- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Some people have touched on this idea in other threads that are more specific but I couldn’t find a general topic about the testimony concept by itself. For example, members will repeatedly say how they know that the Church is true along with many other things. I guess my question is why are we encouraged to tell ourselves that we know about all these assertions that are clearly faith-based beliefs, not any kind of reliable knowledge? I don’t need to repeatedly tell myself that I know the sky is blue and that the sun will come up tomorrow. Maybe this is just another Mormon tradition where members do this mostly because they have seen others do it for so long. However, it is also part of the official doctrine and policies of the Church at this point because we still have entire meetings set aside for this and there are several temple interview questions about having a “testimony” as well. Basically we are led to believe that we should have a testimony of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the gospel, etc. and if we don’t then this is not acceptable for active members. Not having a testimony is seen as a problem that can and should be fixed.
I guess my biggest problem with this is that I don’t see what any of this really has to do with being a good Christian. It seems like someone could still love God and their neighbor and demonstrate faith, hope, and charity without any of this “knowledge.” In fact, in some cases this expected absolute conviction about the relative importance of the LDS Church detracts from and contradicts basic Christian principles. For example, there is a certain amount of disrespect for any members that have doubts or don’t believe all this as if this is entirely their fault and in some cases there is a feeling that unfaithful members are not welcome at Church because that would supposedly make them a hypocrite.
I don’t have any answers but honestly when I first became a member I didn’t “get” testimony meetings being once a month. I didn’t understand why people had to keep saying these things over and over and why they sounded like robots. I honestly thought to myself : “This testimony meeting stuff isn’t going to be around for ever … It seems like people don’t even want to go up there!” I think I was very wrong. 
I had to speak in church once about testimony and at the end spoke to those, myself included, that couldn’t say they “know” but just being able to say you believe or even hope would be a great help to all of us. I didn’t see much change in F&T meeting but one person did come up after and thank me and said that it applied to him. FWIW evangelicals that have testimony has part of their worship will use pretty much the same terms. GBSmith wrote:I had to speak in church once about testimony and at the end spoke to those, myself included, that couldn’t say they “know” but just being able to say you believe or even hope would be a great help to all of us.
Two months ago I got up and did the whole testimony thing, and said that ” I believe…”
After I sat down, TWO different ladies stood up and said arrogantly, and apologetically about what I said, “We all know this church is true… and we all know that JS was a prophet.” It was quite obvious directed at me, and quite frankly, I was a bit insulted, maybe even a bit embarrassed. Interesting enough, the BP did thank me standing up and said he appreciated my testimony.
DA, true story- Yesterday, we went through the GP manual lesson on FAITH in priesthood meeting. It went okay mostly, but one guy read the section where it says in affect that one has to have “PERFECT” faith. Then he made the comment, “that to have perfect faith, one must
know without any doubt….” I raised my hand, and said, “Well, I guess I’m screwed then.”
A visitor and one other guy both said. “Me too.”
Knowing without any doubt isn’t any kind of faith – most certainly not “perfect” faith. *SIGH* Sometimes people say really stupid things, which, ironically, is part of the post title on my personal blog tomorrow.
cwald wrote:DA, true story-
Yesterday, we went through the GP manual lesson on FAITH in priesthood meeting. It went okay mostly, but one guy read the section where it says in affect that one has to have “PERFECT” faith. Then he made the comment, “that to have perfect faith, one must
know without any doubt….” Exactly, rather than just admit that it doesn’t really make sense to claim that we
“know the Church is true”mostly based on feelings some members/leaders will try to re-define what it really means to know something, have faith, etc. In most cases it would probably be more accurate for people to simply say something like they believe the Church is good or that they feel good about it and they like the other members, etc. The problem is that the precedent has already been set; so members almost expect this kind of exaggerated language about supposedly knowing all of this beyond a shadow of a doubt and if anyone says something more realistic and subdued it is seen as weak and lacking in conviction by comparison. It seems like it would generally be more acceptable and well-received to simply pretend to know rather than to ever express any honest doubts or reservations about the Church to other members in a public setting. Consider the following quote by
Dallin H. Oaks:Quote:Another way to seek a testimony seems astonishing when compared with the methods of obtaining other knowledge. We gain or strengthen a testimony by bearing it. Someone even suggested that some testimonies are better gained on the feet bearing them than on the knees praying for them.
To me this almost sounds like, “Fake it until you make it.” Sure Church leaders will give lip service to honesty but sometimes it seems like if really forced to choose they will generally think members’ testimonies are more important than being completely honest with each other.
cwald wrote:DA, true story-
Yesterday, we went through the GP manual lesson on FAITH in priesthood meeting. It went okay mostly, but one guy read the section where it says in affect that one has to have “PERFECT” faith. Then he made the comment, “that to have perfect faith, one must
know without any doubt….” I raised my hand, and said, “Well, I guess I’m screwed then.”
