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.

"Bearing False Witness" Is Not the Same Thing As "Lying"

The commandment is to not bear false witness.  It isn't to not lie, ever.  There is an important difference between the two - and an important reason to make that difference clear. 

To "witness" means to:

"testify to; give or afford evidence of"

A "witness" is an:

"individual who, being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a beholder, spectator, or eyewitness"

Therefore, "bearing false witness" means:

"testifying falsely to something that one has seen or perceived"

The key is that this is a legal definition - where someone is "testifying/witnessing" for or against someone else. In that setting, the reason for the "witness" is to establish a punishment or lack thereof for someone else - to judge as guilty, innocent or not guilty of something. Thus, bearing false witness causes an injustice to occur - either by removing a penalty that should be enforced or imposing a penalty that should not be enforced. In modern verbiage, it is perjury - and perjury is a crime specifically because of the effect it might cause on others and on society as a whole. It really is a serious action to subvert justice in a legal setting - either by assisting in the punishment of someone who is not guilty or the escape from punishment of someone who is.

A "lie", on the other hand, simply is a statement that is known to be false by the person making it. It can have nothing whatsoever to do with justice. It might be telling someone their hair or dress or shoes look fine - which might or might not be a good idea, depending on the person and the situation. It might be saying you are fine when someone asks - even if you feel lousy. It might be protecting someone from unnecessary harm, torture or death - which I can't see as a bad thing. It even might be a social convention that is understood to be meaningless by everyone who hears it.

I agree totally with the injunction that forbids bearing false witness; I try to avoid lying whenever possible, even if I have to be a bit evasive or ambiguous in some cases to not lie; I am totally fine with some lies. That's why I always answer, "I try my hardest," when I am asked the question in the temple recommend interview about being honest.

Pres. Hinckley's Interview with Mike Wallace: He Never Lied

(Thanks to one of the readers who pointed out to me that I have conflated two interviews with Pres. Hinckley. The quote I remembered and referenced here is from an interview with TIME Magazine - not the Mike Wallace interview. Just shows that age is a terrible taskmaster - and that I'm not as mentally spry as Pres. Hinckley was at a much more advanced age - although, in my defense, I did remember it word-for-word. lol)

In an interview published in TIME Magazine a few years ago, President Hinckley said something that others have classified as a lie. Pres. Hinckley was an incredibly intelligent man (as everyone who interviewed him attested - including Mike Wallace), so even those who don't accept him as a prophet have to consider his answers as carefully constructed - even if they don't accept them as inspired.

I will quote the response, sentence by sentence, with commentary. First, however, I need to highlight something about the question Pres. Hinckley was asked:

The interviewer asked,

"Is this [as man is, God once was"] the teaching of **the church** today . . .?"

This does NOT ask if many or most members believe it; it asks only if "the church" teaches it TODAY. That is a critical distinction.

With that background, here is my response to those who accuse President Hinckley of having lied:

"I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know."

First, I was raised in Utah. My own father and father-in-law are from the same basic generation as Pres. Hinckley, as were many of my teachers when I was a youth - most of whom were raised in Utah. I heard almost all of them use the phrase "I don't know that . . ." my entire life as a child and adolescent. Sometimes it meant "I'm not sure that . . .", but it also meant "I wouldn't say it that way." It was a "polite" way of disagreeing - a way to do so without saying, "No, you are wrong." I literally heard it at least hundreds of times in my youth.

(For example, my dad often said, "I don't know that your mother said that" - meaning, "I'm not sure that your mother said that." Another example: "I don't know that Grandma is stubborn" - meaning, "I wouldn't say that Grandma is stubborn." He never told me that Grandma wasn't stubborn [because she was], but he told me more than once that he wouldn't call Grandma stubborn - that he wouldn't say it that way.)

When I heard Pres. Hinckley's interview, I automatically heard what I had heard constantly growing up and understood his words in that usage with that meaning. So, the quote can be rendered more accurately for those unfamiliar with that particular usage thus:

"I wouldn't say that we ("the church") *teach* it. I wouldn't say that we *EMPHASIZE* it."

(In the actual interview, Pres. Hinckley paused slightly then added "EMPHASIZE it". It was very clear, and he actually emphasized the word "emphasize". He said the concept isn't "taught" by "the church", then he defined that even more specifically by saying the concept isn't "emphasized" by "the church".)

"I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse."

(I personally have never heard it discussed in "public discourse" by "the Church" - and rarely in private discourse. Pres. Hinckley had, but he hadn't for "a long time" - at least from before my memory.)

"I wouldn't say it that way."

Next:

"I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made."

(None of us do. The only transcripts we have are from records of four members who heard it, and what we have is the summary combination of their records. We know very little about the background of the sermon - the "circumstances under which [it] was made", since they were never recorded and Joseph never addressed it. It literally came out of the blue and was truly unique in many ways.)

"I understand the philosophical background behind it."

(True for many of us.)

"But I don’t know a lot about it"

(Joseph never elaborated on it, since he died only two months after giving the speech.)

"and I wouldn't say that others know a lot about it.”

(Perfectly accurate statement, given how debated it has been over the years.)

Finally, the concept is included in the Joseph Smith manual **as one sentence in a 7 page lesson**. Further, not one of the follow-up questions at the end addresses that sentence. There is absolutely no "teaching of it" and certainly no "EMPHASIS on it" in the lesson, while other things are emphasized.

What Pres. Hinckley actually said is perfectly consistent with the way the concept is handled by "the Church" (as an institution) - included in materials (not hidden) as something Joseph Smith said, but not emphasized in any way. Individual teachers might emphasize it over other things in the lesson that "the church" emphasizes, but "the church" certainly doesn't emphasize it - not even close.

There is no lie in this quote - none whatsoever.