1. I truly wanted to know if the LDS Church was true.

2. I studied and prayed and followed the formula in Moroni 10:3-5 to get a testimony.

3. I didn’t receive an answer, therefore the LDS Church isn’t true.

This is often followed up with the statement “I’ve never had a spiritual experience that told me or led me to believe the LDS Church was true.”

In some cases people have expressed that they’ve never had any spiritual experience whatsoever, and therefore they are certain there is no God. Others say they’ve had spiritual experiences that lead them to believe in God and/or Jesus Christ, but not the LDS Church, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, etc.

I propose that these people have not received knowledge that the LDS Church is true because they do not want it to be true.

In bringing up this idea to those with whom I’ve discussed the matter, some are offended and angry. They tell me they did indeed want to know if the LDS Church was true, and they cried and pleaded with God to tell them, but they received no answer, and they cried when they realized it wasn’t true. I don’t intend to cast doubt on whether these people wanted to know if the Church was true, but this is different than wanting the Church to be true.

How do I know that, at least in some cases, these people did not want the Church to be true? Because; 1) they placed the burden of truth on the Church rather than on those sources against the Church, and 2) their behavior changed after they “discovered” the Church was “not true”.

If someone wants the Church to be true, they will fight to believe in it and will discount all evidence against it until there is something that provides absolute proof against it. There is no such proof against the LDS Church. Oh, I know people think they have proof, but they don’t. They have circumstantial evidence that depends on assumptions. The challenge detractors of the faith have is that the burden is on them to prove a negative. Those I’ve talked with have required far less than negative proof, which is what anyone who truly wants to believe the Church to be true would require. Instead, those I know who have left the Church have assumed the Church was false based on limited evidence and faulty assumptions.

With regards to behavior, if someone leaves the Church and immediately began a life of debauchery boozing it up, sleeping around, selling crack, spitting, cussing, and burning flags, growing a beard, betting on cock fights, etc., you would naturally and logically assume they were simply looking for a way out of the Church because what they really wanted was to participate in these types of activities. I don’t know anyone who has left the Church and gone on to participate in all those activities, but in some cases I have seen people participate in one or more of these activities, and do so in such a manner as to make one wonder. But I know of others who have left the Church and have continued to live very good, “Christian” lives. They might even work harder at being good than they did while a Mormon, which would seem to lay waste to the charge that they’re merely lazy.

In making the claim that one must want the Church to be true in order to discover if it is, I open myself to the criticism “Well of course if someone wants the Church to be true then they’re going to feel good about it.” Allow me to clarify what I mean, because I’m not necessarily saying someone has to want the LDS Church to be true, but that they want the doctrines to be true, or they simply want to know what the truth really is and they’re open to it being anything. I think the following story helps explain.

President Woodruff was ordained an apostle on April 26, 1839, and just a short time later left for Great Britain. The following is an anecdote from his service there:

“When I arose to speak at Brother Benbow’s house, a man entered the door and informed me that he was a constable, and had been sent by the rector of the parish with a warrant to arrest me. I asked him, ‘For what crime?’ He said, ‘For preaching to the people.’ I told him that I, as well as the rector, had a license for preaching the gospel to the people, and that if he would take a chair I would wait upon him after meeting. He took my chair and sat beside me. For an hour and a quarter I preached the first principles of the everlasting gospel. The power of God rested upon me, the spirit filled the house, and the people were convinced. At the close of the meeting I opened the door for baptism, and seven offered themselves. Among the number were four preachers and the constable. The latter arose and said, ‘Mr. Woodruff, I would like to be baptized.’ I told him I would like to baptize him. I went down into the pool and baptized the seven. We then came together. I confirmed thirteen, administered the Sacrament, and we all rejoiced together.

“The constable went to the rector and told him that if he wanted Mr. Woodruff taken for preaching the gospel, he must go himself and serve the writ; for he had heard him preach the only true gospel sermon he had ever listened to in his life. The rector did not know what to make of it, so he sent two clerks of the Church of England as spies, to attend our meeting, and find out what we did preach. They both were pricked in their hearts, received the word of the Lord gladly, and were baptized and confirmed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The rector became alarmed, and did not venture to send anybody else.” (In Cowley, Wilford Woodruff, p. 118.)

The constable who was sent obviously didn’t want to believe in the LDS Church, nor did those clerks sent after him. But they evidently were interested in the truth, whatever the source, and when they heard it they recognized it. Consequences of joining the LDS Church were secondary to them.

