Testimonies Don't Have to Be Provable - or Even Accurate - to Be Valid

Testimony has the same root as testament and testify - which are legal terms for an official record and to make an official statement. Thus, a testimony can be about absolutely anything and is nothing more than saying, writing, or doing something in an official manner that reflects whatever is said. "I know" - "I believe" - I feel" - "I saw (witnessed)" - "I assume" - etc. all are legitimate forms of testimony - and the only false testimonies are ones that are not consistent with the belief of the person providing it  - or, to say it more clearly, the ones that the testifier knows to be inaccurate.

For example, if a witness in a trial says, "I know . . ." that person is unable to be charged with perjury even if it turns out that they are wrong (meaning they didn't know what they claimed to know), as long as it is believed that they were sincere in their expression of knowledge.

Thus, spiritual experiences are a perfectly acceptable foundation for religious testimonies, whether what is believed is true or not, objectively - or, in many cases, inadequate to prove accuracy in an objective way. After all, most people base what they believe or believe they know on what they feel, to one degree or another.

Be a Light Others Want to Understand

We do not draw people to Christ by loudly discrediting what they believe, by telling them how wrong they are and how right we are, but by showing them a light that is so lovely that they want with all their hearts to know the source of it.  

- Madeleine L'Engle 

Using the Book of Mormon: Personal Soapbox Alert

Last Monday, I wrote a post about how we often misunderstand the Book of Mormon.  This post is a follow-up of that one.  

I have no problem with the statement that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. I just accept that characterization for a different reason than most people.   

When it was used as the keystone ("Here is Moroni's promise. Read this book from cover to cover with that promise in mind. Follow that promise. THEN, when you've done that, we'll start teaching doctrine."), missionary work flourished the most. When we started using it as a doctrinal proof-text and started focusing on teaching doctrine over converting spiritual experiences, missionary work flourished the least.

I know people who were converted to Mormonism through the Bible, and nearly every unique aspect of Mormon theology is grounded more in the Bible than in the Book of Mormon (which far too few members realize), but I know so many people whose subsequent reading of the Bible was influenced by what they read in the Book of Mormon - who "gained a testimony" of the Book of Mormon then had totally new insights as they read the Bible. After all, the Book of Mormon says in at least two places that it's primary intent is to convince people to believe the Bible - and, in my opinion, that means believing what the Bible actually teaches, not what centuries of theologians and religionists have said it teaches.

I believe the Book of Mormon does what it was intended to do very well, when used as it says it should be used - not for every single person, since nothing works for everyone, but generally. I think we as a people might understand that better if we actually used it "correctly" as a "correcting tool" - again, not with regard to doctrine but rather with regard to "spiritual orientation" or the opening of "spiritual eyes" to possibilities that have been hidden by centuries of denial.

To say it in a slightly different way:

In more than once passage, the Book of Mormon itself says that, ultimately, the Bible is more important than the Book of Mormon. I believe that message is loud and clear in the Book of Mormon - but it doesn't contradict the idea that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. The Book of Mormon can be the keystone while allowing the Bible to be the most important theological treatise (the record "held up" by the Book of Mormon) - which is how I would classify the two if I was trying to be concise. In other words, the Book of Mormon says as much about the worth of the Bible as it does about the role of Joseph Smith - although it does address that role, obviously.

The core intent of the Book of Mormon is to teach and testify of Jesus, the Christ. I don't think there is any reasonable dispute about that. However, I believe that this goal is accomplished differently than too many members realize.

The structure of the Book of Mormon (especially Moroni 10:3-5) is laid out in such a way that people who read it will believe that God can and will speak to them (let them know the truth of all things) - and that such a recognition will allow them then to read the Bible and understand and believe what it really says (primarily about God, their relationship to God and what the "power of godliness" really entails). In other words, the Book of Mormon allows people to read the Bible with "new spiritual eyes" through which the "mists of darkness" caused by centuries of Christian apologetics can be overcome and people can understand who they really are.

To say it differently, much of the grand theology of the Bible has crashed and burned since the Bible was written and canonized (and even before then). The "keystone" allows that theology to be rebuilt firmly; it "holds it together" not because of the words themselves contained in it but because of the process generated by the concept it teaches of a Father God who actually will communicate with his children and, subsequently, when re-reading the Bible, teach them of their "divine worth".

