What critics don't understand about testimony

[Nathair/|\]

A recent thread discussed defending our spiritual experiences as a valid method of determining truth. That thread was (justly) closed, but unfortunately I didn't find Mike Ash's newest column on testimony and spiritual experiences until it was too late.

Yours under the excited oaks,

Nathair /|\

Ps. He's one of three Mormon Times columnists who I try to read every week. The other two are DCP and Orson Scott Card.

[Otis Spurlock]

A recent thread discussed defending our spiritual experiences as a valid method of determining truth. That thread was (justly) closed, but unfortunately I didn't find Mike Ash's newest column on testimony and spiritual experiences until it was too late.

This article did generate quite a few comments. Some of the more interesting ones were:

Pickle Juice wrote:

"Ash states in his article that critics don't understand a testimony. I'm LDS and I don't understand either. Isn't a testimony a personal witness that you know something is true? You always hear many LDS saying "I know the church and BoM is true." If you have studied, prayed, and received a divine witness from God about a deity, why would you worry about losing it? It seems pretty ironclad right? Wrong! According to Church teachings, it can be lost at the drop of a hat. Here is a short list of the many ways you can lose the divine witness from a supreme being:

-skipping a few Sundays at church

-skipping a tithing payment

-reading too much unflattering history of the Church

-not reading your scriptures

-watching an "R" rated movie

-swearing

-drinking coffee or tea

-not attending the temple regularly

-not bearing your testimony regularly

and so on and so on...

If skipping Church can cause someone to lose their testimony, then how valid of a testimony was it to begin with? How can you have such a supernatural witness and then forget about it? Or was it just a warm fuzzy feeling?"

Another interesting comment from Everybody Wang Chung Tonight:

"Michael states that the Lord doesn't give evidence or proof because that would destroy our free agency. What?!

Let's not forget that people in scripture received lots and lots of evidence from God. The Apostle Thomas, all those Nephites, the seas suddenly parting, the sun stopping, the walking on water, the feeding of thousands with a single basket of fare, the immediate clearing of leprosy... on and on. Was their agency abridged?

So now that Mike Ash has claimed that evidence would destroy our agency, I hope he's not going to undercut that claim by trying to offer evidence for the Book of Mormon.

If he does, does that mean he was just kidding?"

For good or bad, Michael Ash's articles seem to generate quite a buzz in the comment section.

[Fly Fisherman]

"Michael states that the Lord doesn't give evidence or proof because that would destroy our free agency. What?!

Well, it is rather contradictory to have "faith" as a 1st principle, and indisputable "proof" together at the same time, right?

Let's not forget that people in scripture received lots and lots of evidence from God. The Apostle Thomas, all those Nephites, the seas suddenly parting, the sun stopping, the walking on water, the feeding of thousands with a single basket of fare, the immediate clearing of leprosy... on and on. Was their agency abridged?

And yet, so many still did not believe and they ended up killing Jesus. Most people in the world did not see and experience those events. So, the rest of us are left to judge whether we can accept those experiences as evidence or not. In Latter-Days, Joseph Smith had those type of experiences; so did the Book of Mormon witnesses, and others present such as Oliver Cowdery when the BOM was being translated, or others present during a vision, etc. Rarely does one of us outside of those events experience such things - therefore, like the events in Old Testament times, we are left to exercise our faith to accept those Latter-Day events as evidence or not.

So now that Mike Ash has claimed that evidence would destroy our agency, I hope he's not going to undercut that claim by trying to offer evidence for the Book of Mormon.

I can't speak for Ash, but after having read his articles and other sources, I would conclude that there definitely is evidence favoring the Book of Mormon - but not evidence so clear that faith is no longer required. Evidence yes, indisputable proof, no.

[cinepro]

I can't speak for Ash, but after having read his articles and other sources, I would conclude that there definitely is evidence favoring the Book of Mormon - but not evidence so clear that faith is no longer required. Evidence yes, indisputable proof, no.

