Testimonies

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by tooblue

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

I agree with you that there is no integrity issue here. I think that most who say this (1) strongly believe it or (2) want to or (3) haven't thought too hard about the semantics they are utilizing.

I agree with others, however, that know is maybe not the best word if for no other reason that it implies that faith is not necessary. If you know something, you don't need faith. I don't think faith ever ceases to be necessary for 99.9999% of us and to imply otherwise sets the bar discouragingly high. I don't think this is purposeful on anyone's part, but I do think it is an argument for developing a better way to express things.

The reality (IMO) is that most of our "church speak" parrots what we have heard others say or is what we think we ought to say. On the other hand, I have to recognize that if I am very critical of anyone elses testimony that I am perhaps making a larger error. Sort of a mote/beam scenario. I think, however, that there is nothing wrong with determining for ones self how they ought to express these things with what SIEQ said in mind if it can be done without expecting others to have drawn these distinctions.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by pelagius

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.

Ah, I see what your point was now.

But how many times have you heard somebody say "εν αρχη ην ο λογος" in church? It's not the same as saying "In the beginning was the word." Each one of those words translates into an English word, but not an equivalent word. αρχη, for example, does not only mean "beginning;" the same word can be used to mean "rule" (hence, anarchy, monarch, et cetera). This gives αρχη a dual nature to English translators that did not exist for the Greeks.

The much more significant word is λογος, which is translated as "word," but does not just mean "word." Any good Greek lexicon will have a huge section on the word λογος, outlining the various things it can mean: word, speech, saying, plan, instruction, and more. One especially interesting translation I have seen translates the word into "plan," and another, "council." Understanding the different things that λογος connotes makes John 1:1 take on an entirely different meaning.

Oft repeated, yes; but not fully understood. There's a depth to that verse that likely nobody has fully gauged, but which few have even bothered trying to gauge. To me, my signature fully embodies the conundrum we have been discussing. It is not enough to simply parrot the words "in the beginning was the word," or even to accept them as true. Once we have reached that stage, there remains an abundance of truth and knowledge which we have the duty to try to obtain.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Belief or apostasy is always cultural, at bottom.

SO you're just as deluded as the rest of us, you just picked a different culture?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I agree with you that there is no integrity issue here. I think that most who say this (1) strongly believe it or (2) want to or (3) haven't thought too hard about the semantics they are utilizing.

I agree with others, however, that know is maybe not the best word if for no other reason that it implies that faith is not necessary. If you know something, you don't need faith. I don't think faith ever ceases to be necessary for 99.9999% of us and to imply otherwise sets the bar discouragingly high. I don't think this is purposeful on anyone's part, but I do think it is an argument for developing a better way to express things.

The reality (IMO) is that most of our "church speak" parrots what we have heard others say or is what we think we ought to say. On the other hand, I have to recognize that if I am very critical of anyone elses testimony that I am perhaps making a larger error. Sort of a mote/beam scenario. I think, however, that there is nothing wrong with determining for ones self how they ought to express these things with what SIEQ said in mind if it can be done without expecting others to have drawn these distinctions.

We certainly parrot what others say and the language of our religiosity is culturally unique. It can be directly attributed to the Book of Mormon and I personally worry that too much analysis of the language, word usage and semantics ultimately diminishes the plainness and clarity of writings I consider sacred scripture.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by creekster

SO you're just as deluded as the rest of us, you just picked a different culture?

.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

Ah, I see what your point was now.

But how many times have you heard somebody say "εν αρχη ην ο λογος" in church? It's not the same as saying "In the beginning was the word." Each one of those words translates into an English word, but not an equivalent word. αρχη, for example, does not only mean "beginning;" the same word can be used to mean "rule" (hence, anarchy, mon[arch[/i], et cetera). This gives αρχη a dual nature to English translators that did not exist for the Greeks.

The much more significant word is λογος, which is translated as "word," but does not just mean "word." Any good Greek lexicon will have a huge section on the word λογος, outlining the various things it can mean: word, speech, saying, plan, instruction, and more. One especially interesting translation I have seen translates the word into "plan," and another, "council." Understanding the different things that λογος connotes makes John 1:1 take on an entirely different meaning.

Oft repeated, yes; but not fully understood. There's a depth to that verse that likely nobody has fully gauged, but which few have even bothered trying to gauge. To me, my signature fully embodies the conundrum we have been discussing. It is not enough to simply parrot the words "in the beginning was the word," or even to accept them as true. Once we have reached that stage, there remains an abundance of truth and knowledge which we have the duty to try to obtain.

Very good point.

I simply look for the Spirit of the occasion, but rarely remember a testimony.

Wonderful play with Greek. I hadn't thought about it that way, as my play with Greek was so long ago.

The testimonies I look for, are as the youth begin to sample "it", a stake patriarch, or the temple president, or somebody who has just dealt with death.

However, many of the thankimonies are for the giver, not the listeners.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Venkman

This is an interesting thread. So basically, people who state they "know the gospel is true" are either self-important rameupton-types or insincere folks bowing to peer pressure.

A third, more radical, theory is that some folks might actually believe that they "know" the gospel is true.

Finally, let me just say that I don't begrudge anyone who bears their testimony whether they know or believe. I just find it amusing that we're attempting to judge the strength or weakness of our brothers and sisters testimonies.

Testimony meetings must really suck for some of you guys.

Like an arrow you shoot straight for a false dilemma.

"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."

It seems clear to me that I'm allowing for people to say "I know" because the claim is consistent with their "personal integrity," or with what they believe to be true.

Get a hold of yourself and try not to misconstrue what others write. No one is attempting to judge the strengths or weaknesses of others testimonies.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

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.

I agree, and I'm not making such an equation. Those who have accused me of this haven't read what I wrote, and/or didn't understand what I wrote. The entire issue is one giant red herring.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I agree with you that there is no integrity issue here. I think that most who say this (1) strongly believe it or (2) want to or (3) haven't thought too hard about the semantics they are utilizing.

I agree with others, however, that know is maybe not the best word if for no other reason that it implies that faith is not necessary. If you know something, you don't need faith. I don't think faith ever ceases to be necessary for 99.9999% of us and to imply otherwise sets the bar discouragingly high. I don't think this is purposeful on anyone's part, but I do think it is an argument for developing a better way to express things.

The reality (IMO) is that most of our "church speak" parrots what we have heard others say or is what we think we ought to say. On the other hand, I have to recognize that if I am very critical of anyone elses testimony that I am perhaps making a larger error. Sort of a mote/beam scenario. I think, however, that there is nothing wrong with determining for ones self how they ought to express these things with what SIEQ said in mind if it can be done without expecting others to have drawn these distinctions.

This is very much what I'm trying to get at. My mentioning of integrity has been made much of, but I was trying to allow for people who are simply stating what they believe in strong terms.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

"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."

Get a hold of yourself and try not to misconstrue what others write. No one is attempting to judge the strengths or weaknesses of others testimonies.

But why wonder? It does sound as if you're trying to somehow determine whether they are being genuine or not. My apologies if that's not what you meant.