Origins of the institution of 'testimony' in the CoJCoLDS

[_mormonmistress]

A study published by researchers at John Hopkins University (Baltimore, Maryland) concluded that psilocybin, a hallucinogenic drug, causes experiences of “substantial personal meaning and spiritual significance” in users. A majority of the participants felt a better sense of well-being, even months after consuming the drug. Researchers expect that the results can be used for further investigation of psychoactive substances and cognition.

I've had psilocybin (magic mushies) and although I didn't have a spiritual experience as such, it definitely was mind altering. The leaves on the floor grew legs and started walking, the dart board grew fur and started running across the wall! Flowers fell from the sky and the grass outside felt like soft carpet to walk on. The world was indeed a much nicer and more interesting place to be in. I can well imagine that if I hadn't known I was on drugs, I would have either thought it was spiritual, or that I had gone insane. Either way, it was an experience I wouldn't have foregone.

Never did it again though, as the nausea and stomach pain from eating the mushrooms, prior to the hallucinating, was enough to put me off. Horrible. I guess by doing it in a lab, those nasty side effects from eating poisonous mushrooms, were either eliminated or minimised!

[_gramps]

Okay, first post here, so go easy on me!

I like the subject of "testimony," and think it will become even more emphasized in Mormonism as further scientific evidence reveals more challenges for the member to believe the historical claims of Joseph. Timely, since the "Lamanite" issue could be one of those problems developing as we speak.

So, another thought. I agree that "gaining a testimony" is quite unique to Mormonism in my experience of religions. Perhaps a reason for that is the emphasis on the superiority of "spiritual witness" over "man's logic." If a person can have a "witness" of something being true, then it takes an enormous amount of logic and reason to change his mind. Maybe Joseph understood this, to a degree, and in his rapid-fire quest to build a religion, he found that "facilitating" a spiritual witness was quite successful in gaining converts.

At the Sunstone Symposium recently, Dr. Robert Beckstead presented a theory on Joseph's intentional inducement of visionary experiences by the use of "entheogens" (hallucinogenic substances in a religious setting)) He gave a compelling (in my opinion) argument that Joseph not only had access to effective hallucinogenics, but he also had relationships with various "Shamans and Medicine Men" who taught him how to induce visions and other spiritual experiences. An interesting read:

http://www.mormonelixirs.org/assets/pdf ... shroom.pdf

One clip:

"In the very first conference of the church in June 1830 in Fayette, New York, Joseph Smith recorded '...we partook together of the emblems of the body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ...had the heavens opened to their view, (and beheld Jesus Christ).

Heavenly manifestations occurred in a March 18th 1833 sacrament meeting held in Kirtland Ohio under the direction of Joseph Smith.

"Bro Joseph... promised that the pure in heart that were present should see a heavenly vision...after which the bread and wine was distributed by Bro Joseph after which many of the brethren saw a heavenly vision of the savior and concourses of angels..."

Can you imagine, having had this sort of "spiritual experience," no matter how it was induced (particularly if you didn't understand that it could have been induced by drugs....), ever being able to deny what you perceived it meant to you? In other words, you had the "experience," and then you shared it with others, and they shared theirs with you, I imagine it would be next to impossible to convince you it was anything less than a message from heaven!

Today, no drugs are used, but the physiology of fasting, group dynamics, and the very suggestion that you "should" experience a witness confirming the truthiness of the gospel...all compare to the experience of the early saints. And it seems we have the same degree of stubbornness in members who have had their "witness" to use any kind of normal logic and reason to test the claims of the church.

They already "know!"

Wow! Great first post.

I've tried the mushrooms and datura.

If anyone is now thinking about trying datura, I only suggest that one seriously study up on it before trying it.

Crazy stuff. Strong and powerful. You will see all kinds of things.

My friend who ingested it at the same time I did, didn't fare so well. Never recovered.

I think I recovered, but.....

[_Chap]

Chap,

I can maybe post a synopsis later. For now, I'll refer you to the Sunstone mp3 order page. You can search for presentations by speaker name, or in other ways.

