- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My wife was having a discussion with her sisters the other day. They were talking about testimony and what it is. My wife was trying to argue that a testimony can be belief or faith without knowledge and potentially even without any kind of spiritual witness. I think she wanted that to be true because of the things I’ve told her about my experiences, or lack thereof, and my current state of belief. But one of her sisters was very adamant that you can’t have a testimony without feeling the Spirit, because a testimony is based on the spirit by definition. She pulled this out of her sleeve from LDS.orgQuote:A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel.
After a while they tentatively agreed that maybe people can feel the spirit without realizing it’s the spirit, and they can still have a “valid” testimony. I was really frustrated and saddened that my wife’s sister would be so adamant about it, and that she would feel somehow qualified to judge the validity of someone else’s testimony. Why does this even need a definition? Why can’t we just let each individual decide? What do you all think? Can a testimony be based purely on belief without knowledge and without having felt the spirit, or without knowing that you’ve felt the spirit?
Daeruin, Based on the LDS definition of a testimony it doesn’t sound like you have one and according to that definition I don’t either. The main problem as I see it is that you/I are having to play by the rules and definitions of the LDS church. I guess if I were to attempt to argue this with someone I would start looking outside the church defined definition to see how other people think about this.
But if my wife said according to this it sounds like you don’t have a testimony I would say: yup, looks that way.
So imo, nobody really has a right to judge someone else’s testimony. It’s also entirely unfair for someone to think that even though you don’t feel like you have felt the spirit that you must have so that even if you don’t think/know the things are true you really must deep down. It’s a pretty arrogant position to take. But I also don’t think you will get anywhere arguing otherwise, probably best to let it go.
A testimony is whatever it means to each person. if someone wants to add qualifiers (like “eye-witness” or “spiritual”), that’s fine – but they are adding restricting qualifiers to a word that is incredibly broad in and of itself.
I never argue about the definition. It isn’t worth it. People see things how they are going to see them, when it comes to this topic.
This post reminded me of the Langston Hughes story “The Lie.” I found a post about that short story here: http://thefrontporch.org/2014/02/what-langston-hughes-lie-can-mean-for-churches/ And that story also reminds me of a post I did called the Testimony Puzzle that talks about my mother’s conversion process. She was raised Lutheran, and in her late 20s, she & my dad were trying to come to an agreement about what church to join as they raised my 4 oldest sisters (my dad was raised Baptist). What I find so interesting about her story is that at some point, she just changed how she viewed things. She thought the Word of Wisdom was narrow-minded and judgmental and as a result she quit the discussions for a while. Later, when she was “converted” she saw it as a great evidence that it was God’s true church. So somewhere in there, she changed, and that’s where testimony comes in.
http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/06/02/the-testimony-puzzle/ I’m reminded of the debate many members have probably had at least once: Non-member: You aren’t Christian.
Member: Yes I am.
Non-member: No you’re not.
Member: Yes I am.
Non-member: No you’re not.
Member 1: You don’t have a testimony.
Member 2: Yes I do.
Member 1: No you don’t.
Member 2: Yes I do.
Member 1: No you don’t.
It goes in circles. The person telling someone else what they really believe is in a tenuous position. The person being told what they really believe can short circuit the cycle by ignoring what the other person has to say.
What is a testimony? I guess it’s whatever a person wants/needs it to be. Sometimes it’s nice that we can’t see things through the eyes of other people. Their orange might be what we call blue and then we’d get into a huge debate over it.
:eh: To me Testimony = experience or understanding If you don’t have one you basically don’t exist.
I hear arguments of “he doesn’t have a testimony” or “his testimony is weak” as: “I don’t like that his testimony doesn’t look like mine.”
Atheists have a testimony …the contents are simply different. They don’t have a testimony “OF” the church. I suppose among church members there is an implied “of the truthfulness of the church” that is tagged onto every use of “testimony.”
I sometimes think to myself “of course they have a testimony, they are an actual person! What we need to discuss are the contents of their understanding — and preferably our ultimate values and goals.”
Daeruin wrote:She pulled this out of her sleeve from
LDS.orgQuote:A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel.
You don’t have to have a testimony that is “that high” (referring to Pres Uchtdorf’s talk on “we don’t have a sign that says you testimony must be this tall”) to get baptized.I see many times when people are so adamant that there is often more fear driving the staunchness.
Quote:
There Is No Litmus TestThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a place for people with all kinds of testimonies. There are some members of the Church whose testimony is sure and burns brightly within them. Others are still striving to know for themselves. The Church is a home for all to come together, regardless of the depth or the height of our testimony. I know of no sign on the doors of our meetinghouses that says, “Your testimony must be this tall to enter.”
The Church is not just for perfect people, but it is for all to “come unto Christ, and be perfected in him.” The Church is for people like you and me. The Church is a place of welcoming and nurturing, not of separating or criticizing. It is a place where we reach out to encourage, uplift, and sustain one another as we pursue our individual search for divine truth.
In the end, we are all pilgrims seeking God’s light as we journey on the path of discipleship. We do not condemn others for the amount of light they may or may not have; rather, we nourish and encourage all light until it grows clear, bright, and true.
Dieter F. Uchtdorf
Orson wrote:To me Testimony = experience or understanding
If you don’t have one you basically don’t exist.
I hear arguments of “he doesn’t have a testimony” or “his testimony is weak” as: “I don’t like that his testimony doesn’t look like mine.”
Atheists have a testimony …the contents are simply different. They don’t have a testimony “OF” the church. I suppose among church members there is an implied “of the truthfulness of the church” that is tagged onto every use of “testimony.”
I sometimes think to myself “of course they have a testimony, they are an actual person! What we need to discuss are the contents of their understanding — and preferably our ultimate values and goals.”
