Origins of the institution of 'testimony' in the CoJCoLDS

[_Coggins7]

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.

[/quote]

Well, there's not a great deal of scientific evidence to go around on this score such that members have anything to worry about. Plenty of thorny hypotheticals and theoretical issues, but no facts to worry about.

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:

By your own admission here Bishoric, Dr. Beclstead has not a particle of documentary historical evidence to back up is bare assertions. This is the kind of straw grasping apologist like, as it makes their job so much easier, if less intellectually stimulating. As we see below:

http://www.mormonelixirs.org/assets/pdf/Restoration%20and%20the%20Sacred%20Mushroom.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..."

The emblems used here are, of course, common bread and wine (and later, water). There isn't a scintilla of evidence for the use of any hallucinogenic drugs. If so, where is it?

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!"

You don't see the intellectual hypocrisy here do you? You castigate members for claiming to "know" the Church is true, and yet in the same breath you assert:

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.

Here, you assert that "today, no drugs are used", having apparently come to the conclusion that they were used by the early Saints in spite of not a particle of historical evidence to support this claim. But, you "know" they did, is that right? And you know they did because, embedded in a purely secularist, humanistic intellectual template through which that is the only grounds on which you can imagine such phenomena being experienced by human beings, this appears to be your only choice, even though no actual evidence exists to support such a inferential leap.

I think that the idea that group dynamics and the suggestion that one should experience a testimony are plausible questions to put to a Latter Day Saint. They stand, however, as purely theoretical possibilities for phenomena of testimony in the specific LDS context, and it would be up to the one proposing such a explanation to show its rational viability among a range of alternative possibilities (one of which is that testimony is exactly what it claims to be).

The physiology of fasting argument is, to be frank, quite lame Bishopric, as fasting in the LDS church never, ever approximates in length or severity the kind that would be needed to provoke hallucinatory experiences. The longest I've ever gone, on several occasions, is three days, and though I felt very good after those three days, closer to the Spirit, and detached from worldly cares to some degree, nothing of the kind mentioned in the early Pentecostal period of the Church ever happened to me, nor did I expect such to happen.

Indeed, on a number of occasions when fasting that long, I went to work, and, in most senses, moved through a normal day.

[_Coggins7]

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?

I now must add you to my list, along with styleguy, of those from whom I expect no intellectually substantive statements and who rarely disappoint those expectations.

[_Runtu]

I now must add you to my list, along with styleguy, of those from whom I expect no intellectually substantive statements and who rarely disappoint those expectations.

You must be feeling like you need some company. ;)

[_Coggins7]

I'm trying to actually have a substantive debate here with a few people on this subject. Go away Runtu, you can add nothing but red herrings and personal animosity to the proceedings, as you do on every other thread you and people like Chap have ever colonized.

[_Runtu]

I'm trying to actually have a substantive debate here with a few people on this subject. Go away Runtu, you can add nothing but red herrings and personal animosity to the proceedings, as you do on every other thread you and people like Chap have ever colonized.

Dismissing people as nonsubstantive is a pretty good recipe for not having a substantive debate. It's interesting that the threads I post on substantively are the ones you never seem to have anything to say about. Weird how that works.

For the record, I don't have any personal animosity toward you. But I shall take your advice and "go away." :)

[_Chap]

Go away Runtu, you can add nothing but red herrings and personal animosity to the proceedings, as you do on every other thread you and people like Chap have ever colonized.

I didn't colonise this thread, Coggy. I started it. It is a thread about the history and anthropology of certain LDS institutions.

If you don't find such things high and holy enough for your own refined spirituality , then (how does one put this ..... oh yes , I remember....) butt out, and leave the rest of us grovelling in the mud. You have more exalted concerns to pursue.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

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, it does, but what are its limits and conditions? To what extent does group dynamics condition what we "see"? (by which you mean what we perceive, correct? Or do you mean literal sight; do you think group dynamics can create a vision of the Angel Moroni descending to the spire of the Salt Lake Temple. If so, how?)

Group dynamics are a catch-all and limited theoretical explanation for a limited number of human psychological states, but the dynamics themselves are very complex, don't you think? Tracking down specific LDS claims of spiritual experience to "group dynamics" is going to be a excruciatingly difficult task when one understands that "group dynamics" are themselves embedded in a very complex and subtle background of other kinds of psychological dynamics and influences. We are not going to be able to point to "group dynamics as "the cause" of this or that phenomena in any specific case, but only under a broad general range of cases in which group dynamics are probably functioning, but in what manner it may be impossible to separate from other factors. Certainly, imposing "group dynamics" upon private Mormon spiritual experiences (which are without doubt the vast majority of them) that occur quite outside the framework of a group dynamic environment, is going to be problematic as well.