Much of the reason why these three so easily joined the LDS Church has to do with the culture of the time. Doubt about religion in general was nowhere near as prevalent as in the developed nations of today. People were more apt to believe things of a spiritual nature generally, as they are in many places of the world today, although not so much in the United States and western Europe. People today are more hardened, jaded, doubtful, skeptical, etc. and that may not be their fault so much as merely the result of the environment.

The point is that it’s not that someone has to want the Book of Mormon or the LDS Church to be true to know, they have to want the doctrines taught by those sources to be true. And in saying that, I am not saying they have to have a preconceived notion of those doctrines, but that upon hearing them they have to be appealing.

A case in point is the doctrine of eternal marriage. If someone hears that upon becoming a faithful member of the LDS Church they can be joined with their family in a marriage that will not be merely ’til death do you part, but for all eternity, lasting beyond this life, but that doesn’t sound like something they want, then they will not receive a testimony of that doctrine. Partly because they will not likely take the steps to gain a testimony of that doctrine, but also because why would God give them a spiritual confirmation of it if it’s not something they want? In doing so, God would be giving them knowledge that does no good for them, but only places them in a position of knowing something they don’t want to know, which opens them to more condemnation than they would otherwise be subject to.

Likewise if someone wants to believe there is no God, they will never find out if there is one. If someone wants to believe that only the Bible is true, and that nothing else is, they will never gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon. If one does not want to believe that modern-day prophets exist, they will never gain a testimony of Joseph Smith’s calling.

It is only when someone hears the message of the gospel, likes it, and wants to know if it’s true so that they can live it, and then take the steps necessary to find out, that they will find out. This is what sincere faith looks like, as opposed to idle curiosity.

One last comment…there is this issue of time. Some will say “I wanted to know if these things were true, and I prayed and studied for two years and I never got an answer.” Well, maybe God was testing you to see if you really wanted to know, and it would have taken three years. For others perhaps it would take 10 years, maybe 20 for others. When we put arbitrary time limits on God, we are showing that we do not have real faith. I don’t mean that a lack of real faith is a character flaw, I mean we don’t really want that thing, the object of our faith, to be true. If I really want the LDS Church to be true, if I want the things it teaches to be true, I will go through all the actions of being an active member even if I don’t have an answer. Or even in the face of doubt and evidence against the Church. This is the definition of faith. If one has an answer that something is true, they have knowledge, not faith. Therefore, if someone says they left the LDS Church because they didn’t receive an answer, the lack of an answer is not the root cause, but rather a lack of faith, or a lack of wanting the LDS Church to be true.

Now, if someone does not want the LDS Church to be true, what can be done to convince them? Nothing. It is like trying to convince someone who doesn’t like chocolate that they really do. If our goal is to spread the gospel we should not be engaged in trying to convince those who have no interest. We should be focused on finding those who already do want it to be true, but simply don’t know about it yet, or have misunderstandings but are ultimately seekers of truth. For those who don’t want the gospel to be true, we might as well stop trying to convince them and just love them as they are, regardless of whether they ever join the Church or not.

Evidence.

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Proof.

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

Objective/objectivity.

1. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
2. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
3. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Subjective/subjectivity.

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
3. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

These are all definitions taken from a standard dictionary, but for the purpose of this discussion I must add some terms and the definitions I have attached to them.

Objective proof. Proof that has been given from one person to another, or that has been witnessed by more than one person. This is to be differentiated from proof that merely can be given from one person to another, or which can be witnessed by more than one person.

Subjective proof. Proof that, whether or not it can be given from one person to another or can be witnessed by more than one person, has not been.

To illustrate the differences between these types of proof, take the sun, for example. If I tell my friend “The sun has risen” and he says “What proof do you have?” I merely say “Go outside and look.” He looks, he sees, and he knows. This is objective proof.

However, let us suppose that my friend is blind, cannot feel temperature changes on his skin, and is completely devoid of any sense that would tell him the sun has risen. I tell him “The sun has risen” and he says “What proof do you have?” I cannot tell him to go outside and look, because he cannot see. He cannot feel the light of the sun upon his skin. There is no way for me to prove to him that the sun has risen. This is subjective proof.

Notice that the facts are the same one way or the other. The sun has indeed risen. The difference is in my ability or inability to demonstrate this proof to my friend. The proof becomes objective at the moment in which it is given or communicated to a second person, but this does not change the nature of the proof itself.

