Testimonies

[inquiringmind]

I found this interesting.

No truly converted Latter-day Saint can be immoral. No truly converted Latter-day Saint can be dishonest, nor lie, nor steal. That means that one may have a testimony as of today, but when he stoops to do things that contradict the laws of God, it is because he has lost his testimony and he has to fight to regain it again. Testimony isn’t something that you have today and you keep always. Testimony is either going to grow and grow to the brightness of certainty, or it is going to diminish to nothingness, depending upon what we do about it. I say, the testimony that we recapture day by day is the thing that saves us from the pitfalls of the adversary

http://lds.org/ldsor...0003a94610aRCRD

I can't remember their names now, but I know D&C mentions some deceased saints who are said to be saved (or exalted.)

In the history of the LDS church, is there anyone who lost a testimony, and then regained it (and who we know to have been saved)?

Edited January 3, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Duncan]

i don't know any of the brethren who have lost their testimonies but their have been brethren been excommunicated and rebaptized and a some who haven't come back to the Church so far as a rebaptism

[Sethbag]

It sounds like some flavor of True Scotsman argument. Worse, though, it all but says that a person cannot really have a testimony unless they are perfect. How many members cherish the thought of a testimony, and will feel guilty that their testimony isn't real enough because they aren't perfect?

Even as a nonbeliever, I can put my believer hat back on for a few moments and when I do that in this case, I just don't like the argument for theological reasons. What is this claim backed up by?

As a nonbeliever, however, I have to say that the whole idea of testimony as this fragile thing is pretty hokey. If the knowledge of something (ie: truthfulness of the LDS church) is so fragile, I'd suspect there's probably a very good reason this belief is so hard to maintain. And that reason isn't an invisible man with a forked tail and a pitchfork, either. ;-)

[Kemara]

As a nonbeliever, however, I have to say that the whole idea of testimony as this fragile thing is pretty hokey. If the knowledge of something (ie: truthfulness of the LDS church) is so fragile, I'd suspect there's probably a very good reason this belief is so hard to maintain. And that reason isn't an invisible man with a forked tail and a pitchfork, either. ;-)

Do you think the idea of an atheistic testimony is hokey considering the fact that many atheists leave the faith and turn to God? Also, would you able to shed some light on the good reasons why belief in atheism is so hard to maintain? I mean the fragility of the atheists testimony is obvious isn’t it, considering how many ex-atheists there are. Since you have already ruled out the invisible man with a forked tail and pitchfork I am curious as to what is lacking empirically in the atheist faith and why a belief/testimony is not sturdy enough to warrant dedication in even its strongest devotee’s.

[inquiringmind]

Anthony Flew is a good example of an ex-atheist.

But getting back to LDS testimonies, President Lee didn't say that those who weren't perfect never had a testimony.

He said that it's possible to lose a testimony by not walking in the light, and (the part that interests me) to regain it by returning to the light.

That seems a little different from saying that an imperfect saint never had a testimony to begin with.

My question was whether there are any examples of this in LDS history.

Edited January 3, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Kemara]

Anthony Flew is a good example of an ex-atheist.

Yes, and what I found interesting about Flew's acceptance of reality are the comments made by the devotees fo his former faith for the reason Flew left. "He is losing his mind" is about all they could come up with. I wonder what empirical, medical or scientific evidence these devotees used to come to this coclusion. Crystal ball perhaps.

[LeSellers]

I can't remember their names now, but I know D&C mentions some deceased saints who are said to be saved (or exalted.)

Probably Doc&Cov 137 and 138. In the first, Joseph names his father (then dead), mother, and brother Alvin who'd died before the 1829 restoration of the ordinance of Baptism. In the second, President Joseph F. Smith named many who'd died and were commissioned to preach the Gospel to those in Spirit Prison, including his father Hyrum Smith, as well as many of the ancients, notably (to me, at least) Shem (aka Melchizedek), "the great high priest".

5 I saw father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

41 Noah, who gave warning of the flood; Shem, the great high priest; Abraham, the father of the faithful; Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, the great law-giver of Israel;

...

53 The Prophet Joseph Smith, and my father, Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and other choice spirits who were reserved to come forth in the fulness of times to take part in laying the foundations of the great latter-day work,

Lehi

[Sethbag]

Anthony Flew is a good example of an ex-atheist.

But getting back to LDS testimonies, President Lee didn't say that those who weren't perfect never had a testimony.