They badly need a site redesign. It's a mess. But they certainly do have brilliant presenters! ;-)

http://www.sunstoneonline.com/symposium/symp-mp3s.asp

Don

My attempts to pay for this mp3 and download it do not seem to work. After I put in my card details I was told there would be no charge ... then nothing happened. Oh well ...

I am not sure, from what you tell me about your talk, whether it directly addresses my question. What I am interested to know is when the specifically LDS practice of repeated individual testimony bearing based purely on inner conviction became common in the church. The witnesses to the plates did not purport to give 'testimony' of this kind.

So when did it start? Was it, for instance, common in the time of Brigham Young for LDS to stand up in public and say such things as "I know the Church is true, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God", and to induce their barely articulate children to do the same? When did it become common for LDS to speak of 'gaining a testimony" of of "losing" one?

Please note I am not really concerned here with the means (chemical, social or otherwise) by which Joseph Smith may have induced others to see visions or to believe in his account of his prophetic role. My question is purely about when a certain means of claiming LDS identity through 'testimony-bearing' actually first appeared on the scene.

Like so many LDS institutions, the use of 'testimony' in the way now common does not seem to be evidenced in the Book of Mormon, where it seems to mean no more than 'witness' or 'evidence' in the usual sense familiar from the KJV. So who invented the current practice, and when?

[_msnobody]

Don, Are you accepting donations toward your research and work? If so, how would one go about contributing to your work?

[_harmony]

I am not sure, from what you tell me about your talk, whether it directly addresses my question. What I am interested to know is when the specifically LDS practice of repeated individual testimony bearing based purely on inner conviction became common in the church. The witnesses to the plates did not purport to give 'testimony' of this kind.

So when did it start? Was it, for instance, common in the time of Brigham Young for LDS to stand up in public and say such things as "I know the Church is true, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God", and to induce their barely articulate children to do the same? When did it become common for LDS to speak of 'gaining a testimony" of of "losing" one?

Please note I am not really concerned here with the means (chemical, social or otherwise) by which Joseph Smith may have induced others to see visions or to believe in his account of his prophetic role. My question is purely about when a certain means of claiming LDS identity through 'testimony-bearing' actually first appeared on the scene.

Like so many LDS institutions, the use of 'testimony' in the way now common does not seem to be evidenced in the Book of Mormon, where it seems to mean no more than 'witness' or 'evidence' in the usual sense familiar from the KJV. So who invented the current practice, and when?

When did the once a month Fast and Testimony meeting start? That seems like a logical place to start.

[_BishopRic]

Okay, first post here, so go easy on me!

I like the subject of "testimony," and think it will become even more emphasized in Mormonism as further scientific evidence reveals more challenges for the member to believe the historical claims of Joseph. Timely, since the "Lamanite" issue could be one of those problems developing as we speak.

So, another thought. I agree that "gaining a testimony" is quite unique to Mormonism in my experience of religions. Perhaps a reason for that is the emphasis on the superiority of "spiritual witness" over "man's logic." If a person can have a "witness" of something being true, then it takes an enormous amount of logic and reason to change his mind. Maybe Joseph understood this, to a degree, and in his rapid-fire quest to build a religion, he found that "facilitating" a spiritual witness was quite successful in gaining converts.

At the Sunstone Symposium recently, Dr. Robert Beckstead presented a theory on Joseph's intentional inducement of visionary experiences by the use of "entheogens" (hallucinogenic substances in a religious setting)) He gave a compelling (in my opinion) argument that Joseph not only had access to effective hallucinogenics, but he also had relationships with various "Shamans and Medicine Men" who taught him how to induce visions and other spiritual experiences. An interesting read:

http://www.mormonelixirs.org/assets/pdf ... shroom.pdf

One clip:

"In the very first conference of the church in June 1830 in Fayette, New York, Joseph Smith recorded '...we partook together of the emblems of the body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ...had the heavens opened to their view, (and beheld Jesus Christ).

Heavenly manifestations occurred in a March 18th 1833 sacrament meeting held in Kirtland Ohio under the direction of Joseph Smith.

