Breatharianism and LDS testimony

[Kishkumen]

I dunno, Dean. When spiritual knowledge of the truthfulness of the Gospel or the Church is so poorly defined, it seems to me that it would be much easier to acquire a belief that one has a testimony than it would be to convince yourself that you are living on sunlight, air, and no food or water. Peer pressure might push Mormons to accept less dramatic good feelings as spiritual witnesses (this seems to be part of PG's point), but does it push them to outright lie? Sometimes, sure.

But I don't think it does as often as you seem to suppose. Indeed, I think that ex-Mormons become overly attached to this idea of lying in Mormonism because it adds moral force to their rejection of the LDS Church. Soon one sees lying everywhere, and it becomes easy to forget that lots of average Mormons genuinely felt they had spiritual experiences that they believed confirmed the truth of Mormonism. No lying necessary. What happens to ex-Mormons is that they often redefine what they thought were spiritual witnesses as "elevation feelings" and the like. That way they can tell themselves they did not have a spiritual witness and thus have no obligation to continue being Mormon. Are these people lying? I don't think so. Their worldview has changed.

This change of worldview is called conversion. People convert to a religion, and they see the world through that religion's lenses. They convert away from it, and they concomitantly adopt different lenses to make sense of their world. They are usually not lying in either case, but their former comrades do not infrequently claim they are being dishonest, either with themselves or others.

[malkie]

Thanks, Rev - that really resonates!

[Gadianton]

I dunno, Dean. When spiritual knowledge of the truthfulness of the Gospel or the Church is so poorly defined, it seems to me that it would be much easier to acquire a belief that one has a testimony than it would be to convince yourself that you are living on sunlight, air, and no food or water.

Absolutely agreed. How far can a testimony go? The Breatharians offer an extreme example.

Claiming to have not eaten in a year can only be attributed to either flagrant lying -- sociopathic behavior, or fabrication -- lying -- in context of a group dynamic. See examples like the Asch Conformity experiments for the latter. I suppose the Breatharian data doesn't tell us anything more than the Asch experiments, but the context is much closer to a group of believers with a testimonial culture surrounding the supernatural.

In the second, group dynamic scenario, the word "lying" may be a bit harsh, and I may have used another word if I'd known Philo was going to read it aloud on YouTube. However, I would change nothing for leader scenario.

What I am saying is that the Breatharian testimony is same in kind as Mormon testimony, but more extreme in degree.

Peer pressure might push Mormons to accept less dramatic good feelings as spiritual witnesses (this seems to be part of PG's point), but does it push them to outright lie? Sometimes, sure.

Yes, I agree with this also and we can expand beyond "feelings" -- there is modal diversity within experience Mormons appeal to so long as they get to the key phrase, "I know the Church is true." More often than not, there isn't a single line item that elicits that statement of knowledge. It becomes a grasping at whatever might be available at the time to justify it, or even a simple left-brained pronouncement devoid of justification. My opinion is that most who say "I know" really do not think that they know -- they may believe, hope, and desire for it above anything else, but that doesn't get to those specific six words for which there is no substitute. Boyd K. Packer seems to agree.

But I don't think it does as often as you seem to suppose. Indeed, I think that ex-Mormons become overly attached to this idea of lying in Mormonism because it adds moral force to their rejection of the LDS Church. Soon one sees lying everywhere, and it becomes easy to forget that lots of average Mormons genuinely felt they had spiritual experiences that they believed confirmed the truth of Mormonism. No lying necessary. What happens to ex-Mormons is that they often redefine what they thought were spiritual witnesses as "elevation feelings" and the like. That way they can tell themselves they did not have a spiritual witness and thus have no obligation to continue being Mormon. Are these people lying? I don't think so. Their worldview has changed.

Our views do diverge a bit here. I do not believe the average Mormon genuinely felt they had experiences that they believed confirmed the truth such that they can make that leap to say "I know". I do believe their worldviews change, and the worldview change can be called conversion. I think they have experiences that 'confirm the truth' of the Church. My mother most definitely was converted and then some. I believe the average Mormon thinks nothing is more important than the Church, believes the Book of Mormon is true, and believes in the plan of salvation, believes they would give their life for the Church, and I think the average Mormon would be willing to pray for 2 weeks straight if that meant they'd get the "manifestation" that they believe the scriptures promise. While confirmation bias might be off the charts, nothing here equates to lying or fabrication in my view.

I had many conversations with other missionaries while on my mission regarding their doubts about their testimonies. Mormons are definitely open to a myriad of interpretations that lower the bar for what it means to "know", and they try to go along with it, and leaders are ready to hand out free passes. In fact, BKP was trying to do exactly that, make the club as nonexclusive as possible because the leaders need single-minded worker bees. As missionaries we want the bar as low as possible for investigators also. But, it doesn't really work out. The problem here is exactly the opposite problem we have with the apologists who redefine words and lower the bar as much as possible so they can be right about everything. Paradoxically, there is a huge amount of honesty at play in the struggle of testimony. Mormons know that other people believe their churches, have experiences that support their faith, and they know that as a Mormon, they aren't mere believers. What you are offering as conversion narrative is what applies to other people in other churches who must settle for mere belief. They can know. And the paradigm example is Joseph Smith praying and receiving the Father and Son. And so, the thing is here, it's their own unwillingness to compromise, and give up on a supernatural manifestations that causes the problem. It's their unwillingness to water down the word "know" (beyond a shadow of doubt). What they mean by 'know' is in the ballpark of going without food for 21 days, it's not a bunch of little things that add up, it's one big thing that can't be mistaken.

Some will fabricate and say that they know, they will go along with cutesy redefinitions and alternative perspectives but deep down is that nagging that they really don't "know" the way they know the scriptures promise we can know. And that's either a +1000 lightning bolt from the HG, or an angel or Jesus visiting.