How Do You Use Your Testimony From God?

[Mark Beesley]

I read through some of the stuff related to Hans Mattsson. When I saw the "issues" that caused him heartburn, I wondered what someone like that does with the witnesses they have received from God.

I fully understand why someone might have their faith shaken if they had not been blessed with at least one experience in their life where the Lord told them in unmistakable terms that: 1. The Book of Mormon is true; or, 2. Joseph Smith was a true prophet. But I would like to assume that someone who had risen in the Church to a position of an Area Authority had received at least one such witness in their life. (Perhaps the assumption is unwarranted.)

I once wrote on an 'anti' discussion board the following concept, with reference to those who have received God's witness that Joseph Smith was a true prophet: Because of the witness of the Holy Spirit, we are convinced of Joseph Smith's prophethood, not because of anything he did, but in spite of anything he might have done. (Predictably, it was met with great derision.)

Assuming Bro. Mattsson (and others similarly situated) had received such a witness, what do they do with that witness when confronted with information not previously known?

Receiving a witness from God is nice, but useless if we don't trust God. I have learned stuff about the Prophet that made me cringe a bit. But I have used the witness God gave me to put the burden on Him. So far, so good. Nothing has been revealed about Joseph Smith where I have been moved to chastise God for lying to me.

[Kenngo1969]

While, to a certain extent, I like the notion of putting the burden on any given leader for whatever questions he prompts in a member's mind, I also like to remember that whenever I'm inclined to pass undue judgment, I probably wouldn't last five minutes in that leader's shoes with the burdens he carries (or with those he carried). With whatever judgment I judge, I, in turn, will be judged; and with whatever measure I mete, it shall be meted to me again.

I think anyone in the Church of Jesus Christ with a reasonably well-functioning brain has questions. I don't see how someone couldn't. But, while questions are inevitable, both doubt and faith are choices. I have questions, but I choose to believe. Has the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ borne good fruit in my life? Yes, abundantly.

If someone were to say to me, "But what about the evidence that the Church [or (one of) its leader(s)] isn't what it/he claims to be?" I would say, "Well, I'm the 'trier-of-fact' with respect to any such questions. I choose, on the basis of credibility, probativeness, and so on, what evidence I will admit and what, if any, I will exclude. I determine what weight I will give to any particular piece of 'evidence.'" And, while other "triers" might make different choices than I have regarding credibility, probativeness, weight, and so on, based on my evaluation (questions notwithstanding) enough evidence exists that the Church is what it claims to be, and that its leaders (imperfections notwithstanding) are what they claim to be.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[CV75]

Assuming Bro. Mattsson (and others similarly situated) had received such a witness, what do they do with that witness when confronted with information not previously known?

I cannot speak for this poor fellow, but when I have thought or done things contrary to the witness I have received, it has had something to do with the ideas taught in the Parable of the Sower or of the Parable of the Talents.

[Avatar4321]

Some days my witness is all I can rely on. It's been essential for overcoming trials.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Avatar4321

[ERayR]

While, to a certain extent, I like the notion of putting the burden on any given leader for whatever questions he prompts in a member's mind, I also like to remember that whenever I'm inclined to pass undue judgment, I probably wouldn't last five minutes in that leader's shoes with the burdens he carries (or with those he carried). With whatever judgment I judge, I, in turn, will be judged; and with whatever measure I mete, it shall be meted to me again.

I think anyone in the Church of Jesus Christ with a reasonably well-functioning brain has questions. I don't see how someone couldn't. But, while questions are inevitable, both doubt and faith are choices. I have questions, but I choose to believe. Has the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ borne good fruit in my life? Yes, abundantly.

If someone were to say to me, "But what about the evidence that the Church [or (one of) its leader(s)] isn't what it/he claims to be?" I would say, "Well, I'm the 'trier-of-fact' with respect to any such questions. I choose, on the basis of credibility, probativeness, and so on, what evidence I will admit and what, if any, I will exclude. I determine what weight I will give to any particular piece of 'evidence.'" And, while other "triers" might make different choices than I have regarding credibility, probativeness, weight, and so on, based on my evaluation (questions notwithstanding) enough evidence exists that the Church is what it claims to be, and that its leaders (imperfections notwithstanding) are what they claim to be.

When one loses sight of their anchor point then the choice to doubt becomes easier.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[The Nehor]

How do you picture the Lord "telling" someone "in unmistakable terms" that the Book of Mormon is true? Just curious.

"Hey! Moron! When I send an angel with a book I expect you to take it seriously!"

Your revelation may vary from mine.

[Mark Beesley]

"Hey! Moron! When I send an angel with a book I expect you to take it seriously!"

Your revelation may vary from mine.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Nevo]

Couldn't have put it better myself.