A core failure of our current approach at the local membership level, in my opinion, is both a lack of understanding of the Book of Mormon's role in that process (and what the Book of Mormon actually says) and a lack of understanding of the Bible and what it actually teaches. When we short-circuited and altered how we study, view and use the Book of Mormon, I believe we started losing the former respect for and understanding of the Bible that LDS members used to have.

"I know the Church is true, even when I wish it wasn't."

One of my local church leaders some time ago shared the following quote from a 16-year-old's testimony in a previous Stake Conference:

"I know the Church is true, even when I wish it wasn't."

The person who said it was struggling with some aspects of the Church, including attending regularly, but he had received an answer to a prayer that "the Church is true". He was saying that there were times he wished he hadn't felt what he'd felt, and that he sometimes wished he could just stop attending, but that he still believed what he had felt.

I understand that kind of conflict, although I wouldn't have worded it that way for myself.  Starting when I was about seven, I realized I see things differently than a lot of people. I would have worded it more like,

"I love the Church even while disagreeing with a lot of what others say. I wish more people believed like I do."

The leader who was speaking didn't go into any details of the young man's struggle, other than regular church attendance, but he ended his talk by listing some things he knows - and then he added:

"Even though there are lots of things I don't know and don't understand, I do know those things."

I could nit-pick words and definitions, but it was wonderful to hear the young man's statement affirmed by a church leader, even though his experience and wording was not the same. He is a good man, and his talk was an excellent one. He didn't get into specific concerns and issues in any of his talks, but it is clear he cares about people and understands that members struggle with various things at various times - and that he cares far more about effort and service than about uniformity of thought.  

A Beautiful Testimony: Puzzles and Mosaics

A friend of mine once shared the following.  I understand why the puzzle idea he describes works for lots of people, but I love the idea of the mosaic.
----------------------------------------------------------
I remember reading an article in the BYU alumni magazine that showed a gap between two points. Overlaid over this, were some puzzle pieces of a suspension bridge, but considerable portions of the puzzle were missing. Where the missing pieces had been there was a pencil drawing of the bridge.

The moral of the story is that even if I am can't fit all the pieces together right now, I can be confident that there is a "plan" that does fit all the pieces together.

I was unable to re-find the exact article but here is a similar description:

A Puzzle
Maybe another metaphor will help—that of an old jigsaw puzzle. The picture on the box is a broad, or holistic, view of some reality given by revelation; but the picture on our box is incomplete (see Article of Faith 9) and unclear in spots (see 1 Corinthians 13:12). Moreover, we are also missing several pieces of the puzzle, and we are not even sure how many are gone. Some of the pieces in our box do not appear to belong to our puzzle at first, and others quite definitely are strays. The picture on the box becomes clearer to us, however, with greater study of its details. The more closely we examine the available pieces and the more use we make of our minds, the more we are able to put together a few pieces of solid truth here and there. We may, of course, put some of the pieces in the wrong place initially, but as other pieces are put into position and as we continually refer to the picture on the lid, we are able to correct those errors. As our understanding of both the picture and the pieces progresses, we gain greater respect for what we know, for how it all fits together, and for what we yet do not know. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... &chapid=60

There is a similar metaphor of a tapestry that is sometimes used to explain adversity. The idea is that, from where we sit the jumbled, chaotic, and painful experiences are as the loose threads hanging on the underside of the tapestry. If we could but see from the Master’s perspective we would see how each thread fits into the master plan.  (The Hugh B. Brown illustration of the currant bush is a famous LDS equivalent.)

These ideas seem to indicate that there are not only plans for humanity as a whole but also individualized plans for each of us. When tragedy struck me, I pondered whether this was part of a grand design for my life based on this understanding. Was such a horrible event fated to bring about the maximum divine potential for everyone involved?

This idea did not resonate with my internal compass and I had to discard it. It didn’t seem to make sense that God would smash my beautiful glass and steel structure only to say, “You’ll thank me later.”

A Mosaic is different than a puzzle. A mosaic is a work of art. It may be from pieces of broken glass. It may be of puzzle pieces that were never intended to go together.

