Not long ago I had a dream that left an impression on me. Not some fantastical or visionary dream, but a dream that does what dreams are supposed to do – help process what is in your subconscious. This was a dream similar to many I’ve had in the past. Ever since I returned from serving a mission, I’ve had dreams that I’m being sent back out on one.
What was different about my recent dream, was not that I was going on a mission again, but had recently returned from my mission. My mind, and understanding of the gospel in this dream matched my present understanding of the gospel. If you’ve read my other blog posts, hopefully you see how much I admire my savior Jesus Christ, and his words of scripture. In this dream, I found myself in the traditional post-mission sacrament meeting, sitting on the stand. Leadership had asked me to share my testimony.
For years church leadership has been very specific about what constitutes a testimony when sharing it in meetings. Testimony of Jesus Christ, Testimony of Joseph Smith, Testimony of the Book of Mormon, testimony that the church is true, and testimony that the present church president is a true prophet. So then came my turn to share my testimony. I got up to the pulpit, and I paused. Stuck for words to share. Why? I had done this so many times before. I always made sure to be obedient to leadership with my testimony sharing in the past. But now with my present knowledge, it felt so foreign to me. After a significant pause. I finally stated the following words: “I know that Jesus Christ is my savior, Amen”. I then stepped down. “Was there anything else I could’ve stated?”, I thought.
Christ, his teachings, and scripture give us many topics we can discuss with others and contemplate. For many years, it’s been a hobby of mine to obtain as much truth as possible. Surely I could’ve shared a portion of my knowledge with the faithful LDS in attendance at that meeting. But then came the lesson from the dream. The church would not want me to share the truths of the gospel I know. They may even punish me for sharing truths like they have done to many others in the past. I realized, the reason I didn’t have utterance in my dream is because the setting in which the church was suppressing the truth. The Holy Ghost could not impart intelligence in such a setting.
Some days prior to this dream the missionaries knocked on our door. We invited them in and were friendly, having been in their shoes before. They were likely doing a typical check up on us for the ward considering we haven’t attended church in a few years. One seemingly pompous and prideful while the other much more humble. The pompous one dominated the interaction from their end. He asked us if we were LDS, we told them Yes. He asked if we attend church? We said No. He asked, Why? Trying to remain respectful, we simply said it’s personal. That didn’t satisfy him. He was intent on prying and getting answers. So we obliged his curiosity, and what ensued after was the missionaries being taught a lesson, rather than they being the ones teaching the lesson. Much of the topics we discussed have been covered already on this blog. He was pretty dismissive, but at times had to admit defeat in his understanding of things. One thing from this interaction stood out though. You see, like any discussion with LDS they are very quick to bring up the man they perceive as a living prophet. It has become so ingrained and important in present LDS culture, despite multiple scandals in recent years under the direction of these “prophets”. Such was the admiration this young man had of Russell Nelson, that he stated, “I would love the opportunity to be in his presence”. I shrugged my shoulders in response saying, “I have”.
So comes the following story that is the inspiration for the title of this article. Russell Nelson did visit my mission many years ago. The mission held a special meeting so all missionaries could be in attendance. Before the meeting started we had the “privilege” to line up and shake his hand. When we were all seated and it was his turn to speak, the first thing he said was “I was happy to see when I shook each of your hands that most of you smiled”. It was an interesting form of rhetoric, that all missionaries need to be happy and show it at any given moment. Especially if they are in the presence of an “apostle”. Maybe I read too much into it. However, he spoke for a bit and then opened it up to questions. Most questions for him were typical – nothing worthy of remembrance. There is one question however that I will always remember. It was a valuable question for a missionary, especially one who is sacrificing two years of his life to testify not only of Jesus Christ, but that we have living apostles and prophets on earth today. He asked, “We’ve heard you tell us about how you were called of man, can you tell us about how you were called of God?”. The collective group of missionaries seemed to have shock on their face at such a bold question. I thought of how valid it was. How Nelson responded was intriguing. He kind of stumbled for words at the beginning of his response. Much like I was at a loss for words in my dream. When he could finally get the words out he simply said, “I will bear my testimony at the end of the meeting”. But in a strange attempt to appease the question, I found that he started teaching with his worldly learning and education. He said, “Apostles are called to be witnesses. ‘Wit’ means to ‘know’. That is why we call people that don’t know much ‘dimwits'”.
As I pondered this in consideration of my recent dream, I thought, “are we really witnesses when we share our testimonies in church, or are we becoming Dimwits because we just do as we are told, no questions asked?” My dream at first made me think I was a dimwit because I didn’t have much to say in an LDS setting that would be acceptable anymore. But the reality was, we have been pushed into this restraint of “follow the prophet” as the most important LDS doctrine – that we are being served our knowledge from men, that are also Dimwits. We aren’t required to think, ponder, or seek intelligence from the Holy Ghost anymore. Nelson couldn’t speak to the divinity of his calling when I was last in his presence. For me, that is okay. Our relationships with Jesus Christ are deeply personal. I won’t allow his relationship with Jesus Christ hinder me from cultivating my own relationship with Jesus Christ.
For decades the church has encouraged its members to testify of the church and its teachings even if one does not have a knowledge or testimony of its doctrines. As a church we’ve approached indoctrination of our children and youth in this practice. Who remembers attending youth conference each year where youth are seated in a circle at a designated testimony meeting where each youth is pressured in circular order to share their testimony of the church? In this setting if a youth does not have a testimony, and is consequently uncomfortable speaking in such a manner to testify in front of their peers – when their turn comes will they be looked down upon or thought of as having weak faith? Are we pressuring or encouraging youth that may have not had any witness yet, to be a witness of something they may not yet know? Perhaps your ward didn’t operate in that manner and that is great if so, but such methods are endorsed by church leadership. Boyd K. Packer once stated:
“It is not unusual to have a missionary say, “How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?”