He said that it's possible to lose a testimony by not walking in the light, and (the part that interests me) to regain it by returning to the light.

That seems a little different from saying that an imperfect saint never had a testimony to begin with.

Ok, but who is perfect? If you say nobody, then by Lee's definition, nobody really has a testimony. Unless a person doesn't sin at all, or "walks in the light" 100% of the time, they won't have a real testimony. I just don't think that's tenable religiously, and is the kind of thinking that probably leads a lot of Mormons into depression.

My question was whether there are any examples of this in LDS history.

Well, WW Phelps left the church for a time, and so did Orson Hyde. Whether they "lost their testimonies" and got them back again I wouldn't know, especially as I'm pretty sure that the word testimony is used differently by modern LDS than it was back in the early days.

[Sethbag]

Do you think the idea of an atheistic testimony is hokey considering the fact that many atheists leave the faith and turn to God?

I think the idea of an atheistic testimony is indeed hokey.

Also, would you able to shed some light on the good reasons why belief in atheism is so hard to maintain? I mean the fragility of the atheists testimony is obvious isn’t it, considering how many ex-atheists there are.

I don't agree that atheism functions like a religion, nor that atheism is a uniform belief system, nor that there's really such a thing as a "testimony" in atheism, though it's probable there are at least a few atheists who act in ways that mimic a testimony-like approach to truth. I would disagree with their approach, but it's not my job to go out and try to make sure that all those in the world who don't believe in gods don't do so in exactly the same way as me.

Since you have already ruled out the invisible man with a forked tail and pitchfork I am curious as to what is lacking empirically in the atheist faith and why a belief/testimony is not sturdy enough to warrant dedication in even its strongest devotees.

And here's the rub: I don't believe in beliefs or testimonies that are sturdy enough to warrant dedication, if you mean the kind of "I know beyond the shadow of a doubt, with every fiber of my being, that [whatever] is true, and nothing can shake my faith in it!" sort of testimony. I believe that the best approach to reality is to always be willing to factor in new evidence, and to be willing to change my views if evidence contradicts them. If a given atheist comes to believe that evidence exists for a God, and starts believing in God, then while I may not agree with him or her on the nature and validity of the evidence, but if they really are convinced that this is where the evidence points, I must truly respect their decision.

[Daniel Peterson]

As a nonbeliever, however, I have to say that the whole idea of testimony as this fragile thing is pretty hokey. If the knowledge of something (ie: truthfulness of the LDS church) is so fragile, I'd suspect there's probably a very good reason this belief is so hard to maintain.

In my view, a testimony is quite similar to a relationship -- to a marriage, for example. (Both the Old and New Testaments use marriage to symbolize the relationship between God and his people -- and for good reasons, this being one of them.) It isn't, shouldn't be, and never was mere intellectual assent to a set of propositions. The relationship entails such assent, yes, but it isn't reducible to simple assertions of alleged fact.

If such a relationship isn't nurtured, is allowed to starve, it will die. Not because it's "hokey" or without value, but because it's a living thing.

I don't imagine that I'm alone in having seen several bitter divorces where one or the other of the former spouses insists that "I never really loved him," or some such thing, maybe even with entire sincerity, when that is almost certainly a spectacular falsehood. But the relationship was neglected, subordinated to other commitments, injured by gross misbehavior on the part of one of the marriage partners . . . whatever. And suddenly, at that point, the "facts" about the ex-partner are transformed almost beyond recognition. Good traits are forgotten; bad characteristics, real or imagined, dominate the picture.

[Sethbag]

In my view, a testimony is quite similar to a relationship -- to a marriage, for example. (Both the Old and New Testaments use marriage to symbolize the relationship between God and his people -- and for good reasons, this being one of them.) It isn't, shouldn't be, and never was mere intellectual assent to a set of propositions. The relationship entails such assent, yes, but it isn't reducible to simple assertions of alleged fact.

I can totally agree with this. I just think that in common modern LDS usage, the word testimony seems to be synonymous with "knowledge that the church is true", rather than "relationship with the church". Every Fast Sunday people stand up and say something like: "I want to bear you my testimony, that I know this church is true, that I know the Book of Mormon is true, and that Thomas S. Monson is a true Prophet of God." I can't recall ever hearing anyone say: "I would like to bear you my testimony, that I have a very good working relationship with the church, which I value highly enough to put the work required into maintaining it in its current overall excellent condition, and even increase it." That doesn't mean nobody says that, I'm just not familiar with anyone who does, or has.