At some point, it starts to seem like a believer's definition of "sufficient evidence" is just based on whatever "evidence" they can come up with at that time.

For example, if you talked to an LDS in 1835 about evidences for the Book of Mormon, I'm sure you would hear all about the importance of faith along with an explanation of the evidences they had seen in the world (mound building Indians, stories of bones and swords around the Hill Cumorah etc.).

If you talked with an LDS in 1900, they would describe the Faith/Evidence balance citing the ancient temples in mesoamerica (different "evidence" than the 1835 LDS), but ultimately arguing the importance of Faith.

A 1955 LDS would also argue that belief in the Book of Mormon is an exactly calibrated relationship between Faith and Evidence. But their "evidence" might involve a more detailed knowledge of mesoamerican archaeology, as well as the Kinderhook plates or any other artifacts that had been publicized.

By the 1990's, you would find LDS still arguing the importance of a perfect balance of Faith and Evidence, but now the evidence might include the arguments of Hugh Nibley, as well as the results of archaeology from the previous few decades. Much, much different "evidence" than the 1835 LDS, but both assume that they have been given this evidence to support their faith to a certain God-determined point.

And finally, you would have the 2010 LDS, but here I would point out that you would have both the Heartland believing LDS and the Meso-american believing LDS arguing that they have both been given just enough evidence to support their faith, but it's totally different evidence! But both are afraid to point out the relationship between Faith and Evidence to the other, and the implications to their faith if their "evidence" turns out to be ephemeral.

Ultimately, there is no relationship between "Faith" in the Book of Mormon and "Evidence". The two are mutually exclusive, and the only correlations between the two are invented in the minds of those who wish there was some sort of connection.

To put it another way, "Faith" is the first principle of the gospel, and as far as I can tell, "Evidence" is not a principle of the gospel at all. That is because "Evidence" is the antithesis of Faith, and having evidence for a claim doesn't increase the amount of "Faith" in the claim, it actually decreases it as Faith get's replaced with rational belief. And as long as we believe in a God that discourages rational belief and wants us to believe on "Faith", this isn't a good thing.

[stemelbow]

Ultimately, there is no relationship between "Faith" in the Book of Mormon and "Evidence". The two are mutually exclusive, and the only correlations between the two are invented in the minds of those who wish there was some sort of connection.

I think you offer a debatable propisition here. What if one takes his/her faith as evidence? If his/her continued reading of the BoM and any blessings as a result is evidence? Or the application of its principles being supported by Holy Ghost's confirmation? Is not confirmation from the Holy Ghost evidence? Indeed, it is the evidence that makes up our faith. If such evidence makes up faith why not the physical pieces of evidence, like Bountiful and Nahom, as relating to the same principle of making faith?

[cinepro]

I think you offer a debatable propisition here. What if one takes his/her faith as evidence? If his/her continued reading of the BoM and any blessings as a result is evidence? Or the application of its principles being supported by Holy Ghost's confirmation? Is not confirmation from the Holy Ghost evidence? Indeed, it is the evidence that makes up our faith. If such evidence makes up faith why not the physical pieces of evidence, like Bountiful and Nahom, as relating to the same principle of making faith?

When we have good evidence to believe something, it isn't "Faith".

So you need to make up your mind. Do you have good evidence, or don't you? If you do, it isn't "Faith". If you don't, it is.

The only way around this is to play semantic games with the words "faith" and "evidence", where we say stuff that isn't "faith" is, and stuff that isn't really good "evidence" is.

For example, primary children are taught that believing the sun will rise tomorrow is a form of "faith". Ummmm...no it isn't.

We also need to understand that "evidence" doesn't follow faith. The evidence is the same before and after we choose to believe something. The only thing that changes is the confirmation bias we bring to the question, where now that we've decided to believe something we only consider confirming evidences valid (and we ignore or put disconfirming evidences "on a shelf").