Recently a friend shared with me a talk that Elder Lawrence E. Corbridge of the Seventy delivered to students at a BYU devotional on January 22, 2019 titled Stand Forever. It was a great talk. I recommend it.
I took notes and one question surfaced as I read.
What is “the church”?
Is it an organization or club that people join?
Is it the hierarchy, the officials, or the leaders? (As when people ask “What is the church’s stand on this issue?”)
Is it the building we meet in or the meetings we attend? (As in “Let’s clean the church” or “I’m attending church”)
Is it “the kingdom of God on earth?”
I don’t have a testimony of “the church”, because the term isn’t clear. Even if I knew what particular definition I attribute to the word, I don’t trust that anyone else hearing it understands it the same way, so I don’t use it. On the other hand, I can bear testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon, my conviction of Christ as my Savior, and that God answers prayer.
It is also for this reason that I’m confused when a general authority uses the phrase “I know the church is true.” I would expect he would want to be more clear about what he is bearing testimony of. That’s why I was taken aback at Elder Corbridge’s language in the middle of the talk, “There are some who are afraid the Church may not be true…” and “You cannot prove the Church is true by disproving every claim made against it.” My initial response when I read this was, “Why on earth should I have any interest in seeking to prove ‘the Church’ true? (My search for truth extends to things so much deeper)” Fortunately Elder Corbridge did us the favor of defining the church early in his talk as “the kingdom of God on the earth.” Unfortunately he confuses the definition only a few paragraphs later by re-defining it as “We are the Church. You and I are the Church.”
I’m not trying to pick at the little things when the focus should be on a more important larger picture, but I seek clarity on this subject. After all, it is one of the “primary questions” that Elder Corbridge has identified near the beginning of his talk.
What is the scriptural definition of “church”?
In our bibles “church” is translated from the Greek word “Ecclesia” which loosely meant “the called out ones” or “assembly”. The word ecclesia didn’t even have a religious connotation in the beginning. It was a military term, as when soldiers are called out to assemble. It later came to describe any assembly of people who shared a common interest, such as a town council or guild. So when translating the New Testament from Greek to English, the King James translators simply took every instance where “assembly” appeared in Greek and substituted the work “church”. The term can also be synonymously replaced with “congregation” or “community” and it will fit.
Even if Elder Corbridge isn’t clear, the Lord clarified it for us in a revelation to Joseph Smith:
“Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.” (D&C 10:67)
So it turns out that Elder Corbridge is right. As long as we are repenting and coming unto Christ, “We are the Church. You and I are the Church.” And if that is true, then why would he confuse the issue by defining it earlier as “the kingdom of God on earth?” I suppose some clarification needs to be made on what is meant by “the kingdom of God”, but my understanding is that it was something that Joseph Smith was attempting to establish with the council of fifty in Nauvoo a few months before he was killed. [1] This is a subject that is very involved and outside the scope of my commentary here or Elder Corbridge’s talk itself. One thing that does seem clear is that after the Lord clarified what constitutes His church (in D&C 10:67), he added in the next verse:
“Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.”
Elder Corbridge does not elaborate on what criteria is used to establish what the “primary questions” should be. But later in his talk he touches on something that sparked a responsive chord for me. He said, “The apostle Paul taught that men only know the things of men and that the things of God are known by no man except through the Spirit of God.” This brings me to my question. Indeed, one of my own important “primary questions.” How do I tap into the Spirit of God and get my answers from the true source? How can I ensure my answers are spiritually discerned? Do I just trust the church leaders, or must I get my own answer from God? How do I identify the Spirit of God?
Elder Corbridge identifies what he felt as an ugly feeling of gloom while reading antagonistic material (i.e. material antagonistic to the church), “That gloom is not belief bias and it is not the fear of being in error. It is the absence of the Spirit of God.”
Does the witness from the spirit always produce a “good feeling”? Is it possible that if one were chastened by the spirit they might feel a sense of dread, fear, or even “gloom”? (see for example Ether 2:14-15, D&C 95:1 or 1 Cor 11:32)
A few years ago I cautioned my daughter while on her mission about being too quick to associate “feelings” with the spirit. Here is an excerpt from the letter I wrote her on 31 Aug 2014:
“The confusion of what the spirit feels like or how it guides us can be a roadblock to some who rely on “good feelings” as being the spirit and later when confronted with challenges they more easily fall away. Once I related an example in an Elder’s Quorum lesson (that I taught in February of last year) of Grant Palmer who was a lifelong employee of the Church Education System. He has since left the church, but while still a member he wrote the following, advocating the Spirit is an unreliable guide to truth. In An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins (Signature Books, 2002), on page 130-131; 133, he writes: “When faced with this evidence, our first impulse is often to resort to personal inspiration as our defense of the Book of Mormon. This is a higher means of substantiating the book’s antiquity, we assume. … Most of us have felt this spiritual feeling when reading the Book of Mormon or hearing about Joseph Smith’s epiphanies. What we interpret this to mean is that we have therefore encountered the truth, and we then base subsequent religious commitments on these feelings. The question I will pose is whether this is an unfailing guide to truth? … The evangelical position of identifying and verifying truth by emotional feelings, which the Book of Mormon advocates, is therefore not always dependable … abundant evidence also demonstrates that it is an unreliable means of proving truth. Those who advocate the witness of the Holy Spirit as the foundation for determining the truthfulness of a given religious text need to honestly deal with these epistemological contradictions. … When a person experiences the Spirit at a Protestant revival meeting or when reading the Book of Mormon, it is not my belief that this feeling proves the truthfulness of the doctrines taught, or read.” (Emphasis added.) In this criticism, Palmer presumes “emotional feelings” are the same thing as being enlightened by the Spirit. Of course, they are not. However, it is understandable how he makes this error, for many people do associate emotional feelings as the essential necessary condition of the Holy Ghost and fail to realize what is before us in scripture (for example see Moses 6: 61).