"Bro Joseph... promised that the pure in heart that were present should see a heavenly vision...after which the bread and wine was distributed by Bro Joseph after which many of the brethren saw a heavenly vision of the savior and concourses of angels..."

Can you imagine, having had this sort of "spiritual experience," no matter how it was induced (particularly if you didn't understand that it could have been induced by drugs....), ever being able to deny what you perceived it meant to you? In other words, you had the "experience," and then you shared it with others, and they shared theirs with you, I imagine it would be next to impossible to convince you it was anything less than a message from heaven!

Today, no drugs are used, but the physiology of fasting, group dynamics, and the very suggestion that you "should" experience a witness confirming the truthiness of the gospel...all compare to the experience of the early saints. And it seems we have the same degree of stubbornness in members who have had their "witness" to use any kind of normal logic and reason to test the claims of the church.

They already "know!"

Wow! Great first post.

I've tried the mushrooms and datura.

If anyone is now thinking about trying datura, I only suggest that one seriously study up on it before trying it.

Crazy stuff. Strong and powerful. You will see all kinds of things.

My friend who ingested it at the same time I did, didn't fare so well. Never recovered.

I think I recovered, but.....

Hmmm, maybe I'll stay away from the hallucinogens...course, some good wine helps the world seem a lot better than normal!

[Dr. Sunstoned]

yutf

[_Coggins7]

Great questions, Chap.

The archetypal "testimony" in early Mormonism was the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses, though this was superseded in the early 20th century by Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' experience/report.

You may be interested in the paper I gave at this August's SLC Sunstone Symposium titled "Making Witnesses." It examines the Book of Mormon for sources of its peculiar power as a religious (and especially conversion) text, and locates in that work the roots of the present day LDS "culture of witness," as I term it, including the ritual bearing of testimony.

The recording is available through the Sunstone website. I think they charge $4 for the download.

If you do give it a listen and have any feedback, please drop me a line. This paper is a work in progress, and I'd be interested in any criticism or ideas, particularly from someone who has been thinking about related issues.

The three and eight witnesses are still used by the Church as witnesses, as is the First Vision. None of this, however, bears directly upon the phenomena of personal testimony, which is independent of the witness of others.

Unfortunately, the attempt to perceive the nature of the Restored Church through a strictly naturalistic filter is doomed to the most inexorable failure. Our perception of the world is, as always, conditioned by the perceptual filters,or perceptual transducers (theoretical, paradigmatic, socio-cultural/intellectual templates) through which we perceive it. Assuming a purely sociological and anthropological origin of the Church will, of course, provide one with precisely that; the evidence will accumulate in that direction. Historical and Anthropological studies are indeed among those subjects in the humanities and social sciences that, by their very nature, are relatively data poor and of necessity theory, speculation, and wishful thinking rich. If the Church is more than an anthropological or sociological phenomena, then neither Anthropology or Sociology are competent to discern and comprehend those elements. But how does the philosophical naturalist and materialist know, through a strictly naturalistic perceptual filter, where the purely sociological ends and the spiritual begins (and let us assume, at least provisionally, that the spiritual may exist)?

If the preassumption is that no spiritual realities exist a priori, then is it not the case that this is precisely where the perceptual range of the filter ends?

In other words, the limit of your intellectual paradigm is the limit of your perception, and the limit of your perception defines the boundary of your mental and cognitive world; the boundary of both critical thought and imagination.

[_Chap]

Great questions, Chap.

The archetypal "testimony" in early Mormonism was the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses, though this was superseded in the early 20th century by Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' experience/report.

You may be interested in the paper I gave at this August's SLC Sunstone Symposium titled "Making Witnesses." It examines the Book of Mormon for sources of its peculiar power as a religious (and especially conversion) text, and locates in that work the roots of the present day LDS "culture of witness," as I term it, including the ritual bearing of testimony.

The recording is available through the Sunstone website. I think they charge $4 for the download.

If you do give it a listen and have any feedback, please drop me a line. This paper is a work in progress, and I'd be interested in any criticism or ideas, particularly from someone who has been thinking about related issues.

