As we grow up in our understanding, we sometimes need to set aside childish things.

3. There are a host of things that cannot be proven, and we need to take an attitude of suspended judgment for these things. I don't know if we pre-existed. I think it's a very useful model as part of the Plan of Salvation, but I simply don't know. Is it imperative for me to say "I know we lived with god before this life"? I believe it, I trust in it, but I cannot explain it. I don't know how it works.

4. I should never be afraid of truth. If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did some pretty whacked out things, then I think it important to understand their humanity. I'm not afraid of it. I can understand how once you know that JS did a number of questionable things, that it's hard to believe that he was also a 'prophet', but I don't have a problem with it. I'm sure some people think I'm intellectually dishonest as a result. Whatever; truth is truth. Judgment is entirely another matter. I think it's true that Joseph did some pretty human things. My judgment is not affected by it -- he's still a prophet. He still facilitated the restoration. I find truth in the restoration, and therefore I can only conclude that God uses imperfect humans to do his work. This should be obvious from scripture. 

In summary, going back to my first thoughts in this post, as I am exposed to the thoughts, beliefs, discoveries, etc. of others, I try hard to make sure my initial response is:

What truth can I learn from this - no matter the source? 

I Wish We Talked about Faith More and Knowledge Less

Faith, simply defined, is the decision to continue to act in the face of uncertainty. Faith exists as an element of humility; it dies as arrogance solidifies. Therefore, faith never changes in nature; it just ebbs and flows in degree.

I believe that is vitally important to understand. It's not faith that changes; it's uncertainty and certainty that change - through the acquisition of knowledge (facts). Facts move faith from its original focus to a new focus on something else believed but not seen.

Faith is empowering. Faith drives inquiry. Faith drives discovery. Faith drives innovation. Faith drives charity. Faith drives courtship. Faith drives revelation. Faith drives experimentation. Faith drives progress. Faith drives growth.

The lack of faith (the surety of absolute certainty) drives closed minds. It also drives fanaticism. It drives oppression. It drives arrogance. It drives stagnation. 

It's interesting that Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit . . . meek . . . merciful . . ." - NOT "Blessed are those who know everything." It's interesting that he said, "Seek (an action undertaken ONLY by those who understand they don't know everything) and ye shall find." It's interesting that Moroni didn't say, "He will manifest it unto you . . . Ye may know all things." Rather, he said, "He will manifest THE TRUTH OF IT unto you . . . Ye many know THE TRUTH OF all things."

In focusing on faith, I am not dismissing knowledge, but I am saying that knowledge is only the eternal end goal for me. For me, in the here and now, it's much more the journey - the pursuit - the seeking than it is a final, completed acquisition in mortality.

To Some Is Given Not to Know or Believe

According to our scriptures (D&C 46:13-14):

To some is given to know . . .

To some is given to believe on those who know . . .

I would add:

To some is given not to know or believe, but to do the best they can, regardless.

I've said before that I feel sympathy for Laman and Lemuel when they said, "He maketh no such thing known unto us." (1 Nephi 15:19)  Maybe they just were being totally honest and snapped when Lehi and Nephi couldn't understand that. Maybe they couldn't handle the constant, unrealistic expectations and got pushed over the edge. On the other hand, maybe they really were nothing more than wicked jerks - but I tend to think it was WAY more complicated than that.

So, I'm left with the belief that people perceive and feel and intuit and know differently - which is why "all men everywhere" (including inside the LDS Church) must be allowed to "worship almighty God according to the dictates of (their) own conscience".  It's why I love the simple words of Jesus in Matthew 7:20 when he focused away from professed belief and zeroed in on actions:

Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.

Over-Valuing Knowledge at the Expense of Faith

I want to know as much as I can, but I think in our current Mormon culture we over-value knowing and under-value believing and having faith.

I believe in absolute truth, but I don't believe we have the ability to understand it very well. In other words, I believe we see through a glass, darkly - and all that is required of us is to live according to whatever we are able to see, regardless of how accurate it is in comparison to absolute truth.

Accepting that simple belief has set me free in a very real way - to open my mind to the possibility of finding truth in everything around me, including faith traditions I can't accept fully. 

To Feel, Believe, Know, Do or Become

I believe what we DO trumps what we FEEL or BELIEVE or even KNOW when it comes right down to it - and what we BECOME is most important of all.

