How To Keep Your Mormon Testimony

[Dr. Shades]

I thought we had that chapel/internet schism (which I just found out was ripped off from Douglas Davies' temple/chapel model...but nevermind).

I categorically deny that statement. The Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism paradigm hit me like a bolt out of the blue one evening. I didn't rip it off, adopt it, or adapt it from anyone or anywhere.

The minute you step in to scream "false prophet" at someone you have eliminated yourself from the "liberal" or "tolerant" category and it goes rapidly downhill from there.

Just so I understand your position better, may I please ask you a True/False question?

Q: There isn't, and there never has been, any such thing as a "false prophet."

A: T/F

I suspect that they have had little success in luring LDS posters in there for target practice.

It isn't about target practice. You--and every other Mormon on the planet--are more than welcome to go there and refute anything you believe to be incorrect.

It's just as much your board, Juliann, as it is anyone else's.

[cjcampbell]

Daniel Petersen said:

Native Americans are Lamanites.

I just wanted to address this one point for how utterly offensive it is.

Let Native Americans decide what they are.

Why did you even bother with the PC term "Native American."

How would you feel if people not only labelled you, but your wife, children, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other relatives as the modern descendents of vampires and insisted publicly that I am being literal.

It's rude.

Lamanites are vampires?

[juliann]

For the purpose of debate? So it's all a sham when Mormon's (well, you anyway) do this? Gee, I'm pretty sincere with my postion...that's a weakness somehow.

Do you seriously think I am going to discuss my most personal, meaningful and spiritual moments with you let alone debate them? Get real. They are mine. I can't explain them. I feel no need to. The only reason you want me to is because cheap shots are so much easier than using scholarship.

Heh, no one can maintain an attack postion when they admit that.  The Church can no longer say that there is a Divine Ideal of Marriage--or anything else!  This positon of yours is such a sham.

Heeelllooooo..... You are on a message board! This is not the temple or church headquarters! You would have to leave your house to talk to "the church". Ya with me so far? My position is that I love the Lord and his gospel. I have found more fulfillment and intellectual challenge in the study of the Bible and gnosticism than I ever thought possible. But even more important...my life has been enriched in ways that I cannot describe in times that I have been in need of divine assistence and reassurance...or when others have. I have had experiences that are as real to me as this computer screen and certainly more real to me than you are. Experiences I will not deny and I will not walk away from. I will demand my right to worship according to the dictates of my conscience no matter how much mockery you and your pals can pile on. I also have a bad habit of defending things or people that come under mean spirited attack (yes...even those unworthy JWs!). Do I care if "the church" screws up occasionally? I expect it. So there is my sham of a position.

If you can't deal with an academic approach to debate perhaps you are the one hiding behind a "sham" because this is an academically oriented message board. But don't try to make that my problem.

[juliann]

Just so I understand your position better, may I please ask you a True/False question?

Q: There isn't, and there never has been, any such thing as a "false prophet."

A: T/F

You will have to save your either/or black and white fundie questions for your pals. Here is the real question:

Does a false assessment of the historical situation turn a true prophet into a false prophet for that particular historical hour? Is false or true prophecy a permanent state, or can true prophets become false and false true,  regardless of their title, motivation, or call?  Were prophets ever completely assured of their own status, or did they walk

[Avatar4321]

You mean, no matter how many articles I write, no matter how many books I publish, no matter how many primary source texts I use, no matter how many footnoted references I supply, no matter how sound my argument, no matter how valid my logic, no matter how cogent my evidence, my failure to find Mr. Bob McCue's posts interesting will prevent me from ever achieving any credibility?

Sigh.

All is lost.

I can probably never measure up to the required standard.

Don't worry Dr. Peterson. We still love ya.

In a purely plutonic way of course.

[Avatar4321]

If only it paid enough. But only a fundamentalist would think it odd that anyone would defend a religion that was different from their own.

I know you jest here. but most things that are funny have a seed of truth in them.

It's one of the reasons I like mormonism so much. We are encouraged to defend the faith of others. We all have truth. And we all have a right to worship as we choose. And i will defend anyones right to believe what they want. Even if its absurd to me.

[Avatar4321]

I think this thread really has nothing to do with the title.

Do you really want to know how you keep your testimony?

You keep praying to God. You keep in contact with Him. You keep receiving revelation. And then you do what He teaches you.