It would also seem that group dynamics would affect critics of the Church, including vehemently secularist ones (or anyone adhering to a powerful alternative philosophical and/or in-group template), just as much as it might affect believing LDS, only along different dimensions.

[_Coggins7]

I didn't colonise this thread, Coggy. I started it. It is a thread about the history and anthropology of certain LDS institutions.

If you don't find such things high and holy enough for your own refined spirituality , then (how does one put this ..... oh yes , I remember....) butt out, and leave the rest of us grovelling in the mud. You have more exalted concerns to pursue.

I've got a better idea Chap, since you won't reply to or engage, in a civil, critical manner, the questions and philosophical problems I posed regarding some of the claims made on this thread, take your copy of the Sunstone Swimsuit Issue and go on back to the bathroom while perhaps some of the rest of us could have an intellectually stimulating discussion for once...

[_Runtu]

Well, there's not a great deal of scientific evidence to go around on this score such that members have anything to worry about. Plenty of thorny hypotheticals and theoretical issues, but no facts to worry about.

I agree. If anything, a testimony seems to be sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, particularly when you read of people who gain a testimony in the bearing thereof. It's almost as if telling yourself "I know" means you know.

The emblems used here are, of course, common bread and wine (and later, water). There isn't a scintilla of evidence for the use of any hallucinogenic drugs. If so, where is it?

I thought the article suggested a connection between Joseph Smith and certain indigenous practices involving hallucinogens. If his evidence is bad, maybe you could explain why.

You don't see the intellectual hypocrisy here do you? You castigate members for claiming to "know" the Church is true, and yet in the same breath you assert:

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.

Here, you assert that "today, no drugs are used", having apparently come to the conclusion that they were used by the early Saints in spite of not a particle of historical evidence to support this claim. But, you "know" they did, is that right? And you know they did because, embedded in a purely secularist, humanistic intellectual template through which that is the only grounds on which you can imagine such phenomena being experienced by human beings, this appears to be your only choice, even though no actual evidence exists to support such a inferential leap.

I don't believe he said he "knew" they used drugs. The bottom line is that spiritually ecstatic experiences are a known physiological process. That indeed is known.

I think that the idea that group dynamics and the suggestion that one should experience a testimony are plausible questions to put to a Latter Day Saint. They stand, however, as purely theoretical possibilities for phenomena of testimony in the specific LDS context, and it would be up to the one proposing such a explanation to show its rational viability among a range of alternative possibilities (one of which is that testimony is exactly what it claims to be).

Seems more rational an explanation than "the spirit witnessed to me" for some reason.

The physiology of fasting argument is, to be frank, quite lame Bishopric, as fasting in the LDS church never, ever approximates in length or severity the kind that would be needed to provoke hallucinatory experiences. The longest I've ever gone, on several occasions, is three days, and though I felt very good after those three days, closer to the Spirit, and detached from worldly cares to some degree, nothing of the kind mentioned in the early Pentecostal period of the Church ever happened to me, nor did I expect such to happen.

I wouldn't say that. It depends on the circumstances. When I was in the jungles of Bolivia, when we fasted we would often get light-headed, and my companion had several hallucinatory experiences. Oh, wait. I'm supposed to contribute only red herrings. Never mind. ;)

Indeed, on a number of occasions when fasting that long, I went to work, and, in most senses, moved through a normal day.

So, based on your anecdotal experience, you conclude that nothing like what happened to my companion ever happens?

[_Chap]

I didn't colonise this thread, Coggy. I started it. It is a thread about the history and anthropology of certain LDS institutions.

If you don't find such things high and holy enough for your own refined spirituality , then (how does one put this ..... oh yes , I remember....) butt out, and leave the rest of us grovelling in the mud. You have more exalted concerns to pursue.

I've got a better idea Chap, since you won't reply to or engage, in a civil, critical manner, the questions and philosophical problems I posed regarding some of the claims made on this thread, take your copy of the Sunstone Swimsuit Issue and go on back to the bathroom while perhaps some of the rest of us could have an intellectually stimulating discussion for once...

The idea of Coggy actually attempting to have a 'discussion' about anything with a fellow poster is almost intriguing enough to tempt me to stand back and see if he can do it ... perhaps the age of miracles is not past?

(But meanwhile, any unphilosophical people interested in boring old historical facts about the time when LDS started talking about testimony the way they do today is welcome to try to slip in an answer between all the Socratic elenchi that will shortly be coruscating before us on this thread once Coggy gets into his stride.)