The role of a "testimony" in the new Church?

[SeattleUte]

So I read the attached review of the Bushman book with interest. I thought the author of the article--which gives the book a very favorable assessment--showed some sharp insight into LDS culture and history. One of the most intriguing passages of the article is the following:

"The mystery of the scripture's [the Book of Mormon's] origins (was it really translated from 'reformed Egyptian' or was it made up or borrowed from other sources?) is just one of the burning questions about Smith that Richard Lyman Bushman, his latest biographer, examines from every conceivable rational angle before declaring it to be unanswerable - unanswerable in a way that vaguely suggests such puzzles were divinely intended to stay that way. Bushman, a retired Columbia history professor who also happens to be a practicing Mormon, has a tricky dual agenda, it turns out: to depict Smith both as the prophet he claimed to be and as the man of his times that he most certainly was. 'The efforts to situate the Book of Mormon in history, whether ancient or modern, run up against baffling complexities,' Bushman writes, seemingly closing the door on the whole matter while slyly leaving it open a crack for a faith. 'The Book of Mormon resists conventional analysis, whether sympathetic or critical.'

"As refracted through Bushman's intellectual bifocals - one lens is skeptical and clear, the other reverent and rosy - most of the rest of Smith's remarkable story is shown to resist such analysis as well. So why make the effort in the first place? By showing the inadequacy of reason in the face of spiritual phenomena, Bushman seems to be playing a Latter-Day-Saint Aquinas. It appears he wants to usher in a subtle, mature new age of Mormon thought - rigorous yet not impious - akin to what smart Roman Catholics have had for centuries."

Bushman's ultimate point of view is not that of the Church I was raised in. The Church I was raised in had too much swagger, was too cockshure to recognize that for practicing Mormons the origin of the Book of Mormon must be left to the realm of ineffable mystery. My father's conviction was that yes, applicatoin of reason itself would vindicate the Book of Mormon. Seemingly he was expressing the prevailing view--remember all the conference talks about meso-American ruins proving the veracity of the Book of Mormon, the film Christ in America, etc.?

It's my view that the Church has indeed lost its old swagger in the past 20-30 years.

Do you agree with me? Is that a good thing? How does Bushman's idea of a "subtle, mature new age of Mormon thought" (in the words of the New York Times) square with the absolute certitude that the concept of a "testimony" connotes? "Testimony" has been such a key ingredient of Mormon culture.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/bo....html?emc=eta1

[Archaea]

Perhaps not being articulate enough to make meaningful distinctions, I'll still go where fools go and the brave dare not.

I enjoy Bushman's approach. And intellectual inquiry into things which may not be intellectually solvable is still important.

"Testimony" is important to prompt one to stay interested, to keep focused. Without it, much purpose evaporates. Reine Vernunft, as Kant would call it is very drole, very dry and very empty.

Connection, sublime connection, with Divine through inarticulable sentiments seem to unopen ever so slightly information we once knew in a more complete sense. I imagine most of us do not understand our testimonies, but rather listen to others and have similar experiences thereby articulating them similarly but probably miss much what Divinity is actually trying to communicate. Our minds and spirits are not sensitized enough to distinguish between our wants and desires and His mind.

Yet that is the human condition and the very purpose for which we are here: to unite our minds with him so we can learn what we once knew and to experience the human condition in a truly spiritual sense.

Make any sense?

[Archaea]

My God that sucked, my comments above.

Testimony helps one muddle through the ambiguities of life, as do intellect and education. I call it the "muddle through" principle.

At one time I believed life to be mostly black and white. Now I believe it's mostly grey with glimpses of white and shades of black.

Testimony helps me gather glimpses of white.

Another crappy insight I know, but that's what I full of currently.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Perhaps not being articulate enough to make meaningful distinctions, I'll still go where fools go and the brave dare not.

I enjoy Bushman's approach. And intellectual inquiry into things which may not be intellectually solvable is still important.

"Testimony" is important to prompt one to stay interested, to keep focused. Without it, much purpose evaporates. Reine Vernunft, as Kant would call it is very drole, very dry and very empty.

Connection, sublime connection, with Divine through inarticulable sentiments seem to unopen ever so slightly information we once knew in a more complete sense. I imagine most of us do not understand our testimonies, but rather listen to others and have similar experiences thereby articulating them similarly but probably miss much what Divinity is actually trying to communicate. Our minds and spirits are not sensitized enough to distinguish between our wants and desires and His mind.

Yet that is the human condition and the very purpose for which we are here: to unite our minds with him so we can learn what we once knew and to experience the human condition in a truly spiritual sense.

Make any sense?

This reminds me of a passage from Augustine's "Confessions." I'm not kidding. I tried to find it in the online version but couldn't. When I get a chance I'll see if I can locate it in the hard copy I have and post it. It's someting to the effect of humans from the beginning of time catching a passing glimpse of the divine, and there being a strong sense of de ja vu... Now I'm the one being an inarticulate fool. I'll see if I can find it. It's a lovely passage.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This reminds me of a passage from Augustine's "Confessions." I'm not kidding. I tried to find it in the online version but couldn't. When I get a chance I'll see if I can locate it in the hard copy I have and post it. It's someting to the effect of humans from the beginning of time catching a passing glimpse of the divine, and there being a strong sense of de ja vu... Now I'm the one being an inarticulate fool. I'll see if I can find it. It's a lovely passage.

