LDS testimonies...built on sand?

[why me]

My daughter just told me about one of her mission companions who had a strong testimony has now left the church. My daughter said that when she was on her mission this missionary companion would bear her testimony with strength and conviction. But now, after her mission she has left the church. So my question is: are lds testimonies built on sand or rock? Now, when I hear testimonies, I have difficulties believing such testimonies because of the examples that I have seen about people who gave their testimonies with conviction but who have since left the church.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, why me said:

My daughter just told me about one of her mission companions who had a strong testimony has now left the church. My daughter said that when she was on her mission this missionary companion would bear her testimony with strength and conviction. But now, after her mission she has left the church. So my question is: are lds testimonies built on sand or rock? Now, when I hear testimonies, I have difficulties believing such testimonies because of the examples that I have seen about people who gave their testimonies with conviction but who have since left the church.

From President Harold B Lee:

"Testimony is as elusive as a moonbeam; it’s as fragile as an orchid; you have to recapture it every morning of your life." 

A testimony is like a beautiful plant that requires constant nourishment and tender care. No matter how strong and vibrant one's testimony may be at one point in time, if it's not constantly cherished, nourished and attentively cared for it will shrivel up and die. A testimony isn't an inanimate object like a large rock that will just stay in one place and exist in perpetuity. Rather, a testimony is a living thing that needs constant loving care or death will ensue.

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Kenngo1969]

Some of them are built on sand, some of them are built on rock.  In fairness, it can be challenging to do the latter amidst life's trials, struggles, ambiguities, vicissitudes, and unanswered questions, and it's not as though I have all of the answers.  I have simply determined to not let what I do know to be held hostage to what, as yet, I do not know.  

In real life, although I have relatives who are very handy and could probably build pretty much anything they put their mind to, wherever I have lived has been built by someone else, and if the workmanship has been shoddy, I have fallen victim to that.  However, with respect to my metaphorical "spiritual" house, I determine the level of its craftsmanship and its location.  If it's not "up to code," if it is not built according to as exacting a set of specifications as it should be, or if it is in less than an ideal location, then I have the remedy for that.

It's not as hard to understand why someone might bear a strong testimony as a missionary but might falter in "civilian life" later on as one might think.  There is a commission that comes with missionary service that makes it hard to adjust to "civilian life" after returning home and being released.  As a missionary, one's focus constantly is outward, toward others; one is dedicated to serving them.  In comparison to "civilian life," one is literally immersed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and in "things spiritual."  It's little wonder there is such an adjustment.

How does one build a strong house in a safe location, spiritually speaking?  Some are prone to deriding the "Sunday School Answers," but in the end, that's what it comes down to: That's how one builds a strong house.  Christ is The Rock.  No other foundation is as sure. And we're in the midst of the storm—the devil's "mighty whirlwinds, all his hail and his mighty storm."  If we're not determined, he will "drag us down to the gulf of misery and endless wo."  (See Helaman 5:12.) To be safe, we must trust in God, as Alma the Younger testified to Helaman:   "[W]hosoever shall put their trust in God shall be supported in their trials, and in their troubles, and in their afflictions, and shall be lifted up at the last day" (Alma 36:3).

Also, experiencing even the "mighty change of heart" isn't enough.  Alma taught that one must renew that change regularly.  (As an old saying goes, if I'm not as close to God today as I was yesterday, who moved?)  It's possible that one can "feel to sing the song of redeeming love" at one time, but not at another.  (See Alma 5:26.)  And, while I cannot, of course, see well enough into anyone's heart to know if this is true of him or her, some of us, as Elder Neal A. Maxwell said, want to maintain a permanent residence in Zion, but not give up the summer cottage in Babylon.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, why me said:

My daughter just told me about one of her mission companions who had a strong testimony has now left the church. My daughter said that when she was on her mission this missionary companion would bear her testimony with strength and conviction. But now, after her mission she has left the church. So my question is: are lds testimonies built on sand or rock? Now, when I hear testimonies, I have difficulties believing such testimonies because of the examples that I have seen about people who gave their testimonies with conviction but who have since left the church.

Leaving the Church has little to do with testimonies in some cases.  I don't think people should be placing their trust in the Church and I think that's what a lot do.  Sometimes those that do tend to leave the Church and religion all together. 

[Gray]

I think if you place your testimony on an institution or the historicity of books of scripture, yes, you've built a testimony on sand. A testimony based purely on your interaction with the divine is a much surer thing. 

[James Tunney]

36 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think if you place your testimony on an institution or the historicity of books of scripture, yes, you've built a testimony on sand. A testimony based purely on your interaction with the divine is a much surer thing. 

Hasn't the church based its "truthfulness" on the historicity of the book of mormon? Isn't that what moroni's promise is all about?

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, why me said:

My daughter just told me about one of her mission companions who had a strong testimony has now left the church. My daughter said that when she was on her mission this missionary companion would bear her testimony with strength and conviction. But now, after her mission she has left the church. So my question is: are lds testimonies built on sand or rock? Now, when I hear testimonies, I have difficulties believing such testimonies because of the examples that I have seen about people who gave their testimonies with conviction but who have since left the church.