Note: Now, we could go into a more metaphysical discussion on whether in this example I even know the sun has risen. After all, scientists have been able to simulate certain feelings and perceptions in the human brain using electrical impulses, so perhaps the sun has not truly risen, and it’s all in my head. Perhaps we are all living in an artificial world similar to that shown in the movie The Matrix and what we perceive as reality is not reality at all. Perhaps even the concept that 2+2=4 is not reality, as some philosophers have postulated. But that is a different discussion, for the most part. For the purposes of our discussion, we will assume that 2+2=4, and that when we see the sun shining it really is shining not just within one’s head, but that this is a fact.

Alrighty, are we ready to get started?

The question is how do I know that God lives, that Jesus Christ is real, that the LDS Church is true, that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, etc.?

The simple, short answer is that God has told me so.

Why did God tell me so?

Because I followed the formula.

How do I know God has told me so?

There is a form of communication that results in the transfer of knowledge, not through oral or written communication, not through sound, site, smell/taste, or touch, but through another medium. This form of communication cannot be forged or falsified, because intrinsic to the form of communication is the ability to detect forgery. In other words, I am saying that God has communicated with me and has told me the truth and factual nature of the above items in a way that cannot be faked.

The reasonable scientist or skeptic at this point would naturally say “That’s all well and good for you, now prove it to me.”

To which my response is “I can’t.”

“Then why should I believe you?”

“You shouldn’t, not unless you want to.”

“Why would I want to believe you?”

“Because if the things I am claiming to be true are indeed true, you want to participate.”

“What if I don’t want to participate, I just want to know if what you’re saying is true because I want to know what is true generally?”

“Then you’re not following the formula, and it won’t work.”

Now, in the real world, this conversation might continue on with questions such as “Why is the formula set up that way?” or “Why doesn’t God just tell us he exists?” But these are different questions and not the purpose of this post. The point here is to illustrate in broad terms how God communicates with man, why Mormons believe what they do, and how they can claim to know that what they believe is true.

Where I have found that skeptics err is when they start making statements such as:

• There is no such form of communication.
• There is no such other sense with which to detect such communication.
• If you can’t prove it to me, then it doesn’t exist.

These are illogical statements. The person who makes them is attempting to prove a negative. They are saying definitively that something does not exist, when they have no proof that the something in question does not exist. All they have proof of is that they have no hard evidence to positively prove its existence, or in other words, they take a lack of evidence as hard proof of non-existence. In doing so, they are exercising much greater faith than any Mormon.

As evidence for their faith, Mormons can at least point to the word of trusted friends and family who say they know due to communication with an omniscient being, the existence of the Book of Mormon, and countless other reference points. None of these is proof, but they at least get one to the point of saying “If none of this is true, then why does all this stuff exist?” Those who claim Mormonism or a belief in God is false have no such evidence. True, they may have friends, family, and associates who believe as they do, but these people make no claim of communication with an omniscient being, since that would undermine their primary argument. There is no physical evidence to lend credence to their position. They are merely saying “I have never seen a black swan therefore there is no such thing” which again is illogical since their experience is subjective, and such a thing may exist without their knowing of it. Likewise, God may exist without their knowing of it. Any argument to the contrary seems to hinge on assumptions about God, such as “If God existed, he wouldn’t let children be tortured and killed.” But this is merely an assumption, and there is no proof that it is true.

What of the case of the individual who says “I also communicate with God, and he told me that Mormons are wrong.” For me, it doesn’t present a problem. I know what I know, and if someone else says they have evidence that conflicts with my knowledge, logically I must assume they are incorrect. For the person caught between a Mormon and someone of another faith claiming to have received divine communication, as Mormons, this might produce something more of a dilemma. Assuming the other person’s belief system also provide a formula for knowing whether it is true or not, then the logical thing to do, assuming the third person is interested in exploring both faiths, would be to test both of them, or try both formulas, and go with the one that yield the satisfactory result.

But what if they try both, and they end up deciding God has told them Mormonism is false? Again, this is no different than the situation with the first person. How can such a thing happen? The form of communication I referenced above does not allow for forgery, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t forged forms of communication. God’s communication can’t be forged, but a person could trick themselves into thinking they’ve received it when in fact they haven’t, or Satan could do the same.

“Ah-ha!” the skeptic says, “So how do you know you aren’t just tricking yourself?! How do you know you have received the true communication while the other person has received false communication?”

