Lie about your testimony - Dallin H. Oaks

[sushi_chef]

maybe possible to figure out what he said in all the sentences in his talk, but thing is probably he elder oaks will not come to this thread to clarify / defend what he says ...

so, maybe above jeremiah's verses might help understand lord's way, he needs to "search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings"

if he elder oaks errs in his judgement then let him err .., lord will take care ...

[Jonesy]

He is saying that you already know what you are going to testify of, yet you still do not know the authenticity or veracity of that thing, and that that witness comes by telling people it is true. That is lying.

Oh, wow. I missed that part. Where does he say that?

Can you not see that in Oaks' statement? He's talking about gaining a testimony of a given thing. (Yes, he also says "strengthen" in his remarks as well, so he is really blurring the lines here.) This talk was given in General Conference, where the majority are members. Read it again:

"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."

He is telling you that you can simply state that something is true and you will then gain a witness of it. If you never truly knew it to be true before, why tell everyone that you know it to be true simply to gain a witness of it?

Think of it this way, Joseph Smith entered a grove and asked questions and received a profound witness to truth. He didn't walk into the grove and say, "I know that God exists.... ok now show yourself to me God."

These words by Moroni sound similar to what Oaks said, but there is a big distinction:

6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.

This "trial of faith" is not merely telling people something is true when you've received no witness from the Spirit. I find more and more in LDS culture that we like to remove the Holy Ghost in the decision-making process. For example, to believe that prophets won't lead you astray is lazy. It implies that we only need to look to a man and his "prophetic mantle" in order to know God's word to His people. The Lord stated that all precepts taught by man should receive a witness of the Holy Ghost. This statement by Oaks minimizes the need to seek a witness BEFORE testifying of anything.

He says gain *or* strengthen.

He is telling you that you can simply state that something is true and you will then gain a witness of it. If you never truly knew it to be true before, why tell everyone that you know it to be true simply to gain a witness of it?

Can’t this be done through prophesy? Have you read my first post?

[Reluctant Watchman]

if he elder oaks errs in his judgement then let him err .., lord will take care ...

But that's the thing, the Lord cannot allow them to "err" in judgement. It's not in the cards according to them. Hence my beef with the infallibility statements given by prophets. They are hypocritical, though, in making this statement. One moment they say the brethren aren't perfect, and then in nearly the same breath, they'll tell you that God will not allow them to lead you astray. So which is it? God is no respecter of persons. He has allowed, and will continue to allow agency to be at play and for men to make mistakes, to lead people astray.

[Reluctant Watchman]

He is saying that you already know what you are going to testify of, yet you still do not know the authenticity or veracity of that thing, and that that witness comes by telling people it is true. That is lying.

Oh, wow. I missed that part. Where does he say that?

Can you not see that in Oaks' statement? He's talking about gaining a testimony of a given thing. (Yes, he also says "strengthen" in his remarks as well, so he is really blurring the lines here.) This talk was given in General Conference, where the majority are members. Read it again:

"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."

He is telling you that you can simply state that something is true and you will then gain a witness of it. If you never truly knew it to be true before, why tell everyone that you know it to be true simply to gain a witness of it?

Think of it this way, Joseph Smith entered a grove and asked questions and received a profound witness to truth. He didn't walk into the grove and say, "I know that God exists.... ok now show yourself to me God."

These words by Moroni sound similar to what Oaks said, but there is a big distinction:

6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.

This "trial of faith" is not merely telling people something is true when you've received no witness from the Spirit. I find more and more in LDS culture that we like to remove the Holy Ghost in the decision-making process. For example, to believe that prophets won't lead you astray is lazy. It implies that we only need to look to a man and his "prophetic mantle" in order to know God's word to His people. The Lord stated that all precepts taught by man should receive a witness of the Holy Ghost. This statement by Oaks minimizes the need to seek a witness BEFORE testifying of anything.

He says gain *or* strengthen.

He is telling you that you can simply state that something is true and you will then gain a witness of it. If you never truly knew it to be true before, why tell everyone that you know it to be true simply to gain a witness of it?

