DCP: A Testimony is a "living thing"

[_Doctor Scratch]

I found this post on the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board interesting:

In my view, a testimony is quite similar to a relationship -- to a marriage, for example. (Both the Old and New Testaments use marriage to symbolize the relationship between God and his people -- and for good reasons, this being one of them.) It isn't, shouldn't be, and never was mere intellectual assent to a set of propositions. The relationship entails such assent, yes, but it isn't reducible to simple assertions of alleged fact.

If such a relationship isn't nurtured, is allowed to starve, it will die. Not because it's "hokey" or without value, but because it's a living thing.

I don't imagine that I'm alone in having seen several bitter divorces where one or the other of the former spouses insists that "I never really loved him," or some such thing, maybe even with entire sincerity, when that is almost certainly a spectacular falsehood. But the relationship was neglected, subordinated to other commitments, injured by gross misbehavior on the part of one of the marriage partners . . . whatever. And suddenly, at that point, the "facts" about the ex-partner are transformed almost beyond recognition. Good traits are forgotten; bad characteristics, real or imagined, dominate the picture.

Bear in mind that this is the Church's top apologist saying this, which is tantamount to a Doctrinal Declaration.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56620-testimonies/

This *is* pretty remarkable, though. I don't know that any of the Brethren have ever described testimonies in quite this same way. Of course, in actual relationships, the "other person" behaves in certain ways... Is this what Dan is getting at? I see him touching upon the tiresome Chapel Mormon notion that testimonies require "work," but that doesn't do much to clarify his basic point... Perhaps he's talking more about Priesthood blessings being administered in order to dislodge meat from kids' throats, or something? I don't really know... In real relationships, there is a certain amount of reciprocity, and I have a very difficult time seeing how this applies for this given analogy.

The more I think about it, the more I find myself feeling that this is yet another ploy to make it seem as if the LDS notion of "testimony" isn't an embarrassment in the academic sphere.

[_Darth J]

Since fraud is grounds for divorce or annulment, perhaps there is something to this analogy.

[_just me]

Since fraud is grounds for divorce or annulment, perhaps there is something to this analogy.

Mhmmm. Could also be considered bait and switch.

I dunno about anyone else, but my needs were not being met. I had to go elsewhere.

[_Darth J]

Since fraud is grounds for divorce or annulment, perhaps there is something to this analogy.

Mhmmm. Could also be considered bait and switch.

"Bait and switch" is a colloquial way of saying "fraud."

[_just me]

Mhmmm. Could also be considered bait and switch.

"Bait and switch" is a colloquial way of saying "fraud."

Well, color me colloquial then. (or tired. at least I'm good for a laugh!)

[_Darth J]

"Bait and switch" is a colloquial way of saying "fraud."

Well, color me colloquial then.

I have a different colloquial term I prefer for fraud, but it is not appropriate for the Terrestrial Forum.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I just think it's interesting that Dr. Peterson seems at last to be "coming out of his shell" insofar as he's more willing to try and use his rhetorical gifts as a means of bearing his testimony. The sense I've long had with top-tier Mopologists is that they are--on some level--"embarrassed" about what they actually believe. I think that Dan Peterson actually believes that, if he lays his hands on his kid's head and prays, that it will dislodge a stubborn piece of meat that has been stuck in said kid's throat. Dan thinks that, because of his Priesthood affiliation, Heavenly Father will "do" something in order to "release" the meat. I think that DCP really believes such things--he can say otherwise if not. I don't think this is a "misrepresentation" of his actual beliefs in the slightest.

On that note, I would be curious to know whether or not Hamblin, Hoskisson, Midgley, and Welch also believe in such things as meat being dislodged via prayer.

[_Sethbag]

If testimony actually meant to most Mormons what it means to DCP, I think the term wouldn't be as dumb as it is. I like DCP's analogy of testimony to a relationship with another person. It's not the way virtually all other LDS folks use the term, however.

[_Doctor Scratch]

If testimony actually meant to most Mormons what it means to DCP, I think the term wouldn't be as dumb as it is. I like DCP's analogy of testimony to a relationship with another person. It's not the way virtually all other LDS folks use the term, however.

You're right on multiple levels, Seth. It's *not* how most LDS feel--it's a gross, colossal distortion of the typical LDS experience. A person's relationship with "the Church" might be like a relationship--this involves a lot of interaction and negotiation with other people, after all. But your testimony?

All of this just tells me ever more deeply how much of a fraud Dan Peterson is.

[_MrStakhanovite]

This doesn’t surprise me, and I’m actually glad that Dr. Peterson made those points. What Dr. Peterson posted falls right in line with Christian Theological Liberalism/Modernism. To quote from George Marsden’s little book called, “Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism” we read:

The third element widespread in the liberal defense of Christianity was the conviction that religious feelings were central to Christianity. Following the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), liberals held that the basis of religion us the sense of absolute dependence. As with the stress on ethics, religious feelings could readily be contrasted to the religion of reason, dogma, or the literal interpretation of the Bible. Science and historical criticism, moreover, could not touch the intuition of the heart.

Page 35.

Of course, Dr. Peterson doesn’t strictly fit this mold, I think that is a safe ground where he is less likely to get caught in a discussion with someone who knows anything about a topic. EA has mentioned that Dan is pretty favorable to Intelligent Design, but he won’t get into specifics online.

I don’t think for a minute that Dan has any deeper understanding about “Faith as Relationship” than what he’s already posted, if he is even aware of Friedrich Schleiermacher, it’s just enough to probably name drop him into a conversation, much like Heidegger or Alvin Plantinga.