Elder Maxwell used the metaphor of a mosaic in one of his talks:

The finished mosaic of the history of the Restoration will be larger and more varied as more pieces of tile emerge, adjusting a sequence here or enlarging there a sector of our understanding. 

The fundamental outline is in place now, however. But history deals with imperfect people in process of time, whose imperfections produce refractions as the pure light of the gospel plays upon them. There may even be a few pieces of tile which, for the moment, do not seem to fit. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... y?lang=eng

But it seems to me that he is still using them as puzzle pieces - that there is a master plan and eventually we will see clearly what now we can only see the outline of. He seems to use the refractions of gospel light through the "imperfect" pieces as a degradation of the "pure light of the gospel." I guess in his context he was talking of being tolerant of imperfection in our leaders – that there is beauty in divine diversity.

The following is an excerpt from a talk I gave some years ago.

I can’t speak with any degree of certainty about others, but as I analyze my testimony. I see that the fabric of it is literally made up of thousands of experiences that combine together to form a “witness.” I may not be able to remember most of the moments that have shaped my testimony. Still, all of these instances have left their mark and contributed to the whole. (see also Testimony as a Process, Elder Carlos Godoy November 2008) I am left with a tapestry in progress, adding line upon line and thread upon thread, to discover as Jesus said in the Pearl of Great Price – that all things testify of Him (Moses 6:63) Each little strand in its own way and the whole mosaic together bear record that He is the Christ.

Because our individual testimonies come through varied experiences and at different stages, it is to be expected that there should be some variation and nuance in how each of us experience the Restored Gospel. (See also Elder Donald L. Staheli of the Seventy Saturday, Oct. 9, 2004) Elder Uchdorf says, “A testimony is very personal and may be a little different for each of us, because everyone is a unique person.” [The Power of a Personal Testimony (Oct 2006)]

I feel like I am constructing a mosaic and not a puzzle. I am putting pieces together not because this is where they must fit but because how they look together “speaks to me.” What I'm building is not a map to "what's out there", it is a reflection of what is inside me.

I like the idea of “refractions.” I can imagine divine light shining through my personal mosaic. What a glorious sight. Mine is unique and special but it is still a valid expression of divine light. Sometimes I feel like a mosaic person in a puzzle church. Sometimes I feel like others are not comfortable with me because I might "color outside the lines" or put my pieces together in non-traditional ways. It doesn't matter that my mosaic doesn't look the same as someone else's.

I do not believe that God planned out the early death of our daughter. But I do believe that he came to me there, amidst my internal pile of crumpled metal and shattered glass to offer comfort. I believe that He is encouraging me to rebuild as a mosaic. This new structure has no architectural drawing and must be grown organically with heart and mind and spirit. I make no claim that my internal structure is perfect or that I will ever be done building it. I believe that God is willing to bless my mosaic and breathe into my imperfect structure His breath of life. God can work with the imperfections and fill the whole of it with the “pure light” of his immeasurable love. Like light flowing through a stain glass window, the human and the divine come together. This has become my chapel.

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 

Children and Testimonies in Sacrament Meeting

I love the beauty and purity of a child's heartfelt testimony.

I don't like Sacrament Meeting as the time and place for most such testimonies, but I have known and know some very mature children whose testimonies are not rote or coached and are just as valid as mine. I love hearing those testimonies in Sacrament Meeting. 

My youngest daughter is twelve, and a couple of years ago she had been telling us she wanted to bear her testimony for a few months. We simply told her that when she knew what she wanted to say and really wanted to say it, we would support her - but that she had to do it completely on her own and that we wouldn't tell her what to say or suggest anything to her.

She bore her testimony one month, and it was simple, sweet, sincere and moving - and very much a reflection of her and who she is. There was nothing that was rote or formulaic, largely, I believe, because that's not how her mother and I talk when we bear our testimonies and because we've never "practiced" bearing testimony with our children or coached them about what to say.

Why I Can Say I Know Things I Don't Know Intellectually

I believe in gods, and my absolute favorite aspect of Mormon theology is the concept that "I (and every other person) am a child of God" - that I can be godly - that I can be and become a god.

I believe in God, because I want to believe in God. I believe in Heavenly Parents, because I want to believe in Heavenly Parents.

Do I "know" intellectually that they exist and that what I believe is accurate?

No.