Many testimonies are built upon the sand of the church and prophets. That's not to say either of those things are bad, but it's not a foundation. It's a distribution tool. It's the box holding a pearl of great price. As long as members believe and worship the church and prophets, as they are taught by the church, then testimonies will continue to wash away with the tide.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

Missionaries are taught that a testimony is gained by bearing testimony in things they don't have a testimony of.  So when you hear a missionary testimony you can never be sure if the missionary actually believes what they are saying or if they are giving a forceful testimony in hopes of obtaining one.   

I know of many Missionaries who were required to read Packer's "Candle of the Lord" at least once a week.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/01/the-candle-of-the-lord?lang=eng

 

Testimony should always be taken with a grain of salt.  It is the one of the least reliable forms of evidence.  

 

http://www.bcmj.org/premise/ranking-and-reliability-evidence

Edited October 12, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Hasn't the church based its "truthfulness" on the historicity of the book of mormon? Isn't that what moroni's promise is all about?

That has been the underlying assumption so far, at least in part, for what truthfulness means. IMO it's not sustainable. If truthfulness becomes ONLY about the spiritual value of the book, suddenly it's on a much stronger foundation. That doesn't mean people can't believe it's historical, it just means that the history part isn't what is important about the book to them.

But even then, no book should be the foundation. A wall or a door maybe. The foundation needs to be the Divine, and how that divinity has manifest itself through Jesus. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Missionaries are taught that a testimony is gained by bearing testimony in things they don't have a testimony of.  So when you hear a missionary testimony you can never be sure if the missionary actually believes what they are saying or if they are giving a forceful testimony in hopes of obtaining one.   

I know of many Missionaries who were required to read Packer's "Candle of the Lord" at least once a week.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/01/the-candle-of-the-lord?lang=eng

 

Testimony should always be taken with a grain of salt.  It is the one of the least reliable forms of evidence.  

 

http://www.bcmj.org/premise/ranking-and-reliability-evidence

That's an unfortunate tactic - employing a psychological trick in order to train yourself to believe in something. Of course it won't work anymore once you realize what's going on there. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Gray

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As long as members believe and worship the church and prophets, as they are taught by the church, then testimonies will continue to wash away with the tide.

I'm guessing that since you've made this statement, that we are taught by the church to "worship the church and prophets" that you are prepared to back it up.  Please find me something in official church teachings, scriptures, or lesson manuals that teaches us that we are to "worship the church and prophets."

Edited October 12, 2016 by ksfisher
sp

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm guessing that since you've made this statement, that we are taught by the church to "worship the church and prophets" that you are prepared to back it up.  Please find me something in official church teachings, scriptures, or lesson manuals that teaches us that we are to "worship the church and prophets."

You first have to define "worship".

Quote

Worship-  noun wor·ship \ˈwər-shəp also ˈwȯr-\

1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.

2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.

 

3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.

 

4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.

Do any of these attitudes and practices exist in the church? Do we pay homage to objects or people as sacred? (Temples, prophets, Joseph Smith)

Is there adoration of apostles and prophets? Do we praise them as individuals in their roles? Do we sings songs about prophets. Do we sometimes act like obedience to a prophet is the same as obedience to God? The church currently teaches that Adam was a prophet but it once taught that Adam was God. The church teaches reverence for Joseph Smith and places him among the gods.

The church and most members will be offended by the idea that they worship idols. But the level of praise, focus, teaching, heaped upon symbols like the temple, or leaders could easily be construed as idol worship. The church wouldn't overtly state that members should worship the church or its leaders but the behavior is there. They just don't see it.

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm guessing that since you've made this statement, that we are taught by the church to "worship the church and prophets" that you are prepared to back it up.  Please find me something in official church teachings, scriptures, or lesson manuals that teaches us that we are to "worship the church and prophets."

I'll just contribute this quote from Richard Bushman:

 

Quote

I believe that is what indeed happens, but it implies Mormonism is the whole world for people. When the Mormon world cracks, everything crashes down. Lots of people believe in God and Christ who are not Mormons. Are they all as flawed as the Mormons?

I will say something a little abrasive in hopes of being informed. Should not Mormons have a connection with God that goes beyond the Church? Do we worship God or do we worship Mormonism? What should we teach our people to protect them from this vulnerability?

 

[James Tunney]

48 minutes ago, Gray said:

That has been the underlying assumption so far, at least in part, for what truthfulness means. IMO it's not sustainable. If truthfulness becomes ONLY about the spiritual value of the book, suddenly it's on a much stronger foundation. That doesn't mean people can't believe it's historical, it just means that the history part isn't what is important about the book to them.

But even then, no book should be the foundation. A wall or a door maybe. The foundation needs to be the Divine, and how that divinity has manifest itself through Jesus. 

So how are you sure your experience with the divine relates to the mormon church and not something else, or to no organization at all?

[Gray]

51 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

So how are you sure your experience with the divine relates to the mormon church and not something else, or to no organization at all?

My experience with the divine is independent of any human organization. Churches are communities where people can come and celebrate their relationship with God together. 