Testifying of That Which I Don't Know

When I speak or bear my testimony, I sometimes include something along the lines of:

"There are a lot of things I can't say I know or understand very well yet, but I do know (or "but I believe strongly that" or "I have faith that"). . ."

I've found that pretty much everyone understands that sentiment - and only a few people complain if I testify of something I can't say I "know".

Some Things I "Know" - and What "I Know" Means to Me

I think people only can "know" their own experiences.

This is why I am comfortable with the following statements from anyone, regardless of religious affiliation, among others:

"I know that God lives and loves me."

"I know that our situations and circumstances are known to and understood by God."

"I know that there is great joy and peace that comes from striving to acquire the characteristics of godliness found in our scriptures."

"I know we are blessed when we serve others - especially when we do so with no expectation of reward other than what comes into our hearts."

There are lots of things I "believe" - but there also are lots of things that my own, personal experiences have taught me in ways that are undeniable to me. I'm fine saying I "know" these things - especially since I agree we "know" (for ourselves) those things we experience and internalize.

Finally, since I reserve the right to define terms according to what makes sense for me, I have NO problem with others doing the same - even when how they define things differs from how I define them. As I've said here previously, if I want that consideration from others, I really should be willing to grant them the same consideration. If someone feels comfortable saying they "know" certain things (almost always based on their own experiences), who am I to say they are wrong? I don't want to carry the burden of judging others that way, so I don't.

Of course, that means I and someone else can "know" opposite things - but that's ok. Chances are, neither of us is 100% correct - so what does it hurt me to be charitable in this way? Nothing.

One Thing I Know: Journeying Within the LDS Church

Objectively, I know very little when it comes to religious things. I just don't. I'm a reasonably intelligent guy, so I can justify intellectually just about anything I want to justify - and I can do it in a way that is logical and somewhat compelling. What I "know" is that it's up to me to construct a paradigm in which I can grow and progress to the best of my ability - that I can't let anyone else dictate what that paradigm looks like.

When I say, "I know," I always mean "for myself" - "according to my understanding". I really like the way Nephi phrases that concept, so I borrow from it. "My experiences have taught me personally" is how I define "I know" in this context - so I'm fine in saying things like "I know the Gospel is true" and even "I know the Church is true" - since I define "true" as "on target" (true flight of an arrow) or "pointed in the right direction" (true north) or "sincere" (true love). I have found a way for the Church to be an instrument (a vehicle) in my life, and I have found a way to accept the messiness and infallibility and ambiguity as unavoidable (and sometimes even personally ennobling), so I honestly don't worry much about it from a cosmic standpoint.

Also, I've spent decades studying and viewing other denominations and religions, and I simply haven't found a single alternative that inspires me at the highest level like Mormonism does. I believe we continue to struggle with the effects of centuries of doctrinal bastardization that haven't been pruned fully from our own tree, but I "know" I don't want to construct my personal paradigm anywhere else. It would be MUCH easier in MANY other religions and denominations, but I know I personally wouldn't be lifted and inspired and motivated to grow and "become" like I am in the Church.

So, in summary, what I am left with in the end is nothing more profound or deep than:

I know I want to make my journey within the LDS Church.

My Truth Shall Make Me Free

We live in a post-rationalist age, when we define "truth" and "knowledge" in absolute terms. I love Nephi's definition of "true" - essentially, "it is according to my experiences and understanding, and I am not lying about it". In other words, if someone is expressing something they believe sincerely due to their own experiences, it is "true" for them.

I really like that, since it allows everyone to discover "truth" in the context of their own lives. I understand the issues involved with this view, but I think the benefits outweigh the danger - and "the truth shall make you free" resonates more fully in that context for me than in any other.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe in Absolute Truth, and I strive to understand it whenever possible. I just am not confident I see through my glass clearly enough to tell others they must reject what works for them and accept what works for me - especially when Mormonism teaches that we will be judged largely on what we do and become and how valiantly we follow the dictates of our own consciences.

Accepting Those Who Believe but Can't Say They 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.

If something as basic as a knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God is not available universally, then I think there isn't much that is available universally - and that we should be totally accepting of those to whom it is given to believe (to whatever small or large degree they are given to believe). I also think we need to be just as accepting of those who only can desire to believe - who live as faithfully as they can in relative darkness.

I believe in the grand scheme of things, those who can't say they know but continue to believe or strive to believe have lived every bit as "valiantly" (if not more so) than those who have been given to know and live according to that knowledge.