Do I feel deeply that there is great power in the concept and principle and that I have experienced something outside my rational comprehension that I choose to accept and call "God"?

Yes.

Thus, do I feel comfortable in a group of members using the accepted vernacular and saying that, based on my own experiences, I know God lives and loves us?

Yes.

I am comfortable saying it in that setting, even though I explain it differently (more comprehensively) on a site like this where I try to flesh things out and explain in more detail.

I'm fine using shorthand when shorthand is appropriate.

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.

When You Just Can't Find the Words to Explain Your Testimony

It's hard, and sometimes impossible, for someone who has seen the "far blue mountains" to describe them adequately to others who have lived their entire lives in a city or on a vast, unchanging plain.

Some things, some times, only can be kept and pondered in our hearts - until the time comes when mortal sight limitations are removed and everyone can see the mountains, cities and plains clearly and fully.

"Another Testament of Jesus Christ" is Not a Different "Gospel"

A classic evangelical criticism of Mormonism is that the apostle Paul said not to believe anyone, even an angel of light, who teaches another gospel.  They use that statement as a way to reject Joseph Smith - and the Book of Mormon, especially since the cover says "Another Testament of Jesus Christ".  The actual passage in Galatians says:

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But 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.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The charge is ironic, because Paul's own converting vision and subsequent epistles fit exactly the complaint of the evangelical community that questions Joseph's account - especially since Paul's ministry, visions and epistles helped change early Christianity in MAJOR ways.

I probably should repeat that for emphasis:

Paul's visions (especially the one that stopped the requirement for circumcision among the Gentiles) and his epistles fundamentally altered Christianity in ways that people then could have termed to be "another gospel" - IF they interpreted "gospel" to be "further revelation" or "additional writings" or even "changed/additional doctrine". Thus, Paul could be rejected for the exact same reason evangelicals use that passage to reject Joseph.

Joseph's foundational account essentially is Paul's foundational account - a vision of God appearing to him that led to him becoming a prophet. Angelic visitations / visions were recorded all the time in Paul's time, even by Paul himself - but they were secondary to the appearance of God himself. In the exact same way, the claim about Moroni is secondary to the First Vision. It doesn't happen without the First Vision. It can't be attacked independent of the First Vision.

So, condemning Joseph's account of Moroni's vision and rejecting the writing that followed (The Book of Mormon) by quoting that passage of Paul's is inconsistent with Paul's own understanding of angels and visions and scripture. He had no problem with those things - it was the presentation of another "gospel" that concerned him.

There is a huge difference between another "testament" and another "gospel" - and it's a very important difference. The Book of Mormon says explicitly, multiple times, especially in 3 Nephi, that the "gospel" it teaches is faith in Jesus, repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost - and there is no way, in my opinion, to see that as "another gospel" that differs from the "gospel" of the Bible. Arguments about doctrine are valid to make (as long as people admit that even the writers of the New Testament appear to disagree about some doctrine - and certainly the early Catholic theologians and modern Protestant scholars did and do, as well). However, in evangelical terms, the word "testament" means nothing more than "witness" - and "witnessing" about Jesus actually is a key aspect of evangelism. So, rejecting another "testament" or "witness" that presents the same "gospel" is ironic - to put it as charitably as I can.

That is not "proof" of the Book of Mormon or of Joseph being a prophet - but, as bluntly as I can put it, if rejection of the Book of Mormon is based on that classic evangelical attack, it's important to understand how shallow, out-of-context and twisted that particular attack is.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Varying Kinds of Testimonies and Gaining Them Individually

We focused last Sunday on the lesson outline entitled, "What does it mean to bear testimony?"

After the traditional scriptural discussion, I took them through a comparison to court proceedings and what different types of witnesses testify in that setting. (eye-witness, character - both good and bad, expert - like psychiatrists or forensic scientists, etc.) We talked about which ones are least reliable (only one eye-witness) and which ones are most reliable (often experts who analyze data without perceptual biases). One of the students explained about a car accident in which his friend was involved and how the expert was able to reconstruct many details of the accident that were unbiased and based only on what the visible evidence showed.  We talked about why more than one eye-witness is important - primarily to counter confirmation bias and our tendency to see what we believe, rather than believing what we see.