[oremites]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Hasn't the church based its "truthfulness" on the historicity of the book of mormon? Isn't that what moroni's promise is all about?

I don't remember Moroni's promise mentioning "historicity".  If I recall correctly, it was about asking God and having truth manifested by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[James Tunney]

28 minutes ago, oremites said:

I don't remember Moroni's promise mentioning "historicity".  If I recall correctly, it was about asking God and having truth manifested by the power of the Holy Ghost.

 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember howmerciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponderit in your hearts.

 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with asincere heart, with real intent, havingfaith in Christ, he will manifest thetruth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Doesn't the phrase "these things" provide the tie to historicity? Doesn't "these things" mean the book of mormon? Also, the above invites one to ask if "these things" or the book of mormon is true or not. Surely your not saying the promise asks if a myth is true?

[Jeanne]

IMHO.  Testimonies are not often built..they are programmed..one is told what it feels like to have a testimony and the world revolves around those ideas taught over and over..When there is no other thought intervening into the mind and heart..it becomes more of a sustaining habit that sets your goals in life.  Those goosebumps and testimony bearing days are what is always accepting...hard to walk away from that  but if one finds a truth...any truth that contradicts that testimony it opens a door.  Whether you shut door or not, it is the shelf that begins to build.  When one..(such as I) that has a testimony so strong and necessary to plan..and to focus..and to make decisions for me, that shelf doesn't fall softly..it make s a huge noise..that is..it becomes an all or nothing thing. 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

This is the more important verse.
A testimony of the gospel can only really come from a witness of the spirit.  Lose the spirit and the testimony can easily go with it.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

My experience with the divine is independent of any human organization. Churches are communities where people can come and celebrate their relationship with God together. 

Your mileage may vary.  I gave you a rep point because I agree with this, as far as it goes.  Where we might disagree is that I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can and does facilitate its members' contact with the divine, both on a personal and on an institutional level.  

I wish you well.  

[Johnnie Cake]

6 hours ago, why me said:

My daughter just told me about one of her mission companions who had a strong testimony has now left the church. My daughter said that when she was on her mission this missionary companion would bear her testimony with strength and conviction. But now, after her mission she has left the church. So my question is: are lds testimonies built on sand or rock? Now, when I hear testimonies, I have difficulties believing such testimonies because of the examples that I have seen about people who gave their testimonies with conviction but who have since left the church.

Testimonies are as fragile as the outer membrane of a bubble.  By their very nature they are susceptible to being popped when they encounter information that does not sync with the premises upon which that unique testimony was built upon.   From my perspective both rock and sand analogies do not fully capture the fragile nature of testimonies.  Those who successfully immune themselves against difficult information by working out safe harbors for their testimonies to survive seem to be able to sustain their testimonies while those who can not end up having their testimonies pop.  The problem is that we do not know what an individuals personal unique testimony is built upon or the under lying scaffolding  that supports it. Someone who seems to have a so called strong testimony is just as vulnerable as anyone else if they are exposed to information that they can not successfully reconcile with the unique framework that makes up their testimony. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Your mileage may vary.  I gave you a rep point because I agree with this, as far as it goes.  Where we might disagree is that I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can and does facilitate its members' contact with the divine, both on a personal and on an institutional level.  

I wish you well.  

Perhaps you may be referring to this as taught in D&C 84:

 19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

 20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

 21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

 22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, why me said:

My daughter just told me about one of her mission companions who had a strong testimony has now left the church. My daughter said that when she was on her mission this missionary companion would bear her testimony with strength and conviction. But now, after her mission she has left the church. So my question is: are lds testimonies built on sand or rock? Now, when I hear testimonies, I have difficulties believing such testimonies because of the examples that I have seen about people who gave their testimonies with conviction but who have since left the church.

I think the problem is that the Church over-sells the idea of a "testimony".  LDS are taught that when they get a "testimony", it should be considered 100% sure knowledge, but that just isn't the case.  

No matter how reliable the "testimony" methodology might be, there is still some degree of error possible in interpreting the feelings and experiences that create it (see: every other church).  

But it isn't quite as impressive to say "Once you get a testimony, you can be 60 - 85% sure that you have found the truth."  So we don't.

[Gray]

44 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Your mileage may vary.  I gave you a rep point because I agree with this, as far as it goes.  Where we might disagree is that I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can and does facilitate its members' contact with the divine, both on a personal and on an institutional level.  

I wish you well.  

I think the church can certainly facilitate that relationship

Of course churches exist for many other purposes too - to perform philanthropic works, to support the members' physical or emotional needs, and any number of other things.

I wish you well too

Edited October 12, 2016 by Gray

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, why me said:

My daughter just told me about one of her mission companions who had a strong testimony has now left the church. My daughter said that when she was on her mission this missionary companion would bear her testimony with strength and conviction. But now, after her mission she has left the church. So my question is: are lds testimonies built on sand or rock? Now, when I hear testimonies, I have difficulties believing such testimonies because of the examples that I have seen about people who gave their testimonies with conviction but who have since left the church.

To the extent that testimonies are based on the common truth claims of the Church, they are built on sand.  So many of these truth claims are being revealed as false or misleading that they are taking many testimonies down with them.