
My talk was seeded by Matthew 16:13-20. It's the part where Jesus asks his disciples who they said he is and how Peter knew he was the Christ because of revelation. I first joked that it was an invitation to bear my testimony and sit down, but of course I took it in another direction.
I started off by explaining that we are all at different points in our testimonies and that's okay. We should not look down on others who don't believe the same as us.
I then went on to compare the Three Little Pigs to the gospel. I pointed out that they all used different building materials for their houses. I compared the house of straw to perhaps cultural/social/tradition conversion. The house of sticks was checklists/proving the BoM/obedience for blessings. The house of bricks was the Gospel of Christ. I essentially said that the lesser building materials are a great start, but they are not enough for life's challenges.
I segued into the Parable of the 10 Virgins by saying that we will not always have our brother's house to fall back on.
I posed the question: How often do we find ourselves relying on others to tell us what to believe? With the Parable of the 10 Virgins, I pointed out that the foolish virgins are like those who rely on others to tell them what to believe. I explained that you need to own your testimony and that takes time and effort.
I went on to talk about Brigham Young folklore. I told the story where one day he taught some outlandishly false idea just so that on the next day he could ask which of them prayed about it the following day. I explained that although church leaders are good, they can be wrong sometimes (padding it with sheepese of course) and we should trust God over our leaders when there is a conflict.
I then talked about Moroni 10:4-5 and what I thought of "open heart and real intent." I believe it (at least in part) means that we should not have a conclusion in mind before we read scripture or ask God. I briefly mentioned how scientific research often takes this conclusion-first approach to get publishing and funding and thus fails to obtain truth.
I explained that conclusion-first attitudes come from more than just reluctant investigators, but from missionaries not understanding their investigators, leaders who assume things about their followers (I mentioned Eyring's recent talk on his experience as a bishop), and when preparing talks/lessons admitting that I myself was probably not a very good example of not having a conclusion first. I tied up this thought by saying that if we take this conclusion-first approach, it is unlikely we will receive revelation because we are not open to it.
About this point, I feel I may have come off as communicating a faith-hindering message, so I said something like, "It may seem like I'm doing some mental gymnastics here, but that's because the world is not as black and white as we like to make it."
I then brought it back to the seed scripture and pointed out verse 20, when Jesus charges his disciples not to tell others that he was the Christ. I pointed out that this was rather odd on the surface and seemed to convey the message that missionary work was not sanctioned by God. But I dove a little deeper and explained that I thought it meant that we need to be careful that we don't shove what we believe down other people's throats. They need to come to truth in a way that works for them. I pointed out that at a recent fireside given by Susan Easton Black, she got her testimony of the BoM in a non-traditional way, having taken a more academic approach.
I said that we need to be careful that when we bear are testimony, we are bearing our testimony to people, not at them. We should not shove it down their throats, but respect that everyone has their own way of discovering truth.
Somewhere around here, I made a passing mention to grace and how we don't talk about it enough in the church.
I then bore my testimony that God loves us and that Jesus is our Savior. I stuck to the things I actually believe and avoided the topics I am currently wrestling with. I was guilty of using "know" where perhaps that was not the case.