The process is simple. As you do that you learn line upon line, precept upon precept. You enjoy the Presence of the Holy Ghost more which of course gives you more revelation.

This is how you get a testimony and keep it. I know because I've received inspiration from the Almighty. And if I am to remain an honest man, I cannot deny that.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Learn for yourself. He is more than willing to help you if that is your desire.

But if youd rather ignore God and criticize those that know Him. Be my guest. I wouldn't recommend it. But the choice is left up to you. But don't say I didn't warn you.

[Del March]

Amen to that, Avatar! I agree with it all.

Well, almost. I disagree with the fact that we all love Daniel P. in a plutonic way. Personally, I think I love him more in a jupiterian way... Or maybe a uranusian way... J/K

Del

[Noggin]

Avatar:  Do you really want to know how you keep your testimony?

You keep praying to God. You keep in contact with Him. You keep receiving revelation. And then you do what He teaches you.

Huh? Which god do I keep in contact with? Whose god do I pray to? Which commandments do I follow? And which am I supposed to dismiss?

Someone is listening to those voices again. The voices from within. Every religion has the voices. Every religion interprets for the member what the voices are saying to them... Yet when we look more closely at the voices, we see that there is really only one voice and it becomes recognizeable... as our own. There really is no external source. But there are many spin doctors who will tell you that there is.

Your post, Avatar, describes aptly the process of a carefully crafted self-indoctrination... I'd use the term "brainwashing", but then, the moderators would kick my post to the curb.

All religions keep the flock hooked with the voices. They tell them what the voices say. And many buy this bill of goods without even attempting a life sans interpretative conjecture. My testimony is that life begins to unfold when we stop believing someone elses interpretation of the voices in our heads.

Avatar:  The process is simple. As you do that you learn line upon line, precept upon precept. You enjoy the Presence of the Holy Ghost more which of course gives you more revelation.

This is how you get a testimony and keep it. I know because I've received inspiration from the Almighty. And if I am to remain an honest man, I cannot deny that.

The process is simple. That is what makes it dangerous for deception. Tell me one thing you learn "line upon line" that I cannot learn without "the voices", er... the Holy Ghost.

We humans are simply are smart enough, and capable enough to learn everything necessary to foster a life as a fulfilling and sustainable entity without these voices.

By the way, denying a delusion has nothing to do with honesty. It has everything to do with living in a world without spiritual crutches. Come on, give yourself some credit. The one voice is all you need. It's yours... and it is very sound, rational, thoughtful and kind... if you just allow it some room to be heard.

Noggin

[KevinG]

As a convert who got an answer he wasn't expecting to get, and one different from what he was seeking...

...carefully crafted self-indoctrination (aka brainwashing) just doesn't fit.

It's just another variation of telling someone their faith can't possibly exist, because you haven't experienced it,so therefore they are deluded. A predictable refrain from critics who's view of conversion and faith is stuck in their provincial view that everyone grew up with or was exposed to LDSisms (or at the very least Christianisms).

Although the irony of you lecturing on how other faiths have the right to interpret their own meaning is rather delicious.

[awyatt]

Noggin said: The process is simple. That is what makes it dangerous for deception. Tell me one thing you learn "line upon line" that I cannot learn without "the voices", er... the Holy Ghost.

That man is of the same species as God and may become like Him.

-Allen

[KevinG]

I don't justify what is in me, I seek to align myself with that which is true and outside of me... until I become one with it.

Worthwhile read if you are attempting to understand the LDS universal view.

I argue that deriding those things which you do not comprehend as delusional is in fact a better objective indication that you are engaging in self-delusion than an indication of your accusations.

In short projection of your own fears of being wrong.

[Del March]

Yet when we look more closely at the voices, we see that there is really only one voice and it becomes recognizeable... as our own.

Not true in my experience.

And many buy this bill of goods without even attempting a life sans interpretative conjecture.

Tell that to my husband who grew up absolutely atheist, and yet receives personal revelation often.

My testimony is that life begins to unfold when we stop believing someone elses interpretation of the voices in our heads.

And my testimony is that my life began to unfold when I finally accepted to follow God's inspiration.

Tell me one thing you learn "line upon line" that I cannot learn without "the voices", er... the Holy Ghost. 

If you want us to believe that you are sincerely interested in an answer to that question, maybe you could try showing it by not disrespecting our beliefs so openly And anyway, you're missing the point: "line upon line" means exactly that: knowledge that needs a basis to grow. So why should we share with you a knowledge we learned because we were obeying God's will and looking for His inspiration, when you obviously don't even believe in God??

