What is a "testimony" and why do leaders believe it to be so fragile?

What exactly is a “testimony?” The word is used all the time at church and I have an idea of how I think others are defining the word based on context. It’s not how I’d define it.

What is the testimony actually of? At church words like the gospel, church, the restoration, Jesus, and priesthood authority are used interchangeably. As is the case in the quote from the email, usually when people at church talk about “testimony” there’s no qualifier. Maybe it’s meant to be open-ended, to nebulously refer to all those things I mentioned.

What’s the obsession with a testimony being “stronger” and what does it mean to strengthen a testimony? Those kinds of talks and lessons at church are my pet peeve. When is a testimony enough? Why does it always have to be strengthened?

To me, a testimony has 2 parts, an internal part (morals/ethics to start), and an external part (actions).

– People need personal values/morals/ethics to make decisions as part of a group. A testimony can be a comforting summary of those things and motivate a person to make choices.

– People use their testimonies to connect with others and to virtue signal how that individual should be judged by others. It’s more of a “I meet the minimum value of righteous – so I qualify to hang out with you in your group”.

Having a testimony is about certainty and complacency in one’s world view. It’s the opposite of critical thinking. Sometimes a person can adapt and have a nuanced view that takes in both the certainty and uncertainty and is more balanced.

To me, a testimony is more to display the markers that “you have arrived – you have the socially acceptable level of certainty and complacency”.

I have a testimony that when the thermometer says it’s 20°F outside that it’s cold out. I don’t need to remind myself of this daily. I don’t lose that testimony when it’s 105°F outside in the summer. I retain that testimony for months on end without ever experiencing the cold during that interim. Even if the thermometer is broken, I’ll go on believing that when a thermometer says it’s 20°F outside then it is indeed cold outside. My testimony of that isn’t going to crumble even if a butterfly farts on the other side of the world.

Yet at church there’s a near obsession with testimonies, how strong they are, and making sure it doesn’t wilt in the sun. Isn’t a testimony a thing that just is? If a testimony can be weakened so easily does it deserve to stand?

It really depends on how strong that “testimony” is, is it wrapped in the correct packaging (my husband hates it when I convert “righteous choices” to “morals” or “values” – the connotation of “righteous” is connected to God – so when I switching to “God-neutral” terms, it bothers him, for example), and whether the testimony is championing individual action in the “correct” way. A testimony to serve in food kitchens is a good thing. A testimony to bypass a mission to spend a year giving humanitarian aid with a non-church group is socially unacceptable (or at least frowned upon).

Wouldn’t it be a good thing to shed a “testimony” that is no longer serving us? Like if every single time I went outside when thermometers registered 20°F and it was blazing hot outside. If that were to happen with consistency I’d lose my previous testimony and form another. I wouldn’t lament a crumbled testimony that 20°F = cold and fight to preserve it, I’d adapt and continue to move forward.

But of course when we talk of strong testimonies at church I don’t think we’re really saying any of that. I think it could be more accurately characterized as not losing trust in god during hard times, not losing trust in leaders that have lost some level of trust, or increasing loyalty to the church during a period when many are leaving. We don’t speak with that level of plainness at church, the subject is masked in code speak.

I HATE that so much of this is masked in code speak. I wish that someone had sat down with me in my 20’s and told me what was what plainly about all this.

To me, a testimony has 2 parts, an internal part (morals/ethics to start), and an external part (actions).

– People need personal values/morals/ethics to make decisions as part of a group. A testimony can be a comforting summary of those things and motivate a person to make choices.

Interesting take.

I HATE that so much of this is masked in code speak. I wish that someone had sat down with me in my 20’s and told me what was what plainly about all this.

When it comes to the obsession with strengthening testimonies I think the subject that’s really being addressed is ensuring a person always remains active in the church. Not a bad thing but I feel that our efforts would be better spent on making the church a place that naturally attracts people. Don’t lean on people to never leave, give them a reason to stay.

It must also come down to the impression something leaves with us. 20°F leaves an impression. We remember it and want to prepare for it in the future. Missions leave a strong impression as well, otherwise people wouldn’t talk about them decades later. Your average Sunday at church? I dunno, maybe the effects are more cumulative and maybe it’s more down the the individual. Maybe that’s also what they mean by strengthening a testimony, waiting for that cumulative effect to gain some inertia. Again, I don’t always feel like that’s what people are saying when they talk of strengthening testimines.