We then applied each of those types to spiritual testimonies and talked about the importance of gaining a testimony from each category - to have a well-rounded, balanced, multi-faceted testimony.

I asked each of them to take a minute and think about one aspect of the Gospel that they feel is the strongest part of their testimony - and why it is. We talked about some of those aspects, very briefly. I am not going to share any of those details, since it was a very personal discussion.

I then asked them to identify one thing about which they didn't have a strong testimony but want to gain such a testimony. One student said tithing, since she hasn't earned much money in her life to this point and doesn't feel like she has a personal testimony of it. Another student hesitated and then said, "Everything." He explained that, due to some pretty serious ward issues where he used to live, he had withdrawn emotionally and become mostly inactive. When he moved here, everyone accepted him - and one friend in particular made a huge difference in his life and helped him look at the Church differently. He said he wants to understand everything better, which wasn't the case a couple of years ago. (On a personal note, it was one of the highlights of my time as a teacher of that class - and I told him afterward that I was grateful he had had the courage to comment.)

We read John 7:16-17, which says:

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

I asked them what is the best way to figure out how they feel about something (to "gain a testimony" that is unique to each of them individually, no matter what it ended up being), and they all understood that it was to do it.  I mentioned the idea of an "experiment upon the word", as Alma said - and I stressed the need to try it over an extended period of time, both when it was easy and when it was hard. If they do that, they might come to differing conclusions among themselves, but those conclusions would be uniquely their own.

My Testimony of the Book of Mormon: Spiritual and Intellectual Manifestations

My foundational testimony of the Book of Mormon is not about exact content, so much as how it "speaks to me". ("crying from the dust" - I really like that image.)  I really like it and it seems to be the inspired word of God - certainly every bit as much as the Bible. There are lots of passages I really like, content-wise, but that's never been what it's about for me.

Having said that, I really do see some things as almost impossible to "fake" within the text itself.

The dichotomy between the Book of Ether and the rest of it is just one example of this. It is amazingly compelling, if you have studied much of the cultural differences between the Middle East and Northeast Asia - and, if I am right, it basically solves the DNA issue on a theoretical level. Therefore, even without my spiritual testimony, relying only on my intellect, I just can't see it as an intentional fraud. 

One really important thing to understand, imo, is that there really isn't any more physical proof of most of the important claims in the Bible (especially the Old Testament) than there are for those in the Book of Mormon. Most people don't realize how shaky the non-religious / non-spiritual "proof" for the Bible is, particularly when it comes to the accuracy of the New Testament teachings and just about everything in the Old Testament. Even most ardent Christian historians agree that the accounts in the New Testament were written after the fact (sometimes long after the fact) and by people other than the purported authors - and were taken from multiple, conflicting source materials; hence, all the hoopla in the early centuries about which writings to include and which to exclude in the formal compilation we know now as the Bible.

For example, from a purely "historical" perspective (taking away all claims of source and method of discovery and translation), the Book of Mormon is MUCH easier to accept as scientifically plausible than the Bible - since there is FAR less of the miraculous chronicled in it than in the Bible (and those things that are presented as miraculous generally are much easier to explain as non-miraculous).

Furthermore, it's interesting to realize that most of the truly unique "doctrines" in Mormonism are not found in the Book of Mormon. In fact, there are almost none in it. Nearly all of them are in the Bible and the D&C - and nearly all of the ones in the D&C are presented as revelations received as a result of contemplating Biblical passages or specific issues of the time.

Finally, the Book of Mormon itself doesn't claim to be something that should be read instead of the Bible - or even contrasted with it. Rather, it says explicitly, more than once, that one of its central purposes is to convince people to believe the Bible. That wording is interesting in its implications, since, in one case, it explicitly says it is intended to help those who "believe in the Bible" actually believe the Bible (what it teaches).  Based on what it actually says, it's supposed to be a supporting companion to the Bible, not a superior work. Thus, Joseph's "most correct" words notwithstanding, pitting it against the Bible simply isn't consistent with its stated purpose - and I regularly go back and forth between it and the Bible in my own study.

(I've said more than once that I think Joseph didn't really understand the Book of Mormon very well - at least not what it actually says in its pages. I think he simply didn't care about it as a proof text, so he didn't "study" it to understand doctrine. Ironically, that's one reason I have a hard time accepting it as conscious fiction. Every author I've known understood their works much better than Joseph appears to have understood the Book of Mormon.)

