The Fragility of a Testimony

When Mormons use the word “testimony,” they mean it in the way that most Christians use the word “witness.” In the judicial court sense, a witness is someone who saw a crime take place, and a testimony is the account of what they saw and heard. By contrast, religions usually use those words differently to mean a telling of one’s religious beliefs. But for the purposes of this essay, we’ll use the religious definitions.

What is interesting to me is how often one will hear about how fragile testimonies can be. Statements in General Conference or Sacrament Meetings will often remark about a testimony needs to be constantly “nourished” through scripture reading, church attendance, and by bearing of the testimony (“witnessing” in traditional Christian parlance). A related analogy that I heard was that having a testimony was like swimming upstream in a river - we need to be constantly working because if we’re not doing anything we’ll go downstream.

Here’s the thing: if it’s a real “testimony,” why should it NEED strengthening? For example, I know I live in Ogden, UT. I can bear testimony to that (in the court sense). I don’t have to wake up every so often and recite it to an individual (or a congregation) to convince myself of that fact. Just like I don’t have to keep convincing myself that concrete is hard. Or that the Pythagorean Theorem works. In the court sense, a witness shouldn't need to wake up every morning and reaffirm that it was the blue car that ran the red light and caused the accident.

But an LDS testimony is different. Most of the statements consist of “I know” statements, about things that they believe are true. And it needs to be done (or alternatively, heard from someone else) every so often to reinforce belief. It’s not so different from the kinds of daily affirmations that people do in the mirror when trying to convince themselves of something. Several LDS general authorities have said that a testimony is found in the bearing of it. Imagine if a judge or attorney said that to a witness in a trial!

Allow me to illustrate how this looks to me with a little analogy. It seems like people trying to convince themselves that Santa is real (sorry, it’s just after Christmastime, and it was an easy target). For most of them, they have been told that Santa was real ever since they were little. And they were told to just keep convincing themselves and their friends of that fact, despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. To wit:

1. Nobody has ever seen the man in person (except at the mall, I know), flying reindeer, or elves.
2. The North Pole workshop doesn't appear on maps.
3. There are differing accounts on the personality and physical description of Santa depending on what culture one is from
4. The physics behind delivering so many toys to so many kids worldwide is impossible
5. Et cetera.

Despite statements like these, kids have been able to put them out of their minds and ignore evidence and keep their convictions that Santa is real. After all, believing in Santa just feels good. And let’s face it, for the most part, belief in Santa is pretty benign and can be fun. But we all know some people who go WAAAY too far with the whole Santa thing.

Ok, I think you get my point, so we’ll drop the Santa analogy. What I’m getting to is that rational people will drop the belief once they learn the real facts about how it was really their parents all along. That does, after all, make a lot more logical sense. But here’s where things get a little different in the real world. When confronted with facts that contradict belief, instead of changing beliefs, Mormons tend to dig in deeper (though this practice is not limited to Mormons). Instead of having faith that acts as a bridge between belief and fact, Mormons re-define faith as a shield against uncomfortable facts and history and choose to ignore them.

The traditional defense against science and logic used by Mormons is that they experienced the “burning bosom” of the Holy Ghost telling them that what they learned in church was true. Often, they add that they can’t deny what they felt, and that it trumps any facts that contradict what they felt.

But as it turns out, the LDS religion isn't the only one to make people have good feelings and emotions to swell (it’s also possible to duplicate the feeling using certain meditation techniques). In fact, just a little research from the web will confirm that there are many people around the world who feel the exact same feelings about their religions. Why are their accounts and “testimonies” not just as valid as any Latter-day Saint’s?

The problem is that they can’t all be true. It’s human nature to reject any information that doesn't fall within one’s preconceived notions and paradigms. So the knee-jerk reaction is to discount someone else’s beliefs and rationalize it away as the “deceptions of Satan,” or some other equally implausible explanation. What usually follows is an emotional reaction where people “dig their heels in” and become further entrenched in their own belief, and more strongly convinced that others have been led astray (and need saving).