Can’t this be done through prophesy? Have you read my first post?

I mentioned in an earlier post that Oaks is blurring the lines by stating "gain" and "strengthen", yet he does make a distinction in his remarks. Gain and strengthen are two very distinct ideas.

Also, Oaks is not talking about prophecy.

[sushi_chef]

ummmm...
sushi_ opines they are presidents, psr are name only ... zero seer stones etc ... for the contemporaries of joseph, speaking of prophet, its always him joseph ...

[Jonesy]

Oh, wow. I missed that part. Where does he say that?

Can you not see that in Oaks' statement? He's talking about gaining a testimony of a given thing. (Yes, he also says "strengthen" in his remarks as well, so he is really blurring the lines here.) This talk was given in General Conference, where the majority are members. Read it again:

"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."

He is telling you that you can simply state that something is true and you will then gain a witness of it. If you never truly knew it to be true before, why tell everyone that you know it to be true simply to gain a witness of it?

Think of it this way, Joseph Smith entered a grove and asked questions and received a profound witness to truth. He didn't walk into the grove and say, "I know that God exists.... ok now show yourself to me God."

These words by Moroni sound similar to what Oaks said, but there is a big distinction:

6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.

This "trial of faith" is not merely telling people something is true when you've received no witness from the Spirit. I find more and more in LDS culture that we like to remove the Holy Ghost in the decision-making process. For example, to believe that prophets won't lead you astray is lazy. It implies that we only need to look to a man and his "prophetic mantle" in order to know God's word to His people. The Lord stated that all precepts taught by man should receive a witness of the Holy Ghost. This statement by Oaks minimizes the need to seek a witness BEFORE testifying of anything.

He says gain *or* strengthen.

He is telling you that you can simply state that something is true and you will then gain a witness of it. If you never truly knew it to be true before, why tell everyone that you know it to be true simply to gain a witness of it?

Can’t this be done through prophesy? Have you read my first post?

I mentioned in an earlier post that Oaks is blurring the lines by stating "gain" and "strengthen", yet he does make a distinction in his remarks. Gain and strengthen are two very distinct ideas.

Also, Oaks is not talking about prophecy.

And that’s all you’re going on to say this man is evil speaking?

Here’s what you’re saying he said:

He is saying that you already know what you are going to testify of, yet you still do not know the authenticity or veracity of that thing, and that that witness comes by telling people it is true. That is lying.

Here’s what he said:

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.

It may be best gained by bearing it...through prophesy and preaching of the word in the very moment what you might say, not knowing beforehand. You’re right, this wasn’t the main message, but it is another way. What’s that saying? Would to God we were all prophets? Can you, seeing his heart, testify what his intent is? I see no malice. Out of many things, this one seems petty.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Forgive me if I’m misinterpreting what you said. If you do not know something, how does telling yourself that you know it make it true? That is called conditioning. Convincing yourself.

Also, he implies that it is sometimes better than praying to God, do you approve of that? Should we walk around telling people what we want to know instead of receiving a witness of the Spirit? Is the Spirit not relevant?

Oh dear this thread

Really though, no one here KNOWS anything. Why do we all talk like we do.

I’d give my life for some things I *know*.

But I don’t actually know them yet.


I see it more as a “help me my unbelief” situation. Hope for things you don’t see yet. Hope is part of faith.


I obviously don’t think lying is a good idea. Really guys??

There are things we can know. I know that there is a loving God who watches over you and I.

We can have hope, but let that hope be in Christ, found in study and on your knees in personal communication with your Father. Not standing at a pulpit reciting things they’ve told you are true. Because that is the crux of his statement that I wanted to address.

You don’t “obviously” think it, but your comment leads me to believe otherwise. My first response to you still stands. You pushed past what I mentioned and resorted to generalizing the entire thread, essentially deflecting everything.

If that’s not the case, then you disagree with Oak’s statement and we are at agreement.

Well no. I don’t disagree with his statement AND I don’t think we should “take testimonies”. I just don’t think that’s what he was trying to say. You really think he was trying to tell people to go lie about their testimony? You have some kind of animosity towards them that I don’t understand.