A visitor and one other guy both said. “Me too.”
Interestingly, we had a lesson that was the complete opposite of that. The teacher said that doubt was a prerequisite of real faith (although not major doubt of course!!!)
SamBee wrote:cwald wrote:DA, true story-
Yesterday, we went through the GP manual lesson on FAITH in priesthood meeting. It went okay mostly, but one guy read the section where it says in affect that one has to have “PERFECT” faith. Then he made the comment, “that to have perfect faith, one must
know without any doubt….” I raised my hand, and said, “Well, I guess I’m screwed then.”
A visitor and one other guy both said. “Me too.”
Interestingly, we had a lesson that was the complete opposite of that. The teacher said that doubt was a prerequisite of real faith (although not major doubt of course!!!)
I was about to post that whole comment — that doubt is a precursor to faith. When I was was a full-time missionary, if non-members immediately accepted Joseph Smith was a prophet that was a warning sign. It meant they weren’t all there or weren’t being honest with us. The really strong converts went through a period of questioning until they came to their own conclusions about whether he was a prophet.
I think one should substitute “know” with “believe”, recognizing that belief is a continuum, just like the colors black and white are on a continuum.
And regarding TR questions — as a former Bishop’s counselor, I would rather grant a TR to someone who is willing to believe but who does so with reservations that shut them out of the temple and potentially hurt their faith even further by denying them a temple recommend. So, even desiring to believe, wanting something to be true, or considering something to be the most truth out there is enough belief. As it says in Alma 32, having only a little bit of faith is enough to get a person started.
Interesting, I had a woman approach me after a Sunday School lesson. She said “why is it that during Sacramement Fast and Testimony meeting everyone’s up there saying they know it’s true, as if they are trying to convince themselves?????”. In her mind, the whole meeting was almost like a therapy session for people who are doubters to try to convince themselves it’s true!!! My parents said the same thing when they came to my baptism years ago.
I had to explain “they think they are strengthening the other members by sharing their belief”. That’s how I interpret those kinds of testimony so it doesn’t bug me to hear it like it used to.
Another way to view F&T meetings is from a Fowler perspective. Public testimony sharing is largely a very Stage-3-ish exercise. Watch what is going on and listen. You have people getting up in front of the group repeating very similar ideas, if not literally using a specific cultural language and cliche’ phrases. A good portion of what this exercise does is reinforce that everyone pretty much believes the same thing, and feels strongly about it. People in a conventional-synthetic framework (Stage 3) generally find great value in this. It helps them feel connected to the group, which supports and nourishes their style of faith.
I really don’t mean all this in a cynical tone. This is positive and good for the majority of people. Why does it sound so awkward or weird to us? Because we are
NOTworking from that framework. To us, it can sound like the opposite, like people trying to convince themselves, not express surety. We see and hear the differences, not the sameness. I think we can find other ways to value and experience F&T meeting, but we have to understand it is a celebration of group cohesion and conformity. We can process that as threatening, which is natural. We can also enjoy it for what it is. As in all else, skip that SM service, or bring supplemental material if you don’t want to skip (or feel you can’t skip it).
*OR*
Let yourself be challenged by it
If I can add to what Brian said — although I’m finding it an uncomfortable place to be at time — Stage 4 — the Church has suddenly become a new experience for me all over again. There are other threads going on about boredom and repetition at Church — well, looking at a State 3 testimony from the perspective of State 4, or even finding State 5 reasons for enjoying testimony makes the whole Church experience/F&T meeting a new thing again. I wrote in another thread about how I went to a missionary discussion with the missionaries, willingly placing myself in an awkward situation where I might be expected to bear testimony etcetera. I went into that situation not knowing how I might react, or what might happen, and it made that whole experience a new thing for me again, even though I’ve taught scores of people in my lifetime.
So, for now, testimony meetings are partly a new experience for me all over again, and that can actually be refreshing. Refreshing and full of tension at the same time.
I’d try focusing on the things you do know. Like: I know I love my wife/kids/family.
I know my life would not be the same without the church.
If you believe in God or Jesus say it. (this may not work for some.?
Etc.
I think sometimes we need to give the word “know” a little wiggle room. Call it Mormon speak like the thees, thous, and such.
Try this: I faith in my knowledge of the church. Or I have a strong faith in…
I guess maybe I’m a sell-out as many on many other boards might say. But nobody else really knows either. Try substituting faith for knowelege, I can say without doubt I have faith in God/HF/Jesus. Or try I know my faith in the church is true. Your faith could be the church is bogus, but you are stating you belief/faith is a true belief or faith one way or the other.
