Taylor Christensen "This is not an anti-mormon video"

[Calm]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

We do need to keep in mind that it was Joseph himself who declared that God told him to collect wives.  No one else heard that voice.  

Others stated they received their own personal witness of it.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I listened carefully to his video twice, and made notes.  I noticed that he uses words like "most" when "many" would be more accurate from a third-party scholarly point of view.  Naturally a lot of people would share strong agreement with many of his assertions, and we can see that regularly on this board.  Trafficking in bad logic (fallacies) is a common mistake for young whippersnappers, as is the tendency to draw conclusions based on reading a couple of non-professional internet sources.  Hopefully he will learn better as he studies more.  At present he is simply parroting what he has read and been told, without critical reflection.  Seems like a very nice guy.  The civilized sort who might make a good husband for your daughter.  However, he has not yet been through the crucible of real life.

My daughter's are too young.  I can agree with you on most (or many ) of this though.  

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Not really. The secular history of polygamy of polygamy is irrelevant to whether God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. Secular history cannot prove or disprove that event. We know pretty certainly that polygamy happened. But we have no way of proving or disproving by secular history if it was a command from God. Secular history has no way of proving or disproving whether an angel appeared to Joseph and ordered him most explicitly and menacingly to accept and begin practicing that principle, therefore secular history is irrelevant there. Secular history has no way of proving or disproving the resurrection, so it is irrelevant in that respect. We only have the fallout of those reported events recorded by secular history. Since history cannot affirm or deny any of those events, it seems illogical to me for anyone to use history to decide whether there was a resurrection or whether there was a restoration. One should logically seek another source.

Glenn

I think you're example is apropos here.  If polygamy was commanded of God, then it must be considered a fruit of the claimed prophet Joseph from which one must test.  When one looks at the details of what happened regarding polygamy one can certainly see negative fruit or conclude negative fruit (even if others do not).  I can see how that would work.  Thus, one can see Joseph as a fallen prophet and one could see Joseph as not a prophet at all by judging by the historical sources on this particular principle alone.

 
And more to the point.  The elements of the story of the first vision can be debated, afteralll Joseph gave differing accounts.  So it could be that one could feel strongly that the first vision had happened, as per their learning about the official version.  But later when one learns about the earlier versions and later versions and reconsiders that one could think that the previous spiritual confirmation was more of a biased confirmation.  Also, that the elements that they thought were true might not have been (again there is room to debate this I know).  The historical records on the matter could very well influence how the person views his/her personal spiritual experience.  So it might not matter to some that Joseph gave differing accounts.  But to others, just as legitimately, and maybe more, it does matter as to their testimony, and faith, that Joseph gave different accounts.  it could very well explain it quite different than previously thought. 

In my mind, I'm still see no way to divorce the history and the story of the history from each other.  

 

[CA Steve]

19 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Not really. The secular history of polygamy of polygamy is irrelevant to whether God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. Secular history cannot prove or disprove that event. We know pretty certainly that polygamy happened. But we have no way of proving or disproving by secular history if it was a command from God. Secular history has no way of proving or disproving whether an angel appeared to Joseph and ordered him most explicitly and menacingly to accept and begin practicing that principle, therefore secular history is irrelevant there. Secular history has no way of proving or disproving the resurrection, so it is irrelevant in that respect. We only have the fallout of those reported events recorded by secular history. Since history cannot affirm or deny any of those events, it seems illogical to me for anyone to use history to decide whether there was a resurrection or whether there was a restoration. One should logically seek another source.