We humans are simply are smart enough, and capable enough to learn everything necessary to foster a life as a fulfilling and sustainable entity without these voices.

Sometimes yes, sometimes not.

It has everything to do with living in a world without spiritual crutches.

If you knew what it really means to submit to God's will, you would see that it is your point of view that is a spiritual crutch.

Come on, give yourself some credit.  The one voice is all you need.  It's yours... and it is very sound, rational, thoughtful and kind... if you just allow it some room to be heard.

Your voice might be "sound, rational, thoughtful and kind", but mine is not, because mine is the voice of depression and perfectionism. As long as I listened to my own voice, I created a hell for me to live in. It took a forceful intervention from God to change that.

Finally, remember: just because you have never heard the voice of God in an undeniable way doesn't mean nobody else has.

Del

[Fear of Shiz]

Sigh.

It would be nice to find a place where there was intelligent, open-minded discusion of the Mormon church and its history, culture, etc. Somewhere without all this snarky personal attacking. Anybody know such a place?

There are intelligent people on both sides of this debate.

[KevinG]

Sigh.

It would be nice to find a place where there was intelligent, open-minded discusion of the Mormon church and its history, culture, etc. Somewhere without all this snarky personal attacking. Anybody know such a place?

There are intelligent people on both sides of this debate.

Stick around we go through cycles...

This discussion board is by and large one of the best for intelligent discussions, even when it gets heated. The last few days have seen a group try to redefine the board as their own platform for lengthy accusations against the LDS, and when an extreme arm of any school of thought wants to flex itself, the real dialogue tends to halt for a while.

Hopefully the participants on the board will settle into their routines and the defensiveness on both sides will mitigate.

Check the archives if you want to see the good the bad and the ugly. Or ask a specific question and many will give you solid answers from all viewpoints.

[Noggin]

Noggin wrote: And many buy this bill of goods without even attempting a life sans interpretative conjecture.

Del: Tell that to my husband who grew up absolutely atheist, and yet receives personal revelation often.

[KevinG]

Personal revelation, voice of god. That is the substance of the Mormon religion. That is the proof, then. Again, I say, there are so many voices of god out there.

Which god? Whose god? Which and whose commandments do I follow or dismiss?

By all means if you feel you know the truth follow it with all your heart. If you believe or know a revelation is of God, then obey it.

What does that have to do with tearing down others beliefs or accusing them of delusional thinking?

A- It doesn't.

[juliann]

It would be nice to find a place where there was intelligent, open-minded discusion of the Mormon church and its history, culture, etc. Somewhere without all this snarky personal attacking. Anybody know such a place?

We have a fellowship folder where bashers are not allowed in.

There are intelligent people on both sides of this debate.

I guess that depends on your definition of intelligent. I do not admire "intelligence" that seeks to destroy intelligence. I find that frightening.

[Daniel Peterson]

Arguing a position is one thing; Bob is simply decrying the apologetics for a proposition which 49% or less of the evidence favors.

Would it be acceptable if it had 49.9% of the evidence on its side? Or does it have to be precisely 50%? And who, exactly, came up with this nifty and oh-so-convenient-for-your-position bit of pseudo-quantification? Was it you? On what basis? Am I supposed to accept your claim that "49% or less of the evidence favors" my religious beliefs because you think that little purported factoid "obvious"?

Do you imagine, incidentally, that all ultimately successful theories begin with instant 50%+ acceptance? Do you believe that all ultimately accepted scientific positions commence their careers with a clear majority of the extant evidence on their side? (Hint: They don't. And the list of such scientific positions that didn't is long, and impressive. Think, for example, of Copernicus and Einstein.)

Let's put this entire argument into its proper context, shall we?

I'm waiting.

Your list of religious beliefs that I don't share no more discredits my religious beliefs than a list of nutritional ideas that I don't accept would, in and of itself, discredit the nutritional ideas that I do accept. You aren't offering an argument. You're offering a pose, as a substitute for an argument.

Since Joseph wasn't inerrant, infallible, or superhuman, then why didn't God calmly overlook Joseph's failure to enter into polygamy the same way He overlooked the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor (or any number of other peccadilloes)?  Why did God want Joseph to marry other men's wives so badly that it merited an angel with a drawn sword, whereas other issues of much more pressing importance merited no angel at all?