What Does It Mean to Be "Blameless" in How We Walk Before God?

In the previous two New Year's Resolution Posts this month, I wrote about walking (not running or sitting) before God and walking "before God".  In this post, I want to share some thoughts about walking "blamelessly" before God. 

In the context of the usage in Alma 5, "blame" is defined as:

responsibility for anything deserving of censure

"Censure" is defined as:

strong or vehement expression of disapproval

Thus, walking "blamelessly" before God means walking in such a way that God will not strongly or vehemently disapprove. 

Two things struck me as I initially defined the central words and reached the defintion above - one which I have understood for a long time and one that was completely new to me. 

The one I have understood for a long time deals with the nature of the Atonement and my understanding of the difference between "sin" and "transgression".  Essentially, God does not disapprove strongly or vehemently of our best efforts to act according to the dictates of our own consciences.  In fact, I believe our 2nd Article of Faith teaches that we will not be punished for the things we do as a direct result of the Fall - which, in this case, include transgressions of eternal law we commit out of ignorance or as a result of things we simply can't control.  If we do not choose consciously to do things that are contrary to our best understanding of what we believe God wants of us, those actions are paid for through the Atonement of Jesus, the Christ - and I believe the magnitude of those things for which we have been redeemed already is MUCH larger than most people realize. 

The second thing that struck me was not new in theory, as it is something I have believed for a long time, but it was new to me in the context of walking blamelessly before God.  It really is just a re-statement of the first one I just explained, but I think it is important to phrase it the way it came to my mind.  It is:

God does not expect us to walk "perfectly", nor does he expect us to walk without stumbling and falling and getting skinned up in the process.  He simply asks us to avoid those things of which he would disapprove "strongly" or "vehemently".

 

The best example I can give is how I view my own desires for my children.  I expect them to make mistakes in their lives.  In fact, I believe that is the only way they will learn many important lessons in life - by experiencing the opposition that must needs be and failing occasionally (or more than occasionally, if they are like me).  I am not about to react strongly or vehemently to the vast majority of mistakes they make.  However, there are some things they might do to which I would react strongly or vehemently.  Those things are so serious in my eyes that I would go outside my normal principle of teaching correct principles and watching them govern themselves to actively begging them to stop. 

The thing that struck me is that there really are relatively few things that fit that category that I believe are "universally accepted", but, even with my own children, the underlying principle would be things that violate their own consciences.  Thus, the things toward which I would react strongly or vehemently in relation to one child would differ somewhat from the things that would cause the same reaction in relation to another child - assuming I know my children well enough as differing individuals to understand what and how much they understand about the things they believe and the choices they make. 

I can't "blame" them for things they do out of ignorance, and I refuse to "blame" them for things they do with which I disagree simply because I disagree - as long as I believe they are acting in accordance with their own understanding and conscience.  Most importantly, the list of things they might do that would bring my strong and vehement disapproval and cause me to "blame" and "censure" them is much shorter than many people probably think. 

What I gained this week from my contemplation of this concept of walking "blamelessly" before God is that the assignment of blame rests with GOD, not with us - and that, in my opinion, that assignment will be based MUCH more on how well we walk in accordance to the dictates of our own consciences than on the exact steps we take in our walk before God.

Accepting Differing Levels of "Faith" and "Knowledge" in the Church

Perhaps those who "reject" a religion's truth-claims should withdraw; perhaps not. I tend to believe there are reasons for many to remain affiliated with a religion (in this case, the LDS Church) even if they can't embrace the truth claims. Those reasons might include things as simple as, "It's the best I know, even if I don't believe it's exclusively true," and as complex as, "My wife (or husband) and kids are happy in it, they embrace it, and I am willing to participate as a non-believing member of record in order to maximize their peace and happiness."

What really concerns me is any exclusion of those who believe truth-claims are "unknowable" - since I believe they actually ARE unknowable to many.

Our own scriptures say that some are given the gift "to know", while others are given the gift "to believe" those who know. I think there is great selfless service that can be provided by those who either believe those who know or even don't believe those who believe or know - if they stay in the Church. I have NO problem whatsoever with members who reject exclusive truth claims retaining their membership, as long as they don't fight the Church. I have no problem with those who think things are unknowable staying the Church - with no disclaimers whatsoever. I think they belong in the Church every bit as much as someone who feels they know everything - or even as someone who actually might know everything.