Glenn

I think you are using the words 'proof' and 'disproof' differently when it comes to your sacred vs secular history dichotomy, a distinction that i do not think is valid. I do not believe history can arbitrarily be separated into secular and sacred. Especially in discussion with those who  do not see that same history as sacred. For example if you were talking about the Resurrection in a group of people made up of both Christians and Muslims, is it a discussion about secular or sacred history? To classify it as such is to beg the question, in my opinion. I also don't believe in an either/or situation of "proof" or "disproof" for historical events. There is evidence for an event happening a certain way and evidence against it. This applies to events even as they happen today, just look at the way our own political parties in the US describe the very same current event. Certainly the further back we go the more difficult it is to establish clarity for events, but given that the church  was started  in an era of written history, there is a lot of evidence of what did and did not happen on which to make evaluations of possibilities vs probabilities, just the same as we do for any other event from that time period. For example we could discuss the difference between Jacksonian democracy and Jeffersonian democracy and no one would dismiss such a discussion because we could not prove something. People would find it odd if someone were to testify that Jackson had it right and that those who disagreed were simply using the wrong methodology. Or in the case of Joseph claiming to have been commanded to practice polygamy we could look at the surrounding events to see if such claims were even possible. (For example was he at the place and time when he made such and such a claim? If not, that raises doubt such an event took place, and so on.)

I am not denying anyone's faithful claims to knowing how an event or events happened by way of prayer or spiritual investigation or even claiming that such discussions are not valid just because the claims have been fruitful for the claimant. But those claims are not relevant to a conversation where all participants do not share that common agreement. That would be like a Scientologist bearing his testimony about the efficacy of E-meters in a discussion that focused on the history and use of E-meters. Okay great it has worked for him and maybe even a large amount of other people.  Are we supposed to stop the conversation at that point just because someone believes in how they work?

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by CA Steve

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I thought that Don Came back because he did't like the odds. Or was that what made him rethink his atheist position on that life happened by accident?

From the statements from him I found it was tied to discovering a lot of temple stuff was likely in the 116 pages (which as he notes was actually over 200 pages). He has up an interview in the current Mormon Perspectives where I think I remember him briefly mentioning this in passing as well.

13 hours ago, sunstoned said:

We do need to keep in mind that it was Joseph himself who declared that God told him to collect wives.  No one else heard that voice.

That ignores the answers the people praying about doing it received. So that's a rather distorted statement. Admittedly Zina's statement on it is rather late but I don't think you can dismiss such things out of hand. Certainly Joseph's statement about the angel wasn't seen by anyone else. But most people had their own similar struggles with the doctrine.

13 hours ago, sunstoned said:

So it really comes down to full belief in Joseph Smith and a full belief in what he said. 

Few of the people at the time saw it like that. They felt it came down to what God told them individually. Most of them struggled with it. Certainly I don't believe any doctrine merely because Joseph stated it. There's things Joseph stated, such as the resurrection of children in the KFD, where I think he's wrong. Ditto with Brigham Young on several points.

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, SteveO said:

I think that’s the whole  point...we have members who are leaving the church over the history, as if it’s “settled”.  It isn’t settled, there’s always new discoveries being made, as you’ve said.  And that’s what I don’t understand why testimonies are being destroyed from a source that is constantly changing and being reassessed.

I think many facts are settled. I think what you are getting at are the implications of those facts. However it's understandable that these facts are deeply troubling to people. That's why I'm glad the Church is moving towards the inoculation model that many of us have been pushing for year. (Rumor is that Elder Ballard is behind a lot of this - but it sounds like there was unanimity on the topic with even Elder Packer of all people pushing it before his death)

Testimonies get destroyed when testimonies aren't strong. People can have a strong spiritual experience but unless that is repeated, then the meaning shifts. It's like we're dealing more and more with a third hand account that can be distrusted rather than a real phenomena we do trust.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

We do need to keep in mind that it was Joseph himself who declared that God told him to collect wives.  No one else heard that voice.  So it really comes down to full belief in Joseph Smith and a full belief in what he said.   To me the question is: can I believe what Joseph Smith claimed? Did he conduct his life in a manner in keeping with what he claimed God called him to do?  Do his works stand on their own?  I  think this is what the video was getting to.  As stated in the video, where there are facts and evidence, faith is not needed. Where there is no evidence, then faith comes into play.   I think these are the questions we all need to answer and decide for ourselves.  

What evidence does one seek for finding meaning in their lives?  What evidence did you have that your wife was "the one"?   What evidence do you have that murder is wrong?

What evidence do you have for ANYTHING personally important to you about which you make decisions every day of your life?  None.

I think these are the questions we all need to answer and decide for ourselves.