The three and eight witnesses are still used by the Church as witnesses, as is the First Vision. None of this, however, bears directly upon the phenomena of personal testimony, which is independent of the witness of others.

Unfortunately, the attempt to perceive the nature of the Restored Church through a strictly naturalistic filter is doomed to the most inexorable failure. Our perception of the world is, as always, conditioned by the perceptual filters,or perceptual transducers (theoretical, paradigmatic, socio-cultural/intellectual templates) through which we perceive it. Assuming a purely sociological and anthropological origin of the Church will, of course, provide one with precisely that; the evidence will accumulate in that direction. Historical and Anthropological studies are indeed among those subjects in the humanities and social sciences that, by their very nature, are relatively data poor and of necessity theory, speculation, and wishful thinking rich. If the Church is more than an anthropological or sociological phenomena, then neither Anthropology or Sociology are competent to discern and comprehend those elements. But how does the philosophical naturalist and materialist know, through a strictly naturalistic perceptual filter, where the purely sociological ends and the spiritual begins (and let us assume, at least provisionally, that the spiritual may exist)?

If the preassumption is that no spiritual realities exist a priori, then is it not the case that this is precisely where the perceptual range of the filter ends?

In other words, the limit of your intellectual paradigm is the limit of your perception, and the limit of your perception defines the boundary of your mental and cognitive world; the boundary of both critical thought and imagination.

For the moment, I am quite content to retain (clamped strongly over my nostrils) the filters that so far have saved me from even being able to conceive of the mental world that Coggy inhabits. Leave me in my littleness, oh great, blessed and above all happy one! I am not worthy ...

(Has he gone now?)

Yes, I should indeed like to know when Fast and Testimony meetings became a regular part of LDS life. Has anybody here any idea?

[_Chap]

Great questions, Chap.

The archetypal "testimony" in early Mormonism was the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses, though this was superseded in the early 20th century by Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' experience/report.

You may be interested in the paper I gave at this August's SLC Sunstone Symposium titled "Making Witnesses." It examines the Book of Mormon for sources of its peculiar power as a religious (and especially conversion) text, and locates in that work the roots of the present day LDS "culture of witness," as I term it, including the ritual bearing of testimony.

The recording is available through the Sunstone website. I think they charge $4 for the download.

If you do give it a listen and have any feedback, please drop me a line. This paper is a work in progress, and I'd be interested in any criticism or ideas, particularly from someone who has been thinking about related issues.

The three and eight witnesses are still used by the Church as witnesses, as is the First Vision. None of this, however, bears directly upon the phenomena of personal testimony, which is independent of the witness of others.

Unfortunately, the attempt to perceive the nature of the Restored Church through a strictly naturalistic filter is doomed to the most inexorable failure. Our perception of the world is, as always, conditioned by the perceptual filters,or perceptual transducers (theoretical, paradigmatic, socio-cultural/intellectual templates) through which we perceive it. Assuming a purely sociological and anthropological origin of the Church will, of course, provide one with precisely that; the evidence will accumulate in that direction. Historical and Anthropological studies are indeed among those subjects in the humanities and social sciences that, by their very nature, are relatively data poor and of necessity theory, speculation, and wishful thinking rich. If the Church is more than an anthropological or sociological phenomena, then neither Anthropology or Sociology are competent to discern and comprehend those elements. But how does the philosophical naturalist and materialist know, through a strictly naturalistic perceptual filter, where the purely sociological ends and the spiritual begins (and let us assume, at least provisionally, that the spiritual may exist)?

If the preassumption is that no spiritual realities exist a priori, then is it not the case that this is precisely where the perceptual range of the filter ends?

In other words, the limit of your intellectual paradigm is the limit of your perception, and the limit of your perception defines the boundary of your mental and cognitive world; the boundary of both critical thought and imagination.

For the moment, I am quite content to retain (clamped strongly over my nostrils) the filters that so far have saved me from even being able to conceive of the mental world that Coggy inhabits. Leave me in my littleness, oh great, blessed and above all happy one! I am not worthy ...

(Has he gone now?)

Yes, I should indeed like to know when Fast and Testimony meetings became a regular part of LDS life. Has anybody here any idea?