Bearing A Testimony Defense

[Calm]

Asimov says that is impossible though.

[LinuxGal]

Asimov says that is impossible though.

 

Asimov perished in 1992.  Some say he is a creationist now.

[Calm]

My claim is based on what he wrote himself while living…..

[Boanerges]

I tend to follow the prophet when I bear testimony. Therefore, I usually don't claim to know anything - just like his testimonies. I do bear witness that Jesus is the Christ, etc., but I don't really know that. I have a strong belief in it, though.

[LinuxGal]

I tend to follow the prophet when I bear testimony. Therefore, I usually don't claim to know anything - just like his testimonies. I do bear witness that Jesus is the Christ, etc., but I don't really know that. I have a strong belief in it, though.

 

If you were testifying in a court of law, and you admitted you didn't know a driver ran a red light, but you had a strong belief in it, your testimony would be thrown out.

[Kenngo1969]

If you were testifying in a court of law, and you admitted you didn't know a driver ran a red light, but you had a strong belief in it, your testimony would be thrown out.

And so?  As I contended to Teancum in my previous post on this thread, if I say I "know" something (particularly something of a spiritual nature; see 1 Corinthians 2:14), that doesn't necessarily mean that I have adduced evidence for it by conducting an empirical experiment.  If I were prosecuting a crime, I could be thoroughly convinced I have sufficient evidence to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but my being convinced wouldn't mean diddley-squat if the jury saw it differently.  When it comes to a spiritual witness, we're all essentially our own triers of fact: we decide what evidence we will "admit" with respect to questions of spiritual or religious truth and how much weight we will give to each piece of evidence we decide to admit.  There is no better illustration of that than our respective differing conclusions with respect to the Book of Mormon.  

[Coreyb]

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.

Those are some pretty large logical leaps you are making there

[sjdawg]

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.

As a non-believer I am fine with it.   One of the things that bothered me as I left the church was that so many people wanted to convince me to stay by talking about good things the church does.  they would say things like "even if it isn't true its the best way i know to live" or "it must be true look at all the good it does".  I hated those responses.  the only response I really respected was a friend who said "I've had so many spiritual experiences to belief the church isn't true".

I didn't want to argue with that response because to do so would be to attack experiences that were very personal to him.    Your belief in a spiritual way of life should be based on spiritual experiences.    

Edited November 30, 2014 by sjdawg

[LinuxGal]

When it comes to a spiritual witness, we're all essentially our own triers of fact: we decide what evidence we will "admit" with respect to questions of spiritual or religious truth and how much weight we will give to each piece of evidence we decide to admit.  

 

I'm not sure the words "spiritual" and "witness" should go together.  At best, it would be like calling an expert psychologist to the stand to suggest motives.

[Mystery Meat]

I'm not sure the words "spiritual" and "witness" should go together.  At best, it would be like calling an expert psychologist to the stand to suggest motives.

 

It seems to me, the problem you have is people who have a testimony that is based on evidence that cannot be shared with other people. But that is what a testimony is, at least when we are discussing things in the realm of the Spiritual and Divine.

 

What you fail to understand is that "spiritual" experiences are just as valid, and in fact in MY life even more lasting and convincing, than any empirical evidence could ever be. Yes, I can't transfer those experiences to you. But that doesn't mean I can't be a witness. It doesn't mean that my personal experiences are any less valid than others. You don't like that it seems, and I can only guess as to why. 

 

I also reject outright the notion, that other people's personal witness when based on the spiritual isn't helpful or valid for other people. Many times in my life I have felt the divine as a direct result of the testimony of another. Now, it doesn't happen very often, but I think that is more a product of people not knowing how to offer a real testimony.

[Teancum]

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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."

Kenngo, your response was well thought out and actually moved me. Much for me to ponder. Thank you!

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not sure the words "spiritual" and "witness" should go together.  At best, it would be like calling an expert psychologist to the stand to suggest motives.

To each, his or her own, then!

 

Warm regards.