Because once you receive the true communication, then you know what it is. Only those who haven’t received this communication, or who haven’t learned how to identify it when they do, or who purposely fool themselves after having received it, or who get lazy and forget what the communication was like, or perhaps some other reasons (I’m getting a bit lazy here myself about writing this post at this point and I admit the possibility of other reasons beyond those I’ve mentioned), are subject to mistaking false communication for the real thing.

Now, although it’s not the point of this post, I’ll touch on the subject of why God would communicate this way.

1. We are children of God, destined to become like him.
2. Only those who want to live the life God lives can become like him.
3. We can’t prove to God or ourselves what kind of life we want to live unless we have a chance to do so in a state of uncertain limbo, which this life is. If God were to give us knowledge prior to us proving ourselves, it would frustrate our ability to generate that proof. Thus we only receive knowledge after we prove ourselves by exercising faith.
4. If the proof that comes by this form of communication with God were not subjective, but could be proven objectively by one person to another, then knowledge could be given by one man to another independent of God, and thus the second person could receive knowledge prior to proving themselves, which would hurt them rather than help them.

Thus, it makes sense that certain types of knowledge can only be given to man by God, so that God’s plan for man, to help him become like Him, remains under God’s perfect control, and does not become frustrated by the imperfections of man.

If I’ve made any errors in my thinking, I invite you to point them out, not because I think I can best you in an argument and have fun doing so, but because I believe I may have made some errors, and I would like to learn from them. I look forward to the discussion.

Today at church we had an activity wherein everyone sat in a circle. We were given notecards and pencils and instructed to take 60 seconds to look around the room and memorize everything we could see that was the color blue. Once the time was up, we were instructed to not look up, and to write down everything we had noticed that was the color green. I couldn’t remember a single thing. We were then instructed to right down everything we could remember that was the color blue. I could remember about five things.

The lesson, of course, is that we see what we are looking for, and tend to ignore what we aren’t looking for. And since our wants and desires strongly influence what we look or don’t look for, we end up seeing much of what we want to see, and little of what we don’t want to see.

In the case of religion, if we want our religion to be true, we will see those things that support that bias. If we don’t want a religion to be true, we will see those things that support that bias. Hence, we get one group of people who says “How can you possibly believe Mormonism is true?!” while another group says “How can you possibly believe Mormonism is false?!” How can intelligent people be found on both sides? Because we all make decisions based on the information available to us, and if we are each absorbing certain bits and pieces of information and ignoring other pieces, then it’s no wonder we arrive at different conclusions.

But of course regardless of what we believe, there is absolute truth, and our belief doesn’t affect what that truth is. You might convince everyone in the world that the moon is made of green cheese but it won’t make it so. So how does one go about finding out what the real truth is, despite our biases?

1. Desire. If I don’t want to know what the truth is, then I’m already stuck. I will never see past my biases if I have no desire to know what the truth is. “But if what I believe is true anyway, what does it matter?” you might ask. The problem is that if you don’t really know whether what you believe is true or not, you cannot take advantage of that truth in nearly as effective a manner. In addition, you are on wobbly ground, because without that assurance something unexpected may come along that shakes your belief, and even though you already believe in what is true, because you were not convinced you may be convinced it is not.

2. An open mind. If one wants to know the truth, then it follows that one will have an open mind. No idea will be threatening. No idea will be beyond consideration, with the exception, perhaps, of those you already know to be true beyond any doubt.

3. A seeking mind. One might have desire and an open mind, but if one waits for things to fall in one’s lap, then one might be waiting a long time. To find the truth, one must seek it out. Otherwise the gems of truth that are buried your backyard may remain as undiscovered as if they were buried under a mountain on the other side of the world.

4. Commitment. We are less likely to find the truth if we are not committed to act upon it. In the case of the things of God, I believe he may actively prevent us from finding the truth if we are not prepared to live according to that truth. For example, for the sake of argument let us assume the LDS Church is God’s one true church upon the earth, as the Church claims. If one asks God whether the LDS Church is that one true church, but one is not committed to becoming a member of that Church upon receiving a positive answer, will God give them an answer? Why would he? All that would do is condemn the one asking, without doing them any good.

For those inclined to say “But you Mormons aren’t open-minded at all, and you don’t want to know the truth! You just stick to your biases!” Certainly in many cases that is true. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the LDS Church is the true church of God. As for myself, while I can speculate and consider arguments against the truth of the LDS Church, I can’t do so very seriously, because I do know it’s true. I would have to close my mind to what I have already experienced, and what I already know, in order to seriously consider anything else being the truth. I would be no more “open-minded” in so doing as I would be to consider whether 2+2 is not really 4, which can be stimulating, but is not very useful for most people.

