Darth wrote: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.
"Sometimes you want to go Where everybody knows your name..."
sock puppet wrote: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.
When I was struggling with my testimony, my bishop explained how he gained a testimony. He had read the Book of Mormon and prayed about it repeatedly without answer. He wanted to believe, but he didn't think he did. He was asked to give a talk in sacrament meeting about the Book of Mormon, so he was very careful about what he wrote into his talk, and he avoided bearing his testimony of it because he thought that would be lying. After the talk, several people told him how impressed they were with his testimony of the Book of Mormon, so he thought, If they think I have a testimony, I must.
Darth wrote: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.
"Sometimes you want to go Where everybody knows your name..."
For me, I'll take a bar like Cheers.
Honestly....there are a lot more NOMs in the Church that anyone realizes. I am just one of the few who is willing to lay it on the table, and call a spade a spade.
If there were more of us who spoke out, maybe members wouldn't feel the need to be sacchrinely "nicey-nice" and call out holier-than-thou, vicious shrew-like folks like your sister, and calll her to repentance for treating your Mom the way she is. (Sorry, SP, that still makes me angry.)
liz3564 wrote:If there were more of us who spoke out, maybe members wouldn't feel the need to be sacchrinely "nicey-nice" and call out holier-than-thou, vicious shrew-like folks like your sister, and calll her to repentance for treating your Mom the way she is. (Sorry, SP, that still makes me angry.)
Not gonna happen. Pious self-sanctimony is the one of the foundations of the church. And trust me... I have a testimony of that!
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
I think this type of testimony redefinition/reinterpretation is largely a way to try and get members to be more nuanced in their thinking so that they don't leave the church. I think it is a pretty good way of approaching belief holistically, rather than simply as an intellectual proposition. Most decisions in life are not strictly based on a "just the facts, ma'am" approach. Marriage is a good example/analogy for this.
Will it work? In a small number of cases it will probably work. People who really need/want a reason to stay will find this a good reason to stay, or it will at least buy some time for them while they sort out what they do believe.
But on the whole, I don't think it will help that much. I'm a prime example here. I also arrived at this view of testimony/belief on the way out of the church. I think people like DCP and others will hope that people interpret this to mean something like there is never a good reason to leave the church, you can always make it work. But, there are reasons to leave a marriage and there are reasons for realizing you can't make it work any longer. As DarthJ pointed out, fraud is a valid basis for getting out of a contract, and there's ample evidence that the church is not forthcoming with large swaths of information about its practices, doctrines, and history. Cue idiot Mopologist berating people for not studying up on polyandry on their own prior to their baptism at age 8.
Even more than fraud is the whole issue of relationship being a two way thing. If he is going to use the marriage analogy, then the church member has to be in partnership with the church. In other words, the church has to be some positive force. And there is the problem for Mormonism, when you get right down to it, it does very little from an institutional standpoint to nurture this relationship. Bland uninspiring general conferences, bland uninspiring manuals, no theological depth in anything, hundreds of rules, and defining a spirituality that largely consists in giving people a large list of things to do and making them feel guilty about not doing them when they inevitably fail. There are some positives about the church, but those are almost entirely the social/community aspects at the local level that haven't been killed by institutional rules and procedures, yet.
DCP's approach merely shifts the lines of demarcation, instead of dealing with one set of problems on the old view, you get a new set of problems by approaching testimony as a relationship.
Aristotle Smith wrote:Even more than fraud is the whole issue of relationship being a two way thing. If he is going to use the marriage analogy, then the church member has to be in partnership with the church. In other words, the church has to be some positive force. And there is the problem for Mormonism, when you get right down to it, it does very little from an institutional standpoint to nurture this relationship. Bland uninspiring general conferences, bland uninspiring manuals, no theological depth in anything, hundreds of rules, and defining a spirituality that largely consists in giving people a large list of things to do and making them feel guilty about not doing them when they inevitably fail. There are some positives about the church, but those are almost entirely the social/community aspects at the local level that haven't been killed by institutional rules and procedures, yet.
DCP's approach merely shifts the lines of demarcation, instead of dealing with one set of problems on the old view, you get a new set of problems by approaching testimony as a relationship.
It was devastating for me to realize that the church wasn't, in any real sense, true, but it was far worse a few months later to acknowledge that I had never been happy in the church. I gave willingly of a lot of my time, my efforts, my faith, and my income to the church. I prayed every day to be more valiant, more faithful, and diligent. And I told myself and others I was happy, for happiness was to be found in making and keeping church covenants. But a relationship must involve giving and receiving; a relationship wherein one partner gives all and gets little to nothing in return is abusive. And yet that's the kind of relationship I had for 40 years.
Runtu wrote: It was devastating for me to realize that the church wasn't, in any real sense, true, but it was far worse a few months later to acknowledge that I had never been happy in the church. I gave willingly of a lot of my time, my efforts, my faith, and my income to the church. I prayed every day to be more valiant, more faithful, and diligent. And I told myself and others I was happy, for happiness was to be found in making and keeping church covenants. But a relationship must involve giving and receiving; a relationship wherein one partner gives all and gets little to nothing in return is abusive. And yet that's the kind of relationship I had for 40 years.
According to DCP, you're lying if you come to the realization later that you were never happy. Or deluded. Take your pick.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:According to DCP, you're lying if you come to the realization later that you were never happy. Or deluded. Take your pick.
It's pretty simple for me. When I was diagnosed with depression, my doctor told me that the kind I was dealing with usually presents in early adolescence. He talked me through my life history, and I realized that I had been dealing with near-crippling depression for almost 30 years. Because I had been telling myself I was "happy" all that time, I had never been able to deal with the depression. So, yes, I think it's fair to say that, from the time I was 12 or 13, I wasn't happy in the church. I was depressed.
Buffalo wrote:According to DCP, you're lying if you come to the realization later that you were never happy. Or deluded. Take your pick.
It's pretty simple for me. When I was diagnosed with depression, my doctor told me that the kind I was dealing with usually presents in early adolescence. He talked me through my life history, and I realized that I had been dealing with near-crippling depression for almost 30 years. Because I had been telling myself I was "happy" all that time, I had never been able to deal with the depression. So, yes, I think it's fair to say that, from the time I was 12 or 13, I wasn't happy in the church. I was depressed.
but a fullfilling, happy kind of depression right?