Very ironic that you do not even have evidence that these are the kinds of beliefs which require evidence.  With that last line, the whole post becomes self-contradictory. 

And others in this discussion who want "evidence" out of history for any of this?   Or think that it is important that Book of Mormon events "really happened" or that Joseph was "really righteous" are in exactly the same boat as our friend here, sunstoned

You are all looking for evidence which does not exist, cannot exist and is irrelevant even if it did exist.

You ALL want an "Atonement-meter" to prove that a person crucified 2000 years ago died for your sins.  Where is your evidence?  Why do insist that it must historically have happened?

Because you do not understand that it is BELIEF that changes lives and are what motivate you every single day of your lives, not "FACTS" which are never what they appear to be.

You live in BELIEF that democracy is good, that you should not be mean to people, that murder is wrong and that your political party is right.  What evidence do you have for anything important in your life?

NONE- you have beliefs based on feelings.  THAT is the basis of the gospel and everything important- your beliefs based not on evidence but how you evaluate your own beliefs based on "What seems right"

Face it and go boldly affirming that and it will change your life.  We cannot know the unknowable and it is up to us to organize from matter unorganized.   Facts are an illusion- they are what is in constant flux.

Is Pluto a planet this week?

Edited February 6, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, SteveO said:

I think that’s the whole  point...we have members who are leaving the church over the history, as if it’s “settled”.  It isn’t settled, there’s always new discoveries being made, as you’ve said.  And that’s what I don’t understand why testimonies are being destroyed from a source that is constantly changing and being reassessed.

"Settled" or not, facts are irrelevant to beliefs

WHY do you think it is IMPORTANT that they be "settled"?   It is "settled" that there is no evidence for God

Why do you believe anyway??

Where are your "settled facts" for God's existence?  And yet it is right to believe in God because you known him in your heart.

IF we really believe the most important things in life are based on personal revelation, FACTS BECOME IMMATERIAL.  As Alma 32 teaches what matters is the "FRUIT" of belief which becomes certain knowledge over time as we live it.

Those here who are looking for "settled facts" are actually arguing AGAINST personal revelation if you know it or not.  You all in this camp are the true anti-mormons without even knowing it.

Either you stake your life on personal revelation or not.  There is no middle way because there ARE no facts for morals or what is important.  Facts by definition have nothing to do with what is important- facts are supposed to be and designed to be "impartial"

What is IMPORTANT is NEVER "impartial" it is that about which we are PASSIONATE.  Right and wrong are passions, not factual.  What we regard as important is never fact based ultimately.

That Christ was crucified may or may not be a fact. No evidence that is "settled" or could be.   The BELIEF that He died for our sins has changed the world for each and every believer.

Either you get that or you don't, but that is the crux of it all.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I think receiving direct revelation is not as esoteric as you make it seem here

I don't think it is esoteric at all- the question becomes does it change your life or does "evidence" for Joseph's righteousness make a difference?

If direct revelation changes your life, facts are immaterial.

The "fact" that you BELIEVE in is IMPORTANT you have "facts" showing his alleged "righteousness" is the same as wanting evidence for God's existence.  And so you dig for proof of his innocence.  Fine.  Go for it if it makes you happy and all the others who do the same.

But if you really have a testimony the "facts" are immaterial to those who actually understand that when God tells you something, nothing else matters.

NOTHING.  You know it and God knows you know it.

Who are you going to trust?  A Scholar or God himself?  Some person going by "objective evidence" while you have "subjective evidence directly from God?

No contest.

How God does what he does is none of my business.  If he uses flawed humans for his purposes, who am I to judge?   Are we going to tell God he cannot use whomever he pleases to do his work?

Not me.

And the fact is that I learned this principle as a Catholic when the question of fallen popes came up. 

 Very ironic that here I am getting flak from a Catholic for the Catholic answer.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

 

Testimonies get destroyed when testimonies aren't strong. People can have a strong spiritual experience but unless that is repeated, then the meaning shifts. It's like we're dealing more and more with a third hand account that can be distrusted rather than a real phenomena we do trust.