Unfortunately, feelings can’t always be trusted. I felt good feelings while hearing one of the stories behind Del Parson’s most famous painting. I loved that story . . . that is, until I heard it from Del Parson himself at a talk that it was completely false. I was confused and wasn't sure what to think about it (I was experiencing what is called cognitive dissonance). So I guess that’s why the Scientific Method was invented.

Finally, the last piece of caution given to LDS members is to not read or look at anything that might weaken their testimony. To me this sounds like the desperation of the Wizard of Oz - "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" The leaders are so worried about the general membership finding out about the ruse that they have to scare them away from even looking. Going back to the Santa thing, it's like when parents tell their children to not look in mommy's closet so they don't find the presents and shatter the illusion. Personally, if I were confident in a product I sold, I would challenge others to find the flaws instead of hiding them. Actually, that's what scientists and mathematicians do when they do research. Before it's published, it's sent to various peers to find flaws with the logic and methodology used. After taking what peers say into account, the research and peer review process is started over. It continues until nobody can find anything wrong with it.

I'll end this with three quotes from past General Authorities.

#1: If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak. (Journal of Discourses, Volume 14, Page 216)

      -  George Albert Smith, LDS Church President

#2: I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression.”

            - LDS Apostle Hugh B. Brown, “A Final Testimony,” from An Abundant Life, 1999

#3: "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed."
            -  J. Reuben Clark, LDS Presidency First Counselor

(authored by Joseph using Anne's blogger account)

Objection!

      So my youngest brother introduced me to a series of lawyer/courtroom video games called Phoenix Wright, in which you play a defense attorney. I thought it sounded like a lame concept for a video game at first, but it’s actually really fun. It’s based upon the Japanese Criminal Justice system, which, when a case goes to trial is almost like “guilty unless proven innocent.” The main method of proving your client’s innocence is by finding instances where the witnesses’ testimonies contradict the evidence. When you find one, you get to yell a very satisfying, “Objection!” (which can also accomplished by pressing a button)

Finding those kinds of inconsistencies is also how Anne and I found our way out of the LDS church. Here’s an example: if you go to mormonnewsroom.org, and look at their frequently asked questions page, it has all kinds of things that are commonly asked. Two that caught my eye are right next to each other. Here’s a screenshot that I've highlighted, but in case you want to check it out for yourself to see that I haven’t altered anything but the colors, here you go.

Those statements blatantly contradict things that I was taught multiple times throughout the years I went to church. The FAQ claims that these were just a misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or speculation, trying to paint the picture that it was the local members who perpetuate these rumors and not the leaders/scriptures.

May I present exhibits A through H:


Exhibit A:

“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.”

   -D&C 132:20


Exhibit B: 

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret.... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know... that he was once a man like us.... Here, then, is eternal life – to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves... the same as all Gods have done before you...”

- Joseph Smith, Jr., “King Follett Discourse,” Journal of Discourses, v. 6, pp. 3-4,
also in Teachings of the Prophet of Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346.
Source: http://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf


Exhibit C:

“The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself.”

- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 3, p. 93.


Exhibit D:

“That exalted position was made manifest to me at a very early day. I had a direct revelation of this. It was most perfect and complete. If there ever was a thing revealed to man perfectly, clearly, so that there could be no doubt or dubiety, this was revealed to me, and it came in these words: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” This may appear to some minds as something very strange and remarkable, but it is in perfect harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ and with His promises.”

- Lorenzo Snow, Unchangeable Love of God, September 18, 1898, emphasis added.


Exhibit E:

“Man is a god in embryo and has in him the seeds of godhood, and he can, if he will, rise to great heights.”

-Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball (1982), 28.


Exhibit F: 

Here’s one from lds.org's Gospel Principles manual:
Like before, only the colors were changed to highlight.

Exhibit G:

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this.

