Bearing A Testimony Defense

[Doctrine 612]

so I have been a member of the church for along time and have heard this said many a time, " if you don't want to argue with someone over the doctrines of the church just bear your testimony, they won't have a reply".

I hear this a lot, and it was not until last week that this teaching started to bother me a lot more, I feel that this is really a weak way to stand for the truth of the gospel.

I belive you should always say why you know the church is true, because I have studied its teachings and applied them to my life and found that I have been given greater spiritual understanding to make it thru life.

And then share a few scriptures that have helped me.

So my question is, what are your thoughts on the testimony defense.

And your understanding of acts 17:2-3 of reasoning thru the scriptures.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I belive you should always say why you know the church is true, because I have studied its teachings and applied them to my life and found that I have been given greater spiritual understanding to make it thru life. And then share a few scriptures that have helped me.

 

How is this not a testimony?

[Calm]

" if you don't want to argue with someone over the doctrines of the church"

So if you feel for whatever reason it is not a good use of your time to debate (it usually isn't, someone wanting to argue usually isn't someone who wants to listen, but instead wants to be looked at IMO even more than listened to), then what response would you give besides or instead of bearing your testimony?

[Teancum]

so I have been a member of the church for along time and have heard this said many a time, " if you don't want to argue with someone over the doctrines of the church just bear your testimony, they won't have a reply".

I hear this a lot, and it was not until last week that this teaching started to bother me a lot more, I feel that this is really a weak way to stand for the truth of the gospel.

I belive you should always say why you know the church is true, because I have studied its teachings and applied them to my life and found that I have been given greater spiritual understanding to make it thru life.

And then share a few scriptures that have helped me.

So my question is, what are your thoughts on the testimony defense.

And your understanding of acts 17:2-3 of reasoning thru the scriptures.

On another thread I posted this and it has to do somewhat with your OP:

Essentially here is the problem I have with this. The LDS leaders teach that one can get personal revelation. Further they teach that we should all have or obtain a what they term a testimony of certain truth claims the Church makes. They tell us what such a testimony should include. These are:

God lives and is real

Jesus is the Christ and our savior, died for us and broke the bands of death and it our redeember

Joseph Smith was a prophet and restored the Church (and by default that includes first vision, priesthood restoration, other revelations in the D&C and PoG, Temple, Etc.)

The Book of Mormon is true

The current LDS Church president is a prophet of God

The testimony is to be couched typically in the words "I know." One apostle who is still living even has gone as far to say you should bear your testimony even if you don't have one because that is how you can get one. For a Latter-day Saint this testimony is penultimate to their church experience. It is the ultimate trump card in a debate. I recall LDS leaders of my youth teaching us that whenever someone argued or tried to dispute our truth claims just bear your testimony because nobody can argue with that.

This testimony is so important in the LDS experience that we devote 12 meetings a year in every congregation and open it up as well as encourage member to publicly proclaim their testimony. We have youth conferences that almost always include a testimony meeting a the end (I won;t comments about how really improper I think it is to take kids away from a normal setting for a couple days, inundate them with activities designed to reinforce the organizations message then end with a group session that strongly encourages them to make a public profession of their testimony).

You rarely if ever hear anyone who bears testimony in these settings say anything other than "I know." Nobody defines what this means. So one is left to interpret it to mean what the words "I know" mean. Nobody says "I am really strongly certain that for me these things are truth and the best way for me to live and be happy." Nobody says "I really have strong faith and active belief that these things we teach are the truth." Nobody says "I really think these are wonderful ideas and doctrines and I really hope they are true."

Almost everyone says "I know." Oh sure once in a while you will hear someone say "I believe" or I don't know at this point but I have "faith." But that is rare.

Goodness there is even a chapter in the BoM (Alma 32) that distinguishes between knowing and faith and it says when you know you don't need faith anymore.

So yes call me the skeptic. I don't think people who bear LDS testimonies really know in the way Alma 32 teaches. But most who bear testimony use words that lend to an understanding that they do think they know.

I cannot prove or disprove this. That is why I say the spiritual experience is good only for the one claiming and and has little to no value to anyone outside themselves though it can seem to persuade others that they know as well and that I think is why the LDS Church emphasizes this so very much.