Exactly- that's the whole issue and there are no others.

It's 100% testimony or nothing.   I mean who would believe in gold plates and the known history of the BOM etc without a testimony?  You would have to be indoctrinated from birth to believe it, and I think that is unfortunately where many people are.  The first hearing that something might have been different, suddenly Santa Smith disappears and all goes with it.

Edited February 6, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, 3DOP said:

 

By the way...how in the world could a corrupt pope interrupt priestly succession? We teach that priestly and episcopal succession survives in Orthodoxy which has rejected the pope for a thousand years! Sorry, I had to swing at such a soft pitch in my wheelhouse.

Surely you don't think that is the answer do you?

So I have to ask someone who is Orthodox and you don't have your own answer?

Apparently then fallen popes are not a problem but fallen prophets in someone else's faith ARE?

And Joseph is not the principle "revelator" for our church, each person gets his own revelation of what is true or not, otherwise you have to believe in an infallible human being and we do not have such a belief.

But if I have it right Catholics do not believe in "revelation" of new doctrines anyway so there is really no comparison at all. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly- that's the whole issue and there are no others.

It's 100% testimony or nothing.   I mean who would believe in gold plates and the known history of the BOM etc without a testimony?  You would have to be indoctrinated from birth to believe it, and I think that is unfortunately where many people are.  The first hearing that something might have been different, suddenly Santa Smith disappears and all goes with it.

Or...

someone has what they consider to be a spiritual experience testifying of the truthfulness of an historic event tied to the restoration and its leaders, only to later find out that the spiritual experience must have been faulty. They must have imagined or misinterpreted the experience because the thing of which they believed the spirit testified was not accurate. The person loses trust in the spirit, in themselves and their ability to discern truth, and they lose testimony of their testimony because it was built upon sand.

I get tired of hearing that people who lose faith in the church and its leaders never had a strong testimony. It's false. Many, myself included, had very strong testimonies built upon spiritual experiences. Those testimonies were developed over time, through much faith, prayer, and service. In many cases, I think there is a correlation between the amount of investment a person made into the church and the level of their disillusionment. It's not because they are weak or superficial but rather because they were strong but then discovered they were wrong about so many things. It's a faith, identity, and trust crisis. Perhaps indoctrination plays a role but I think it is far too simple to pretend that people who lose their faith in the church simply didn't have a testimony. I see that attitude a lot and it is beyond off-putting & self-righteous.

[clarkgoble]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Settled" or not, facts are irrelevant to beliefs

WHY do you think it is IMPORTANT that they be "settled"?   It is "settled" that there is no evidence for God

Why do you believe anyway??

Where are your "settled facts" for God's existence?  And yet it is right to believe in God because you known him in your heart.

IF we really believe the most important things in life are based on personal revelation, FACTS BECOME IMMATERIAL.  As Alma 32 teaches what matters is the "FRUIT" of belief which becomes certain knowledge over time as we live it.

Those here who are looking for "settled facts" are actually arguing AGAINST personal revelation if you know it or not.  You all in this camp are the true anti-mormons without even knowing it.

I'd say facts are those beliefs we can not doubt if we honestly investigate the evidence. Now of course individuals doubt things that seem insane to doubt. While I suspect most flat earthers are people who enjoy irony too much, it's possible some actually believe against the evidence. 

So in one sense I don't disagree with you at all, but in an other sense I think it ignores a significant issue. And of course there's always that issue of why we believe what we believe. As you know I tend to be of the school that sees belief as non-volitional. We can change our beliefs only indirectly by what evidence we choose to look at.

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I get tired of hearing that people who lose faith in the church and its leaders never had a strong testimony. It's false.

I don't think that's what anyone is arguing. (At least I've not seen it) Rather that just because one had a strong testimony when one encounters new evidence the ground of the testimony may be a shadow of what it was. That's why having a spiritual experience is never enough. A testimony must constantly be reacquired even when you don't think you've lost it. The fact I had a strong testimony in the past says nothing about now. As soon as that experience is in the past it's a memory and no longer a live experience. The issue is whether you have a strong testimony in the spirit as you encounter troubling information. With that "in the spirit" which is ultimately the ground of any living testimony being key.