None of the above proves anything regarding the nature of the Book of Mormon, but it's important to keep in mind when comparing it with the Bible - and it's an important part of my own testimony regarding it. We've inherited a lens through which we "naturally" see the Book of Mormon, and that lens, imo, is one of the "incorrect traditions of (our) fathers". As a result, I think relatively few members understand the Book of Mormon really well - at least when focused on what it can teach us as not just as a canon of scripture but also as the spiritual-history-journal abridgment it claims to be. 

Why I Stay Actively Involved in and "Faithful" to the LDS Church

Someone who was struggling mightily to stay involved in the LDS Church once asked me why I remain an active, "believing" member.  The following is my response - a short, bullet-point summary that doesn't do full justice to the question but hits some highlights:
-------------------------------------------
I am LDS:

because I absolutely love the theology and "cosmology";

because it's the truest thing for me I've found - and it's not close;

because I don't really care all that much about what people think of me;

because I've carved out a place from which my heterodoxy doesn't matter and isn't a threat at all to the Church and the rest of the membership;

because I really love the people in my ward (even those with whom I tend to disagree quite strongly);

because my wife and kids also absolutely love the Church;

because plenty of other people outside the Church envy the peace and happiness I've found in "my faith" and have been helped in real and lasting ways by it;

because I don't want to make a major change to something else with which I will agree less (especially at the "pure" theoretical level);

because I've learned to let most of the cultural crap with which I don't agree roll off my back;

because I can talk about those things with which I disagree that people say at church with my wife and kids without them being threatened by my disagreement, even when they don't agree with me;

because I have a deep and abiding "testimony" of what I perceive to be the core principles of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ;

because I'm Mormon at heart.

I am LDS largely because it's part of who I am (because my own "I AM" is LDS) - and because of some very intense, very personal, very powerful experiences that also simply are part of ME.

My Emotional / Spiritual Testimony vs. My Intellectual Testimony: The Analogy of the Kite

My emotional / spiritual testimony is radically different than my intellectual testimony.

I have had a few incredibly powerful spiritual experiences that weren't just emotional, but I also have deep emotional attachments to the LDS community and people I love dearly. That combination keeps me firmly grounded within the community as a faithful, believing member.

My intellectual detachment, if you will, allows me not to sweat the details (what I personally see as the small stuff). I absolutely love the "grand cosmology" of Mormonism - the vision of eternity that is so unlike anything else within Christianity. I also realize that many of the things I see differently are only visible to me because of the foundation that I receive from Mormonism's theology. In other words, my testimony includes gratitude that I have an orthodox background in my life that is available to me and allows my personal heterodoxy to be as powerful for me as it is. I don't begrudge others the fact that they don't see what I see, since they see what is beautiful to them - and since, in a very real way, I only am able to see what I see because of them. I also realize that I might be wrong about lots of things.

I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else, but it's fundamental for me.

I liken my emotional and spiritual testimony to the kite string that keep my intellectual kite connected to a safe harbor, if you will. My intellectual kite can fly all over the sky trying to "figure it all out", but it's not going to get separated from the string and be burned by the sun or frozen in the atmosphere before it gets to the sun.

There are a lot of things I feel comfortable saying I know - and lots of things I believe - and lots of things I really do want to believe - and a lot of things I hope. I like being part of a religion where that is said to be ok in the actual scriptural canon - and, most recently, by President Uchtdorf in General Conference.

A Testimony of the Scope of Mormon Theology, the Atonement and Valuing Differences

I bore a very short testimony a couple of years ago and said the following:

1) I am the oldest son in my family, and I’ve never wanted nor related to the concept of an elder brother – hence, I have a really hard time “feeling” the power of that analogy for Jesus. I don’t know how to feel about an older brother, and I just don’t care much about it intellectually.

2) I had a wonderful, caring, humble, loving father – hence, I have no problem “feeling” the power of that title for Jesus’ God. I know how it feels to have a “heavenly father”, but I don’t care much about it intellectually.

3) I LOVE the intellectual / philosophical / theological concept of an atonement – but I have had to work out my own intellectual understanding of it. I love how I think about the Atonement, and I care deeply about it intellectually.