It's debatable that your chosen issues are "of much more pressing importance" than those chosen by God. In a dispute between you and the Supreme Being, I'll tend to go with Him just about every time. (My apologies.)

No apologies necessary, but isn't that a bit of question-begging?

No, it's not.

I believe that I have grounds for accepting Joseph Smith's prophetic claims that are sufficiently persuasive to me and that are entirely independent of the issue of plural marriage. Hence, I am not begging the question. (Practical Logic 101. I've always thought it should be a required course.)

Isn't the truth--or rather, falsehood--of many or most claims in the quoted list "obvious" to you?

No.

Ockham's Razor is one of the most abused principles in the history of philosophy.  It is routinely invoked, as here, by people who want to pretend that a debate is over and done and to claim victory when they've barely shown up.

I'm willing to accept that if you can show me how it is being abused in this case (if indeed it is). I'm sure you can read any number of apologetics in behalf of many of the items in the above list; does Ockham's Razor not apply to them?

Ockham's Razor is a useful little tool in certain contexts. But when it is abused to decree an end to debate by a party to the dispute that has done little or nothing to meet its evidentiary burden or to do the analytical heavy lifting, when that party triumphantly declares that its own very dubious assumed conclusion is "obvious, QED," nobody who actually favors reason and evidence, examination and analysis, need be impressed.

WHAT??  You've been gracing my board with your presence but didn't do us the favor of making your presence known?  I'm surprised (and more than a little hurt).

The sensitive and humane feelings that characterize your board are a credit to you and your associates there. I can well imagine that you folks are easily hurt.

I've looked in a few times, and was moved beyond measure by the depth of insight and the high quality of the reasoning I saw there, particularly as it concerned me, personally. Being a modest and self-effacing soul, however, I would blush to actually identify myself amidst all the praise and accolades, and I really doubt that I could hold my own against the high-powered academic discourse that reigns there.

But as for the board itself, alas, it fell victim to its own popularity.  The bandwidth allotment was exceeded yet again in spite of the most optimistic projections, so we're going to have to haggle with the hosting company again.  Even so, it will be back up no later than 0100 April 01 MST.

An entirely appropriate date for its return.

[juliann]

Which god? Whose god? Which and whose commandments do I follow or dismiss?

You have to make those kinds of decisions in every part of your life. How do you manage it when your choices are not directed by prejudice?

But what makes your personal revelation any more keen that mine, or the Jehovah's Witnesses or Catholics or Jews?

It's paradigm for starters. Do you think it might be responsible to outline what "personal revelation" means to these other religious traditions before you demand judgements? That would be the "scientific" method.

Oh, but yours is special, that's right.  Well?  They believe that theirs is just as special.

As they should. Do you notice that you are the only one bothered by that? Do you not notice that you have positioned yourself as being the most special of all by demeaning the others? Why are you immune from the same mockery you lay on others? What scientific method can you produce to justify that your conclusions are superior to millions of others?

(as a side note.  The Vatican has announced that if a Mormon wants to become a Catholic, he must be rebaptised as the Mormon baptism is invalid for salvation ... according to the "personal revelation" that Pope or Bishop received.)

And Mormons say the same thing. What is your point?

A better approach is to take what facts the communities of science, statistic and social studies have to say.  Not the facts that contradict each other... but the facts that universally agree. 

Then why aren't you doing that instead of providing hate sites for information? I am...you can join in the discussion in my conversion/deconversion thread. You won't like what sociologists of religion have to say, however. They do not treat religion differently than any other social group.

Not that your Mormon base is so bad.  It just relies on subjective and biased personal revelation. 

As does every decision you make. "Science" can't make your choices, you see...you ultimately have to. This is where some of that social science might help you out. Religion does not operate any differently than any other social group decision.

As these findings [studies on new religions] make clear, the

[juliann]

An entirely appropriate date for its return.

It is good to start the morning out with a good chuckle. Well, ok...I woke up the dog.

[Teancum]

What an incredible study in contrasts this thread is.

I apologize for not finding Mr. Bob McCue's posts intensely, or even minimally, interesting.

My comment was not directed at just you.

Basically, I just see him, over and over again, saying that he finds religious faith in general and Mormon faith in particular to be absurd.  So what?  I don't find him presenting much in the way of argument for his position.