But certainly even if one has a reasonable testimony new experiences can test it and lead people to rethink it. At that point though, from a faithful perspective, the issue is then whether one can get an answer from God again. For many people the same information that leads some to leave the faith leads others to a stronger testimony.

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Or...

someone has what they consider to be a spiritual experience testifying of the truthfulness of an historic event tied to the restoration and its leaders, only to later find out that the spiritual experience must have been faulty. They must have imagined or misinterpreted the experience because the thing of which they believed the spirit testified was not accurate. The person loses trust in the spirit, in themselves and their ability to discern truth, and they lose testimony of their testimony because it was built upon sand.

I get tired of hearing that people who lose faith in the church and its leaders never had a strong testimony. It's false. Many, myself included, had very strong testimonies built upon spiritual experiences. Those testimonies were developed over time, through much faith, prayer, and service. In many cases, I think there is a correlation between the amount of investment a person made into the church and the level of their disillusionment. It's not because they are weak or superficial but rather because they were strong but then discovered they were wrong about so many things. It's a faith, identity, and trust crisis. Perhaps indoctrination plays a role but I think it is far too simple to pretend that people who lose their faith in the church simply didn't have a testimony. I see that attitude a lot and it is beyond off-putting & self-righteous.

If you truly have a testimony you always follow it believing that God teaches each of us in his way as we progress along the path toward Him

It seems odd to think one had a testimony and then gets another testimony that the first testimony was "wrong" and then use the same methodology which could be wrong to correct the same method which we now know is wrong.   Who would do that?

That is caused by believing that testimonies are about objective scientific facts about God which is a wrong assumption in the first place

Testimonies are about what path God wants for you NOW in your life as we progress.

Members of our church who get that- GET that and just progress within the new paradigm God has revealed to them- to take it symbolically, or see what they thought were "facts" in another way.   It becomes their own "Copernican Revolution" about how to understand the gospel.

Others who never got it from the start get stuck on silly stuff like evolution or Joseph's righteousness or lack thereof and miss the point entirely.  They stick with the Ptolemaic universe and keep adding epicycles until the machine blows up and then blame Ptolemy for being wrong while it was their job to become Copernicus and use the old "facts" to interpret them in a new way.

It makes no sense to trust testimony 1 then decide it was wrong and yet still trust testimony 2 that testimony 1 was wrong.  All you have is testimony- you have to interpret testimony 1 as a step along the path to testimony 2- a new understanding of the "facts" of testimony 1

It's like asking continuing questions of a person who always lies, and presuming he will not do it this time.

How is that even rational??

Self-righteous?   To show someone is irrational?  I suppose if you want to see it that way, I see it as "teaching".

Teachers know something others need to learn.  If the teacher is wrong then why ask in the first place?  If the teacher turns out to be a jerk, then get on with life.  Thee is not much you can do about jerks then get on with life.

So the conclusion is...... 

In the immortal words of a smart man "I was never disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place"

 

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd say facts are those beliefs we can not doubt if we honestly investigate the evidence. Now of course individuals doubt things that seem insane to doubt. While I suspect most flat earthers are people who enjoy irony too much, it's possible some actually believe against the evidence. 

So in one sense I don't disagree with you at all, but in an other sense I think it ignores a significant issue. And of course there's always that issue of why we believe what we believe. As you know I tend to be of the school that sees belief as non-volitional. We can change our beliefs only indirectly by what evidence we choose to look at.

I don't think that's what anyone is arguing. (At least I've not seen it) Rather that just because one had a strong testimony when one encounters new evidence the ground of the testimony may be a shadow of what it was. That's why having a spiritual experience is never enough. A testimony must constantly be reacquired even when you don't think you've lost it. The fact I had a strong testimony in the past says nothing about now. As soon as that experience is in the past it's a memory and no longer a live experience. The issue is whether you have a strong testimony in the spirit as you encounter troubling information. With that "in the spirit" which is ultimately the ground of any living testimony being key.

