Testimony

Kullervo
June 28, 2007
https://byzantium.wordpress.com/2007/06/28/testimony/

I had a great discussion with my mother a few days ago (she’s a true believing Mormon) about
the difference between faith and testimony in Mormon theology, and I’ve been mulling around
some thoughts about it ever since.

“Testimony,” as commonly used by Mormons, is an unfortunate term. It’s an umbrella term, a

thought-construct composed of several different distinct but related concepts, but they’re all
blurred together into one conglomerate noun in the Mormon vernacular. When the Holy Ghost
bears witness of the truth of x, a Mormon calls that your testimony. When you tell others the
religious things you believe or “know,” that’s also your testimony. Those two I can handle, but
the third main use is the most vague and elusive, and the one least based in (even Mormon)
scripture and theology. It’s this idea that a testimony is a thing, a noun, an intangible object that
you actually have and need to nurture and work on so it grows.

It’s not the same thing as Faith, which is given some pretty clear and basically consistent
definitions in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews)
said “faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (NIV). In the
Book of Mormon, Alma said faith “is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye
have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true,” and Moroni said faith is
“things which are hoped for and not seen.” None of those are really the same thing that Mormons
are talking about when they talk about their testimony. Testimony is the assurance of the truth of
Mormonism via mystical experiences.

Faith is consistently couched in terms like “hope.” Your testimony is the things you know. You
might talk about faith in terms of certainty, but you would never describe a testimony using the
word “hope.” Sure, the terms are similar, but they’re not identical.

In Mormon theology, such as it is, the requirements for salvation are faith, repentance, baptism,
the gift of the holy ghost, and enduring to the end (which includes getting the necessary
ordinances and priesthood, and continuing to develop faith, repent of sins, and renew your
baptismal covenant by taking the sacrament). Testimony per se is not a requirement for the
Celestial Kingdom. There’s not testimony checker at the pearly gates. Nevertheless, Mormons
constantly talk about the necessity of having a testimony, as if it is basically the most important
thing in Mormonism.

It has no real connected place in Mormon theology, so why is it necessary? All of the critical
steps (the principles and ordinances of the gospel) for salvation are obtainable without ever once
feeling the Holy Ghost, much less Getting a Testimony.

There’s a weird inconsistency there that bothers me. Basically, what it boils down to is that
Mormonism in practice focuses almost obsessively on the need for the individual to experience
successive, ongoing conversion experiences. No wonder Mormons are able to simply ignore their
doubts and criticisms of the church that they hear! They are spending their time and effort
constantly converting themselves. Why? I think it’s because without constant conversion-as-
reinforcement, Mormonism doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny. Testimony may not actually be a
requirement for salvation in Mormonism, but if you aren’t constantly cultivating mystical
confirmations of the Church’s truth, you’re far less likely to stay a member of a Church that is
heavy-handed, authoritarian, wildly implausible, and extremely demanding.

I don’t really believe there is such a thing as “having a testimony.” I think that you can
experience God through the Holy Spirit, and I think you can yourself bear witness to things you
believe are true, but as far as this nebulous thing that you have, I think it’s a mental and cultural
construct with no real existence. It’s a doublespeak term tat obscures what’s going on. Faith is
something that you have. Testimony is something you hear or give.

Given that opinion, why then does it bother me when people say I must not have ever really had
a testimony, seeing as how I left the Church. I mean, if I don;t believe that testimony exists, at
least the way they’re talking about it, why do I care if they say I never had one? Again, it comes
down to the nebulous doublespeak use of the term. When someone says I never had a testimony,
they’re actually questioning whether I ever was really ommitted to the Church, and that pisses
me off. I was raised in the Church, and I was a faithful member. I scrupulously tried to keep the
commandments. I graduated from early morning seminary. I served an honorable mission and I
worked incredibly hard, both physically and spiritually. I read the Book of Mormon again and
again, not as a skeptic, but as an earnest believer. I married in the temple, which took great
personal sacrifices on my part and on my wife’s part. I always paid a full tithe, and I gave
generous fast offerings. I magnified my callings. I prayed daily. When doubts came, I did my
best to resolve them. I tried to me a member-missionary, and I even tried my best to do my home
teaching. I did everything I was supposed to do to “get a testimony,” and I did it with pure
intentions, because I honestly thought it was all the right thing to do.

The Church promises that if you do this stuff, you’ll Get A Testimony. Thus, when people say I
must not have had a testimony, they are insinuating that I never did the things that were required
to get one, and that impugns my integrity and my earnestness, and that bothers me a lot.

I have to say that I believe that the Church is simply not true, at least it is not true the way it
claims to be. It may be a fine place for some people, but it is certainly not God’s one true church,
restored in these latter days in preparation for the second coming, led by living prophets, etc. I
have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but I do have a problem with people
assuming that the only reason I came to the conclusion I did is that I wasn’t really genuinely
committed and faithful in the first place. That’s just insulting.