I personally have a strong faith in God and Jesus so I have no problem stating it, but there are ways that can be edifing noneless even as an unsure believer or non-believer.
SilentDawning wrote:…Interesting, I had a woman approach me after a Sunday School lesson. She said “why is it that during Sacramement Fast and Testimony meeting everyone’s up there saying they know it’s true, as if they are trying to convince themselves?????”. In her mind, the whole meeting was almost like a therapy session for people who are doubters to try to convince themselves it’s true!!! My parents said the same thing when they came to my baptism years ago.
I had to explain “they think they are strengthening the other members by sharing their belief”. That’s how I interpret those kinds of testimony so it doesn’t bug me to hear it like it used to.
Brian Johnston wrote:…Watch what is going on and listen. You have people getting up in front of the group repeating very similar ideas, if not literally using a specific cultural language and cliche’ phrases.
A good portion of what this exercise does is reinforce that everyone pretty much believes the same thing, and feels strongly about it. People in a conventional-synthetic framework (Stage 3) generally find great value in this. It helps them feel connected to the group, which supports and nourishes their style of faith….it is a celebration of group cohesion and conformity.
I understand some of the positive and well-meaning intentions behind this such as trying to build up and support each other’s faith in the Church. However, like many other Church doctrines and policies it has been taken to extremes to the point that having a “testimony” of what seems like 1001 different things is now considered an expected requirement for full-fellowship and even salvation. At the same time, most honest doubts have been effectively suppressed to the point that in many cases it is far easier for members to just keep quiet about any legitimate questions or concerns or even pretend to believe all this rather than to ever openly admit any doubts to active members.
Basically this testimony doctrine is another example of the Church typically promoting an all-or-nothing mindset where there is no gray area or much tolerance for different opinions. I could see this approach making sense if you had a relatively convincing and bulletproof story but in our case the Church is currently relying heavily on things like warm fuzzy feelings, whitewashed history, faith-promoting rumors, etc. to maintain belief in some of their fantastic claims. Even though denial is a fairly effective way to combat people’s doubts in many cases it doesn’t really make sense to me as a long-term solution to some of the strongest challenges the Church is facing that are never going to go away (Luke 8:17).
DevilsAdvocate wrote:I could see this approach making sense if you had a relatively convincing and bulletproof story but in our case the Church is currently relying heavily on things like warm fuzzy feelings, whitewashed history, faith-promoting rumors, etc. to maintain belief in some of their fantastic claims.
I totally get what you are saying, but this is the same process that happens all the time throughout history. Why didn’t the Catholic Church just ‘fess up about the earth revolving around the sun? Why did they continue saying the earth was the center of the universe for hundreds of years? Galileo was an individual that “evolved” faster than his tribe could tolerate. It would be nice if the whole world moved in sync with our views, but it just doesn’t.
Life will unfold as it does, when it is ready, when the time is right. That’s my opinion.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Even though denial is a fairly effective way to combat people’s doubts in many cases it doesn’t really make sense to me as a long-term solution to some of the strongest challenges the Church is facing that are never going to go away (Luke 8:17).
It isn’t a long-term solution. You are right. Eating healthy, organic food isn’t a long term solution for dying either. It just might be the best, even if imperfect, solution. Nothing is permanent. Change must happen. It will happen when it can and when it should.
I try to see the resistance to change as a positive characteristic sometimes. I personally like change, and want it fast. But resistance to change is also an important part of creating stable culture, stable religion and civilized society. It’s an interplay of forces.
While I agree with DA on this….think about the alternatives. You could be Catholic — but it has its own historical skeletons and wild claims — such as the sale of indulgences, the totalitarian approach of the Inquisition, the Crusades and pogroms, as well as its denial of scientific facts — like earth revolving around the sun. You could be protestant, but I find that hard to believe as Protestantism is largely a reaction to the Catholic church.
Plus, the doctrines of historical Christianity are in some ways harder to accept than the LDS doctrines — such as salvation by faith alone (a free lunch in my view), the fact that all people who die without accepting Christ, including babies, are going straight to hell, and their treatment of other faiths like Mormons (which in my view, has cut me off from ever considering those antagonistic religions if I ever get totally disaffected from Mormonism).
I say — learn to be Mormon for reasons other than subjective warm fuzzies. Embrace them when they come, acknowledge they exist, but recognize the fruits of living the religion, and recognize the blights on all religions out there. Celebrate the positives. If your life is built around Mormonism, find ways of participating and living the clean life for reasons other than, or in addition to the warm fuzzies.
I’m on that plan now and it seems to be working quite well for the last month or so….the angst has reduced significantly. I actually felt part of the community when I bore my testimony about feeling close to God after reflecting on certain passages and stories in the Book of Mormon a while ago, in spite of wondering whether its historical roots are what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.