[LinuxGal]

" if you don't want to argue with someone over the doctrines of the church"

So if you feel for whatever reason it is not a good use of your time to debate (it usually isn't, someone wanting to argue usually isn't someone who wants to listen, but instead wants to be looked at IMO even more than listened to), then what response would you give besides or instead of bearing your testimony?

 

There are the sort of people who would accept that the interior and private emotion of an elder is valid evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon, and there are the sort of people who are looking for exterior objective evidence.

 

An example of the latter is to take the four gospels as secular history at first (there really was a Herod, and a Pilate, etc, but no secular evidence there was a King Benjamin or a Shiz).  Then, knowing what we know of human behavior, we do not expect martyrs such as Stephen to die for what they know is a lie.  So we can conclude that the claims of Jesus in the gospels must be true, ie. that he is God, and that he would do what he said he would do, ie. be raised from the dead and establish a church.

 

An example of the former is given in the Book of Mormon itself, 1 Nephi 2:2:1 For behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even in a dream... When you ask someone to "behold" something, you are inviting them to look.  In this case, Nephi is inviting people to look at a dream that his father had, which is a purely internal thing.

[Doctrine 612]

How is this not a testimony?

That is my testimony that I have.

Iam talking about when someone says " I know its true" and leaves it at that.

I was talking with a friend of mine who is jehovah witness and she said that when she challenges lds and they say this then she knows that they don't know the church is true, because you should always prove your doctrines that are found in the bible.( please no jw bash, I know all about their bibles ).

It does sound like it's just are opinion if we can't show them the doctrines. Then is it not better to say " good question, I'll have to do some reasearh and get back to you. Or is it our pride that makes us say " I know it's true".

I like to keep things up to discussion.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Doctrine 612

[bluebell]

That is my testimony that I have.

Iam talking about when someone says " I know its true" and leaves it at that.

I was talking with a friend of mine who is jehovah witness and she said that when she challenges lds and they say this then she knows that they don't know the church is true, because you should always prove your doctrines that are found in the bible.( please no jw bash, I know all about their bibles ).

It does sound like it's just are opinion if we can't show them the doctrines. Then is it not better to say " good question, I'll have to do some reasearh and get back to you. Or is it our pride that makes us say " I know it's true".

I like to keep things up to discussion.

She must have a lot of people who convert to JW then.

If every time she meets someone who disagrees with her she is able to prove to them she is right then that's pretty impressive.

[Tacenda]

There's no proof that anything is true, even Jesus Christ or God, IMO. Edited: WAIT!! Yes there is proof... look around, smell, feel, taste, hear, it's true in the sense of how one gets their truth. So provable indeed, what was I thinking! (end of editing)

I don't think there's an only true church, but maybe a church that helps you become a better person, if God/Jesus do exist, all things fall under loving God, yourself and neighbor (family & friends included). I guess churches help people in different ways, so whatever is a good fit IMO. And that's from someone who's struggling, so probably not a great source, and all I have testimony wise.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

There are the sort of people who would accept that the interior and private emotion of an elder is valid evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon, and there are the sort of people who are looking for exterior objective evidence. ...

By and large, no one should take anyone else's word for it regarding faith truth claims.  Christ said, "By their fruits, ye shall know them."  He said that we cannot gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles.  He said that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.  He said, "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself."  And Moroni 10:3-5 is an invitation to the reader to discover for himself the truth of The Book of Mormon.

[carbon dioxide]

so I have been a member of the church for along time and have heard this said many a time, " if you don't want to argue with someone over the doctrines of the church just bear your testimony, they won't have a reply".

I hear this a lot, and it was not until last week that this teaching started to bother me a lot more, I feel that this is really a weak way to stand for the truth of the gospel.

I belive you should always say why you know the church is true, because I have studied its teachings and applied them to my life and found that I have been given greater spiritual understanding to make it thru life.

And then share a few scriptures that have helped me.

So my question is, what are your thoughts on the testimony defense.

And your understanding of acts 17:2-3 of reasoning thru the scriptures.

Arguing over doctrines generally is a waste of time but a personal testimony that contains scripture and reasoning behind why one believes as they do it is very hard to counter.  If someone asks me what I believe is the best pizza in the area is.  I can give them my views on my favorite pizza is and why I like it.  The person asking can accept my view or not but they are not going to call me stupid because I like that particular type of pizza over the pizza that they personally like.

[LinuxGal]

Moroni 10:3-5 is an invitation to the reader to discover for himself the truth of The Book of Mormon.

