Testimonies

[Kemara]

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

Semantic games. How come lots of them don't? How come lots of them choose words that express an explicit position of faith?

[Sethbag]

Kemara, I don't accept that a God exists because of at least the following, and I'll try to keep it brief:

1) The world, and life on it, appear to have come about naturalistically, through processes of physics, chemistry, and biology which are guided only in the sense of things physics would predict, or emergant appearance of guidance through natural selection, as in evolution.

2) It being non-obvious to me that a God exists, and this God not having made him/her/itself known to me personally through any kind of unambiguous communication, if I am to rely on the word of others that such a God exists, these others need to be convincing to me, ie: their Truth needs to stand head and shoulders apart from all of the made-up stuff that millions of other true believers try to tell us all is the real Truth about God. In my view no person, whose words and works I have seen or heard of, even comes close to appearing authentically tapped by God as his/her/its conduit of truth to the world.

3) There aren't any questions of science or origins or whatever which I believe are best answered by "God did it". Stated another way, I'm unconvinced by any of the God of the Gaps arguments. I am not very familiar with Antony Flew's reasons for shifting from atheism to Atheism Lite (ie: Deism), but I understand that he has come to accept that he cannot discount an ultimate creative force having started it all off. And that's about as far as he goes. I've seen many (I don't know if I've seen them all) of the arguments that try to argue that an initial intelligent creative force must have existed, and I simply don't find any of them to be convincing. If they convinced Flew, then fine, he's his own person, and we all have our opinions.

4) The hurdle for a person convincing me that they know bona fide Truth about God and can tell me about him/her/it is very high indeed, and it's doubtful anyone could overcome it. There are literally millions and millions of believers claiming to know the Truth about God. It's fairly obvious to me that they don't really know the things they claim to. I find it exceedingly hard to believe that a God who really did exist would choose as his/her/its method of communicating with us selecting an individual from these many millions of believers and actually appearing to them, in secret, with the message that they not only have been chosen as the vessel by which God will tell us what we need to know, but also have been chosen to wield God's executive authority here on Earth. That's just too obviously self-serving, and has been used thousands of times by people to set up churches around themselves, complete with followers writing down and repeating everything this prophet says, giving him or her their money, and granting him or her sexual access to the hand-picked fortunate wives and daughters among the flock whom God has selected as his prophet's helpmeets.

So, I think that the universe and our world appear to have come about without supernatural intervention, there aren't any questions about our world which I think require a God to answer adequately, it's not obvious to me that any deity exists, and I haven't yet met or read of the person who could credibly claim to know anything about this God, and moreover, it would be incredibly difficult to demonstrate to me why it makes sense that a God who really did exist would use secret appointment of power-wielding prophets as his/her/its chosen method of getting its message across to us in the first place.

Given all of this, I find the proposition that a God exists, and operates in all or some of the ways I've outlined, to be highly unlikely. I don't claim to know that a God does not exist. I simply do not believe that a God does exist, and I think the likelihood of me being wrong about this is probably very low.

There you have it. I don't bear it with every fiber of my bean, however. Nor do I offer it up to you beyond the shadow of doubt.

[Storm Rider]

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

You are talking about an issue of semantics. Most LDS do state they know that God lives and that Jesus is their Savior, but their knowledge is based upon faith and not a perfect knowledge of it. They could just as easily say they have faith that God lives. For many their faith is such that they honest believe with all their heart that God lives; it is a form of knowing, but it is less than perfect knowledge.

I don't see this as an issue, but I can understand how some might want to pick at it. When I bear testimony I generally state that I stand as a witness that Jesus is the Christ... I have certainly used the terminology "I know" and I expect I will continue to do so, but I will more often than not stand as a witness. Follow the Spirit and most will know what you are saying.

[Kemara]

Kemara, I don't accept that a God exists because of at least the following, and I'll try to keep it brief:

Thank you for keeping it brief, I really dont know if I could have made it through any more than that.

It is difficult to know where to even begin with this convoluted piece of mystic mumbo jumbo. I sought of feel like a person pulling the wings and then the legs off a fly. A detestable proposition so I shall merely attempt to sum up.

