Comments on: What do Mormons mean by the word “testimony”? http://www.mormondna.org/testimony/mormons-word-testimony.html What Mormons Are Really Made Of Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:25:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Joshua Steimle http://www.mormondna.org/testimony/mormons-word-testimony.html#comment-2253 Joshua Steimle Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:41:35 +0000 http://www.mormondna.org/?p=115#comment-2253 Hi Solomon, I think the challenge you face may have to do with an assumption you've made as expressed by your statement "...there’s really no way to 'know' anything for sure – much less concerning religion." I think that's an assumption to be questioned, although that's not saying much because I think <em>all</em> assumptions should be questioned. If we want to dig down to the core of things, the first question to ask is whether there is anything we can know, and if you follow this to its logical conclusion we have to start with asking whether we can know that we exist, not "we" as a group, but you individually. How do I know that I exist? Do you believe Descartes statement "I think therefore I am"? True, there are arguments even against this, but I take is as fact and I believe anyone must if they are to make any subsequent thought meaningful. The next question might be "Does anything else exist?" One could posit that all mental activity is self-contained and there is no such thing as external stimuli, or that what has the appearance of external stimuli has a figment of imagination, but let's leave that for later and just assume we accept this for the moment, or at least that we don't get hung up on it. The next question I would ask would be "If other things exist, what is the most important 'thing' for me to be aware of existing?" I would argue this is God. If he does exist, then our situation is quite different than if he doesn't exist, arguably of greater difference than if anything else does or doesn't exist. If we can arrive at the point of knowing that we do exist, that other things exist, and that God exists (not that I've explained yet how we might come to knowledge of the latter two) then the next logical question might be "If God exists, who is he, what is he like, and what am I supposed to do about it?" At this point, someone comes along with the Bible or Book of Mormon and says "This contains things God said." The logical reaction to this would be to ask "How can I know this is true, that these words really are the words of God?" Simply reading the words, or the mere existence of the words, does not imply that they are what they appear to be. Neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon can prove themselves to be true in and of themselves, nor can they prove each other to be true although they may add evidence to the case. There must be a source of knowledge external to either book. Unfortunately, I must continue this response later, as I have to go to my church meetings now. Hi Solomon, I think the challenge you face may have to do with an assumption you’ve made as expressed by your statement “…there’s really no way to ‘know’ anything for sure – much less concerning religion.” I think that’s an assumption to be questioned, although that’s not saying much because I think all assumptions should be questioned.

If we want to dig down to the core of things, the first question to ask is whether there is anything we can know, and if you follow this to its logical conclusion we have to start with asking whether we can know that we exist, not “we” as a group, but you individually. How do I know that I exist? Do you believe Descartes statement “I think therefore I am”? True, there are arguments even against this, but I take is as fact and I believe anyone must if they are to make any subsequent thought meaningful.

The next question might be “Does anything else exist?” One could posit that all mental activity is self-contained and there is no such thing as external stimuli, or that what has the appearance of external stimuli has a figment of imagination, but let’s leave that for later and just assume we accept this for the moment, or at least that we don’t get hung up on it.

The next question I would ask would be “If other things exist, what is the most important ‘thing’ for me to be aware of existing?” I would argue this is God. If he does exist, then our situation is quite different than if he doesn’t exist, arguably of greater difference than if anything else does or doesn’t exist.

If we can arrive at the point of knowing that we do exist, that other things exist, and that God exists (not that I’ve explained yet how we might come to knowledge of the latter two) then the next logical question might be “If God exists, who is he, what is he like, and what am I supposed to do about it?”

At this point, someone comes along with the Bible or Book of Mormon and says “This contains things God said.” The logical reaction to this would be to ask “How can I know this is true, that these words really are the words of God?” Simply reading the words, or the mere existence of the words, does not imply that they are what they appear to be. Neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon can prove themselves to be true in and of themselves, nor can they prove each other to be true although they may add evidence to the case. There must be a source of knowledge external to either book.

Unfortunately, I must continue this response later, as I have to go to my church meetings now.

]]> By: Solomon http://www.mormondna.org/testimony/mormons-word-testimony.html#comment-2250 Solomon Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:41:51 +0000 http://www.mormondna.org/?p=115#comment-2250 This is an excellent post. I am a practicing, return missionary, BYU graduate Mormon and I have only just recently began to face the dilemma of "knowing". I mean actually knowing. I get uncomfortable in meetings when members say something like "I know the church is true" because there's really no way to "know" anything for sure - much less concerning religion. At the end of my Sunday school lesson today I actually stuttered and faltered because I customarily end by bearing my testimony and telling my class that I know the church is true. But I couldn't say it today. I don't know. I've chosen to believe it and I think there are valuable and irreplaceable lessons to be learned in this church so I plan to continue my course. Would I be wrong to continue to teach my children something that I don't in fact know to be true? I've just had so many inner conflicts lately with this and I don't feel comfortable sshsharing this with friends or family so I was glad ti find your post about the meaning of testimony. Also, if you have any advice or feedback at allI would appreciate it. Have you ever faced a similar situation or had a similar question? How can we base everything about the church on a feeling when everyone else also claims to have felt and know the truth in every different truth? There must be something more concrete. This is an excellent post. I am a practicing, return missionary, BYU graduate Mormon and I have only just recently began to face the dilemma of “knowing”. I mean actually knowing. I get uncomfortable in meetings when members say something like “I know the church is true” because there’s really no way to “know” anything for sure – much less concerning religion. At the end of my Sunday school lesson today I actually stuttered and faltered because I customarily end by bearing my testimony and telling my class that I know the church is true. But I couldn’t say it today. I don’t know. I’ve chosen to believe it and I think there are valuable and irreplaceable lessons to be learned in this church so I plan to continue my course. Would I be wrong to continue to teach my children something that I don’t in fact know to be true? I’ve just had so many inner conflicts lately with this and I don’t feel comfortable
sshsharing this with friends or family so I was glad ti find your post about the meaning of testimony. Also, if you have any advice or feedback at allI would appreciate it. Have you ever faced a similar situation or had a similar question? How can we base everything about the church on a feeling when everyone else also claims to have felt and know the truth in every different truth? There must be something more concrete.

]]>