Idea’s for coping with testimony…

I’m trying to tread delicately here. I don’t think it’s my place, or anyone else’s, to tell people what they can and can’t “know.” While I don’t profess the same level of certainty that others might on religious and church matters, I don’t begrudge them the ability to “know” something.

To Brit-Exmo, when you say

how am I supposed to find *any* common ground with these people???? Especially when they KNOW they are right….

is your complaint that they have established a position that allows for no compromise or dialogue? And if that’s true, when you say “you don’t know anything” aren’t you doing the same thing? Aren’t you establishing a position that says “there’s no way you can know, so don’t say ‘I know'”?

I’m not trying to pick a fight, but I don’t think it’s right to say that since I don’t believe something can be known, then no one else should say they know it, either.

When I sit in F&T meeting and hear people say “I know” this or “I know” that, I understand the paradigm they’re coming from. I used to be that TBM who said “I know” all the time about everything. I have, however, moved past that version of faith. It doesn’t do me any good to sit and stew over what’s being said; it’s more effective for me to ponder my own beliefs on whatever they’re speaking about.

When I hear “I know” I realize they mean they are convinced. That’s a totally different proposition. They may have a lower bar than I do. Their experiences undoubtedly differ. They may not care about the imprecision of language.

is your complaint that they have established a position that allows for no compromise or dialogue? And if that’s true, when you say “you don’t know anything” aren’t you doing the same thing? Aren’t you establishing a position that says “there’s no way you can know, so don’t say ‘I know'”?

You make a fair point and you are right, its probably me just being mean and intolerant of their naivety, I want to say I expect more of a Stake Presidency and Bishopric, but that’s being mean too.

Most of the time I think I am past the angry phase (it’s been 10 years) but now and then it flares up.

I’m not going to tread lightly, but I hope my directness is taken in the spirit in which it is offered.

Directness is great, it’s refreshing to have this sort of dialogue without people getting offended at a different view.

Look for it, especially in non-doctrinal areas, but also in things you believe or want to believe and the same things they feel they know.

You are right too, some of my recent experiences of opening my mouth in class have been most fulfilling when I have found that common ground.

You know, it’s funny. There are different things that set different people off. I can’t easily stomach EQ, for example. There are many people here who can’t stand F&T. I’m actually the opposite… I think it is generally the most rewarding SM. Sure, there are things that annoy me, like the people that have to get up every time, the kids saying words they don’t even comprehend, travelogues instead of testimonies… but I guess that for me, I don’t generally find any offense in another person expressing their faith.

I think what happens for many is that they hate to hear other people expressing faith in the very thing that has led to our Great Disappointment… In other words, I just wonder if it is more the thing they believe in rather than that they believe, or ‘know’. For those that hate F&T, I wonder how they would feel if they attended a Methodist meeting and some members of the congregation stood to say, “I know God loves me, and I know that by following him, I will be in Heaven someday” … would they be equally as bothered? If they were at a Catholic gathering, and an elderly parishioner got up and talked about how she knows that Saint James has helped ease the pain of her arthritis, would they be just as infuriated?

I can empathise with the pov brit-exmo. I’ve got to the stage where it doesn’t get me twisted up inside.

I just accept that that when they say “I know Joseph saw God etc” – i.e. things that are actually unknowable, that what they’re really saying is:

“I have eliminated all doubts that…”

“I feel certain that…”

Or even:

“I don’t feel certain, but I’m hoping testimony will be confirmed in the bearing of it…”

Once I think that I let them off a little.

I have said elsewhere that I can believe something to be true without being factually correct. A fable or a parable can teach us correct principles.

Now I know (!) that the church can be horribly wrong about some things, but it can be so right about others. Hold on to them, the correct principles our church teaches… there are many of them. Service. Love. Faithfulness. Kindness. The example of Jesus in these. Trying to create decent stable families. Triumph over hardship. etc Can you really get all epistemological about these?

great comments.

When most members are saying “I know”, they are echoing Job’s testimony, which stated,

Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!

For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

One might as easily ask, “How could Job know this?”, or “How could the writer of Job make this particular claim?”

So, when I critique anothers’ testimony, I try my best to think of Job’s simple and amazing powerful testimony, and try to give the other person a break. — Not saying it works all the time, but it’s important to do so.

This applies as well to when LDS are saying “I know that the CoJCoLdS is the only true and living church upon the face of the earth.” Again, this is scriptural:

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually

So, the language used in testimony is simply scriptural language, echoed as a statement of belief.

– We don’t use “I believe” in the church, in it’s place we use “I know”

– We don’t have a verb for “faith”, so we use “I know”.

Alma 32 has a lot to say about this process. To me, a testimony is an evidentiary witness to what I hold to be true, and not a summary statement of belief. “I know the church is true” is not a testimony. A testimony states the basis of making the conclusion: “I read the book of mormon, prayed about it, and had a spiritual witness that told me the book of mormon is true.” While the conclusion that the book of mormon is not inherently valid by itself, the nature of one’s witness — they how s/he got there — is what makes a testimony valid.

Very reasonable points wayfarer. We’re all looking for church members/leaders to cut us some slack given out ‘adapted’ perspectives. We should give them the same respect.

Alma 32 serves as a testimony builder on two levels. First, by following the “instructions” of experimenting on a principle I’ve gained confidence in aspects of the gospel. But secondly, the chapter itself and the principles within it are brilliant and so far reaching that it raises confidence in the BoM as being divinely inspired (regardless of its historicity) rather than a fabrication/fraud.