DiscussMormonism.com

From observing this board, it seems to me that the concept of 'testimony' is crucial to the entire social and intellectual functioning of the LDS belief system. Obviously it has certain formal parallels in other religions, some of them versions of Christianity. But thes following features strike me as unique in degree, and perhaps also in kind:

(a) the extremely strong emphasis on the repeated 'bearing' of testimony (often revealing mis-spelled as 'baring'), on the necessity of 'getting' and 'keeping' a testimony, and on the risks of 'losing' it (as if it was an object that could be damaged or mislaid), and

(b) the insistence that ultimately it is on the 'testimony' rather than on any rational and evidence based (i.e. public evidence based) thought process that adherence to the LDS faith depends.

Now like all phenomena relating to the structure and functioning of human instititutions, the concept of 'testimony' is open to both historical and anthropological study. This board is not the place to try to do either in the full sense. But I would still be fascinated to hear present or past members of the CoJCoLDS presenting evidence for how this concept was so effectively installed in LDS belief, discourse and practice. Where and when (since the First Vision) can it first be seen in the fully developed form it has today?

And have any anthropological studies of LDS 'testimony' been published?

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The archetypal "testimony" in early Mormonism was the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses, though this was superseded in the early 20th century by Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' experience/report.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

Don

The bearing/baring thing has always interested me. I've run into people on RfM who insist the correct term is "baring" your testimony because they had been taught that it was literally some form of "uncovering" something. Bad grammar backed up with bad exegesis. Though I probably would lay the lion's share of blame at the door of poor education in American in general, I think there is also something about Mormon culture to be derived from this misspelling/misrecognition. And when I get a minute, I'll try to get back to this thread with some more reflections...

DonBradley wrote: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.

Don

Thanks Don. It is not obvious to me from the Sunstone website (which I do not freguent) how I may find your talk. Could you give me more guidance? Do I have to subscribe to the site as a whole?

I look forward to hearing what you said. It seems to me, however, that there is a gap to be bridged between such things as the testimony (in the legal sense) of the Book of Mormon witnesses, and indeed of Joseph Smith himself, and the current "I just KNOW" testimony of LDS with their backs to the wall in an argument. But I am sure you go into that!

I am sure there would be others who would welcome a short statement of your main conclusions here.

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!"

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

Now we have Joseph Smith doping up his followers. What'll they think of next, baby!

LifeOnaPlate wrote:Now we have Joseph Smith doping up his followers. What'll they think of next, baby!

Read Beckstead's work and tell me where he is wrong. I don't have a "testimony that it is true," but it is compelling.

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.

This is quite interesting to me as I have experienced something similar. I attended a weekend workshop given by two of Britain's foremost 'witches' a few years back. I was pretty sceptical of the whole thing but was very intrigued as to what would go on, so paid my fee for attending and trotted along, wide eyed to the sessions. I saw exactly the same kind of thing going on at one of the sessions where we we did some pathworking.

Basically, we lay down on the floor, closed our eyes, while one of the witches took us on a guided journey of the underworld. There were several stops along the way and at each 'stop' we were asked to take a look around and remember what we saw. At the final destination, we met our animal spirit guide, who apparently would just appear. Well, I'm lying there thinking, where the frig is this animal? What kind of animal is it? How come all I am seeing is my own visual of the scene described? I then started to imagine all sorts of animals, I saw a bear, a monkey, some birds etc. I decided to stick with the bear because he looked kinda cute and furry.

Anyway, when we were brought out from this 'magical' place, we were asked to then say what kind of animal we had seen. Everyone in turn recounted their story, of eagles, deer, tigers etc. I had never heard so much crap in my life. These people in my mind were clearly confusing a completely imaginary experience, with something spiritual. I was the only one who said I didn't see an animal spirit guide, but I made a few up just to make the story more interesting. That went down like a bucket of cold sick and the looks I got from the others for not being spirutually advanced enough to commune with the spirits, were quite amusing.

Group dynamics play a huge part in what we see, or want to see. If everyone else is playing the game and coming up with these stories, then most people feel compelled to do the same.

Group dynamics play a huge part in what we see, or want to see. If everyone else is playing the game and coming up with these stories, then most people feel compelled to do the same.

Yes, sounds quite familiar, doesn't it? I don't want to derail the thread, but just last year there was a peer-reviewed study at Johns-Hopkins about this subject. From Wikinews:

Psilocybin induces mystical and spiritual experiences: study
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
July 12, 2006

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.

The experiment, led by Roland R Griffiths, assessed the degree of mystical experience and attitudinal effects of the psilocybin experience; this report was published in the journal Psychopharmacology.

Thirty volunteers without prior experience with hallucinogens were given psilocybin and methylphenidate (Ritalin) in separate sessions. The Ritalin sessions served as the control group who used that drug as a placebo. The tests were double-blind, with neither the subject nor the administrator knowing which drug was being administered.

The degree of mystical experience was measured using a questionnaire on mystical experience developed by Ralph W Hood; 61% of subjects reported a "complete mystical experience" after their psilocybin session, while only 13% reported such an outcome after their experience with Ritalin. Two months after taking psilocybin, 79% of the participants reported moderately to greatly increased life satisfaction and sense of well-being.

I see significant similarities in the LDS culture. Many will say things like "I've had a spiritual witness I can't deny...," and, "I know it's true, and
the mysteries will be revealed later; they are not important to me today..."

So yes, once the experience is self-interpreted (or guided), people remain convinced of its reality -- even if another had a completely different interpretation of the same event.