The widely believed assertion that the Holy Ghost will always leave a “good feeling” as the evidence of a message coming from God is in contrast with Joseph Smith’s correct description of the Holy Ghost as delivering “intelligence” or “sudden insight” or, to use scriptural language, “light and truth.” The feelings which follow an authentic encounter with the Holy Ghost can be anything from fear and dread to joy and rejoicing. Our emotional reaction to the message can vary depending upon the information we’ve been given. But “feeling good” about something is separate from the Holy Ghost.
When the message from God calls to repentance, the reaction can be best described as anger, or distress, or fear; but is not likely to be described as leaving a “good feeling.” The message of repentance always requires change. It will always confront the error and require you to alter what you are doing.
I would imagine that against the standard of a “good feeling”, that Abinadi would have been rejected. Samuel the Lamanite, too. John the Baptist, Elijah, Christ, Peter, Paul, Joseph Smith, Noah, Enoch, John the Beloved, as well. Certainly Nephi, Jacob, Alma, Mormon and Moroni. In fact, I can’t think of a single authentic message which did not include as its most important content information which violates the “feeling good” standard. I think care should be taken when a standard gets employed. Use a false standard and you risk reaching a false result.
This is one of the criticisms made by Grant Palmer in his Insider’s book. He took aim at a false notion (“feeling good” means the Holy Ghost) and then leveled criticism against the false notion. Though a lifelong employee of the Church Education System, he was ignorant of the correct standard and lost his faith in the Holy Ghost’s ability to enlighten because of it. His criticism was justified, but not the standard. He, like many Latter-day Saints, confuses something which inspires with a witness from the Spirit. You can be inspired by music, movies, plays and thrilling speeches coming from unenlightened sources which bring no light and truth. You may be entertained, but you are not given greater light and truth or intelligence from such thrilling encounters.
Truth will come through and confirm itself when measured against the standard of: 1) imparting truth and light, which is intelligence; and 2) whether the message leads to greater belief in, understanding of and testimony of Christ. These standards do not involve “feeling good.” They do, however, involve enlightenment and edification. Even if the result of gaining more light is to see yourself in a new way, requiring repentance, confession of sin, baptism, breaking your heart and becoming contrite in spirit. Anyone who can teach a message which will pass this standard, whether they are high or low, rich or poor, great or obscure, has given something of value.”
Recently there has been a change in church policy. In 2015 a policy was put in place that forbade children of LGBT parents from becoming members until they turn 18 and renounce the practice of gay marriage. Russell M Nelson announced later in a worldwide speech that this was a revelation from God. In an update to that policy it has now been announced that children of LGBT parents will now be allowed to be baptized and blessed. I have some family and close friends in the church who are disturbed by what they detect is a varying shifting sand underlying this issue that threatens to shake the foundations of their testimony of “the church.” They wonder, “How can something be a revelation from God and now get revoked?” Where this deeply disturbed some of my friends, I told them, “I am not bothered by it, because my faith is not in the institution, but in Christ.”
The oft-used cultural mantra, “the church is true” can create unnecessary confusion. [2] The fact is we can find many things in the church that can and will disturb us and can shake our testimony if our trust is founded in the church as an institution, a hierarchy, or Sunday worship.
President George Q. Cannon put it this way: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop; an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place, they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone, but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him. Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men! Therefore, my brethren and sisters, seek after the Holy Ghost and his unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the earth. Rest not until you know for yourselves that God has set His Hand to redeem Israel, and prepare a people for His coming.” (Deseret Weekly, March 7, 1891. pg. 322, No. 11 vol. XLII a Discourse by Pres. George Q. Cannon, Manti, Sanpete County on the evening of February 15, 1891).
Or as Elder Corbridge put it in his talk, “Pay whatever price you must pay, bear whatever burden you must bear, and make whatever sacrifice you must make to get and keep in your life the spirit and power of the Holy Ghost. Every good thing depends on getting and keeping the power of the Holy Ghost in your life. Everything depends on that.”
1 Joseph Smith taught: “What constitutes the Kingdom of God? an administrator who has the power of calling down the oracles of God, and subjects to receive those oracles no matter if there is but 3, 4, or 6 there is the kingdom of God.” (William Clayton Journal entry January 22, 1843, capitalization as in original.)
2 In the article Mormon Mantras, retired LDS chaplain Phil McLemore addresses how some of the cultural mantras that we use in the church may not always be helpful, and in some cases can actually hinder our spiritual growth.