“But how do you know what is true?” you might ask? Because God has a way of communicating with us that is unmistakable. He gives us knowledge that is as self-evident as 2+2=4. To those who have not experienced this form of communication, it seems mystical, even foolish. To those who have experienced it it seems logical and straightforward. The question for you is whether or not you have a desire to know what the truth is, are open-minded enough to accept it, whatever it may be, will make an effort to find it, and then be committed to living according to that truth. If you can answer “yes” to each of those questions, then you will find the truth. God guarantees it.

“I hate it when someone stands up and says ‘I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet…’ They don’t know anything! They’re just saying it because that’s what they think they’re supposed to say.”

“Then this one day I was listening to a lesson and the teacher says ‘I know the Book of Mormon is true’ and I’m thinking ‘Ok, I’ve been studying this book critically for years and I don’t know if it’s true. All you’ve been doing is reading it, if that, and not even thinking about what you’re reading, and frankly you’re not that bright, so how in the world can you claim to know it’s true?’”

“I can’t stand to see these little kids go up and bear their testimonies. They don’t know anything, they’re just repeating what they’ve been brainwashed to say.”

These are some of the types of comments I’ve heard and read. First, let’s talk about possible reasons why someone might feel this way. I think it’s useful here to consider the psychological phenomenon of “projection”.

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.

Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or “projecting,” those same faults onto another person or object.

– From the entry on psychological projection found on Wikipedia, the source of all that is good, true, and correct.

Is it that those who find the bearing of testimonies of others as annoying are merely uncomfortable that they do not possess a testimony? They then therefore project their own lack of testimony onto those others, which allows them to feel a sense of superiority because, after all, at least they have the dignity to not bear testimony of something they don’t really know. This can easily progress from assuming that some people don’t have a testimony, to assuming that nobody has a testimony. Finding an intelligent person with doubts or a lack of testimony can greatly add to one’s feeling of justification in such opinions.

One might say “But I know these people don’t know the Book of Mormon is true, or that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or that the Mormon Church is true. Some of them are little kids, for heaven’s sake, they can’t possibly know these things are true because they don’t even understand what these things are!”

It seems to me this is the weakness in their logic. What if a small child can know these things are true? What if a person of extremely limited intellectual capacity can know these things are true? These are uncomfortable questions for some, because then the thought is “If these little kids and dumb people know something I don’t, and I’m smart, then what’s my problem?” But uncomfortable or not, what’s the answer? How can a “dumb” person know something is true while a “smart” person remains in the dark?

The answer is that a testimony is not dependent on intellectual ability, at least not once very basic level is attained. How much intellectual capacity does one need to have to have a basic concept of what a church is? To understand that Joseph Smith was a guy who said some things? To understand that the Book of Mormon is a book that says things in it?” A 3-year old can understand these things, and likewise some of the most intellectually limited among us. All that is needed to obtain a testimony is for one to ask God if these things are true. A fool can receive an answer and understand it as such. Thus the gospel is available to all, not just black and white, bond and free, but stupid and smart. How much sense would it make for God to make His truth accessibly only to those who can read, or have studied algebra, or taken a college-level psychology course? If God’s purpose is to save as many of His children as possible, then his gospel must be comprehensible to the most minimal level of intelligence.

Of course this type of testimony would be a minimal testimony. That testimony can grow, develop, and flourish as intellectual ability is gained. But the testimony would not necessarily grow stronger, only more profound. Once one knows the Book of Mormon is true, additional study doesn’t make it any truer, nor does it allow the bearer of the testimony to have any more certainty regarding its truthfulness. After all, they’ve already received an answer from God that it is true–what greater answer could one find?

Now, it is not just those without testimonies who might find the testimonies of others to be annoying. There are those who say “Well yeah, I have a testimony, but that dolt over there sure doesn’t.” We might see a “stupid” person having a testimony as a threat to our sense of superiority. But once we understand that obtaining a testimony isn’t a matter of intellectual ability, then the idea of a “stupid” person having a testimony isn’t a threat to us anymore.

But if one understands this and still feels threatened, perhaps it is because of the first reason–they lack a testimony themselves. The solution then is not to understand how a dumb person can have one, but it is to take the steps to receive a testimony for one’s self.