So yeah, I pretty much can agree with your definition of testimony, but I don't think it's commonly shared by the bulk of the LDS population.

If such a relationship isn't nurtured, is allowed to starve, it will die. Not because it's "hokey" or without value, but because it's a living thing.

I don't imagine that I'm alone in having seen several bitter divorces where one or the other of the former spouses insists that "I never really loved him," or some such thing, maybe even with entire sincerity, when that is almost certainly a spectacular falsehood. But the relationship was neglected, subordinated to other commitments, injured by gross misbehavior on the part of one of the marriage partners . . . whatever. And suddenly, at that point, the "facts" about the ex-partner are transformed almost beyond recognition. Good traits are forgotten; bad characteristics, real or imagined, dominate the picture.

Again, I like your thinking on this one. If what you said were the common LDS meaning of the word testimony, I'd almost certainly not describe it as hokey. I don't think it is, however. Not only has ever person whom I've ever heard personally use the word apparently meant it in the "knowledge that the church is true" sense, but every GA talk in the Ensign, or Conference or whatever who talks about strengthening testimony, or risking one's testimony, or whatever, that I've ever seen or read, seems to mean it in this way too.

Maybe you can "work from within" to adjust LDS cultural usage of the word testimony to come in line more with your understanding of it. I think it would be a good change, if you could pull it off.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Sethbag

[Grundelwalken]

Worse, though, it all but says that a person cannot really have a testimony unless they are perfect. How many members cherish the thought of a testimony, and will feel guilty that their testimony isn't real enough because they aren't perfect?

As a nonbeliever, however, I have to say that the whole idea of testimony as this fragile thing is pretty hokey. If the knowledge of something (ie: truthfulness of the LDS church) is so fragile, I'd suspect there's probably a very good reason this belief is so hard to maintain. And that reason isn't an invisible man with a forked tail and a pitchfork, either. ;-)

SB, I think this is like saying unless you are perfect, you can't be a great golfer. Every new golfer makes mistakes but the idea is to learn from the mistakes and improve the game. If said golfer stops at the first mistake and gives up, then he/she really never had a true hankering for the best game in the world.

A testimony is delicate and can be broken, especially when it is young and tender. But as it grows and blossoms to its maturity, there is a power that protects and guides. Unfortunately, some let things break down the protection and have to go through the process of repair. If they choose not to do that then the fence will disintegrate over time and what was once powerful and clear will become a distant memory. MW

P.S. One day I will learn to read all the posts before commenting. DCP's example was much better than mine. mw

Edited January 3, 2012 by Grundelwalken

[Sethbag]

Grundelwalken, it was an interpretation of the quote from the OP: "No truly converted Latter-day Saint can be immoral. No truly converted Latter-day Saint can be dishonest, nor lie, nor steal." If an LDS person is immoral, or lies, or steals, that that implies they were not truly converted.

I've since read the whole article though, and I'm not convinced that the quoted passage reflects the overall intent of HB Lee. The article presented multiple approaches or views from different HB Lee sources, and I think does so a little clumsily.

I don't agree with Lee's "when your heart begins to tell you things that your mind does not know, then you are getting the Spirit of the Lord." approach, which he talked about using with people twice in that article. A lot of people think their hearts are telling them things their mind doesn't know, and then if they accept that this means they really do know it, because their heart is a reliable source of truth, that just makes for some unfortunately stubborn, misled individuals. I think it's a terrible epistemology. I mean, LDS will read HB Lee's words and think they're great, because a Catholic priest became converted, and that guy with the LDS wife and kids (hopefully someday). LDS may not think they're so great when someone uses this method and comes up with the Catholic Church being the correct one, or that various new-age crystals really do have magical powers, or that they really can channel the words of their dead ancestors or whatever, and on the basis of their "testimonies" of these things won't take Mormonism seriously.

[TAO]

inquiringmind, I'd say this happens to me every day. Every day I have new trials, new challenges, new doubts to overcome. And every day I rise to do it. Some days I don't end quite as well off as I should. And other days I end up fine. But the goal is, that in the end, I have a firm testimony... not only in word... but in deed, as well =). That's the hardest part really... not only just saying it... not only just believing it... but doing it =D. That's the part that's important for me to work on. To not only believe in Christ at all times, but to also act like him in all times, and follow in his footsteps. That is my duty... and challenge to perfect in life =).

