Testimonies

[SeattleUte]

Belief or apostasy is always cultural, at bottom.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

A little exposure to philosophy teaches most people that absolute knowledge about anything is pretty tenuous. When someone asserts "I know" without qualification, I can't help but wonder if they are being true to their sense of personal integrity or if they are just being prim and self-indulgent. A better question than "What do I know?" implied in a testimony meeting is "How do I live?"

Something like, "I have felt the Spirit and plan to be the best Latter-day Saint I can be because I think it's the best thing to do with my life," has a kind of pure sincerity to it. It's built on "belonging" more than "knowing." It's a declaration that one belongs to Jesus and feels at home in the Church. It lacks the kind of competitive posturing and sanctimony, the whiff of rameumptom, that sometimes drifts through a testimony meeting.

While I don't disagree with your observations, I do contend with your notion of sincerity. Perhaps such wording as you recommend above would be more palatable to individuals learned in the art of language and personal expression. However, the scriptures admonish all would-be followers of Christ to 'know' for themselves of the truthfulness of all things.

Moro. 10: 3-5
3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

I think it unwise to equate the expression ‘I know these things are true’ to a lack of personal integrity.

[All-American]

Echoing a sentiment at least partially elaborated upon, we ought first to define the word "know." What fact or idea do we really "know" beyond a shadow of a doubt? How many potential flaws and gaps exist in our knowledge? Many of the things we "know" we simply accept because of Occam's razor-- that is, it is the answer that most satisfactorily explains the phenomena that has been observed. If you are looking for some parcel of knowledge that is indisputable, you will not go any further than cogito ergo sum.

I find testimony meetings to be somewhat problematic for perhaps the opposite reason that most would. I consider the claims of the church to be as real as the existence of the table in the room (and I promise there is a table in the room. Just trust me on this one). But I don't feel the need to reiterate to everybody the idea that the table exists on a monthly basis. The table is there, yes-- so what? What should I do with the table? How can I use the table to better live my life? Does it do me any good or render the table more useful to knock on its surface periodically just to make sure that it does, in fact, exist? Something in me struggles to believe that the purpose of testimony meetings is to restate a given number of ideas that all (or nearly all) present already accept as true. If anything, they should reflect the expansion or solidification of our understanding, and encourage mutual growth.

[RockyBalboa]

I'm happy my testimony is very simple.

You guys are your own worst enemies when it comes to this topic.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by All-American

Echoing a sentiment at least partially elaborated upon, we ought first to define the word "know." What fact or idea do we really "know" beyond a shadow of a doubt? How many potential flaws and gaps exist in our knowledge? Many of the things we "know" we simply accept because of Occum's razor-- that is, it is the answer that most satisfactorily explains the phenomena that has been observed. If you are looking for some parcel of knowledge that is indisputable, you will not go any further than cogito ergo sum.

I find testimony meetings to be somewhat problematic for perhaps the opposite reason that most would. I consider the claims of the church to be as real as the existence of the table in the room (and I promise there is a table in the room. Just trust me on this one). But I don't feel the need to reiterate to everybody the idea that the table exists on a monthly basis. The table is there, yes-- so what? What should I do with the table? How can I use the table to better live my life? Does it do me any good or render the table more useful to knock on its surface periodically just to make sure that it does, in fact, exist? Something in me struggles to believe that the purpose of testimony meetings is to restate a given number of ideas that all (or nearly all) present already accept as true. If anything, they should reflect the expansion or solidification of our understanding, and encourage mutual growth.

While I understand the desire to be more mindful of the words we use I also feel we should be very careful to remember sharing a testimony is an exercise in faith.

Elder Ballard stated;

"My experience throughout the Church leads me to worry that too many of our members’ testimonies linger on “I am thankful” and “I love,” and too few are able to say with humble but sincere clarity, “I know.” As a result, our meetings sometimes lack the testimony-rich, spiritual underpinnings that stir the soul and have meaningful, positive impact on the lives of all those who hear them."

[FarrahWaters]

Originally Posted by All-American

Echoing a sentiment at least partially elaborated upon, we ought first to define the word "know." What fact or idea do we really "know" beyond a shadow of a doubt? How many potential flaws and gaps exist in our knowledge? Many of the things we "know" we simply accept because of Occum's razor-- that is, it is the answer that most satisfactorily explains the phenomena that has been observed. If you are looking for some parcel of knowledge that is indisputable, you will not go any further than cogito ergo sum.

I find testimony meetings to be somewhat problematic for perhaps the opposite reason that most would. I consider the claims of the church to be as real as the existence of the table in the room (and I promise there is a table in the room. Just trust me on this one). But I don't feel the need to reiterate to everybody the idea that the table exists on a monthly basis. The table is there, yes-- so what? What should I do with the table? How can I use the table to better live my life? Does it do me any good or render the table more useful to knock on its surface periodically just to make sure that it does, in fact, exist? Something in me struggles to believe that the purpose of testimony meetings is to restate a given number of ideas that all (or nearly all) present already accept as true. If anything, they should reflect the expansion or solidification of our understanding, and encourage mutual growth.

Interesting ideas, AA. When I hear a testimony expressed that goes beyond the basic "I know that the Church is true" sentiment, this is when I feel the Spirit more strongly.

However, I don't think all the semantical hair-splittings of "know" and "believe" are really necessary. I don't judge anyone for using "know" instead of "strongly believe".

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by All-American

Something in me struggles to believe that the purpose of testimony meetings is to restate a given number of ideas that all (or nearly all) present already accept as true.
------------------------------------------
εν αρχη ην ο λογος

Yet, at the end of every post you restate that, "In the Beginning was the Word."

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Yet, at the end of every post you restate that, "In the Beginning was the Word."

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

I'm not sure I'm smelling what you're stepping in. Could you explain?

[All-American]

I'm noticing that I left out an important thought in my first post. Because "knowledge" is ultimately uncertain, CAN we distinguish "strongly believe" from "know"? Certainly, to "know" something states the claim more strongly than to "strongly believe" it, but the line between the two doesn't seem to exist, and the difference is one of magnitude rather than substance.

Therefore, I have no quarrel with anybody who states that he knows something, even if there are questions that remain. People have "known" that the earth revolves around the sun for hundreds of years, but unresolved problems have existed in our theories for nearly as long. It was only since Einstein's theory of relativity gained approval that scientists could explain, for example, inexplicable deviations in the movements of some of the inner planets and stopped looking for the planet Vulcan.

I do believe we can "know" with a certainty that more than satisfies the degree of certainty necessary to be able to use the term with intellectual honesty.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by All-American

I'm not sure I'm smelling what you're stepping in. Could you explain?

Sorry, it wasn't a substantive comment. I guess I found the juxtaposition of your comment and your signature midly amusing. You expressed some concern about people restating things (in testimonies) that nearly all present accept as true. The first thing that came to my mind was that your signature has that same "repetitive truch" quality. I know repeating a statement that most of us accept as true in a signature is hardly the same as the repetitive nature of testimony meetings, but it still struck me as midly funny.

Sorry about distracting from your point.