In the past two weeks I’ve had multiple experiences with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormons) who are struggling with doubt regarding the veracity of the religion. It’s curious to me that all these experiences between unrelated individuals happened within such a short time-frame, but that’s neither here nor there…

Each individual’s situation seems to be different, and yet they each also appear to be similar in certain ways, and it has got me thinking about various ideas that I’ve had in my head for a few years now that I want to flesh out a bit here. The first is regarding faith as a principle of power.

It is only natural for our experiences to affect how we see things. If a person is bitten by the first 10 dogs to which they are exposed, it is not unreasonable for that person to assume that the 11th dog will also bite them. Statistically, and all other things being equal, this assumption is completely ridiculous. But to the person who has been bitten 10 times in a row and knows nothing else, the assumption is 100% logical.

The key is that the person who has been bitten lacks complete information. If they had access to perfect statistics regarding dog bites throughout history, they would know that their experience was incredibly unusual and that they shouldn’t be afraid of the next dog they meet. Of course, being human, they would be, and nobody would blame them given their experience, but again, it is not having the facts, or not trusting the facts, that create the fear.

The real challenge in life is that none of us has complete information. It is simply impossible to acquire all the information needed in order to make perfect decisions, and therefore we must do “the best we can” with what we’ve got. We therefore balance the value of spending more time and effort on gathering data with the value of making a speedy decision, and when the value tips towards making the decision, we make it. This is generally a subconscious process, but one we go through hundreds or thousands of times per day.

We can understand more about this dilemma by examining the extremes. What would happen if we never made a decision without perfect information? Then we would be paralyzed. What if we made all decisions without any information? Then we would make a lot of bad decisions, and those that produced good results would be purely serendipitous. Therefore we must find a happy medium that generally produces good results.

“Finding” this happy medium is much of what life seems to be about. As children, we fail to gather information regarding fire, or do not trust the information given to us, and so we learn by experience. The information given to us by touching fire generally results in a change of behavior, and the results from that new behavior are more conducive to what we might call “happiness”.

But some information is easy to come by, whereas other information is more difficult to obtain. Finding out if fire burns can be done quickly, cheaply, and easily. Finding out if going to medical school and becoming a highly skilled surgeon is the right choice is substantially more difficult. In addition, the choice is exclusive of others. Going to school for that many years necessarily means not going to school to study something else. Since the judgment of the value of the decision cannot truly be made until one has gone through all the schooling and is well along in their career, there needs to be other means by which information is obtained, but more crucial, there also needs to be trust of that information, and that trust can be called “faith”.

Thus, in order to survive, let alone prosper, we find that we must make decisions with incomplete information. The extent to which we can make decisions on limited information that generate successful results is the extent to which we “succeed” in this life, regardless of what your definition of success is. In other words, he who can make the best decisions with the least information becomes the most successful. He who can make good decisions only with extensive access to information cannot be as successful, at least not within the same time frame.

We therefore, much of the time subconsciously as I mentioned, turn to trusted sources of information. As long as those sources are trustworthy most of the time, that is they provide us with correct information, we will succeed, and this is key, even though we may not understand the information ourselves. For example, if I were a betting man, and someone I trusted told me that I should place a bet on a certain horse, and I did so and won, it does not matter that I do not understand how my friend knew that horse would win. That is, the attainment of success in winning money does not depend on me understanding the details, I only need understand which horse to bet on.

Thus, faith is a principle of power, if we define faith as being a trust in information provided to us which we do not fully understand, but which is correct. That is, we trust the information even if we do not understand the information, and the information turns out to be correct–this is faith. I think it also important to understand that faith is not, or defining faith as not being, trust in information that turns out to be false.

And so, let us suppose that there is a God, and that he desires that we do certain things during our lives because only by doing those things can we attain “success” as defined by him. But let us also suppose that in order to attain that success he wants for us, it is critical that we freely choose to do “those things”. This means we cannot be fully aware of the reality of God, or those things. If we were, then we would not be free to choose. Thus, ignorance and doubt are key to God’s plan, for only in the face of ignorance and doubt are we truly free to make our own choices.

However, since God wants us to do certain things, he needs a way to communicate to us what those things are, but in a way that allows us to still be free to choose. This means he must be able to communicate with us such that he can place ideas, and thus choices, in our heads, but without giving us a perfect knowledge that he exists or what the consequences of those choices might be.

But, let us suppose we have two individuals. One individual has perfect knowledge of God and those things he is supposed to do during his life, and other has an imperfect knowledge of those things. The one with perfect knowledge would be able to easily speed through doing those things and get far ahead of the individual without perfect knowledge. Is there a way the individual with imperfect knowledge could keep up, or at least follow at a close pace, the individual with perfect knowledge? Yes, through faith. Through faith, the individual with imperfect knowledge could make all the same choices and take all the same actions as the individual with perfect knowledge, and therefore would have the same or nearly the same power as the individual with perfect knowledge.

