Testimonies

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Venkman

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

I'm simply observing that an environment wherein some people feel pressured to climb a kind of testimony ladder from statements of the plausible to the wrote to the absolutely certain can cultivate insincerity for a variety of reasons. Moreover, as a philosopher I know that all knowledge claims are quite tenuous, and the kind of absolute, unqualified knowledge that is occasionally proffered carries naivete even when sincere.

An environment wherein such pressure is lessened is one wherein testimonies need not be accompanied by the trappings of group think. If the approach to relating a testimony I advocated above were more common, the pressures of expectation or competitiveness could be lessened and then the stronger knowledge claims would have a more sincere air. That's what I'm getting at in my initial comment.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm simply observing that an environment wherein some people feel pressured to climb a kind of testimony ladder from statements of the plausible to the wrote to the absolutely certain can cultivate insincerity for a variety of reasons. Moreover, as a philosopher I know that all knowledge claims are quite tenuous, and the kind of absolute, unqualified knowledge that is occasionally proffered carries naivete even when sincere.

An environment wherein such pressure is lessened is one wherein testimonies need not be accompanied by the trappings of group think. If the approach to relating a testimony I advocated above were more common, the pressures of expectation or competitiveness could be lessened and then the stronger knowledge claims would have a more sincere air. That's what I'm getting at in my initial comment.

I agree with SIEQ, and I think the concept is deeper than just a philosophical definition of knowledge.

There is definitely pressure for members to bear testimony with powerful language.

We teach our children to use "I know" in testimonies. There is no room for "I believe". It's not a case of me judging everyone's testimony. Testimonies are judged by the collective group through comments in Sunday School and Priesthood about the testimonies from Testimony Meeting. We are taught by general and local leaders quite often about how to judge a testimony, i.e. see Elder Ballard's quote in this thread and see Elder Uchdtorf's talk last conference.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

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.

My intent was not to accuse and paint the discussion in extremes. I understood what you wrote in part and hoped for greater clarification.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm simply observing that an environment wherein some people feel pressured to climb a kind of testimony ladder from statements of the plausible to the wrote to the absolutely certain can cultivate insincerity for a variety of reasons. Moreover, as a philosopher I know that all knowledge claims are quite tenuous, and the kind of absolute, unqualified knowledge that is occasionally proffered carries naivete even when sincere.

An environment wherein such pressure is lessened is one wherein testimonies need not be accompanied by the trappings of group think. If the approach to relating a testimony I advocated above were more common, the pressures of expectation or competitiveness could be lessened and then the stronger knowledge claims would have a more sincere air. That's what I'm getting at in my initial comment.

I can agree with much of what you say. I can see how some might feel pressure to say "I know" when they merely believe. It's fine if you "just believe" and I don't think people should feel bad about themselves if that can't say they know the gospel is true.

But then again, it is possible to know the gospel is true. As someone pointed out earlier, "by the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things".

How exactly, as a philosopher, do you "know" that all knowledge claims are quite tenuous? Possible irony alert here??

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by tooblue

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.

I'm not sure I understand or share your concern. Please recall that this is against the back drop of ones own personal thought process about how best to express the concept of testimony.

As I think about what I am saying when I say that "I know" something, your point that I am repeating language from the BOM is clearly true. And yet, when Nephi says that he knows God lives, he means something different than I do. Nephi has had experiences with God and his messengers that I have not had. So if I say I know God lives, obviously I mean something different than he means. Based on this, I think it is not unreasonable for me to select different words. I don't see how this choice diminishes the clarity of what Nephi said. It is crystal clear to me what he said and I think it is pretty plain what he meant. On the contrary, I conclude that if I say exactly what he said that I either create confusion about what I mean or I minimize the power of what he said by adding to the perception that experiences like his are common.

Once again, I recognize that not everyone will have this thought process nor do I assert that what I conclude is correct for everyone or actually anyone but me. On the other hand, I don't think that my own personal conclusions dilute or diminish the plainess of scripture. For the reasons stated I think the opposite is true.

[tooblue]

I understood the original post I responded to as referring to the behavior of general members with regards to the language used when sharing a testimony.

I am satisfied with the greater clarifications offered in response to my thoughts.

You have now addressed the issue on very personal terms. I have no desire to contend with your thoughts or feelings that frame your individual thought process. I can appreciate that thought process; however, the differentiation you site is not that obvious to me.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

As I think about what I am saying when I say that "I know" something, your point that I am repeating language from the BOM is clearly true. And yet, when Nephi says that he knows God lives, he means something different than I do. Nephi has had experiences with God and his messengers that I have not had. So if I say I know God lives, obviously I mean something different than he means.

I too addressed the issue on very personal terms. I can understand that you do not share my concern. My statement that; ‘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,” is personally applicable to my thought process and me. Perhaps I should’ve been clearer.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I understood the original post I responded to as referring to the behavior of general members with regards to the language used when sharing a testimony.

I am satisfied with the greater clarifications offered in response to my thoughts.

You have now addressed the issue on very personal terms. I have no desire to contend with your thoughts or feelings that frame your individual thought process. I can appreciate that thought process; however, the differentiation you site is not that obvious to me.



I too addressed the issue on very personal terms. I can understand that you do not share my concern. My statement that; ‘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,” is personally applicable to my thought process and me. Perhaps I should’ve been clearer.

Thanks for the clarification. I understand.

[il Padrino Ute]

All I know is that the clock moves slower during Sacrament Meeting on the first Sunday of each month. Hunger causes that.