I completely agree. With what people mean when they talk about strengthening testimonies, I do wish people would speak plainly about what exactly they mean. Similar to what you and AmyJ were talking about with code speak, there is quite a bit in this church that has a certain meaning in our vernacular that doesn’t exist elsewhere. Sometimes I wonder if people in our church even know what it is that they mean exactly when using words and phrases that are common in our culture. Or at least know how they sound to non-members.

But getting back to testimonies and the idea of constantly strengthening it. With how you described cumulative gains and having experiences that refresh your beliefs, in my mind, that would be better described as faith building. With how faith and testimony sometimes get used interchangeably, maybe that’s what people mean sometimes. Or maybe it isn’t. I don’t know. Going back to how people talk about their testimony as if it is an object, maybe it’s some concept that I have yet to wrap my head around. Again, speaking plainly would go a long way with that.

I am thinking of an analogy where LDS testimony is a train.

The train is great. Many people have used it before me with successful results. The train is the LDS worldview and all of the train cars are the points of belief. The train can connect me back to cities and communities that might be far away. My future life is the unexplored wilderness. The train can bring structure to the unexplored wilderness but it does NOT go off-track very well.

In order to bring the train with me into my future life, I will need to constantly build a track for the train to inch forward upon. As I pray and read the scriptures I will have more experiences that I interpret as spiritual. Those experiences form the basis in my metaphor for additional rail and railroad ties.

Because the railroad works best with long and straight passage, I seek out land that fits this criteria. I may even need to alter the landscape to accommodate the train (build bridges over rivers or burrow tunnels through mountains). If I build carefully, I will be able to pass on the train to my children and they will have the opportunity of using my train and my track until they are old enough to start building their own track(s).

If I read the scriptures daily and pray to have spiritual experiences then I believe the likelihood of spiritual experiences will increase. I believe that even if the actual event (like getting a promotion) would have occurred without prayer and scripture study – the prayer and scripture study increases the odds that I will interpret this event from a spiritual perspective as a blessing and maybe even as proof that God is real, is willing to intervene on my behalf, and perhaps to validate the rest of the points of belief in the LDS worldview. Maybe I feel that the promotion happened because of my scripture study and it was RMN that encouraged me to read my scriptures, so that validates my belief in RMN as a prophet etc.

I don’t disagree with you Roy, but herein lies the rub – the T Rex in the garden. When daily prayer, scripture study, etc., don’t lead to the promotion – or the desired job (or any job when you need one) or anything other expectation the belief breaks down – sometimes leading to faith crisis.

“With frightening speed, a testimony that is not nourished daily ‘by the good word of God’ [Moroni 6:4] can crumble. Thus, the antidote to Satan’s scheme is clear: we need daily experiences worshipping the Lord and studying His gospel.”

— President Russell M. Nelson, “The Power of Spiritual Momentum.”

It is also interesting that Satan is depicted as scheming/tricking you into forgetting about your “testimony.”

“With frightening speed, a testimony that is not nourished daily ‘by the good word of God’ [Moroni 6:4] can crumble. Thus, the antidote to Satan’s scheme is clear: we need daily experiences worshipping the Lord and studying His gospel.”

— President Russell M. Nelson, “The Power of Spiritual Momentum.”

Leading off stoking fears. Always cool. I digress.

As to why leaders believe testimonies to be fragile, I think it is part of a larger pattern of ascribing too much influence to Satan. In LDS culture Satan is always there trying to sabotage us and has quite a lot of power compared to the Holy Ghost, who can be banished by a single impure thought. The way people talk at church makes it seem like the odds are strongly in Satan’s favor. All he needs to do is plant a single doubt in someone’s mind, and decades-long testimonies crumble while the Holy Ghost sits helplessly on the sidelines because the person wasn’t “worthy” of assistance.

I agree with your assessment Arrakeen, and I think it’s somewhat more prevalent in the church than other churches. I have sat through a few sacrament meetings (and more than one GC talk) where Satan is mentioned far more than God or Jesus. The thing is, I don’t believe that’s how God really works – allowing an evil supernatural being who is being punished more power/influence than the good supernatural power that is itself a God (the Holy Ghost). Do we really believe God is limited in that way? (I don’t.) Part of my “testimony” (belief) that there is no actual Satan hinges on this type of belief. That and I don’t believe there are supernatural unseen beings who are capable of influencing our thoughts or actions.