I quickly reperused Confessions, or at least a translation thereof, and couldn't find the passage, but I wasn't thinking of it, when I penned my poor words.

[tooblue]

From where I sit your observation expertly describes the swing of a pendulum. The back of the mind, ‘you just wait for the archeological evidence to be unearthed’ attitude you call swagger represents a high arching swing in one direction. Conversely the ‘subtle, mature new age of Mormon thought’ you identify as espoused in Bushman’s methodology and book represents the swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction. Ultimately the pendulum’s momentum will diminish and the weight bearing down on it’s point will rest somewhere in the middle.

As an aside, perhaps we could consider Homer’s fantastical accounts of a Trojan war as analogous. Historians and archeologist long considered it legend born of wonderful fiction. Despite exhaustive searches for ruins physical evidence of Troy was not discovered until the late 19th century. Is there a Troy of the Book of Mormon waiting to be found?

The need for testimony has therefore never been greater, it is at the heart of a consuming flame that will devour or refine. Members of the church have long been warned of a gleaming, and evidence of such is found in the very nature of this discussion.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I quickly reperused Confessions, or at least a translation thereof, and couldn't find the passage, but I wasn't thinking of it, when I penned my poor words.

Here it is Archaea. Augustine writes, addressing the Lord, as in a prayer:

"For ever the soul is weighed down by a mortal body, earth bound cell that clogs the manifold divinity of its thought. I was most certain, too, that from the foundations of the world men have caught sight of your invisible nature, your eternal power, and your divineness, as they are known through your creatures. . . . [A]nd I realized that above my own mind, which was liable to change, there was the never changing, true eternity of truth . . . . For unless, by some means, [the mind] had known the immutable, it could not possibly have been certain that it was preferable to the mutable. And so, in an instant of awe, I caught sight of your invisible nature, as it is known through your creatures. But I had no strength to fix my gaze upon them."

Here he is consciously paraphrasing Plato. Plato is the first Westerner on record to have written of a soul separate from a mutable body. Some say he invented the concept. He called the mind the pilot of the soul. You won't find the concept in the Old Testament. Aristotle elaborated on the idea and modified it somewhat. This is one of the key contributions of Greek philosphy to Christianity, as some say. Indeed, Paul, who of course was a Hellenized Jew and wrote in Greek, himself appears often to be paraphrasing Plato. For a thousand years the world only knew about Plato through Augustine's writings.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

From where I sit your observation expertly describes the swing of a pendulum. The back of the mind, ‘you just wait for the archeological evidence to be unearthed’ attitude you call swagger represents a high arching swing in one direction. Conversely the ‘subtle, mature new age of Mormon thought’ you identify as espoused in Bushman’s methodology and book represents the swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction. Ultimately the pendulum’s momentum will diminish and the weight bearing down on it’s point will rest somewhere in the middle.

As an aside, perhaps we could consider Homer’s fantastical accounts of a Trojan war as analogous. Historians and archeologist long considered it legend born of wonderful fiction. Despite exhaustive searches for ruins physical evidence of Troy was not discovered until the late 19th century. Is there a Troy of the Book of Mormon waiting to be found?

The need for testimony has therefore never been greater, it is at the heart of a consuming flame that will devour or refine. Members of the church have long been warned of a gleaming, and evidence of such is found in the very nature of this discussion.

There is some room here for faith and speculation. I understand that 90% of the Roman ruins are still buried in the earth, hidden from sight.

[Archaea]

Great quote Seattle, but the quote also shows a certain epistomology with which I'm not in total agreement.

But the sentiment is fantastic. I admire Catholic thought, but don't agree with its definition of God. Catholic intellectuals have added greatly to our knowledge of history and advancement of religious thought.

For what it's worth, not much, one of my minors was Philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, including Spinoza (horrible to read), being some of the rudiments of philosophy.

It is a beautiful passage nonetheless.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Great quote Seattle, but the quote also shows a certain epistomology with which I'm not in total agreement.

But the sentiment is fantastic. I admire Catholic thought, but don't agree with its definition of God. Catholic intellectuals have added greatly to our knowledge of history and advancement of religious thought.

For what it's worth, not much, one of my minors was Philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, including Spinoza (horrible to read), being some of the rudiments of philosophy.

It is a beautiful passage nonetheless.

I assume you're referring to Augustine's reference to God's "invisible nature" (you implicitly referring to Mormon theology in contrast holding that God has a visible body). From the context in which the term appears in the passage I doubt that Augustine's specific intended meaning was God's spiritual essence (though he certainly did believe in a spiritual, omniscient God). Augustine is simply referring to the veil and the existence of the veil being part and parcel of mortality. Mormons and Catholics alike believe in this, and that the veil is part of the divine plan. The veil and man's hurculean efforts through the ages to get a glimpse beyond it is the subject of the passage.

By the way, as you probably know, it's been said many times that "Catholicism" really has no practical meaning until the protestant reformation.