 -  Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48, emphasis added


Exhibit H:

And finally, when asked about it in 1997 by TIME magazine, here’s what Gordon Hinckley had to say about it:

“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.”

- “Kingdom Come,” TIME Magazine (4 August 1997): 56
[this is the original quote presented in its entirety. TIME omitted some of it with an ellipsis]


So as you can see, if the local members got that idea, it’s because the leadership was promoting the idea since the beginning. Trying to characterize it as non-doctrinal rumors spread by the lay people is clearly a case of blaming the victim. And instead of saying, "Yes, we teach that," the FAQ tries to weasel its way around so that it doesn't make the church look as "weird" and more mainstream.


The prosecution rests, your honor.

(authored by Joseph using Anne's blogger account)

Running Scared

Many in the LDS faith don’t understand why I would call this post “Running Scared,” because many of them are either not aware of some of these issues or have chosen to bury their head in the sand. But an ex-mo, such as me, already knows of the multiple lies and attempted cover-ups that the LDS church has tried in the past. So when they try to play it off as if they have always made this information available it infuriates me. For those who have read 1984 by George Orwell, the phrase, “We have always been at war with Eastasia” comes to mind.

Those who choose to bury their head and to ignore the facts also ignore the press when a general authority (Marlin Jensen) confirms that members are leaving “in droves.” They continue to ignore the fact that Jensen was then given emeritus status after coming out and saying things that hurt the churches appearance. They don’t even bother to look into why other general authorities have also been given the same status or they aren’t even aware of the term emeritus status. I believe this is due to the fact that it is pounded into the heads of all members to look away when they hear something that goes against the church.

I think that the church is slowly coming to terms with the fact that so many are leaving. And that is the reason they are publishing essays on many of the disturbing issues in their history. However, the essays so far don’t actually share all the details; they just touch on the issue and then they play it off as if it has always been common knowledge taught in the church.

The first essay was about the multiple accounts of the first vision. But the church fails to go into the major differences in the different accounts. Why would they want to point out all the differences when it would just hurt them? Instead they just point out that various aspects were emphasized to different audiences but that the gist is the same. This statement is from the June 1957 Improvement Era magazine and points out a major difference.

“I cannot remember the time when I have not heard the story concerning the coming of the Father and the Son to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

“I am concerned however with one item which has recently been called to my attention on this matter. There appears to be going about our communities some writing to the effect that the Prophet Joseph Smith evolved his doctrine from what might have been a vision, in which he is supposed to have said that he saw an angel, instead of the Father and the Son. According to this theory, by the time he was inspired to write the occurrence in 1838, he had come to the conclusion that there were two beings.

“This rather shocked me. I can see no reason why the Prophet, with his brilliant mind, would have failed to remember in sharp relief every detail of that eventful day. I can remember quite vividly that in 1915 I had a mere dream, and while the dream was prophetic in nature, it was not startling. It has been long since fulfilled, but I can remember every detail of it as sharply and clearly as though it had happened yesterday. How them could any man conceive that the Prophet, receiving such a vision as he received, would not remember it and would fail to write it clearly, distinctly, and accurately?" Improvement Era, June 1957, p 436 (emphasis added).

The second essay was about Race and the Priesthood. This essay cracked me up as I read it because I think what person could possibly read this and not see how ludicrous it sounds. Why does God allow man to rule His church? Why doesn’t he stand up for what is right and have His one and only true church stand up for what is correct? Don’t we teach the youth of the church today to stand up for what is right? Why couldn’t God do the same thing? 

“Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion.” (taken from LDS.org article on race and the priesthood)

The previous statement makes me think that Joseph Smith was influenced by the times and man more than he was by God. Then there is Brigham Young who apparently didn’t talk to the same God as the other prophets. What a joke! If I was still a believer this would bother me greatly  and my shelf would be collapsing  This article makes me wonder when God will change His mind about same sex marriage; He does seem to change His mind a lot.