These men are often blind and sometimes dumb, but I do think they are sincere in their attempts to serve god. I think they love him, but are misguided.

They inherited a church in decline. It’s not any one mans fault.

You are going a wild route of justification to say that wasn’t his intention. But yes that is where we diverge, I don’t believe they are completely ignorant anymore. There are other things that have lead me to believe that. They aren’t all good and well-intentioned men and women.

[Gadianton Slayer]

He is saying that you already know what you are going to testify of, yet you still do not know the authenticity or veracity of that thing, and that that witness comes by telling people it is true. That is lying.

Oh, wow. I missed that part. Where does he say that?

To say that a testimony is “gained” in the bearing of it. Bearing testimony can strengthen you, but no matter how many times you tell yourself something it doesn’t become true, it’s only true if it is true.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Can you not see that in Oaks' statement? He's talking about gaining a testimony of a given thing. (Yes, he also says "strengthen" in his remarks as well, so he is really blurring the lines here.) This talk was given in General Conference, where the majority are members. Read it again:

"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."

He is telling you that you can simply state that something is true and you will then gain a witness of it. If you never truly knew it to be true before, why tell everyone that you know it to be true simply to gain a witness of it?

Think of it this way, Joseph Smith entered a grove and asked questions and received a profound witness to truth. He didn't walk into the grove and say, "I know that God exists.... ok now show yourself to me God."

These words by Moroni sound similar to what Oaks said, but there is a big distinction:

6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.

This "trial of faith" is not merely telling people something is true when you've received no witness from the Spirit. I find more and more in LDS culture that we like to remove the Holy Ghost in the decision-making process. For example, to believe that prophets won't lead you astray is lazy. It implies that we only need to look to a man and his "prophetic mantle" in order to know God's word to His people. The Lord stated that all precepts taught by man should receive a witness of the Holy Ghost. This statement by Oaks minimizes the need to seek a witness BEFORE testifying of anything.

He says gain *or* strengthen.

He is telling you that you can simply state that something is true and you will then gain a witness of it. If you never truly knew it to be true before, why tell everyone that you know it to be true simply to gain a witness of it?

Can’t this be done through prophesy? Have you read my first post?

I mentioned in an earlier post that Oaks is blurring the lines by stating "gain" and "strengthen", yet he does make a distinction in his remarks. Gain and strengthen are two very distinct ideas.

Also, Oaks is not talking about prophecy.

And that’s all you’re going on to say this man is evil speaking?

Here’s what you’re saying he said:

He is saying that you already know what you are going to testify of, yet you still do not know the authenticity or veracity of that thing, and that that witness comes by telling people it is true. That is lying.

Here’s what he said:

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.

It may be best gained by bearing it...through prophesy and preaching of the word in the very moment what you might say, not knowing beforehand. You’re right, this wasn’t the main message, but it is another way. What’s that saying? Would to God we were all prophets? Can you, seeing his heart, testify what his intent is? I see no malice. Out of many things, this one seems petty.

"Another way..." Haha, yeah, it doesn't matter how you want to split hairs here. Lying isn't "another way."

[Jonesy]

He is saying that you already know what you are going to testify of, yet you still do not know the authenticity or veracity of that thing, and that that witness comes by telling people it is true. That is lying.

Oh, wow. I missed that part. Where does he say that?

To say that a testimony is “gained” in the bearing of it. Bearing testimony can strengthen you, but no matter how many times you tell yourself something it doesn’t become true, it’s only true if it is true.

I don’t think he’s saying that. See my posts above.

[mudflap]

"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."

...you will then gain a witness of it.

no, he didn't say that at all. The "then" isn't there in that statement.

I studied many things for years and prayed about them sincerely as a missionary. I remember believing certain things were true after much study and prayer, and then going out to testify about my beliefs, but when I opened my mouth, in that exact moment, the Spirit witnessed to me that they were not merely beliefs - they were truths. It happened quite a few times.