 

I have accepted that invitation, but I do not accept the premise that emotions are valid tools of cognition.  My tools are investigative.  We read in 3 Nephi (set in 33 AD), "But unto you that fear my name, shall the Son of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves in the stall."  From Malachi 4:2 in the Old Testament, we read, " But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall."  Only in English is it possible to confuse / transpose the words Son with Sun, and English emerged only in the 2nd Millennium after Christ.  The simplest explanation is that Joseph Smith, not the golden plates, made this transposition of words.  This is one of many discrepancies that cause me to reject the truth of the Book of Mormon, but one is sufficient.

[Kenngo1969]

I have accepted that invitation, but I do not accept the premise that emotions are valid tools of cognition.  My tools are investigative.  We read in 3 Nephi (set in 33 AD), "But unto you that fear my name, shall the Son of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves in the stall."  From Malachi 4:2 in the Old Testament, we read, " But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall."  Only in English is it possible to confuse / transpose the words Son with Sun, and English emerged only in the 2nd Millennium after Christ.  The simplest explanation is that Joseph Smith, not the golden plates, made this transposition of words.  This is one of many discrepancies that cause me to reject the truth of the Book of Mormon, but one is sufficient.

OK.  It will come as no surprise to you that I believe you reject The Book of Mormon to your own detriment.  To each, his or her own.  However, as I have also previously told you, if you adhere to a religious tradition that has, despite your rejection of The Book of Mormon, borne good fruit in your life, I congratulate you.  

[Garden Girl]

I have accepted that invitation, but I do not accept the premise that emotions are valid tools of cognition.  My tools are investigative.  We read in 3 Nephi (set in 33 AD), "But unto you that fear my name, shall the Son of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves in the stall."  From Malachi 4:2 in the Old Testament, we read, " But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall."  Only in English is it possible to confuse / transpose the words Son with Sun, and English emerged only in the 2nd Millennium after Christ.  The simplest explanation is that Joseph Smith, not the golden plates, made this transposition of words.  This is one of many discrepancies that cause me to reject the truth of the Book of Mormon, but one is sufficient.

 

Hello LinuxGal...

I hadn't read those particular verses previously... but... IIRC "Son of Righteousness" is one of the names for Christ... but  regardless, it makes much more sense to me to read the context of the 3 nephi verse rather than the Malachi verse... the Son of Righteousness arising with healing in his wings... makes more sense to me than... the Sun of righteousness arising with healing in his wings...

So to me, Joseph's translation is as it should be... in context and grammar...

 

GG

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Right or wrong, the "testimony defense" is perceived as being used as a tool to avoid exposing ones weakness in scriptural knowledge in order to back their particular opinion on a doctrine.

[Calm]

There are the sort of people who would accept that the interior and private emotion of an elder is valid evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon, and there are the sort of people who are looking for exterior objective evidence....

None of which answers my question.

[LinuxGal]

Arguing over doctrines generally is a waste of time but a personal testimony that contains scripture and reasoning behind why one believes as they do it is very hard to counter.  If someone asks me what I believe is the best pizza in the area is.  I can give them my views on my favorite pizza is and why I like it.  The person asking can accept my view or not but they are not going to call me stupid because I like that particular type of pizza over the pizza that they personally like.

 

The person asked what you believe the best pizza is, you answered, and there is no reason to reject that you believe that is the best pizza.  Another thing you could do is go to Google Maps, search on pizza, and show him the personal testimony of many people who have eaten pizza in the area.    But in the end, whether it is one person or many people believing what the best pizza is, we're still only talking about preferences.  Perhaps the wrong question was asked.  Perhaps the question should have been where is the nearest pizza restaurant, or where is the most affordable one?  Those questions have exact answers.

[Kenngo1969]

On another thread I posted this and it has to do somewhat with your OP:

Essentially here is the problem I have with this. The LDS leaders teach that one can get personal revelation. Further they teach that we should all have or obtain a what they term a testimony of certain truth claims the Church makes. They tell us what such a testimony should include. These are:

God lives and is real

Jesus is the Christ and our savior, died for us and broke the bands of death and it our redeember

Joseph Smith was a prophet and restored the Church (and by default that includes first vision, priesthood restoration, other revelations in the D&C and PoG, Temple, Etc.)