But certainly even if one has a reasonable testimony new experiences can test it and lead people to rethink it. At that point though, from a faithful perspective, the issue is then whether one can get an answer from God again. For many people the same information that leads some to leave the faith leads others to a stronger testimony.

If it's non-volitional then we cannot "choose" what evidence to look at.  Feels contradictory.  I call that "organizing matter unorganized" which is always volitional.

It sounds more like you are using "testimony" as a synonym for " what I believe".

To me it is a completed paradigm that seems that it did not come from myself but from another Intelligence which could not be wrong.  So seeing a testimony as "wrong" is not a good description- it is more of a re-ordering within the belief set.

I still have many elements of Catholicism in the way I see God but I believe they are more refined, none if it was "wrong" I just see it in another way now and that seems confirmed by God.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If you truly have a testimony you always follow it believing that God teaches each of us in his way as we progress along the path toward Him

It seems odd to think one had a testimony and then gets another testimony that the first testimony was "wrong" and then use the same methodology which could be wrong to correct the same method which we now know is wrong.   Who would do that?

That is caused by believing that testimonies are about objective scientific facts about God which is a wrong assumption in the first place

Testimonies are about what path God wants for you NOW in your life as we progress.

Members of our church who get that- GET that and just progress within the new paradigm God has revealed to them- to take it symbolically, or see what they thought were "facts" in another way.   It becomes their own "Copernican Revolution" about how to understand the gospel.

Others who never got it from the start get stuck on silly stuff like evolution or Joseph's righteousness or lack thereof and miss the point entirely.  They stick with the Ptolemaic universe and keep adding epicycles until the machine blows up and then blame Ptolemy for being wrong while it was their job to become Copernicus and use the old "facts" to interpret them in a new way.

It makes no sense to trust testimony 1 then decide it was wrong and yet still trust testimony 2 that testimony 1 was wrong.  All you have is testimony- you have to interpret testimony 1 as a step along the path to testimony 2- a new understanding of the "facts" of testimony 1

It's like asking continuing questions of a person who always lies, and presuming he will not do it this time.

How is that even rational??

Self-righteous?   To show someone is irrational?  I suppose if you want to see it that way, I see it as "teaching".

Teachers know something others need to learn.  If the teacher is wrong then why ask in the first place?  If the teacher turns out to be a jerk, then get on with life.  Thee is not much you can do about jerks then get on with life.

So the conclusion is...... 

In the immortal words of a smart man "I was never disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place"

 

I don't think it's about getting a firm testimony the church isn't true. Testimony B doesn't replace testimony A. Testimony A just dissolves into nothingness or transitions into a state that was previously unrecognizable, not because there is a surety about what is true and what is not, but because there is no surety about anything.

[Tacenda]

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Or...

someone has what they consider to be a spiritual experience testifying of the truthfulness of an historic event tied to the restoration and its leaders, only to later find out that the spiritual experience must have been faulty. They must have imagined or misinterpreted the experience because the thing of which they believed the spirit testified was not accurate. The person loses trust in the spirit, in themselves and their ability to discern truth, and they lose testimony of their testimony because it was built upon sand.

I get tired of hearing that people who lose faith in the church and its leaders never had a strong testimony. It's false. Many, myself included, had very strong testimonies built upon spiritual experiences. Those testimonies were developed over time, through much faith, prayer, and service. In many cases, I think there is a correlation between the amount of investment a person made into the church and the level of their disillusionment. It's not because they are weak or superficial but rather because they were strong but then discovered they were wrong about so many things. It's a faith, identity, and trust crisis. Perhaps indoctrination plays a role but I think it is far too simple to pretend that people who lose their faith in the church simply didn't have a testimony. I see that attitude a lot and it is beyond off-putting & self-righteous.

This!

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Or...

someone has what they consider to be a spiritual experience testifying of the truthfulness of an historic event tied to the restoration and its leaders, only to later find out that the spiritual experience must have been faulty. They must have imagined or misinterpreted the experience because the thing of which they believed the spirit testified was not accurate. The person loses trust in the spirit, in themselves and their ability to discern truth, and they lose testimony of their testimony because it was built upon sand.