Peter found that a testimony was actually just revelation. I have found the same, and that it actually CAN be given in the exact moment when you open your mouth. Study are prayer aren't necessarily a pre-requisite either, but they certainly help.

No. He's not lying.

As for the general membership of the church getting up in testimony meeting - yes, it's very sad what is generally accepted as "testimony" that is usually nothing more than travelogues and parroting.

[Reluctant Watchman]

BTW, I'd really like to know who that "someone" is he is referring to that thinks receiving a witness on your feet is better than on your knees.

[InfoWarrior82]

Imagine going before a court and stating that you had supposedly seen, heard, or otherwise witnessed, but had not actually witnessed. But only "hoped" to witness.

What would happen to you?

Again, gaining and strengthening a testimony are two very different things.

Fact: Bearing testimony of something you have not yet gained is a lie. Period. This is what Elder Oaks said. Please stop falsely attributing other made up meanings into what he already clearly stated. Stop excusing the false doctrine.

[Jonesy]

He says gain *or* strengthen.



Can’t this be done through prophesy? Have you read my first post?

I mentioned in an earlier post that Oaks is blurring the lines by stating "gain" and "strengthen", yet he does make a distinction in his remarks. Gain and strengthen are two very distinct ideas.

Also, Oaks is not talking about prophecy.

And that’s all you’re going on to say this man is evil speaking?

Here’s what you’re saying he said:

He is saying that you already know what you are going to testify of, yet you still do not know the authenticity or veracity of that thing, and that that witness comes by telling people it is true. That is lying.

Here’s what he said:

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.

It may be best gained by bearing it...through prophesy and preaching of the word in the very moment what you might say, not knowing beforehand. You’re right, this wasn’t the main message, but it is another way. What’s that saying? Would to God we were all prophets? Can you, seeing his heart, testify what his intent is? I see no malice. Out of many things, this one seems petty.

"Another way..." Haha, yeah, it doesn't matter how you want to split hairs here. Lying isn't "another way."

Did you run out of rational comments? I agree. Lying isn’t another way...

Do you testify to know his intent or not?

[Reluctant Watchman]

"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."

...you will then gain a witness of it.

no, he didn't say that at all. The "then" isn't there in that statement.

I studied many things for years and prayed about them sincerely as a missionary. I remember believing certain things were true after much study and prayer, and then going out to testify about my beliefs, but when I opened my mouth, in that exact moment, the Spirit witnessed to me that they were not merely beliefs - they were truths. It happened quite a few times.

Peter found that a testimony was actually just revelation. I have found the same, and that it actually CAN be given in the exact moment when you open your mouth. Study are prayer aren't necessarily a pre-requisite either, but they certainly help.

No. He's not lying.

As for the general membership of the church getting up in testimony meeting - yes, it's very sad what is generally accepted as "testimony" that is usually nothing more than travelogues and parroting.

In this talk by Oaks, he does express the exact process you've described, but then he inserts this falsehood of sharing a witness of something without having received a witness.

[Gadianton Slayer]

He is saying that you already know what you are going to testify of, yet you still do not know the authenticity or veracity of that thing, and that that witness comes by telling people it is true. That is lying.

Oh, wow. I missed that part. Where does he say that?

To say that a testimony is “gained” in the bearing of it. Bearing testimony can strengthen you, but no matter how many times you tell yourself something it doesn’t become true, it’s only true if it is true.

I don’t think he’s saying that. See my posts above.

I read them, I disagree. But that’s ok.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Did you run out of rational comments? I agree. Lying isn’t another way...

Do you testify to know his intent or not?

Do you run out of justifications?

Intent... I obviously have my own perspective of what he's said. I also have many other references as to how Oaks plays mental gymnastics or word plays with the saints to justify poor behavior by the brethren. His recent talk on the Consitution was anther example of playing both sides of an issue while justifying poor behavior.

[Gadianton Slayer]

"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."

...you will then gain a witness of it.

no, he didn't say that at all. The "then" isn't there in that statement.

