Testimony vs. Emotion - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

hammer · 11-12-2007, 04:51 PM

How do you separate emotion from a testimony and/or spiritual witness? Is that possible? Is there even a right answer? I haven't put a ton of thought into this, but thought I'd open it up to the CougarGuard brains.

The LDS Church, which I'm a member of, puts a GREAT deal of emphasis, maybe even over emphasis, on having a spiritual witness/confirmation of all things. Maybe other religions do that as well, I have no idea, but my guess is probably not to the extent of the LDS. The BOM challenges us to pray to receive a witness; we have monthly testimony meetings expressing our personal witness(es); we end talks and lessons with our testimony; we write our testimony down in the front of BOMs and give them away; for two years in the mission field we bear testimony on a daily/hourly basis; we keep our testimony ready for use in case we don't have answers for a doubter's concerns and that's all we have left to refer to.

What I have a very difficult time with is being able to identify what part of (maybe all of it?) an LDS person's testimony is based on emotion. How do I know the good feelings I felt when reading the BOM or praying or attending church came from the Spirit? How do I know those feelings aren't just emotions that come from the hope of a good life after death? They're the same good feelings I get when reading a good fictional book, watching a good movie, watching sporting events, accomplishing things at work, and being with my kids and spouse. When the scriptures and prophets talk about ways of identifying the Spirit, is there an inherent conflict of interest going on there? (E.G., how do I know if the good feeling I'm having while reading the scriptures is anything more than a feeling of hope? Because the scriptures I'm reading tell me that it's the Spirit? Of course that's what they're going to say, isn't it?) Is the still, small voice your own voice inside your head?

Please understand I'm not attacking the testimonies held by Mormons or members of other religions. I guess I'm just curious to know if there is a right answer because I don't think there is. And if there isn't a right answer, why does the LDS Church put so much focus on testimonies?

MikeWaters · 11-12-2007, 04:53 PM

the answer about why the church places such emphasis on it is that personal revelation is the bedrock of the church. And if it doesn't exist, then there is no real reason to be a Mormon instead of a Methodist.

Archaea · 11-12-2007, 04:57 PM

This is a great question and parallels the question of empirical knowledge versus spiritual witness.

The way I look at it is a witness or something revealed can cause an emotive response. Paul H. Dunn would comment upon members claiming a witness simply by the feeling of emotion or crying. Just crying is not tantamount to a witness.

Many things can cause emotive responses. Pain. Joy. Confusion. Disappointment. Consternation. All of these things can cause emotive responses.

When we receive a witness to our soul's eye or mind, we may have conditioned ourselves to emote, but the emoting is not the witness except as it may convey a witness to another person.

Does any of that make sense to others?

Again this is a flow of consciousness thing.

hammer · 11-12-2007, 05:07 PM

Also, I've heard various versions of this over my lifetime: "If you don't have a testimony, bear it until you get one." What? To me that means a testimony is based 100% on emotion.

Archaea · 11-12-2007, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammer

Also, I've heard various versions of this over my lifetime: "If you don't have a testimony, bear it until you get one." What? To me that means a testimony is based 100% on emotion.

That's irrational. How can one speak of something which one does not have. A witness means you have perceived something as possessing value and validity.

So I will speak about the value of something even if I do not believe it has value? Isn't that inherently dishonest?

MikeWaters · 11-12-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's irrational. How can one speak of something which one does not have. A witness means you have perceived something as possessing value and validity.

So I will speak about the value of something even if I do not believe it has value? Isn't that inherently dishonest?

I think what they want to mean is that in the course of testifying one may receive a witness.

I believe this can happen, but certainly not always. And I think repeated testifying with no belief or witness to be possibly damaging.

Archaea · 11-12-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think what they want to mean is that in the course of testifying one may receive a witness.

I believe this can happen, but certainly not always. And I think repeated testifying with no belief or witness to be possibly damaging.

Maybe this is true, but it rings inherently dishonest.

"Hi there, I'm here to give witness about something I'm awaiting a witness for."

creekster · 11-12-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Maybe this is true, but it rings inherently dishonest.

