Bearing testimony:

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

It WAS Times New Roman. Like I said, It's really not worth it.

I actually liked the look of it, it just hurt my eyes was all. That I was willing to read through the pain should be interpreted by you as the compliment that it is. :-)

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

It WAS Times New Roman. Like I said, It's really not worth it.

We might need to make a new "Font forum" for this thread.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Personal religious practices are exactly that. Most of us here are part of a rather unique subgroup that chooses to believe (or formerly believed) in an outpouring of prophetic pronouncements beginning with Joseph Smith and continuing, albeit in a manner that is increasingly less dramatic, to the present. What are these outpourings of spirit? To some they may be very specific announcements or instructions that must be followed. To others, they may be a profound but uncertain phenomenon to be interpreted and applied. All of these could be correct, and even true, in their sphere. I know what I know, and it is that I believe in the manifestations that I have received. This is why I practice as I do. I am not a child, and I have given it some thought and consideration over the years, and yet I am here, because I think this is truth and it is, for me, and it makes me happy. I believe others could experience and benefit from this same truth, but I certainly cannot condemn someone for declining to do so.

Some here have simple yet powerful beliefs; others are more complicated; still others have almost violently contrary opinions. At an intellectual level it is very interesting to read what has been discussed here the last few days. At a spiritual level, however, little posted here can help any one of us decide whether or not to be a good person, or to follow Christ, or to be baptized by one with authority. I, for one, will read Ehrman’s book and look forward to discussing it (or at least reading the discussions about it). Others may feel doing so takes them too far from their spiritual center. So be it. As MW points out, faith is a gift, as is testimony, etc., and we all have different levels of those gifts won in different ways. Regardless of where anyone may fall on the spectrum of belief about any given doctrine, I think the fact that we are spiritual beings by our nature is undeniable. We must believe and we all innately want to believe and the utter lack of belief is rare and even more rarely found in a happy person. Could this be explained by a “spiritual gene”, or by some physiological imperative in the wiring of our brain? Perhaps, but I don’t think so, and over my life I have reached conclusions about this that studies, or Bart Ehrman or even Seattle Ute are unlikely to sway.

So continue on, if it interests you. Study to your heart’s content. But never lose sight of the transcendent aspect of your existence that can lead to happiness and contentment. For me, I have found that contentment in the LDS church. My testimony of the goodness and the efficacy and the truth of the message presented by Joseph Smith and his successors will not turn on the date that some ancient scribe did or did not record the words attributed to Isaiah. I do want to know about these things, but I do not find them determinative.

A fascinating response, but if I were in a deposition I would request the witness to answer the question posed, not the one assumed.

My question is not with ambiguities, except insofar as the relate to the conveyance of the witness one receives. The Qualia is really almost impossible to accurately convey.

If I interpret your response to mean, "No, I have no problem at all putting to words what my testimony is, and what it means to me, it always comes out clearly without deviation," then it is a good thing.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Come on Arch. I would be willing to bet you could put a little thought into it and say something that reflected the ambiguities you have identified without 99% of the listening audience even appreciating it. I imagine you have a highly developed skill for that you apply at work.

At work, I advocate, so ambiguity is carefully crafted for limited purposes. And it is even more difficult with other crafters looking over one's shoulders.

I suppose, as discussed elsewhere concerning the gifts of the Spirit, the language of "knowing" something is true is what bothers me. This coming from a person who has had very significant outpourings, but still not certain what aspects of my empirical conscience was being affected. Discernment is difficult, and my experience in querying persons about spiritual experience is that some people interpret anything one is discussing during the "burning" is known. As for me, I'm less certain that's its intent, but rather an assurance at trying to communicate. My question sometimes is, "okay, you're there, what are you trying to communicate," then I strain for the whispers.

I do not find the whispers of Elijah easy to discern but rather extremely strenuous. Apparently, nobody else has ever experienced that struggle. So I am unique to quote Data.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

A fascinating response, but if I were in a deposition I would request the witness to answer the question posed, not the one assumed.

My question is not with ambiguities, except insofar as the relate to the conveyance of the witness one receives. The Qualia is really almost impossible to accurately convey.

If I interpret your response to mean, "No, I have no problem at all putting to words what my testimony is, and what it means to me, it always comes out clearly without deviation," then it is a good thing.

No, it really wasn't meant as an answer to your question. It was really my reaction to much of what I have read lately and perhaps would have been better posted over where Indycoug was (unfairly IMO) criticised for his contention that studying some things too much is a bad idea. It probably should have been posted there, but I wrote it off-line and then coudln't recall which thread had inspired it. Sorry

To answer your question: I always try to be honest in my testimony. I think lying in a testimony is almost certainly a bad thing, for obvious reasons. If you don't believe it, don't say it. That being said, I also don't find anything wrong with an honest statement of hope or belief. I know from expereince that some leaders don't think that is appropriate, but I personally have no issue with it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by creekster

Personal religious practices are exactly that. Most of us here are part of a rather unique subgroup that chooses to believe (or formerly believed) in an outpouring of prophetic
.....
goodness and the efficacy and the truth of the message presented by Joseph Smith and his successors will not turn on the date that some ancient scribe did or did not record the words attributed to Isaiah. I do want to know about these things, but I do not find them determinative.

Excellent thoughts, Creekster. Thanks.

[All-American]

Ambiguity is ubiquitous. No statement is without loopholes, provisos, or exceptions.

The more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing. Whereas "certain" used to mean 100% certain, it now means 90% certain. You just have to accept a certain amount of uncertainty built into the system. This is nothing new-- you don't know everything there is to know about the car you drive, the computer you type on, the food you eat, and so forth. As long as a spiritual pursuit is in part an intellectual pursuit, uncertainty is going to be a constant variable. That doesn't mean you should pull a Michael Jordan and inflate that .1%.