I studied many things for years and prayed about them sincerely as a missionary. I remember believing certain things were true after much study and prayer, and then going out to testify about my beliefs, but when I opened my mouth, in that exact moment, the Spirit witnessed to me that they were not merely beliefs - they were truths. It happened quite a few times.

Peter found that a testimony was actually just revelation. I have found the same, and that it actually CAN be given in the exact moment when you open your mouth. Study are prayer aren't necessarily a pre-requisite either, but they certainly help.

No. He's not lying.

As for the general membership of the church getting up in testimony meeting - yes, it's very sad what is generally accepted as "testimony" that is usually nothing more than travelogues and parroting.

Sure, I did the same thing on my mission and also since then. But we worked for it, we didn’t just want to believe things and go preach it. Faith without works is dead.

[sushi_chef]

"Papal infallibility ... 1869–1870

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the pope when appealing to his highest authority is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine "initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition".[
" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

kinda recalls president woodruff(1807 - 98) might have borrowed that concept ...?!
who said first?? some lds academician/researcher, van...something-something?!

[Jonesy]

Did you run out of rational comments? I agree. Lying isn’t another way...

Do you testify to know his intent or not?

Do you run out of justifications?

Intent... I obviously have my own perspective of what he's said. I also have many other references as to how Oaks plays mental gymnastics or word plays with the saints to justify poor behavior by the brethren. His recent talk on the Consitution was anther example of playing both sides of an issue while justifying poor behavior.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean for this conversation to sour. He may play mental gymnastics or tries to play both sides. I just don’t think you, or anyone really, have proven that he’s asking us to lie, or of any malice. But I suppose I should have quit while ahead since I’ve said my piece on the matter.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Did you run out of rational comments? I agree. Lying isn’t another way...

Do you testify to know his intent or not?

Do you run out of justifications?

Intent... I obviously have my own perspective of what he's said. I also have many other references as to how Oaks plays mental gymnastics or word plays with the saints to justify poor behavior by the brethren. His recent talk on the Consitution was anther example of playing both sides of an issue while justifying poor behavior.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean for this conversation to sour. He may play mental gymnastics or tries to play both sides. I just don’t think you, or anyone really, have proven that he’s asking us to lie, or of any malice. But I suppose I should have quit while ahead since I’ve said my piece on the matter.

No sour intent taken here. What I want to know is how doctrinally sound is the statement by Oaks. Is it true, partially true, or is it false? In the talk, he explains the process outlined by many other scriptural witnesses, including the Savior. But, he then throws in a gaslighting technique.

[InfoWarrior82]

Did you run out of rational comments? I agree. Lying isn’t another way...

Do you testify to know his intent or not?

Do you run out of justifications?

Intent... I obviously have my own perspective of what he's said. I also have many other references as to how Oaks plays mental gymnastics or word plays with the saints to justify poor behavior by the brethren. His recent talk on the Consitution was anther example of playing both sides of an issue while justifying poor behavior.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean for this conversation to sour. He may play mental gymnastics or tries to play both sides. I just don’t think you, or anyone really, have proven that he’s asking us to lie, or of any malice. But I suppose I should have quit while ahead since I’ve said my piece on the matter.

It's a lie because he's telling us we should bear something TO Gain it. Meaning we don't have it yet, but hope to gain it simply by saying it. Essentially, the epitome of bearing false witness. Maybe you can write a letter and ask him if your theories of what you think he meant were correct?

[braingrunt]

I agree with Packer and Oaks and I don't think they are asking you to lie.

My faith has always been wavering and fragile. Before I went into the MTC it was at a high point. After I went into the MTC it suddenly had a crisis.

But there was a meeting where they expected everyone to bear a testimony in a smallish group. This is a reasonable thing to demand of an ordained missionary who has agreed to share their witness with the world.

As the testimonies went around the room I was frantic to think of something I could say that was absolutely true no doubt in my mind.
Then it was my turn.