You have not used the full spectrum of lenses available to you and you have not explored all the evidence. As such your previously stated position of always being willing to factor in new evidence is totally bogus. You’re oh so superior world view is based on ignorance and you must blow out a lot of birthday candles for all the wishing you are doing. Your world view is actually defined by what you don’t know, and not by what you do know. What a sorry state of affairs. At least the testimony of an everyday LDS is based on what they believe they know which is light years ahead of your own testimony of atheism, which would be more correctly labled as Weak Atheism. Apparently some Weak Atheists are weaker than others.

[zerinus]

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)?

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

. . .

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

The answer is yes, thousands. The word "testimony" can be used loosely by different people to mean different things. In the quote you gave from Harold B. Lee, he makes a distinction between "testimony" and "certainty". To others, "Testimony" and "certainty" may mean the same things. If "testimony" and "certainty" are two different things, then I don't have "testimony;" I have "certainty". But I prefer to call it "testimony". What he calls a "testimony," should perhaps be describes as "faith," or the beginning or the initial stages of a firm testimony. That is something that can be lost or dimmed, if one does not nurture it through a life of faithfulness in the Church; and it has happened to thousands of people in the history of the Church. Whenever someone goes inactive and eventually stops believing in the Church, you can call that losing your testimony. Do these people ever come back to the Church and regain their testimony? Of course they do. So in answer to your question:

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)?

The answer is yes, there are thousands. The answer to the last part of your question: "and whom we know to have been saved" is also yes. It is a basic doctrine of the Church and anybody who transgresses and then repents, will be forgiven, and it will be as though he had never sinned, and will be saved. So if they have genuinely repented and returned to the fold, then we have no reason to doubt that they are saved.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

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. . . .

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.

I don't think that I've said anything particularly new or idiosyncratic. As long as I've been paying attention, there's been talk of the importance of nurturing a testimony. Nobody ever talks about "nurturing" one's knowledge that Sacramento is the capital of California or about the danger of failing to "nurture" one's knowledge that triangles have 180 degrees.

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.

I think that you're jumping to an incorrect reading of what I said. I wasn't saying that there is no cognitive element in a testimony. I'm simply saying that a testimony is more than mere cognitive assent, and that, in certain respects, it's more like a relationship. But relationships also have cognitive elements. One believes certain things about one's spouse or friend, for example. One believes these things to be facts. If they turn out not to be factual, that could be a "defeater." But if one's emotional state changes, one's weighing of the facts will also change with it. Not in the case of 2+2=4 or in identifying the year of the Russian Revolution, but definitely in the case of a relationship. When a marriage goes south, the spouse's beautiful smile may no longer seem as significant as her unpleasantly grating voice, for example -- something the husband scarcely noticed when he was in love. And he simply won't be motivated to think about her good qualities, though her bad ones (real or imagined) will loom very large.

[Sky]

Elder Oaks gave an excellent talk about testimonies in a fairly recent General Conference address.

[John Larsen]

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, it is built upon the definition of the word "faith".

[Sethbag]

Thank you for keeping it brief, I really dont know if I could have made it through any more than that.

It is difficult to know where to even begin with this convoluted piece of mystic mumbo jumbo. I sought of feel like a person pulling the wings and then the legs off a fly. A detestable proposition so I shall merely attempt to sum up.

Thank you for schooling me. You have expertly used logic, backed up by convincing evidence, to demonstrate to me that I have been mistaken. I shall contact my bishop and begin the process of repenting from my apostasy immediately.

You have not used the full spectrum of lenses available to you and you have not explored all the evidence. As such your previously stated position of always being willing to factor in new evidence is totally bogus. You’re oh so superior world view is based on ignorance and you must blow out a lot of birthday candles for all the wishing you are doing. Your world view is actually defined by what you don’t know, and not by what you do know. What a sorry state of affairs. At least the testimony of an everyday LDS is based on what they believe they know which is light years ahead of your own testimony of atheism, which would be more correctly labled as Weak Atheism. Apparently some Weak Atheists are weaker than others.

I don't really have anything to say to all of this, I just wanted to quote it to give people another chance to read what you've written. You've been as convincing as ever, and I thank you again for showing me the error of my ways, and pulling me back kicking and screaming into the fold. Oh how great shall be your joy.

