DCP: A Testimony is a "living thing"

[_MrStakhanovite]

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.

No, it isn’t, nor could it be. In my opinion, the entire “Faith as Relationship” is really just self analysis and reflection mistaken as something more, but I respect it enough that I accept it as a valid reason to believe in God.

“Faith as Relationship” is going to work for some people who are inclined to take on certain perspectives that require a bit more intellectual grunt work than your typical Mormon is getting in the Sunday morning snore fest, and it isn’t going to appeal to a lot of chapel types. It’s not amendable to the worldview that God cares what movies you watch and helps you find your car keys.

[_Darth J]

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.

Well, see, Doctor Scratch, this is where the analogy concedes certain things that it wasn't supposed to. In a marriage, having a good relationship or a bad relationship is based on the spouses meeting each other's needs, how much they care about each other, and a variety of other factors. It is not based on there being an open question of whether your spouse is a real person or a figment of your imagination. And while people who get divorced sometimes have bitter feelings about their former spouse, they never say upon divorce that their former spouse never actually existed.

Similarly, faith in your spouse means you trust him or her. It does not mean that you have learned to be confident that if you turn around, your spouse will not disappear into the ether.

The analogy by Peterson, which has more or less been stated by General Authorities as well, is that a "testimony" is a misnomer, because it is not about the Holy Ghost divinely imparting to you absolute knowledge of eternal truths. Rather, a "testimony" is nothing more than shorthand for how you feel about the Church. That's why, as in a marriage, you feel a stronger "testimony" when you are closer to the Church, and a weaker "testimony" when you feel further away from the Church. And Latter-day Saints are taught to equate feeling good about the Church with epistemology of certain factual propositions on which the Church's truth claims rest: the existence of a Nephite civilization, the Book of Abraham being an authentic ancient document, the priesthood really being restored, the Church being guided by inspiration, etc.

In short, whether intended or not, Peterson is conceding the point that a "testimony" is not knowledge at all, but just feeling comfortable and cozy about having a place in the culture you are accustomed to.

[_RockSlider]

It seems to me that part of the "marriage contract" would involve the following:

Lectures on Faith
Lecture 3 … item 12.
Q. What things do we learn in the revelations of God respecting his character?
A .a. We learn the six following things:
b. First, that he was God before the world was created, and the same God that he was after it was created.
c. Second, that he is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abundant in goodness, and that he was so from everlasting, and will be so to everlasting.
d. Third, that he changes not, neither is there variableness with him, and that his course is one eternal round.
e. Fourth, that he is a God of truth and cannot lie.
f. Fifth, that he is no respecter of persons;
g. and sixth, that he is love (Lecture 3:12-18).

I suppose the Mormon testimony/marriage is actually a polygamist marriage, with the requirements of faith/devotion to:

a. God the Father
b. Christ
c. Joseph Smith
d. The Church.

I remember clearly the day of infidelity of my partner d. (The Church) as I listened; live, to the Larry King show and listened to GBH violate lecture items d, e and f in a matter of a few minutes.

The crisis of this part of the marriage failing led to a similar falling out with partner c (Joseph Smith) as I learned more of his un-sanitized history, thus leaving a damaged and unstable relationship with the remaining two partners.

Yes, anger based on betrayal is very very hard to avoid in these personal and deeply vested relationships. My guess, the remaining partners are not too pleased with the situation either.

[_bcspace]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI

[_Drifting]

Here is what the Church officially says a testimony is...

A testimony is a spiritual witness given to an individual by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a Mormon’s testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves us; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is a prophet, which God called to restore Jesus Christ’s church to the earth; that we are led today by a living prophet; and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s Church restored on the earth today.

Conveniently the Church also stipulates for members exactly what their testimony is.

Boyd K. Packer famously expressed that if you don't have a testimony you should keep bearing a testimony until you believe you have a testimony - is that religious perjury?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think this is Dr. Peterson's way of trying to appear "deep". It was a silly analogy that appeals to silly thinking (not hard to find among Mormons of all flavors).

That said, if you have a spouse who lies to you, covers up their history, obfuscates details about their ideas and actions, hides their finances from you while demanding you fork over a portion of your income to them, demands complete obedience without any objection, demonstrates a history of bigotry, and intimates you'll be shunned from your friends, family, and co-workers if you leave them... Then I think you have good reason to believe you're in a controlling and unhealthy relationship.

There. How's that analogy now, Dr. Peterson?

- VRDRC

[_sock puppet]

a "testimony" is a misnomer, because it is not about the Holy Ghost divinely imparting to you absolute knowledge of eternal truths. Rather, a "testimony" is nothing more than shorthand for how you feel about the Church. That's why, as in a marriage, you feel a stronger "testimony" when you are closer to the Church, and a weaker "testimony" when you feel further away from the Church. And Latter-day Saints are taught to equate feeling good about the Church with epistemology of certain factual propositions on which the Church's truth claims rest: the existence of a Nephite civilization, the Book of Abraham being an authentic ancient document, the priesthood really being restored, the Church being guided by inspiration, etc.

In short, whether intended or not, Peterson is conceding the point that a "testimony" is not knowledge at all, but just feeling comfortable and cozy about having a place in the culture you are accustomed to.

Too precise and surgical in your description for TBMs to swallow. That is exactly what a Mormon's "testimony" is. If one participated and contributed to the same extent, he or she could have the same 'testimony' about the B.P.O.E. (the Elks Lodge).

[_sock puppet]

Boyd K. Packer famously expressed that if you don't have a testimony you should keep bearing a testimony until you believe you have a testimony - is that religious perjury?

Probably, but one thing is for sure--it's a proven way to brainwash one's self into believing whatever the mantra is that you might repeat, especially to others as if you already believe it.

[_Buffalo]

This is just another way for him to say that people who stop believing are liars. That's really all they've got left.

[_Yoda]

In short, whether intended or not, Peterson is conceding the point that a "testimony" is not knowledge at all, but just feeling comfortable and cozy about having a place in the culture you are accustomed to.

And thus, a NOM is born! ;-)

Seriously, what is so wrong with this?