In reality, the individual with perfect knowledge would actually not succeed at all, since as I mentioned, one of the conditions of the plan is that we are not able to have perfect knowledge and still succeed. But the point is that a real individual with imperfect knowledge is as nearly able to be as successful at making the right choices as a theoretical individual with perfect knowledge.

And so if there is a God, and if he has a plan for us, if that plan requires us to have imperfect knowledge, and if a few other things are also true, then we can see that faith is indeed not just a principle of power in terms of temporal pursuits such as obtaining physical security, but is also a principle of obtaining eternal power, or power that lasts beyond this life and forever.

And given that it is late, I’m tired, and I generally don’t like to read what I’ve written, I will exercise faith that what I have written is not only complete but awesome, and I will go to bed. Hopefully my faith is not in vain. If it is, let me know and I may make some edits.

And, what, if anything would lead you to the conclusion that Mormonism’s foundational stories, personalities and writings are not what they claim to be?

Yes, there is. What leads me to believe they are true is God telling me so, and so the way I figure it, the only thing that could convince me otherwise would be for God to tell me that what he has already told me is not true. But that’s a bit like the age-old question “Could God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?”

As far as any other sort of evidence such as writings or lack thereof, scientific “evidence”, etc., no, I don’t really see how anything else could convince me, because it wasn’t by those things that I was convinced of the truthfulness of the LDS Church in the first place. Not that things couldn’t come up that might give me pause–I’m sure there are other things I’ll learn about Mormonism that will make me think “Really?! What the heck…?” but in the past when I’ve come across such things my thought process is “Hmm, I wonder what the explanation is for all of this?” as opposed to “I don’t see how the LDS Church can be true anymore.”

When Mormons say they have a testimony of something they are not saying they know 100% that what they are saying is true. On the other hand, they’re also not saying they just think it would nice if it were true. What they are saying is that they have reason to believe something is true. It is an expression of faith, and all members of the LDS Church are encouraged to gain their own testimonies of the doctrines of the church by researching them and praying about them and asking God if they are true or not.

But it would be all too easy if that’s where it left off. It would be great if you could just say “Yeah, I prayed about the Book of Mormon, I feel good, I’m going water skiing.” Being a member of the Mormon faith doesn’t lend itself to helping you be comfortable. It’s not enough just to know and admit that something is true. You actually have to live it. And if that weren’t bad enough, you’re supposed to regularly “bear your testimony” meaning you tell other people what you know. That might be more through your actions than your words, but words matter and Mormons are encouraged to verbally share their knowledge or their testimony with others on a regular basis.

Public speaking is the number one phobia in the United States. Know what #2 is? Death. That’s right, people are more afraid of speaking in front of a group than they are of dying. Or as Jerry Seinfeld put it, most people would rather be the guy in the casket than the one giving the eulogy. So it’s no surprise that some Mormons get nervous when the first Sunday of the month rolls around, because that’s testimony meeting at church.

Every Sunday (with rare exceptions) Mormons have three meetings at church. The most important one is called Sacrament Meeting, and it’s the one in which we take the bread and water in remembrance of Christ’s flesh and blood. After the sacramental ordinance is completed in that meeting, we generally have “talks”. That is, members of the congregation (generally 2-4) get up in front of everybody and talk about a gospel topic, like faith or repentance or helping the poor. People have a hard enough time with this, even though they’re generally asked to give a talk days if not weeks in advance so they have plenty of time to prepare. But on the first Sunday of the month it’s different. Any member of the congregation can go up to the front, stand at the microphone, and bear their testimony, meaning they talk about the gospel things they know and experiences they’ve had that have helped them to know the gospel is true.

This is called “bearing your testimony” or “giving a testimony” and what is said is often referred to as “a testimony.” As in “Hi Jack, I really enjoyed your testimony today.” Jack’s testimony may have been short. He may have stood up and said nothing more than “I know Christ lives and that we can be forgiven of our sins” before sitting down. He may have gone on for 40 minutes talking about how he knows Christ lives and how he knows he can be forgiven of his sins. The length doesn’t matter, what matters is that the testimony is sincere and real. People aren’t supposed to get up and say things they don’t really believe and especially things they don’t even want to believe. I’m sure it happens, but it shouldn’t.