I am not sure I agree that it is that simplistic. Certainly he has stated why he rejects the faith and what things has led him to that point. Concluding that he is wrong is ok. But he does present reasons, why's etc.

He assumes it, by and large, and then he cites a few authors or theories (sometimes, it strikes me, only partially or vaguely understood from secondary web sources) in order to explain why we fools believe such manifestly absurd and irrational things.

I have to be honest Dr. Peterson and say that mostly, I do not think he is demeaning or condescending. Your comments here seem to attempt to display him as such. You are portraying a caricature of him that is much to one dimensional and in a way similar to what I have seen those who want to out rightly dismiss you do. And when I see them do it I point it out.

Personally, I found his comments about LDS testimonies becoming metaphorical for those who may have once been more foundational in their approach reasonable. Since I personally have concluded that much of what I once though absolutely true is really not that way perhaps my personal worship in the LDS Church, of which I am still a member and supporter, could be served through such an approach.

Is there room in the Church for such an approach?

Teancum

[dglarsen]

I appreciate Bob's framing of the way many of us have tried to make sense of our faith journey as we learn more and more about early Mormon history and about the meaning making of the Bible and BOM in general.

I moved from a literalist perspective of interpreting events in the Bible some time early in my educational experience at BYU. Thanks to excellent professors like Dan Peterson and many others who contributed to my own learning and transition. I've had many interesting conversations with Daniel Peterson over many issues relating to Mormonism.

I think it was Joseph Campbell's series about the Power of Myth that finally created a context for my own shift in meaning making. It was hugely beneficial to me at the time I began my deeper inquiry into my own faith.

I with several other Arabic language students learned many valuable things and more importantly, critical thinking skills from Dr. Peterson and other great professors at BYU. Ironically of the five of us Arabic students who eventually travelled and lived in the Middle East, four of us have gone through similar transitions in our Mormon belief system.

For a long time, a "metaphorical" lense was helpful to me to bridge my world of Mormonism with my own inquiry and exploration of my own beliefs. That metaphorical lense allowed me to still find much meaning in my religious world and still be true to what my experience was at the time with reading and examining Mormon History. It allowed me to straddle two emerging worldviews simultanously.

So Daniel, I find it quite the contrary to your observations that "I do not see a surge in metaphorical understandings of scripture and early Restoration history. I don't even see a minor trend in that direction."

I guess you see what you believe..... as I have broadened my own experience and frankly found much satisfaction in the metaphorical lense.... I see it all the time. Four of five of your own Arabic students (a small group for sure) have used many of your own critical thinking skills to find ourselves on the outside of the Mormon belief structure.

Were you successful? I'd say you were..... are we in the same place as you? Not really..... do I value my experience at BYU and learning how to think and examine critically -- absolutely....

Having said that, I want to thank Bob McCue for his very thoughtful recording of his own "religious" inquiry. I have found your writings to be very informative of the difficult process many of us go through to deconstruct a worldview that was helpful to me personally at a particular place and time and certainly informs my current worldview even though I am an "inside - outsider" as a non literalist believer in Mormon theology.

Thanks for this interesting thread.... and Daniel thanks for teaching me how to think and how to use inquiry as a methodology of learning.... 4 out of 5 is 80%.... now I don't think your superiors at BYU would appreciate those numbers (of my particular group who have left Mormonism), but nonetheless I appreciate -- though differ tremendously in conclusion -- your energy and passion for learning.

[juliann]

Thanks for this interesting thread.... and Daniel thanks for teaching me how to think and how to use inquiry as a methodology of learning.... 4 out of 5 is 80%....

That might be valuable information if you included those who use "inquiry" to come into the church. In fact, I 've never been taught a methodology that did not demand that. I think you missed a few classes.

[juliann]

I have to be honest Dr. Peterson and say that mostly, I do not think he is demeaning or condescending. Your comments here seem to attempt to display him as such.

It is impossible to begin a discussion with someone who does not think comparing Mormons to the stench of skunks is not even condescending. I find it hard to believe that you would consider that sort of thing a good conversation starter. In fact...I'm shocked that you would overlook it.

Personally, I found his comments about LDS testimonies becoming metaphorical for those who may have once been more foundational in their approach reasonable.

That is a different matter than his demeaning and belittling language.

Is there room in the Church for such an approach? 

Is there ever room for attacks built on mockery no matter how valid some of the content is? I'd really be interested in why you think this approach is acceptable.