4) I’m glad our theology and my ward allows people who think and feel differently to be accepted regardless of those differences – and I’m glad I have the chance to learn things I normally wouldn’t think or feel on my own from people who think and feel differently than I do.

That’s why I go to church – to connect with people I really do love and learn from them in some way. It works most weeks, even on days when I hear lots of things with which I disagree intellectually (and that last situation occurs quite frequently). I’ve learned not to care as much as I used to care – and I’ve learned to accept that other people think and feel in certain ways because it works for them.

I want them to accept that I follow what works for me, so I need to accept that they will follow what works for them.

“We love him, because he first loved us.”

At church, I try really hard to be the “he” in that construct – and the proof of whether or not I’m succeeding is when I disagree the most.

I acknowledge that it’s easier for me than for lots of other people (for example, gay members) – but all I have is my own life and expereinces, so it’s up to me to the best I can within those experiences.

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".

Children Bearing Testimonies of the Atonement of Jesus Christ

I love Fast and Testimony Meeting, even with the quirky aspects that drive some people nuts.  As I mention near the end of this post, I have reservations about one aspect of testimonies in some locations, but one of the things I love most about F&T Meeting is listening to "simple" testimonies - especially those of children. 

In our F&T meeting this month, an eight-year-old girl bore a simple, short, heart-felt testimony. It obviously wasn’t coached; it obviously was in her own words; it was sincere and focused on basic Gospel principles.

It was wonderful.

In that same meeting, a 33-year-old, mentally disabled woman “bore her testimony”. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the Gospel. She read from a piece of paper on which she had written some of the things she did that month, including her reaction to watching Whitney Houston’s funeral. It was simple and not at all “spiritual” in any traditional way. I looked around the congregation and saw all the loving, smiling, accepting faces (everyone paying rapt attention in dead silence) and realized that moment was a big part of the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It was wonderful.

My nine-year-old daughter bolts out the chapel doors every week the instant the benediction ends. She has told us for the last few months that she wants to bear her testimony. We have told her that she can do so whenever she’s ready to do it on her own, knowing she gets quite severe stage fright at the microphone. She bore her testimony this month, with her older sister standing beside her but completely in her own words. I’ve never been prouder of her.

It was wonderful.

I dislike rehearsed, automatic, rote words, especially those of others whispered into children’s ears, but, when a testimony is sincere and pure, a child’s testimony (even a 33-year-old child’s words) reminds me of the beautiful admonition:

“Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”

The Primary Purpose of the Book of Mormon is Not to Be Used as a Doctrinal Proof Text

Content-wise, not much of our unique doctrine and theology come from the Book of Mormon; most of it is found in the Bible.

One of the primary reasons for the Book of Mormon, according to the book itself, is to testify of the Bible - and to open our minds and hearts to the possibility of communing directly with God. I think the Book of Mormon acts as a catalyst to force someone to humble himself/herself to approach God with a sincere heart and ask for personal revelation. Those who receive a "witness" begin a journey of openness to the Spirit, which is symbolized (and sometimes actualized) in the Gift of the Holy Ghost. That process (companionship) opens the mind to read the Bible with new eyes, through which the truly unique doctrines of the Restoration are suddenly understood.

It also opens a conduit to seek personal revelation in personal areas - at the individual level, which, when you think about it, is what keeps many people who struggle with their faith active in the Church. They received a personal witness of some strength when they opened their heart to the possibility of communing directly with God, and the Book of Mormon played a huge role in that for many.

How I Would Describe My Testimony and Feelings for the Church in Non-religious Terms

I am convinced the LDS Church literally provides what it claims to provide for many of its members - an assurance that they need in this life based on a vision of the next life. I believe it literally provides for me what I want from it - a wonderful theological framework, a community in which I find joy in serving, a symbolic compass that enthralls me, a flawed community and organization that still manages to provide great leadership opportunities to many, a place where improvement is possible and multi-faceted evolution can occur, etc.

I really don't care much about it being "literal" in a universal sense and from an intellectual standpoint, as long as I literally can get from it what I want to get from it (and become through it what I want to become through it) - and, even though I want to get some things that aren't available yet, the LDS Church does so (for me) far better than other Christian constructs and has provided some deeply personal, spiritual, cosmic experiences for which I am grateful.