"Hi there, I'm here to give witness about something I'm awaiting a witness for."

I don't think htat's the idea at all. I think the idea is to bear what witness you do have, meaing you hope it is true, you have a wintess of some aspect, etc., and by doing so you will strengthen that witness and be more prepared to recevie additional testimony of other principles or, perhaps, even receive that testimony while testifying. I don't think we are ever counseled to bear a false witness.

Mrs. Funk · 11-12-2007, 05:46 PM

There was a lady in one of my wards who once said in a talk that you weren't truly feeling the Spirit or had a testimony unless you cried. Right... since crying is proof of real conviction?

Archaea · 11-12-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. Funk

There was a lady in one of my wards who once said in a talk that you weren't truly feeling the Spirit or had a testimony unless you cried. Right... since crying is proof of real conviction?

Paul H. Dunn, who by virtue of his exaggerations has been discredited, declared at BYU that myth to be fallacy. Crying is proof of how something impacts you personally, or how you are conditioned to react to certain stimuli.

11-12-2007, 04:51 PM	#1
hammer Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 33	Testimony vs. Emotion How do you separate emotion from a testimony and/or spiritual witness? Is that possible? Is there even a right answer? I haven't put a ton of thought into this, but thought I'd open it up to the CougarGuard brains. The LDS Church, which I'm a member of, puts a GREAT deal of emphasis, maybe even over emphasis, on having a spiritual witness/confirmation of all things. Maybe other religions do that as well, I have no idea, but my guess is probably not to the extent of the LDS. The BOM challenges us to pray to receive a witness; we have monthly testimony meetings expressing our personal witness(es); we end talks and lessons with our testimony; we write our testimony down in the front of BOMs and give them away; for two years in the mission field we bear testimony on a daily/hourly basis; we keep our testimony ready for use in case we don't have answers for a doubter's concerns and that's all we have left to refer to. What I have a very difficult time with is being able to identify what part of (maybe all of it?) an LDS person's testimony is based on emotion. How do I know the good feelings I felt when reading the BOM or praying or attending church came from the Spirit? How do I know those feelings aren't just emotions that come from the hope of a good life after death? They're the same good feelings I get when reading a good fictional book, watching a good movie, watching sporting events, accomplishing things at work, and being with my kids and spouse. When the scriptures and prophets talk about ways of identifying the Spirit, is there an inherent conflict of interest going on there? (E.G., how do I know if the good feeling I'm having while reading the scriptures is anything more than a feeling of hope? Because the scriptures I'm reading tell me that it's the Spirit? Of course that's what they're going to say, isn't it?) Is the still, small voice your own voice inside your head? Please understand I'm not attacking the testimonies held by Mormons or members of other religions. I guess I'm just curious to know if there is a right answer because I don't think there is. And if there isn't a right answer, why does the LDS Church put so much focus on testimonies?

11-12-2007, 04:57 PM	#3
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	This is a great question and parallels the question of empirical knowledge versus spiritual witness. The way I look at it is a witness or something revealed can cause an emotive response. Paul H. Dunn would comment upon members claiming a witness simply by the feeling of emotion or crying. Just crying is not tantamount to a witness. Many things can cause emotive responses. Pain. Joy. Confusion. Disappointment. Consternation. All of these things can cause emotive responses. When we receive a witness to our soul's eye or mind, we may have conditioned ourselves to emote, but the emoting is not the witness except as it may convey a witness to another person. Does any of that make sense to others? Again this is a flow of consciousness thing. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

11-12-2007, 05:46 PM	#9
Mrs. Funk Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 367	Crying in testimony There was a lady in one of my wards who once said in a talk that you weren't truly feeling the Spirit or had a testimony unless you cried. Right... since crying is proof of real conviction?

11-12-2007, 04:53 PM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	the answer about why the church places such emphasis on it is that personal revelation is the bedrock of the church. And if it doesn't exist, then there is no real reason to be a Mormon instead of a Methodist.

11-12-2007, 05:07 PM	#4
hammer Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 33	Also, I've heard various versions of this over my lifetime: "If you don't have a testimony, bear it until you get one." What? To me that means a testimony is based 100% on emotion.