The Book of Mormon is true

The current LDS Church president is a prophet of God

I don't find testimony meetings and testimony bearing to be as formulaic (as though such occasions are simply the rough equivalent of the Zoramites atop the rameumptom, reciting, in turn, the selfsame prayer, adjourning, then returning the following week [or, in the case of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following month] to repeat the ritual) as you seem to suggest, even if the words used often are similar.  

 

What interests me most are not the similarities between our respective expressions of experiences with the Divine, but rather the differences.  I am quite regularly amazed at the notion that God recognizes the differences between His children to such a degree that He is able to speak to such a diverse group in a way that each member, individually, will recognize and will understand as communication from His Spirit.  Personally, I even find that often, testimonies transcend the words used, and that, if I listen with my spiritual ears (often easier said than done, I'll admit) I learn something different from such testimonies, any commonalities in language notwithstanding.  What interests me most, strictly speaking, is not what one bears testimony of, but rather, how and why he acquired that testimony.

 

The testimony is to be couched typically in the words "I know." One apostle who is still living even has gone as far to say you should bear your testimony even if you don't have one because that is how you can get one. For a Latter-day Saint this testimony is penultimate to their church experience. It is the ultimate trump card in a debate. I recall LDS leaders of my youth teaching us that whenever someone argued or tried to dispute our truth claims just bear your testimony because nobody can argue with that.

Hmmm.  I guess only one of us got that memo about what a testimony "is," then, because I certainly missed it.  And your expression here seems a bit inconsistent: "penultimate" means "second to last" or "second-highest," while "ultimate" means "last" or "highest."  What would you suggest that someone do in a debate, rather than bear testimony?  Endlessly Bible-bash or proof-text, even in light of 3 Nephi 11:29?  In the final analysis, whatever other methods may convince someone regarding religious truth claims, one is backed up against the wall of faith.  As President Benson so aptly put it, "Our main task is to declare the gospel and do it effectively.  We are not obligated to answer every objection.  Every man eventually is backed up to the wall of faith, and there he must make his stand." See here: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/the-book-of-mormon-is-the-word-of-god?lang=eng

 

And I don't think the teaching from President Packer to which you refer is that people should bear testimonies they don't have: rather, I think it is that, in many cases, one discovers the testimony one already has (but the possession of which one had not previously realized) by bearing it. We learn from 3 Nephi 9:20 that it is possible for the Spirit to operate in one's life even without their initially being aware of it.

 

This testimony is so important in the LDS experience that we devote 12 meetings a year in every congregation and open it up as well as encourage member to publicly proclaim their testimony.

 

The operative word there being encourage.  There's nothing compulsory about testimony-bearing; at least, there's no compulsion on the part of, e.g., a presiding officer.  If the Spirit moves upon one, one is certainly welcome to share; if not, one is certainly not compelled to do so.  Your mileage apparently varies, but personally, I find such occasions to be among the most spiritually enriching experiences I have in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

We have youth conferences that almost always include a testimony meeting a the end (I won't comments about how really improper I think it is to take kids away from a normal setting for a couple days, inundate them with activities designed to reinforce the organizations message then end with a group session that strongly encourages them to make a public profession of their testimony).

 

Personally, even in my youth, I found such experiences to be among the most spiritually enriching ones I had in the Church of Jesus Christ.  And we can disagree about the propriety of providing such an experience for youth, but there is no shortage of organizations that do something similar with adults, taking them out of their usual environment, providing workshops intended to reinforce the particular organization's mission and message, and encouraging them to share their feelings regarding that mission and message in that setting.  I don't think it's arguable that, overwhelmingly, the leaders of youth in the Church of Jesus Christ have the best interests of those in their charge at heart.  I'm sorry if you disagree.

 

Goodness there is even a chapter in the BoM (Alma 32) that distinguishes between knowing and faith and it says when you know you don't need faith anymore.Almost everyone says "I know." Oh sure once in a while you will hear someone say "I believe" or I don't know at this point but I have "faith." But that is rare.

I love Alma 32, but I think it's a bit much to expect every member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in every instance, to use the terms "know" and "have faith" in the same way Alma uses them.  Personally, I am amazed at the variety of spiritual experiences had by my brothers and sisters in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Regardless of the terms used, I think what those who share such experiences are saying, essentially, is, "The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ works for me: this is how it works, and this is why it works.  This is the good fruit it has borne in my life."  And do you think your fellow Saints are waiting, enthralled, to hear a "non-approved word" and to burn anyone at the stake who uses such a word?  Personally, my reaction to such an expression of faith would be to congratulate the person expressing it and to wish him or her well in one's continuing walk of faith.