[Sethbag]

Daniel, I guess the difference for me is that "the church is true" is more akin to 2+2=4 or the year of the Russian Revolution, and less like "my wife sure has a beautiful smile". I will admit that until my exposure to Mormon-related discussion boards a few years ago, I had never really been exposed to the idea that "the church is true" could cover a continuum on the truth spectrum, and I confess that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around it. I can agree that one's relationship with the church (aside from the question of the church's truth or non-truth status) can be more akin to a marriage.

[Kemara]

I don't really have anything to say to all of this, I just wanted to quote it to give people another chance to read what you've written. You've been as convincing as ever, and I thank you again for showing me the error of my ways, and pulling me back kicking and screaming into the fold. Oh how great shall be your joy.

Thank you for again exercising your bewildering power of mind reading, and this time for my personal benefit. Had you not told me I would never have known that pulling you back into the fold was my motivation for pointing out the hypocrisy and weakness of your position. Truly Soothsayerbag, you have dizzying mystic abilities.

[wenglund]

No...

I agree. What you said isn't built on truth.

...it is built upon the definition of the word "faith".

What definition of faith do you have in mind? I ask because it differs from how I understand faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I will admit that until my exposure to Mormon-related discussion boards a few years ago, I had never really been exposed to the idea that "the church is true" could cover a continuum on the truth spectrum, and I confess that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around it.

I am glad you had a chance to experience a non-fundamentalist way of thinking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nominee]

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 =).

TAO, thank you for sharing. I believe you hit the nail on the head. I have gained my testimony by having faith in God, always attempting to live the gospel, and receiving a witness of the truth of things by both my successes and my failures. This following quote is also from the article linked:

Conversion must mean more than just being a “card carrying” member of the Church with a tithing receipt, a membership card, a temple recommend, etc. It means to overcome the tendencies to criticize and to strive continually to improve inward weaknesses and not merely the outward appearances.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Nominee

[Hamba Tuhan]

I have gained my testimony by having faith in God, always attempting to live the gospel, and receiving a witness of the truth of things by both my successes and my failures.

This is the essence of my testimony. It is identical in its own way to a testimony which I would give in a court of law: a statement of what I have personally seen/heard/experienced. I will happily teach facets of the gospel with which I've had no personal experience yet based solely on faith, but in my testimony I bear witness to what I know because I've experienced it, and the only way to experience it is to do it and see what happens.

[Daniel Peterson]

Thank you for schooling me. You have expertly used logic, backed up by convincing evidence, to demonstrate to me that I have been mistaken. I shall contact my bishop and begin the process of repenting from my apostasy immediately.

I wish that you were serious.

Daniel, I guess the difference for me is that "the church is true" is more akin to 2+2=4 or the year of the Russian Revolution, and less like "my wife sure has a beautiful smile".

I sense that you're still not really getting what I said.

I was quite careful, as I recall, not to raise the question of the subjectivity of the judgment "my wife sure has a beautiful smile." Instead of that, I did something different: I said that the weight that one would place on two propositions (respectively, "my wife has a beautiful smile" and "my wife has an unpleasant, grating voice") would vary, depending upon, among other things, the overall health of one's relationship with her.

I will admit that until my exposure to Mormon-related discussion boards a few years ago, I had never really been exposed to the idea that "the church is true" could cover a continuum on the truth spectrum, and I confess that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around it.

Whereas I, on the other hand, can't remember a time in the Church when I didn't hear things like "he has a strong testimony," "her testimony is weak," "she has no testimony," "he's having testimony problems," and etc.

But I still don't think that you're really seeing what I'm saying. I believe that testimonies are complex or composite things, formed from true propositions (and, sometimes, from mistaken ones), yes, but also from spiritual experiences, intuitions, emotional ties, internal psychological states (for good and for ill), life lessons, and many other things. That they're never solely cognitive, never purely Vulcan-style deductions, doesn't mean that they necessarily lack cognitive content. The proportion of that cognitive content will vary from individual to individual, and, in each individual, from one time to another.

In this, once again, they're not unlike relationships (though be wary of what David Hackett Fisher calls "the fallacy of the perfect analogy"). "Falling in love" happens because of life histories, personal psychologies, intuitions, shared experiences, and many other things, including "facts."