Edited January 3, 2012 by TAO

[3DOP]

...it was an interpretation of the quote from the OP: "No truly converted Latter-day Saint can be immoral. No truly converted Latter-day Saint can be dishonest, nor lie, nor steal." If an LDS person is immoral, or lies, or steals, that that implies they were not truly converted.

Sethbag, hi.

I am not LDS. Far be it from me to persuade you to become LDS again. It seems to me very likely that if the author of the quote were to be presented with the criticisms of his comment that have been made on this thread, he might very legitimately suggest a problem.

There are unspoken presuppositions. There are multiple copnversions. He would probably be willing to concede that a "truly converted LDS" could tell an untruth in order to protect his wife's reputation. On the other hand, he could not deliberately cheat a business partner, or lie under oath in court. A "truly converted LDS" might be able to thoughtlessly retain a pen without troubling to return it to the 7-11 after signing for his credit purchase. But a "truly converted LDS" could not possibly scheme to commit robbery of a bank or commit other serious acts violating LDS moral codes. I converted to the Catholic faith and don't imagine that I am a "truly converted Catholic". Baptism doesn't promise perfection. He who enjoys the grace of baptism wants to be converted and stop his sins and faults because of the love that God has shown to us. After the Resurrection, after he had repented with many tears for his betrayal at His trial, our Lord told St. Peter, "When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." I don't guess that most LDS need to think they are more more advanced than St. Peter was when the Lord appeared to Him in Galilee. The author is saying that if you are having serious problems with stealing, lying or immorality, the answer is conversion! That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Do you think that the Gospel of John allows that after Peter is converted, he will begin to be a thieving, lying whoremonger?

My reading as a non-LDS with little sympathy for LDS thought and claims, could never make me accuse them on the basis of this statement, of claiming that "truly converted LDS" will be perfectly moral, only that they won't commit major violations of the specific sins mentioned. I am not even saying the author is correct. I don't even believe in such a thing as "truly converted LDS". I am just saying that the negative conclusions that you seem to be trying to draw appear to me to be indefensible. Taken in the context of my limited understanding of LDS belief, I would suggest that the author of the statement is saying that no "truly converted LDS" could ever knowingly, willingly, and deliberately commit serious acts of immorality, dishonesty, or theft. That does not seem like such an unreasonable or high plateau to reach. As a non-LDS, I live every day of my life with very little fear that I will commit a holdup, rob a convenience store, or lie before a grand jury. I sin every day in smaller matters. I am imperfect, I still need to be converted, as a little child, and it seems to me that the quoted statement allows for such imperfections. Although I have already concluded that the LDS faith is false, I could never do so upon the reasoning I have seen presented against this statement so far.

Edited January 4, 2012 by 3DOP

[Storm Rider]

I found this interesting.

http://lds.org/ldsor...0003a94610aRCRD

I can't remember their names now, but I know D&C mentions some deceased saints who are said to be saved (or exalted.)

In the history of the LDS church, is there anyone who lost a testimony, and then regained it (and who we know to have been saved)?

A truly converted member is not a position, but a journey of faith. If the Spirit is fully with us every second of the day then of course we would not sin; however, this life is not about living with the presence of the Spirit, but in actually choosing to follow and resist temptation. It means we will fail, fall short, and that we are sinners and we will always be sinners in this life. Our perfection comes through Jesus Christ; not through our own discipline or strength.

Our journey of faith is nor more difficult or easy than it is for every other follower of Jesus Christ. Our conversion is similar to every other follower of Christ in that we all acknowledge we fall short of our Master and in him we are made whole before the Father. That position is the same for each of us.

[John Larsen]

That which can be affirmed by testimony can also be denied by testimony.

[Storm Rider]

That which can be affirmed by testimony can also be denied by testimony.

That all depends on if the testimony is built on faith. If the testimony is built on faith it cannot be denied by a similar testimony; it can only be denied by one ignorant of the truth being testified.

[Tarski]

Yes, and what I found interesting about Flew's acceptance of reality are the comments made by the devotees fo his former faith for the reason Flew left. "He is losing his mind" is about all they could come up with. I wonder what empirical, medical or scientific evidence these devotees used to come to this coclusion. Crystal ball perhaps.