I get tired of hearing that people who lose faith in the church and its leaders never had a strong testimony. It's false. Many, myself included, had very strong testimonies built upon spiritual experiences. Those testimonies were developed over time, through much faith, prayer, and service. In many cases, I think there is a correlation between the amount of investment a person made into the church and the level of their disillusionment. It's not because they are weak or superficial but rather because they were strong but then discovered they were wrong about so many things. It's a faith, identity, and trust crisis. Perhaps indoctrination plays a role but I think it is far too simple to pretend that people who lose their faith in the church simply didn't have a testimony. I see that attitude a lot and it is beyond off-putting & self-righteous.

HJW...you spoke my feelings and past..in a nutshell.  Thank you.

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If it's non-volitional then we cannot "choose" what evidence to look at.  Feels contradictory.  I call that "organizing matter unorganized" which is always volitional.

Belief is non volitional but where we focus our attention is volitional. If someone says there's something in the next room I can choose to walk into that room even if I don't believe there's anything there.

Now you can say that attention is determined by beliefs but it's not purely determined by beliefs and how beliefs interact with one an other seems indeterminate from what I can see except in simple cases. (A strong belief vs. a weak belief)

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It sounds more like you are using "testimony" as a synonym for " what I believe".

That's not what I mean. I think testimony as used sometimes refers to belief and strength of belief. I'd say a testimony is not just the belief but the grounds for that belief. i.e. it's intrinsically related to ongoing experiences and relationships. When it becomes merely belief or worse yet merely memory of belief then it loses its power.

To use an analogy you used recently, when I say I am in love with my wife I don't merely mean a belief. Further the evidence that I am in love is not the same as the ground for my love. (That is to say the evidences I'm conscious of don't determine my belief) Also the fact I've been in love says nothing about whether I am now in love. Love thus serves a kind of function that I think was similar to what Kuhn was after with his use of paradigm. It can't fully be defined but is something more than a belief, theory, model, relationship, evidence or so forth. In a very analogous way while testimony is not the same as love, it functions in a similar fashion.

When we talk about losing a testimony it's akin to falling out of love I think. (Again not exactly the same thing, but there are strong structural parallels)

 

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

t sounds more like you are using "testimony" as a synonym for " what I believe".

To me it is a completed paradigm that seems that it did not come from myself but from another Intelligence which could not be wrong.  So seeing a testimony as "wrong" is not a good description- it is more of a re-ordering within the belief set.

I don't think I like saying it's a paradigm (and I'm not sure what a "completed paradigm" means). However as I said there are some similarities to Kuhn's use of paradigm. I don't know I'd ever say a testimony is wrong. That seems linguistically odd. I might say something isn't really a testimony. But then that then gets into the language game aspects of paradigm which have some similarity I think to testimony.

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Belief is non volitional but where we focus our attention is volitional. If someone says there's something in the next room I can choose to walk into that room even if I don't believe there's anything there.

Now you can say that attention is determined by beliefs but it's not purely determined by beliefs and how beliefs interact with one an other seems indeterminate from what I can see except in simple cases. (A strong belief vs. a weak belief)

That's not what I mean. I think testimony as used sometimes refers to belief and strength of belief. I'd say a testimony is not just the belief but the grounds for that belief. i.e. it's intrinsically related to ongoing experiences and relationships. When it becomes merely belief or worse yet merely memory of belief then it loses its power.

To use an analogy you used recently, when I say I am in love with my wife I don't merely mean a belief. Further the evidence that I am in love is not the same as the ground for my love. (That is to say the evidences I'm conscious of don't determine my belief) Also the fact I've been in love says nothing about whether I am now in love. Love thus serves a kind of function that I think was similar to what Kuhn was after with his use of paradigm. It can't fully be defined but is something more than a belief, theory, model, relationship, evidence or so forth. In a very analogous way while testimony is not the same as love, it functions in a similar fashion.