So you don't have a serious response then?

[Mark Beesley]

So you don't have a serious response then?

You have indicated that you believe there is plenty of room for mistake in reaching a conclusion that I premised would be unmistakable. Don't know what else to say.

[theplains]

Because of the witness of the Holy Spirit, we are convinced of Joseph Smith's prophethood,

Many receive a witness of the Holy Spirit that he was not a prophet. That is why they do not

convert into the LDS Church. Feelings can deceive a person since so many claim to be led

by what they feel. True doctrine is a better yardstick to ensure you are on the right path..

Regards,

Jim

[Mark Beesley]

Many receive a witness of the Holy Spirit that he was not a prophet. That is why they do not

convert into the LDS Church. Feelings can deceive a person since so many claim to be led

by what they feel. True doctrine is a better yardstick to ensure you are on the right path..

Regards,

Jim

True doctrine is better than revelation? Ok.

If you had a choice between sitting at the feet of the Father and being instructed, or reading what He had taught prophets 2000 years ago, which would you choose?

And who said anything about feelings?

[theplains]

If you had a choice between sitting at the feet of the Father and being instructed, or reading what He had taught prophets 2000 years ago, which would you choose?

I would prefer to be taught by a visible Jesus, but the message is the same. As for faith, we

are more blessed in believing in what we have not seen than those who have believed after

they have seen (John 20:26-29).

And who said anything about feelings?

As for feelings and a witness of the Holy Spirit, see this lds web site. It seems to place a

greater emphasis on feelings than true doctrine.

The other poster said the Book of Mormon presents a true nature of the Holy Spirit but he

failed to identify what this nature is, hence my questions.

Thanks,

Jim

[cdowis]

Some people forget that it takes constant effort to keep a testimony. I would suggest that some are fooled into thinking that administering church affairs is a substitute for maintaining a testimony. I am familiar with several church leaders who forgot that lesson and are no longer with the church.

A (true) story about a stake president who was questioned about about an accusion regarding unethical business dealings. He admitted what he had done with a dismissive, "Church is church and business is business."

[Mark Beesley]

I would prefer to be taught by a visible Jesus, but the message is the same. As for faith, we

are more blessed in believing in what we have not seen than those who have believed after

they have seen (John 20:26-29).

As for feelings and a witness of the Holy Spirit, see this lds web site. It seems to place a

greater emphasis on feelings than true doctrine.

The other poster said the Book of Mormon presents a true nature of the Holy Spirit but he

failed to identify what this nature is, hence my questions.

Thanks,

Jim

I'm sorry. I don't see in this thread where anyone made any reference to the website propaganda you linked, or said anything about the true nature of the Holy Spirit, or where you asked any questions. Are you lost?

[Mark Beesley]

Some people forget that it takes constant effort to keep a testimony. I would suggest that some are fooled into thinking that administering church affairs is a substitute for maintaining a testimony. I am familiar with several church leaders who forgot that lesson and are no longer with the church.

A (true) story about a stake president who was questioned about about an accusion regarding unethical business dealings. He admitted what he had done with a dismissive, "Church is church and business is business."

I might alter this just a bit. Some people forget it takes constant effort to keep a testimony useful. Having a testimony is an experience. Something happens in one's life which witnesses the truth of some fact. Having had the experience, it is in the past. You can't travel into the past and 'unhave' that experience. I guess what you can do is: deny you had the experience; reinterpret the experience; or, forget you had the experience (closest thing to 'losing' the experience).

I should think each of these ways of dealing with a past experience could provide rich fodder for discussion. It is kind of what I was musing on when I started the thread - How do people who fall away deal with these past experiences, assuming they experienced at least one -- an unmistakable witness, that is? Are there more mechanisms than these three?

[Mark Beesley]

Some days my witness is all I can rely on. It's been essential for overcoming trials.

You know, this is so true. I really feel for some of these folks who experience a crisis in faith and apparently did not have the witness they may have thought they had.

I don't want to come across as sounding self-righteous. Having the kind of witness I am talking about is a gift. I do not possess that gift because I am holy.

[thesometimesaint]

I would prefer to be taught by a visible Jesus, but the message is the same. As for faith, we

are more blessed in believing in what we have not seen than those who have believed after

they have seen (John 20:26-29).

As for feelings and a witness of the Holy Spirit, see this lds web site. It seems to place a

greater emphasis on feelings than true doctrine.

The other poster said the Book of Mormon presents a true nature of the Holy Spirit but he

failed to identify what this nature is, hence my questions.

Thanks,

Jim

Luke 24:32

32. And they said one to another, Did not our hearts burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Looks like the Apostles were having an emotional response.

