Knowledge leads to becoming, but that doesn’t mean a person has to completely understand the process or reasons just yet.

1. In a broad, general sense conversion consists in changing one’s views or beliefs to conform to a pattern of thinking which was unacceptable prior to the time of the conversion. There is one Biblical instance of such usage. (Acts 3:19.)

2. In the full gospel sense, however, conversion is more — far more — than merely changing one’s belief from that which is false to that which is true; it is more than the acceptance of the verity of gospel truths, than the acquirement of a testimony. To convert is to change from one status to another, and gospel conversion consists in the transformation of man from his fallen and carnal state to a state of saintliness.

A convert is one who has put off the natural man, yielded to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and become “a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord.” Such a person has become “as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.” (Mosiah 3:19.) He has become a new creature of the Holy Ghost: the old creature has been converted or changed into a new one. He has been born again: where once he was spiritually dead, he has been regenerated to a state of spiritual life. (Mosiah 27:24-29.) In real conversion, which is essential to salvation (Matt. 18:3), the convert not only changes his beliefs, casting off the false traditions of the past and accepting the beauties of revealed religion, but he changes his whole way of life, and the nature and structure of his very being is quickened and changed by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Peter is the classic example of how the power of conversion works on deceptive souls. During our Lord’s mortal ministry, Peter had a testimony, born of the Spirit, of the divinity of Christ and of the great plan of salvation which was in Christ. “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” he said, as the Holy Ghost gave him utterance. (Matt. 16:13-19.) When others fell away, Peter stood forth with the apostolic assurance, “We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” (John 6:69.) Peter knew, and his knowledge came by revelation.

But Peter was not converted, because he had not become a new creature of the Holy Ghost. Rather, long after Peter had gained a testimony, and on the very night Jesus was arrested, he said to Peter: “When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” (Luke 22:32.) Immediately thereafter, and regardless of his testimony, Peter denied that he knew Christ. (Luke 22:54-62.) After the crucifixion, Peter went fishing, only to be called back to the ministry by the risen Lord. (John 21:1-17.) Finally on the day of Pentecost the promised spiritual endowment was received; Peter and all the faithful disciples became new creatures of the Holy Ghost; they were truly converted; and their subsequent achievements manifest the fixity of their conversions. (Acts 3; 4.)

It is interesting to note also that the Latter-day Twelve, long after they had testimonies of the gospel, and more than two years after their calls to the apostleship, were promised that if they would be faithful they would yet be converted. (D. & C 112:12-13.)

As to the quotations from Joseph Smith (it is nice to have that new manual, isn’t it?), I’m not sure that’s all that the Prophet has to say on this issue.

As this relates to youth, I’m still concerned that the emptiness of the word “know” is a crucial feature of trivial uses of “I know” in testimony meeting.

And I mean the ways it’s used by young adults as much as by anyone else. I fear the trivialization keeps us from becoming and being. perhaps the creedal testimony serves as much to trivialize as anything else.

I think that when our own church leaders have diverse opinions on a topic, then that suggests that the Lord hasn’t clearly revealed his will on the matter. I think that some of Elder McConkie’s teachings cited above fit this category. And I *do* take the attitude that these issues aren’t terribly important for our day-to-day gospel lives.

So I can support the basic notion that “we are saved no faster than we get knowledge,” but I would argue that the knowledge we need is not of the esoteric type. I picture something more along the lines of how Jesus said he would judge us in Matthew 25:31-46.

Again, I only bring up Elder McConkie’s thoughts on the subject because they provide an interesting comparison to Neal’s thoughts. If we define a testimony as knowing all sorts of esoteric (and ill-defined) doctrines, how will that affect our youth as they come of age in the church? I appreciate Neal’s insights (and cowboy’s, too).

I think that’s why I decided to answer my own question. What I really can’t figure out is why I still felt compelled for the “Enter” button as opposed to the “backspace” button. OCD is my guess.

Per Miller, it seems that if your testimony of Joseph Smith, the Temple, tithing, etc isn’t related to how those items or things have helped reveal more access to the power of the atonement to you, it isn’t really a testimony.

Kent #15- I have to confess I’d never heard of Miller before, but I really enjoyed the article. If I get free, I’ll post a review of it and Element over at NCT someday…

That seems like the central point of the post – that knowledge *alone* doesn’t do anything unless it transforms the one who knows – that knowledge isn’t truly knowledge until it’s put into practice and experienced – that, “Faith without works is dead, being alone.”

I second your motion, the quotes speak for themselves.

um…Then again, that’s sort of what quotes do.