When we talk about losing a testimony it's akin to falling out of love I think. (Again not exactly the same thing, but there are strong structural parallels)

 

I don't think I like saying it's a paradigm (and I'm not sure what a "completed paradigm" means). However as I said there are some similarities to Kuhn's use of paradigm. I don't know I'd ever say a testimony is wrong. That seems linguistically odd. I might say something isn't really a testimony. But then that then gets into the language game aspects of paradigm which have some similarity I think to testimony.

bold mine...

Do you mind if I use your analogy to mfbukowski, for one that I've seen spoken of by people that lost their testimony?

Here is an analogy in my own words, but have read similar elsewhere....

What if you are married and spent 40 years with someone. And then find out they aren't the person you thought they were. You found out the whole narrative of their life was different than what you'd thought or been told. They did things that didn't stand up to your moral beliefs, in fact they did some things that broke the law several times and had the law after them for it. They basically lied by omitting several things about their past. They told you only of certain things and white washed others, until you played detective and found out. And then your belief in them fell, and you couldn't trust or love them as before. But you couldn't let them go completely, just had to stay in limbo. But you cut them out of your life physically, and hoped they had an answer or a good apology, but receive nothing.

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Tacenda

[Metis_LDS]

If words are important or very important as some argue perhaps we need to say "We have changed our testimony" instead of lost it.

Changing your testimony implies more adult behaviour.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think it's about getting a firm testimony the church isn't true. Testimony B doesn't replace testimony A. Testimony A just dissolves into nothingness or transitions into a state that was previously unrecognizable, not because there is a surety about what is true and what is not, but because there is no surety about anything.

No I didnt mean that they get a testimony that it isn't true, but that they accept another unprovable idea instead like "visualize your goals and they will happen".  All that is is faith anyway- no difference.

But if there is no surety about anything that means that it is as rational to believe in the church as not.  If all you can get out of it is that it helps somewhat, that is better than nothing.  Of course it goes far beyond that, but if that is where you are and that is all you get out of it, then that is all you get.   If you are a drunk on skid row spiritually, any doctrine will be better than none, and anything that gives you shelter is an improvement.   If it is only a cardboard box in the winter, it keeps the snow off you and gives a little warmth

That is exactly what Pragmatism and Alma 32 say essentially.  "Try it out, experiment on it, and see if it yields good results in your life".  If it gives you a little warmth it is better than nothing.  And then follow up on it and watch it grow- whatever it is

That is the whole point no one seems to understand.  If it does something to make you feel better and gives you a good life, then you cannot get better.  We have all these non-believer hangers on because they like the sense of community and they feel good perhaps in church, or there are some aspects of it they still like.

If that's all you can get out of it that is a start, but in a world where you are drowning for a lack of meaning in your life, it is at least a log you can hang on to until you find a raft or even build one for yourself.

If there is no truth, then any belief which enriches your life helps you.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

bold mine...

Do you mind if I use your analogy to mfbukowski, for one that I've seen spoken of by people that lost their testimony?

Here is an analogy in my own words, but have read similar elsewhere....

What if you are married and spent 40 years with someone. And then find out they aren't the person you thought they were. You found out the whole narrative of their life was different than what you'd thought or been told. They did things that didn't stand up to your moral beliefs, in fact they did some things that broke the law several times and had the law after them for it. They basically lied by omitting several things about their past. They told you only of certain things and white washed others, until you played detective and found out. And then your belief in them fell, and you couldn't trust or love them as before. But you couldn't let them go completely, just had to stay in limbo. But you cut them out of your life physically, and hoped they had an answer or a good apology, but receive nothing.

 

I'd tend to say I have a testimony of the gospel not all the numbskulls (myself included) that are trying maintain the Church. That is my testimony is focused on Jesus Christ not the very flawed people (myself included) I tend to meet along the way. How that fits into your analogy I'm not sure. 

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

And more to the point.  The elements of the story of the first vision can be debated, afteralll Joseph gave differing accounts. 

 

The different versions do not contradict except whether he thought all churches were wrong.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Metis_LDS said:

If words are important or very important as some argue perhaps we need to say "We have changed our testimony" instead of lost it.

 

It is not the same thing ==>>  "I lost my car -- I gave my car a new paint job"

Edited February 7, 2018 by cdowis