I bore a testimony. I did not lie. I spoke of how I knew without any doubt, that as our family has tried to live the gospel, it has produced good fruit and happiness. This was fo-real. I'd seen the gospel moderate my dad. He'd shared scriptures stories with us as bedtime stories and talked with us about them. Those were truly precious and helpful moments whether the gospel was literally true to me at that moment or not. I also knew that the love and peace in our home was in part due to the values which were shared and modeled in the home.

As I bore that testimony I felt the holy ghost in a way that I NEVER EVER had before. NEVER. His witness was added to mine and strengthened me. Before the end of the testimony I had already gained enough that I could (honestly) say more than I had planned, which was that I believed the holy ghost was real. The spirit in me about popped.

I found many more things which I could say confidently before I left the MTC, including conviction about the atonement of Christ which I was unable to share that day-but that's a different story. Sharing my HONEST convictions in a non academic atmosphere (giving the "right" answers in sunday school) was absolutely crucial for the testimony to solidify, for me to feel the holy ghost backing me up.

So in my opinion Packer and Oaks are correct, and some y'all are just desperate to find fault.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I agree with Packer and Oaks and I don't think they are asking you to lie.

My faith has always been wavering and fragile. Before I went into the MTC it was at a high point. After I went into the MTC it suddenly had a crisis.

But there was a meeting where they expected everyone to bear a testimony in a smallish group. This is a reasonable thing to demand of an ordained missionary who has agreed to share their witness with the world.

As the testimonies went around the room I was frantic to think of something I could say that was absolutely true no doubt in my mind.
Then it was my turn.

I bore a testimony. I did not lie. I spoke of how I knew without any doubt, that as our family has tried to live the gospel, it has produced good fruit and happiness. This was fo-real. I'd seen the gospel moderate my dad. He'd shared scriptures stories with us as bedtime stories and talked with us about them. Those were truly precious and helpful moments whether the gospel was literally true to me at that moment or not. I also knew that the love and peace in our home was in part due to the values which were shared and modeled in the home.

As I bore that testimony I felt the holy ghost in a way that I NEVER EVER had before. NEVER. His witness was added to mine and strengthened me. Before the end of the testimony I had already gained enough that I could (honestly) say more than I had planned, which was that I believed the holy ghost was real. The spirit in me about popped.

I found many more things which I could say confidently before I left the MTC, including conviction about the atonement of Christ which I was unable to share that day-but that's a different story. Sharing my HONEST convictions in a non academic atmosphere (giving the "right" answers in sunday school) was absolutely crucial for the testimony to solidify, for me to feel the holy ghost backing me up.

So in my opinion Packer and Oaks are correct, and some y'all are just desperate to find fault.

You are describing the process of gaining a witness through life's experiences. You had faith and a belief in that thing and received a "strengthening" witness by testifying of it. Oaks does talk about this process you went through, but he goes beyond that in mingling truth with lies.

[neverendingthoughts]

I don’t think we actually understand what a witness is or realize there are different types.

For instance. IMHO An apostolic witness means that you both need to SEE and HEAR Christ and therefore know him. As real as your neighbor or the person you see on the street.. Anything else would just be believing and therefore you’d be a disciple. And Christ as far as I can tell isn’t going to manifest himself to the Gentiles in that manner just yet.

So what do we have in SLC? If Christ isn’t going to be able to be physically seen or heard until a later date, what do we actually know concerning who Christ is? Or can we just believe? Can they actually be called apostles if they don’t testify of seeing and hearing Him? And if they did, they should tell us who He is and where to see Him. Then when the people would see for themselves they would then choose whether they received that witness or not. When Christ came the first time his apostles pointed people too the person Himself, not just an idea based on a spiritual witness. It is both spiritual and physical. Until then, they can show us how to utilize the principles to receive our own spiritual witness to other things that keep us believing and looking to that moment.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with belief. Blessed are those who believe, right? But to try and claim otherwise imo points to bearing a false witness. And to not speak that plainly about what a witness is and the different kinds to help teach people what to look for correctly I think is deceptive from someone in his position.

So again who are these men? I don’t intent to wrongfully judge, but how long have we been truly wandering in the wildness because of ideology based of false tradition that was more then likely founded because of ignorance from the majority of the people?