Ephesians 4:10-13

10. He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12. For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13. Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Looks like Jesus expects us to get our true doctrine from his established representatives.

Edited July 25, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Kenngo1969]

Many receive a witness of the Holy Spirit that he was not a prophet. That is why they do not

convert into the LDS Church. Feelings can deceive a person since so many claim to be led

by what they feel. True doctrine is a better yardstick to ensure you are on the right path..

Regards,

Jim

Feelings may deceive, but fruits cannot (see Matthew 7:16-20).

P.S.: What do you make of the "fruits of the spirit" scripture, Jim (Galatians 5:22-23)?

Edited July 26, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[pmccombs1]

I guess what you can do is: deny you had the experience; reinterpret the experience; or, forget you had the experience (closest thing to 'losing' the experience).

I think most people have enough integrity that denial probably isn't common. Forgetting is likely not very common either, though the memory of the experience "fades" to some degree in its quality. This is why a testimony requires constant mental conditioning in order to keep it fresh.

It is most likely that those who begin to doubt "reinterpret" the meaning, or source, of their experiences. A spiritual experience is evidence. There is also evidence for the things that produce doubt. These evidences have to be weighed and justified. How is a spiritual experience justified? How does one measure the Spirit to know its source, purpose, or authenticity? There are many other claims of allegedly unmistakable spiritual witness, and some of these claims are at odds with our own claims and experiences. How do we know that we are justified against the claims of others? Are their experiences more, or less valid than ours?

And of course, there is no answer to this beyond one's personal faith or desire; but in the presence of doubt, the variety of religious experience in the world can lead to questioning and reinterpretation of one's own spiritual witnesses.

[mfbukowski]

How do you picture the Lord "telling" someone "in unmistakable terms" that the Book of Mormon is true? Just curious.

Since subjective religious experience is invariably mediated through culturally-informed cognitive processes, I think there is plenty of room to be mistaken.

And how does one escape culturally informed cognitive processes?

In case you hadn't noticed, this is the same question as "what is truth?"

As you know, you are here assuming that there IS something outside of cognitive processes which somehow we can get past cognitive processes to check against our cognitive processes.

But cognitive processes, like permanently embedded rose colored glasses, always tint everything. Knowing something without using cognitive processes is a tad hard I would imagine.

[mfbukowski]

So you don't have a serious response then?

I would strongly suggest you respond to the OP in this thread and look at the video if you want a serious response from one of the most important philosophers of our time- who just happens to be an atheist arguing in favor of religion.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61376-43-minutes-which-could-change-your-life-and-this-forum-science-religion/

My response would be "what he said".

[mfbukowski]

Many receive a witness of the Holy Spirit that he was not a prophet. That is why they do not

convert into the LDS Church. Feelings can deceive a person since so many claim to be led

by what they feel. True doctrine is a better yardstick to ensure you are on the right path..

Regards,

Jim

Pray tell, how does one know what true doctrine is without testimony?

I suppose one could walk up to God and take a picture or ask him what is true nature is? Perhaps have a conversation in the garden about why he decided to make all this stuff in the first place? Maybe take it all down in shorthand or better yet, make a video of your conversation and put it on youtube?

Sounds like a great idea!

Edited July 27, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Nevo]

And how does one escape culturally informed cognitive processes?

One can't. That's the point. That's why I am questioning the idea that one can infallibly know something through revelation when that experience (even if it originates with God) is subject to fallible human interpretation.

I imagine you will respond that all truth is subjective (at least where religion is concerned). Well, I reject that. Although I believe that God can only be apprehended subjectively, I believe that he objectively exists.

Anyway, I will check out the Rorty video that you've recommended (I have little affinity for philosophy generally, but I do like William James), but I'm not expecting any major epiphanies.

[mfbukowski]

One can't. That's the point. That's why I am questioning the idea that one can infallibly know something through revelation when that experience (even if it originates with God) is subject to fallible human interpretation.

I imagine you will respond that all truth is subjective (at least where religion is concerned). Well, I reject that. Although I believe that God can only be apprehended subjectively, I believe that he objectively exists.

Anyway, I will check out the Rorty video that you've recommended (I have little affinity for philosophy generally, but I do like William James), but I'm not expecting any major epiphanies.

Pay particular attention to his discussion about the correspondence theory of truth. One cannot get out of our cognitive state to check "reality" against it.

We can never get outside of what our, and other human brains tell us "exists" to check if what is "in our mind" (collectively or otherwise) is "real".

There is no solution for this point. No one is saying that reality is subjective- just that you cannot KNOW anything outside of what you can know.

It's a simple tautology which is inescapable. We can only know what humans can know.

Correspondence epistemology requires that we get "outside" of what humans can know to compare what we know, to "what is really real", and that of course is impossible.