Testimony in several of the other churches that I visit is synonymous with story. When someone gives their testimony, they tell their story (usually about how they were living a bad and reckless life before they had a spiritual experience that changed them). We do not often hear that kind of story in our church. To be fair, that story for them can be almost as formulaic are our “testimonies” are for us. But still at least the story narrative allows for more personal details and variations.
I have a testimony or story of my faith crisis and how it changed me in very painful/impactful ways. At the same time God was with me and I felt Him more than any other time because I needed Him more. My experience was of love and acceptance and it was powerful for me. It left me giving more focus to people and less to rules.
In a somewhat ironic way I feel a kinship to the 14 yr old JS. I feel that God connected with me in a personally powerful way and almost nobody around me wants to hear it because it doesn’t support their assumptions.
So the question comes back around. Do I have a testimony? Does my testimony count? Or does a testimony need to be an affirmation of the 5 pillars of Mormonism in order to be valid?
Daeruin wrote:She pulled this out of her sleeve from
LDS.orgQuote:A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel.
This sounds like it was written by Bruce R. McConkie and could have come right out of Mormon Doctrine. If he didn’t write it, it was probably written by one of his proteges. I do believe BRM was a good man, but I lament over what he did to Mormon theology, doctrine, and dogma. And in fairness, it was not just him.
This quote bothers me on many levels, prominent of which is the use of the word
knowledge. I believe there is a God and that He loves us, and I believe that Jesus is the Christ – and I believe I have had some spiritual confirmation for these beliefs. I also believe some of my Christian friends of other churches possess these same beliefs, some probably more strongly than I do – but nonetheless spiritually based. I have had the non-member discussion mentioned by Nibbler, and I have had discussions with non-members who do recognize that I am a believer. Likewise, in my TBM days I would have said that I had a testimony of all the above and more – and I would have confirmed that part about the foundation and growth. My own experiences – that of which I can testify – now tells me different. Much of it is about perspective.
Can you have a testimony without a spiritual witness? I think, yes, absolutely, and I would say that I believed in God before having any spiritual confirmation – and I’m not even sure if my spiritual confirmations are spiritual confirmations at all, they may only be my emotions or that I want to believe it. I think there are lots of people sitting in our congregations who have not had a spiritual confirmation that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, that the church is the one true church and so forth but nevertheless have some level of belief in at least some of it. I think this is exactly what Pres. Uchtdorf was referencing.
I believe the quote comes from Elder Oaks. While there is no required height for a testimony to get into the chapel, there apparently is to get into the temple, since you must have “a testimony of” God, etc., presumably using the LDS.org definition of testimony, to get a temple recommend.
Roy wrote:I have a testimony or story of my faith crisis and how it changed me in very painful/impactful ways. At the same time
God was with meand I felt Him more than any other time because I needed Him more. My experience was of love and acceptance and it was powerful for me. It left me giving more focus to people and less to rules. In a somewhat ironic way I feel a kinship to the 14 yr old JS. I feel that God connected with me in a personally powerful way and almost nobody around me wants to hear it because it doesn’t support their assumptions.
So the question comes back around. Do I have a testimony? Does my testimony count? Or does a testimony need to be an affirmation of the 5 pillars of Mormonism in order to be valid?
This is how I feel, too. Thanks for putting it so well.
Daeruin wrote:I believe the quote comes from Elder Oaks.
While there is no required height for a testimony to get into the chapel, there apparently is to get into the temple, since you must have “a testimony of” God, etc., presumably using the LDS.org definition of testimony, to get a temple recommend.
I suppose in that context, it all depends on who is using the LDS.org definition. I certainly was unaware that there was a definition before you posted it, and over the years I’ve been on both sides of the interview many times – never with that definition in mind. Even in my more orthodox days I interpreted it much more as a belief. Since the interviewer shouldn’t be asking anything more than the question as written, he should not be defining testimony for you. I think like many other things, it’s up to you to decide if you have a testimony regardless of how someone else defines the word.
Quote:I think like many other things, it’s up to you to decide if you have a testimony regardless of how someone else defines the word.
This.
:thumbup: In the legal sense, a testimony is simply an explanation of what you think, feel, have experienced, know, etc. It is a response to questions you are asked.
In the end, a testimony is whatever it is for you – no matter what it is for anyone else.
I like this thread…it’s a good discussion, and sincere questions with good responses. Daeruin wrote:I believe the quote comes from Elder Oaks.
While there is no required height for a testimony to get into the chapel, there apparently is to get into the temple, since you must have “a testimony of” God, etc., presumably using the LDS.org definition of testimony, to get a temple recommend.
It may sound like we are starting to split hairs or get nuanced with definitions and what words mean, but that is part of this discussion since we are talking about what a “testimony” is.To be accurate, to have a temple recommend, you need to answer “Yes” to the questions about having a testimony in God, Jesus and the Prophet. There is no question “Have you received a spiritual witness?”. It is left up to you to declare if you have a testimony or not, although there may be guidelines on what that means, I see scripture and quotes all over the place about it, so I think you just have to be reasonable, and not draconian. If you believe (not necessarily know), and have not received a witness by the Holy Ghost, you can still get a temple recommend (leadership roulette considered).
I also remember hearing stories from church leaders (even prophets) that openly shared they did not feel a witness for many years when they were young, but they never doubted, so they had their belief, their own testimony.
It would be super nice and clean if it all worked like the simple primary formula….pray, ask, receive Holy Ghost. As adults, we know it just doesn’t work that same way for all people…it is very personal. It is a testimony.
Quote:D&C 46
11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.
12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.
13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.
14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.
If others believe you have to have a spiritual witness and that is how their testimony is grounded, that is about them and their view. It doesn’t mean they’re universally correct.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.