[Kenngo1969]

Kenngo, your response was well thought out and actually moved me. Much for me to ponder. Thank you!

Glad I could help.  Best to you, Sir.

[JLHPROF]

As a non-believer I am fine with it.   One of the things that bothered me as I left the church was that so many people wanted to convince me to stay by talking about good things the church does.  they would say things like "even if it isn't true its the best way i know to live" or "it must be true look at all the good it does".  I hated those responses.  the only response I really respected was a friend who said "I've had so many spiritual experiences to belief the church isn't true".

I didn't want to argue with that response because to do so would be to attack experiences that were very personal to him.    Your belief in a spiritual way of life should be based on spiritual experiences.    

 

This is an honest and true response.  I appreciate a person that understands this.

I would not live the gospel merely because "it was better than the alternatives" or because "the Church does good works".

 

My faith and my belief will always be directed towards where I see the most truth as I understand it and where I have experienced the most spiritual of occurrences.

As in your wonderful example, I had a simliar conversation with my non-member brother.  I told him that I could ignore one spiritual raindrop as a fluke, several spiritual raindrops, as coincidence, but I some point I have to acknowledge it's raining (or I'm standing under a waterfall, but that seemed less likely)....I have seen, felt, and experienced too much of the personal spiritual to deny what I know is true.

I could go inactive one day if I had enough difficulties with things, but I could never leave the Church and claim it false....

[Calm]

I have accepted that invitation, but I do not accept the premise that emotions are valid tools of cognition.]

Then simply don't confuse the Spirit with emotion.

[LinuxGal]

Then simply don't confuse the Spirit with emotion.

 

Elder S. Dilworth Young said: “If I am to receive revelation from the Lord, I must be in harmony with him by keeping his commandments. Then as needed, according to his wisdom, his word will come into my mind through my thoughts, accompanied by a feeling in the region of my bosom. It is a feeling which cannot be described, but the nearest word we have is ‘burn’ or ‘burning.’ Accompanying this always is a feeling of peace, a further witness that what one heard is right. Once one recognizes this burning, this feeling, this peace, one need never be drawn astray in his daily life or in the guidance he may receive.” (“The Still Small Voice,” Ensign, May 1976, p. 23.)

[Calm]

Exactly.  Not an emotion.

[Vance]

If you have never experienced the Spirit then it is rather understandable that you don't know what it is nor can you understand others attempts at explaining it to you.

 

Your constant haranguing and quibbling tell more about your spiritual journey (or lack thereof as the case is apparent) than you realize. 

[LinuxGal]

Exactly.  Not an emotion.

 

Did you read it?   He said a revelation was known to him when he had thoughts that were tagged by an interior sensation of peace.  Do we have to go into the definition of emotion now?

[LinuxGal]

Your constant haranguing and quibbling tell more about your spiritual journey (or lack thereof as the case is apparent) than you realize. 

 

I will not be a problem going forward as far as you are concerned.

[Vance]

I will not be a problem going forward as far as you are concerned.

Your juvenile approach has not been a problem for me in the past, I don't see your approach being a problem going forward either.

[Vance]

Elder S. Dilworth Young said: “. . . his word will come into my mind through my thoughts, accompanied by a feeling in the region of my bosom.

(“The Still Small Voice,” Ensign, May 1976, p. 23.)

To trivialize what he described as "an emotion" is the juvenile approach I mentioned above.

[Avatar4321]

I tend to follow the prophet when I bear testimony. Therefore, I usually don't claim to know anything - just like his testimonies. I do bear witness that Jesus is the Christ, etc., but I don't really know that. I have a strong belief in it, though.

keep following the Lord and seek the spirit of prophesy and you will obtain knowledge.

[Vance]

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

Since we are dealing with a quibbler, the KJV (and perhaps others) got the translation wrong.

 

It should read, "the Sun of righteousness arising with healing in HER wings..

[Avatar4321]

I'm not sure the words "spiritual" and "witness" should go together.  At best, it would be like calling an expert psychologist to the stand to suggest motives.

when you get a spiritual witness for yourself you will think differently