Fighting the Church is one thing; simply not accepting certain claims is quite another. Simply saying certain things can't be known is at a completely different level. Personally, I would hope that NOBODY whose only "issue" is an inability to accept truth-claims or feel they are knowable would face excommunication over it or be encouraged to leave. I would feel a deep sense of loss and injustice if that were to happen.

To say it differently, I don't think accepting all truth-claims (especially the exclusive ones) even is a requirement of worthy temple attendance (or even ward or stake leadership), much less regular membership. I know a highly visible member of leadership in a stake where I have lived who doesn't like the "only true church" phrase because of how it can be and is interpreted by many - inside and outside the Church. I understand his concern, and I share it to a degree. He is a faithful member, with a truly miraculous conversion story, and to think that he should give up his membership simply because he can't accept that particular "truth claim" is abhorrent to me.

Letting Go of Knowledge and Returning to Faith

Often what gets called “faith” is not “faith”. “Faith” is not a certainty; it is “the substance of things hoped for” - and when we divorce “faith” from “hope”, I believe we get a mutant version that can be very destructive. 

Fwiw, one of the biggest theological mutations in the current Church that I think needs to be fixed is the over-emphasis on knowledge almost to the exclusion of faith. (I think that’s probably why the brethren seem to be emphasizing grace more and more recently - to return to faith in Him over confidence in self.) If you remove faith from the equation, you remove hope from your perspective - which means that when the black-and-white certainty of supposed knowledge shatters, there generally is no foundation of faith left on which to fall - since “hope” has been removed from the equation. 

To be clear, I am not saying we can't seek for and find knowledge in some things; I just think we try to hard to know everything and forget too often the need to accept that faith can be enough - that it's OK for some things to remain unseen but believed.  Malleable faith and hope can grow and be molded into ever-changing shapes as new perspectives are encountered and adapted; calcified knowledge shatters when struck or dropped.

"The Lord maketh no such thing known unto us."

I feel for Laman and Lemuel, for many reasons.

I am struck by a verse that commonly is used to show their lack of faith - but it hit me in a totally different way. Let me quote D&C 46:13-14 first:

"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.”

Now, the statement from Laman and Lemuel in 1 Nephi 15:8-9:

“And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord? And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.”

Again, we tend to read this in a pejorative way - that they simply are too wicked or lazy or cavalier to ask. However, what if they were being totally honest? What if they were NOT given the gift to know and have Lehi- or Nephi-like visions - and what if they were led to believe they should be able to have such experiences. Is it any wonder they ended up rebelling and rejecting their father and brother?

I think our scriptures leave it wide open for people to not have miraculous or indescribable spiritual experiences and not be doing anything wrong, necessarily. I believe some truly do not have "such thing(s) known unto (them)." That's where faith has to take over and abide - and I admire those who can abide and endure in faith every bit as much as I admire those who have had such things made known unto them through amazing spiritual experiences. I mean that totally and sincerely.

Certain About Uncertainty - Uncertain About Certainty

I believe strongly in both certainty and uncertainty - in the need for both in each individual life. I hope I can explain succinctly, since that’s not my default - as you all know.

My favorite definition of faith is the one that combines “the substance of things hoped for” with the motivation to pursue those unseen things. Next, as I’ve said here before, I believe that life is about becoming, not just understanding - and that becoming trumps understanding if only one must be pursued. So, I see a need for balance in this discussion of certainty vs. uncertainty.

In practical terms, this means I believe in the certainty of hope that motivates me to move forward and “plant and nurture the seed” - believing that if I do so I will understand more fully and gain more certainty. However, the real problem occurs when certainty closes off any desire to continue to learn more - about a particular concept or about all concepts.

Without a measurable degree of certainty, growth just won’t occur - since time will be spent “trying to understand better” rather than “trying to live better”. Personally, I would rather try something and learn at a very practical level by my success OR failure than not try something and never learn except in theory.

In summary, I want to be more and more certain of the details about which I care deeply, even if I never am certain of everything. I just don’t think there is time in this life to learn enough to be certain of everything - and I think that is a central concept of the Restoration. Think about continuing revelation in that light: Protestantism essentially said, “We know enough to get what we want;” Joseph Smith said, “I don’t, and you don’t know enough to get what I want.”

Finally, it bothers me greatly when someone says with certainty that I can't know something with certainty. *grin*