[Scott Lloyd]

Whereas I, on the other hand, can't remember a time in the Church when I didn't hear things like "he has a strong testimony," "her testimony is weak," "she has no testimony," "he's having testimony problems," and etc.

But I still don't think that you're really seeing what I'm saying. I believe that testimonies are complex or composite things, formed from true propositions (and, sometimes, from mistaken ones), yes, but also from spiritual experiences, intuitions, emotional ties, internal psychological states (for good and for ill), life lessons, and many other things. That they're never solely cognitive, never purely Vulcan-style deductions, doesn't mean that they necessarily lack cognitive content. The proportion of that cognitive content will vary from individual to individual, and, in each individual, from one time to another.

That a testimony is, at least in part, a spiritual gift from God and that it is a viable, vulnerable thing that can suffer from one's own neglect and unwise behavior is borne out repeatedly in the scriptures.

D&C 84:54-58 speaks of people's minds being darkened because they have neglected the Book of Mormon and other gifts.

Elsewhere, gospel truth (or a testimony thereof) is compared to a seed that fails to take root because one casts it out with one's own unbelief or allows others to take it away, or to a living plant that withers and dies because one neglects to nourish it (see the analogies in Alma 32 or in Christ's parable of the sower, or the symbolism in some elements of Lehi's vision of the tree of life).

[Libs]

That a testimony is, at least in part, a spiritual gift from God and that it is a viable, vulnerable thing that can suffer from one's own neglect and unwise behavior is borne out repeatedly in the scriptures.

But, this doesn't seem to leave room for plain old doubt. I always hear LDS speaking in terms of not doing something we should have done, or doing something we shouldn't have, when it comes to losing a testimony, and I'm sure that does come into play. but sometimes it's just simply about doubts creeping in, perhaps, because of something new one has learned, that is difficult to integrate with existing beliefs. This can happen very suddenly and without any intent to destroy the "relationship" built on faith and testimony.

[Scott Lloyd]

But, this doesn't seem to leave room for plain old doubt. I always hear LDS speaking in terms of not doing something we should have done, or doing something we shouldn't have, when it comes to losing a testimony, and I'm sure that does come into play. but sometimes it's just simply about doubts creeping in, perhaps, because of something new one has learned, that is difficult to integrate with existing beliefs. This can happen very suddenly and without any intent to destroy the "relationship" built on faith and testimony.

Here again, the seed/plant analogy is apt. Weeds can creep into a garden unbidden, but if they are allowed to fully occupy it and choke out the useful plants, that is the fault of the gardener if he has left the garden uncultivated. .

Elder M. Russell Ballard tells the story of one of his returned missionaries who came to him and said he was losing his testimony. He had encountered anti-Mormon literature and had questions. Elder Ballard replied that he would need some time to research answers to the questions, but in the meantime he challenged the young man to read daily from the Book of Mormon (he had neglected to do so for some time).

The young man returned in a week and said he was fine, expressed a strong testimony and said he didn't need his questions answered. Elder Ballard replied that he was glad, but he was going to get the answers anyway. "I've spent a lot of time on this," he said.

Elder Ballard asked the young man what he had learned from the experience. "To always give the Lord equal time," was the reply.

Cultivating the garden amounts to giving the Lord equal time.

[Nominee]

Here again, the seed/plant analogy is apt. Weeds can creep into a garden unbidden, but if they are allowed to fully occupy it and choke out the useful plants, that is the fault of the gardener if he has left the garden uncultivated. .

Elder M. Russell Ballard tells the story of one of his returned missionaries who came to him and said he was losing his testimony. He had encountered anti-Mormon literature and had questions. Elder Ballard replied that he would need some time to research answers to the questions, but in the meantime he challenged the young man to read daily from the Book of Mormon (he had neglected to do so for some time).

The young man returned in a week and said he was fine, expressed a strong testimony and said he didn't need his questions answered. Elder Ballard replied that he was glad, but he was going to get the answers anyway. "I've spent a lot of time on this," he said.

Elder Ballard asked the young man what he had learned from the experience. "To always give the Lord equal time," was the reply.