Oh, if I could teach you this one principle: a testimony is to be found in the bearing of it!” (Boyd K. Packer, The Quest for Spiritual Knowledge, The New Era, January 2007)
Packer preemptively brings up the question, “would that not be dishonest?” But rather than address the question of honesty directly, shifts to how one gains a testimony by bearing it, essentially saying, the outcome outweighs the moral dilemma of the method of how it is achieved. This demonstrates a pattern of leadership teachings of not only decades, but over a century that essentially lying is okay as long as it furthers the church mission for good. His sentiment here agrees with repetitive behavior of character, as he also once stated:
“Some things that are true are not very useful… Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning.”(Boyd K. Packer, The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect, Brigham Young University, 22 August 1981, Link).
Packer isn’t alone in his sentiment of encouraging people to testify even if they haven’t received a witness. Dallin H. Oaks reiterated Packer’s teachings:
“Another way to seek a testimony seems astonishing when compared with the methods of obtaining other knowledge. We gain or strengthen a testimony by bearing it. Someone even suggested that some testimonies are better gained on the feet bearing them than on the knees praying for them” (Dallin H. Oaks, Testimony, April 2007 General Conference).
Brother Oaks, it is indeed astonishing that one would encourage another to be a witness of something they do not know and implicate that bearing false witness is a better method of coming to truth than seeking truth or a witness from the Almighty God in prayer. Did Joseph Smith witness of his iconic vision before he experienced it? Did Nephi know to build a boat and cross an ocean before the Lord instructed him? Did Isaiah or John proclaim their revelations before being shown visions by heavenly messengers? Was Peter bluffing when he testified that Jesus is the Christ just so Jesus would hand over the “keys to the kingdom”? One of ten important commandments is simply:
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16, KJV).
As equally important is another of the ten commandments. A commandment important enough to be a temple covenant.
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain” (Exodus 20:7, KJV).
This commandment isn’t about how we shouldn’t utter a specific phrase. It is about invoking the Lord’s name to appeal to a validity of your own words. It is calling yourself a special witness of Jesus Christ and asking people to follow you as a man based on that, when in reality you haven’t been called of him. In other words, it is claiming to be a witness of him when you are a dimwit of him. These two important commandments in conjunction with each other unequivocally condemn what many in and out of the church have called “Lying for the Lord”.
There are valid means by which to obtain truth so you can testify of truth. Joseph Smith once stated:
“This first Comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence” (Joseph Smith Papers, Link) .
The church emphasizes “warm and fuzzies” (as I like to call it) to gain a witness. While it is not always wrong to follow a good feeling, if we go based only on feelings and attribute them to the Holy Ghost we open ourselves up to the trap of implementing our own desires as revelation rather than actual revelation from God. Pure intelligence is communication from God that will be clear when it comes to your mind. Jesus simply advised:
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened “(Matthew 7:7-8, KJV).
In a court room, witnesses are called to give their testimony as related to the trial. It is expected as a witness that they are privy to truthful events that they had seen or had taken place in their presence. If they aren’t fully truthful in their statements, they mislead the jury, who hold the fate of the accused. They can be criminally charged with perjury. To witness is to know. Be careful claiming to be a witness to something for your respective religious organization, because if you are really a dimwit, you are committing spiritual perjury.
(At the conclusion of this article, given that the subject addresses honesty and being a true witness, I’m going to take the time to be a little “tongue-in-cheek”, sarcastic or whatever you may call it. If you are an active member of the LDS church you may want to dismiss my account of meeting present leader of the church Russell M. Nelson as anecdotal. That’s fair, because in context it is. I see outrageous claims online all the time of people saying they met leaders of the church and state they said one thing or another that is not flattering given leadership status. I, too, take those stories with a grain of salt. However, the truth is I was contemporaneous with this event where I met Nelson. I was there in time, in the first person. I was a witness and have recounted the events as they transpired. I essentially have a contemporaneous missionary journal that would validate me being present at that meeting. What I’m saying is what one would dismiss as my recounting the events of being anecdotal because they don’t favor a typical LDS faithful perception is no different than anecdotal statements of 19th century Utah Saints claiming decades after Joseph Smith died that he practiced polygamy in an attempt to validate their own wicked practice of adultery(look at that another practice condemned by one of the big ten!) Contemporaneous records and statements by Joseph, Emma, and Hyrum Smith unambiguously condemn polygamy. Polygamy apologists would just excuse this as lying for the Lord, for the greater cause. Utah Polygamists may have signed affidavits attesting to Nauvoo polygamy under Joseph, but the contemporaneous courts apparently didn’t see them valid enough to rule in favor of the Utah Mormons in the Temple Lot Trial. Statements from Joseph, Emma, and Hyrum are diametrically opposed to statements made by Brigham Young and his followers in Utah. We need to ask which of these two groups are being truthful on the subject of polygamy, and which one is bearing false witness, in addition to taking the Lord’s name in vain. History is just that, “His Story” – a story of someone saying that something happened at some time. For me, it is not as much about contending historical incongruencies but rather, seeking true doctrine. Polygamy historical conflicts aside, there are indisputable scriptural truths that unmistakably condemn it as a practice. For more on doctrinal analysis of the practice, see my article entitled : Polygamy: A Soul-Splitting Curse .)
Plurality of Doctrines 