Flew did not suddenly accept reality if anything like Mormonism is true. Flew simply said he could no longer discount the notion of an intelligent force underlying creation. The only notion of God that Flew seemed to be willing to defend in his own words was a more or less deistic notion. In any case, he would have surely been appalled with the idea that God was a glorified primate with white hair, toenails, meat tearing teeth and a full complement of biological organs.

....

By the way, I did not need an official medical diagnosis to recognize that my grandmother wasn't so sharp in her final few years. Plenty of people would have observed Flew's alleged decline in mental capacity but being polite, most would have said little about it. But there were those that said something.

In fact, given what extreme old age almost always does, it would have been quite something if his mental sharpness in the area of abstract thought did not decline. It will almost certainly happen to all of us around that age if we make it that far.

I hope I am remembered for what I produced in my best and most lucid years. Who knows what I may come up with in my declining years? In fact, I can almost guarantee that I will be tempted by theism as I approach the grave. It's only human.

[John Larsen]

That all depends on if the testimony is built on faith. If the testimony is built on faith it cannot be denied by a similar testimony; it can only be denied by one ignorant of the truth being testified.

But if one's testimony is built on faith, it cannot be built on truth. For one who has knowledge of the truth need not faith. Faith and knowledge of truth do not co-exist in the same person, at least not directed toward the self same testament.

[wenglund]

But if one's testimony is built on faith, it cannot be built on truth.

Do you have faith that this statement is built on the truth?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kemara]

And here's the rub: I don't believe in beliefs or testimonies that are sturdy enough to warrant dedication, if you mean the kind of "I know beyond the shadow of a doubt, with every fiber of my being, that [whatever] is true, and nothing can shake my faith in it!" sort of testimony. I believe that the best approach to reality is to always be willing to factor in new evidence, and to be willing to change my views if evidence contradicts them. If a given atheist comes to believe that evidence exists for a God, and starts believing in God, then while I may not agree with him or her on the nature and validity of the evidence, but if they really are convinced that this is where the evidence points, I must truly respect their decision.

Thats the rub? How very underwhelming, especially since you do not practice what you preach. But in any case, I tend to think that the atheist testimony "i know there is no god" and even the less committed testimony of the "new atheist" is possible because they have not used the full spectrum of lenses available to them, as such the knowledge or belief foundation is inherently weak. Once the world is viewed with all the available lenses the weakness in the foundation of atheistic belief naturally results in the abandonment of atheism.

Have you explored all the evidence that has caused various atheists to turn to God? If not, why not? If yes, why did you fail to see what is so clearly obvious to others who search using a full array of lenses? Why such a resounding difference in experience between yours and the more mature reasoned approach? The only reason you are an atheist is because your journey is juvenile and has not encompassed all that is available.

[Kemara]

Flew did not suddenly accept reality if anything like Mormonism is true.

I don't believe anyone on this thread, except the Strawman of your making, said anything of the sought, certainly not me.

Flew simply said he could no longer discount the notion of an intelligent force underlying creation. The only notion of God that Flew seemed to be willing to defend in his own words was a more or less deistic notion.

In his own words, or words he personally endorsed, Flew said a little more than that. Deism for sure, but still a little more than the limitations you are attempting to impose here.

In any case, he would have surely been appalled with the idea that God was a glorified primate with white hair, toenails, meat tearing teeth and a full complement of biological organs.

At one time he was just as appalled at the idea of deism was he not?

I hope I am remembered for what I produced in my best and most lucid years. Who knows what I may come up with in my declining years? In fact, I can almost guarantee that I will be tempted by theism as I approach the grave. It's only human.

And the insinuations, if not outright attacks, against Flew continue.

[Storm Rider]

But if one's testimony is built on faith, it cannot be built on truth. For one who has knowledge of the truth need not faith. Faith and knowledge of truth do not co-exist in the same person, at least not directed toward the self same testament.

As long as you are mortal there are very, very, very few exceptions to the rule that all will live by faith. There are few indeed that have actual knowledge of God, Jesus Christ, and all things similar. This may be a semantics problem over what is knowledge and what is not. When I speak of faith, I speak as defined in Alma 32:21 "And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Unless you have seen the Father and the Son you have not knowledge and must live by faith.

[Senator]

Unless you have seen the Father and the Son you have not knowledge and must live by faith.

Then, how come so many LDS stand and bear testimony that they, "know that God lives, that Jesus is their Savior"?

Edited January 4, 2012 by Senator