Testimonies and Truth

[Navidad]

The first paragraph on the LDS website about “Testimony” is as follows:

“A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel.”

I think I probably heard my first LDS testimony around 38 years ago. I may have heard hundreds since then. Almost all of them at some point in the testimony include a derivative of the word “truth,” something like “true.” There is a certain degree of similarity between the testimonies. They are something similar to a recitation that has a common wording or theme among Saints. It seems, according to this website page that there is indeed a certain form or format to what is included in an LDS testimony. This seems especially accurate when those testimonies are shared in a Sacrament service. This is an observation, not a criticism. 

Our former bishop gave me the ok to share my testimony in Sacrament service on more than a few occasions. I did so, perhaps more in a personal manner that is common among Evangelicals. I distinctly remember saying once in conclusion that I believed the LDS Church is a true church. No one ever rebuked me for my use of the indefinite article. My reason and question for starting this thread is to seek an understanding of what my LDS friends mean when they use the word “true” or “truth” in a personal testimony. I use the concept of a “personal testimony” because that is familiar to me. Along with that, I would suggest that the form of truth that is used in a public testimony is indeed a “personal truth”—true for the one delivering the testimony, but not necessarily true for all Christians. It appears that the LDS testimony is perhaps a statement of personal truth used in a communal sense. Does that make sense? Does it carry the modern sense of truth as “correct” or not “incorrect?” Perhaps the corollary question is then, is my testimony not truth in the sense that it is “incorrect” since I am not LDS, and not “correct?” Or is it better considered “revealed” truth? Truth as revealed to the testifier, which may not be revealed truth for me. Christ is the revelator. However, might He reveal differing truths to different people? I have also heard my LDS friends defend the singular validity of their truth by stating that “God is not a God of confusion.” That also seems to be a common learned concept. I guess we would have to dialogue about what needs to be the disagreement that arises to the point of "confusion."

Somewhere, I remember hearing a talk on the necessary ingredients (my word) for a testimony to be complete. Is there a testimony that can be considered “complete?” I used “a” instead of “the” or “thee.” Did that make my testimony incomplete? Invalidate it altogether? Is the change from “a” to “the,” the more that the Saints want to add to what I already have and that which I bring to the table? Thanks to all for reading this and perhaps, responding as well. Navidad.