Cultivating the garden amounts to giving the Lord equal time.

An excellent post, Scott. Thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

An excellent post, Scott. Thank you.

If you give me a rep point for it, I can break 200.

[Nominee]

If you give me a rep point for it, I can break 200.

Haha! I did give you a rep point for it. You deserved it.

[Libs]

Here again, the seed/plant analogy is apt. Weeds can creep into a garden unbidden, but if they are allowed to fully occupy it and choke out the useful plants, that is the fault of the gardener if he has left the garden uncultivated. .

Elder M. Russell Ballard tells the story of one of his returned missionaries who came to him and said he was losing his testimony. He had encountered anti-Mormon literature and had questions. Elder Ballard replied that he would need some time to research answers to the questions, but in the meantime he challenged the young man to read daily from the Book of Mormon (he had neglected to do so for some time).

The young man returned in a week and said he was fine, expressed a strong testimony and said he didn't need his questions answered. Elder Ballard replied that he was glad, but he was going to get the answers anyway. "I've spent a lot of time on this," he said.

Elder Ballard asked the young man what he had learned from the experience. "To always give the Lord equal time," was the reply.

Cultivating the garden amounts to giving the Lord equal time.

Thanks, Scott. I appreciate the response, but I really felt that I did all of the right things, including rereading the Book of Mormon. I had always loved the Book of Mormon (and still have an appreciation for it). Things did improve, for a short time, but the old doubts reappeared, after a few months. I don't know that I would call those doubts "weeds". Some of them, perhaps, but not all. They were real concerns. Many of them, actually, did get resolved, at least, to a point where I felt kind of "neutral" about them. What I think about all of that, in retrospect, was that God was leading me in a slightly different direction, for optimum growth. I don't believe he intended the same path for everyone. I realize most LDS won't see it that way, which is why "doubt" is never an acceptable reason for leaving. And, that's fine, I guess. It just gets kind of maddening, at times, to have people thinking they know better...and they know the "real" reasons why you left, etc. Feels kind of condescending from my end.

[Storm Rider]

Thanks, Scott. I appreciate the response, but I really felt that I did all of the right things, including rereading the Book of Mormon. I had always loved the Book of Mormon (and still have an appreciation for it). Things did improve, for a short time, but the old doubts reappeared, after a few months. I don't know that I would call those doubts "weeds". Some of them, perhaps, but not all. They were real concerns. Many of them, actually, did get resolved, at least, to a point where I felt kind of "neutral" about them. What I think about all of that, in retrospect, was that God was leading me in a slightly different direction, for optimum growth. I don't believe he intended the same path for everyone. I realize most LDS won't see it that way, which is why "doubt" is never an acceptable reason for leaving. And, that's fine, I guess. It just gets kind of maddening, at times, to have people thinking they know better...and they know the "real" reasons why you left, etc. Feels kind of condescending from my end.

For many LDS, they have been lead to the gospel and have found their fount of truth. God has lead their to their optimum path of learning. For others, they find the restored gospel and for one reason or another, they pull away and are lead to another path. These situations are viewed as eternally threatening for some, but I am confident that they each are in God's hands and they are seeking other truths that are important for their growth. The critical issue is are they seeking truth or not. If they are seeking, all is well and I believe they each will be lead in full circle to a fullness of the truth at some point. However, if they stop seeking truth and their growth is stunted resulting in no further growth then a serious problem develops.

This position of not seeking truth is one that members of the truth should beware. Too often we each become complacent in the truths we know. We know truths, but do not live them or we simply stop trying to grow in truth. The path of holiness or exaltation is one of consistent growth, learning, and doing. Too often I have sought the still water in the stream of life rather than fight against the currents. It is in the fighting against the currents that we are strengthened; taking a sufficient rest is needed, but staying leads to a half-life where we do not fufil our entire role as a child of God.

[Libs]

Thanks, Storm Rider. I don't really disagree with anything you said. I think, even when we think we have found the "right path", we can stagnate and stop growing....get too comfortable, as you said.

I think, it is also true, that we can develop too many doubts, on any particular path, to the point where it makes it impossible to grow, because the doubts take over. They become the focal point and then you can't move forward.