 

So yes call me the skeptic. I don't think people who bear LDS testimonies really know in the way Alma 32 teaches. But most who bear testimony use words that lend to an understanding that they do think they know.

 

Ergo, what?  (See also my previous paragraph.)  Should we have a presiding officer at every meeting stand up and upbraid those who use such language publicly, individually, and by name?  There's more to knowing than certainty borne of empirical means.  And even empirical certainty is only good for as long as the current understanding on which that "knowing" is based lasts.  Once new knowledge is discovered and that understanding changes, there is no longer empirical certainty. Should we, therefore, throw out science, too?  And the religiously devout aren't the only people who struggle with such questions: poets and philosophers do, too.  As the poet wrote, "The heart knows reasons that reason knows not of." 

Edited November 30, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[LinuxGal]

 And even empirical certainty is only good for as long as the current understanding on which that "knowing" is based lasts.  Once new knowledge is discovered and that understanding changes, there is no longer empirical certainty.

 

Long ago people looked at the fact that a cart rumbling over a rough road required a horse to continually pull it and they "knew" that everything that moved required something to keep it moving.   Later Newton said, no, acceleration = force over mass, so something that is moving will keep moving until a counter-force intervenes, in this case friction, and people "knew" this to be the case.  It didn't invalidate what the ancients knew, it only refined Newton's understanding of what was happening.  Later Einstein said acceleration started to fail as an object approached close to the speed of light, because the energy was "diverted" into the mass of the object.  That's what we "know" today.  It doesn't invalidate what Newton "knew", it only provided a correction for extremes of velocity.  Perhaps in a hundred years even Einstein's theory will be refined.  It will not invalidate the usefulness of what we "know" today, even as Newton's advance didn't invalidate the usefulness of hitching a horse to a cart.

[Vance]

Later Newton said, no, acceleration = force over mass, . . .

Well, it is no surprise that you are wrong. Again.  A very common occurrence for you in these parts.

 

Newton basically said that the change in momentum of a body is proportional to the impulse impressed on the body and happens along a straight line on which the impulse is impressed.

 

Or, F=p'    Force equal to the (time rated) change of momentum.

 

Momentum being defined as mass X velocity.

 

Hence, Newton's equation accurately represented is,    F= d(mv)/dt

[LinuxGal]

Well, it is no surprise that you are wrong. Again.  A very common occurrence for you in these parts. Newton basically said that the change in momentum of a body is proportional to the impulse impressed on the body and happens along a straight line on which the impulse is impressed.

 

I'm a fan of Isaac Asimov's writing style, I like to make things very clear and easy to understand rather than quibble about little arcane things.

[Calm]

Easy to understand when wrong is useless if it doesn't convey actual understanding.

Edited November 29, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Asimov himself appears to hold a view that there is no such thing as "easy to understand" in any sort of ultimate sense. Communication, in his view, can only scratch the surface of personal meaning and experience...at least at the current level of technology.

Edited November 29, 2014 by calmoriah

[Hamba Tuhan]

They tell us what such a testimony should include ... The testimony is to be couched typically in the words "I know."

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I only include things in my testimony with which I have personal experience, i.e. things 'I know'.

 

That is why I say the spiritual experience is good only for the one claiming and and has little to no value to anyone outside themselves though it can seem to persuade others that they know as well and that I think is why the LDS Church emphasizes this so very much.

 

The external value of a testimony is precisely the same as the research reports I hear at academic conferences and seminars: it invites others who may be interested to engage with the topic and find out for themselves.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[Vance]

I'm a fan of Isaac Asimov's writing style, I like to make things very clear and easy to understand rather than quibble about little arcane things.

 

So, you don't mind being wrong.

 

Ok.

[LinuxGal]

Asimov himself appears to hold a view that there is no such thing as "easy to understand" in any sort of ultimate sense. 

 

The heart of making things easy to understand is precisely that, reaching the "ultimate sense" of a topic.  For instance, Christ summarized all 613 Mitzvot of the Law of Moses in just two precepts, "Love God, love your fellow man."  All else is just commentary, as Gemelial said.