But bearing a testimony and having a testimony are really two different things, and having a testimony is the one that comes first, because if you don’t have it you can’t bear it, although it has been said that bearing it can lead to having it. But leaving that aside for now, let’s focus on the having rather than the bearing.

Having a testimony is important because of the nature of this world. God generally doesn’t throw anything in our face or drop anything in our laps. A large part of why we’re here on earth is so that we can prove to God and ourselves who we really are, and if we could see what’s really going on and God spoke to all of us every day as one man speaks to another then we really wouldn’t have the freedom to choose between good and bad. We’d all choose good because we’d know 100% that we better, or else. It wouldn’t be much of a test. So God keeps things in a sort of limbo. He makes sure that if you want to believe in him, you can find the evidence to support your desire. But if you don’t want to believe in him, he doesn’t present you with proof of himself to force you to believe in him. He wants us to choose for ourselves what we really want, and we prove that every day with the choices we make.

Because we’re in this world where nothing seems 100% certain, a testimony can be an anchor to help us do what is right. In my life, my testimony that there is a God and that God wants me to be doing certain things helps me to be a better husband, father, son, brother, neighbor, and friend. It helps me in my job, my hobbies, my ambitions. If it weren’t that I have something at my core that tells me that God exists, I don’t know what kind of person I would be, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be as motivated to do the things I do. I’d probably eat more Ben and Jerry’s, that’s for sure.

“But how does someone get a testimony? I mean, I still don’t know what that means.” you might say. “How can you claim to ‘know’ something is true?”

For me, I feel as though I’ve always had a testimony that God existed and that there was a plan. It has always made sense to me and I feel like it’s who I am. I can understand the logic people use to explain there is no God, but I don’t believe it. But I’m not very good at explaining how I know God exists. One analogy is to ask you to state whether you know somebody exists when they walk behind a wall and you can’t see them anymore. I’m not asking whether they’re in a certain location, I’m asking you whether that person exists as a human being. You would likely say that of course they still exist, even though you can’t see them. How do you know they exist? Somebody could argue with you and essentially prove to you that you have little if any proof to show that this person exists. You might even be swayed by their arguments. And yet afterwards you would say, “Well of course the person exists, all these hypothetical arguments about how they might not exist are interesting and logical, but I just saw the person walk behind the wall and of course that person still exists.”

Well, if I see someone go behind a wall I know that they exist. And in a similar way I also know that God exists, even though I didn’t just see him a second ago, even though I have no recollection of ever seeing him. But I feel his presence in a way that isn’t subject to scientific scrutiny, at least not with the scientific knowledge we have right now.

You might call all this brainwashing and ridiculous if you don’t believe in God. That’s true, this is what brainwashing would look like. But answer me this, is it any different than how things would look if God does exist?

Q: One time I asked a Mormon Elder if something came up that definitely, without a doubt, showed that the BOM and/or the LDS Church was wrong, would he still remain an LDS member. His answer was YES, he would remain LDS even if it was unequivically disproved.

That is one step away from DRINK THE COOLAID status.

A: I heartily disagree with that elder. If someone could show me unequivocal evidence that the church was false I’d leave in a heartbeat. It’s way too much work to be a Mormon if it isn’t true. But of course as you’re finding out it’s hard to show me evidence that is “uniquivocal”

Q: Over 3000 changes without footnote. I’d be gone in a flash!

A: Would you if God had already told you the book was true?

Q: Thats just the point. God doesn’t make 3000 changes without footnote.

A: You got a biblical reference for that?

Q: its just common sense. you got a biblical reference for Jesus and Satan being brothers?

A: Nope, but for us the Bible isn’t the end of God’s words to man. We see the Bible as being God’s word to a select group of men in a small part of the world. But we believe God has spoken to a lot of other people. The BofM is just one other book, but for all we know there may be hundreds of others like it. Maybe there were prophets in China 2,500 years ago and someday we’ll find what God said to them and it will confirm what’s in the Bible and help us understand it better. Maybe there were prophets in Russia, Africa, India, or Greenland thousands of years ago and they’ve all written books similar to the Bible. We don’t see the Bible as containing everything God ever spoke to man, just a small part of it, although obviously it’s of tremendous importance due to the firsthand accounts of the Savior’s life. But we believe God has said more than what’s in the Bible and that he will continue to say more through his living prophets to give us further knowledge about his plan for us.

Q: I will add this. If I found out that the Bible had over 3000 changes to it without footnote, I would punt my Christian faith like it was 4th down and 20.