Questioning my testimony

[Universeman]

I have been doing a lot of skeptical thinking lately, I used to think that I was 100% certain of my testimony of the gospel but now I am far less certain of the basis for my testimony. Now don’t panic I have no intention of leaving the LDS faith I am simply questioning the strength of my testimony. I do not have any worthiness issues and I honor all of my temple covenants, I partake of the sacrament every week and have daily scripture study and I pray with my wife and so on.

What I am questioning is how can I ever possibly distinguish between a witness of the spirit and my own emotions? In addition to this question I would also point out that of all the instances that I would consider a witness of the spirit, non of them are related in any way to the LDS faith, such as a witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Lastly is a witness of the truthfulness of the restored gospel by the Holy Ghost requisite to being a member in good standing. Let me clarify a bit what I mean by that, lets take the prophet Joseph Smith Jr. for example, a lot of people dismiss him out right as nothing more then a charlatan. I have never received a witness of the spirit that Joseph actually was a prophet, even if the Holy Ghost hit me up side the head with a frying pan (frying pans, who knew?) I probably would not recognize it anyway. On the other hand none of the fantastic claims of the church are falsifiable and I have no real reason to doubt that Joseph Smith is the prophet of the restoration, to say that I believe all of the outrageous claims of the LDS church is a stretch for me, much less claiming that I know with any kind of certainty is out of the question with out empirical evidence to support such claims. In any case I have no desire to leave the church, I truly value my church associations and because I have always strived to live the gospel I have grown immensely as a person from my service in the church (in fact I consider this to be the basis for my testimony).

As a skeptical person by nature I tend to question just about everything, to include a witness from the holy ghost because I see no reason why such a feeling couldn’t simply be my own emotions. On the other hand I am faithful in living the gospel and keeping my covanants, so is that enough? I guess what I am most courious about is how is it that virtually every member who bears their testimony claims to know with out a doubt that the gospel is true when that is clearly impossible considering the basis of the evidence. One might have a very strong conviction that the LDS church is true but that is a priori knowledge (conceptual) and not a posteriori knowledge which is based on empirical evidence.

[Backroads]

I once read somewhere that during prayer/meditation/whatever if thoughts are a little too complex, it's probably you're own thoughts and feelings.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Changed gave some very good advice. My thoughts are faith is not faith until it has been through trials. We will receive a witness, but we must ask. And I think often we will not receive a witness until after the trial of our faith.

These articles have some truths in them that can help you:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Personal Revelation: The Gift, the Test, and the Promise

The Candle of the Lord - Ensign Jan. 1983

[Eleven]

ether 12 27.

he gives us weaknesses, and if we humble ourselves and bring those weaknesses to him, he will make them strong.

the great thing that you've done is to continue to go to church, read, temple.. etc.

too many times people will question their testimony, wish they had a stronger one, but entirely put on hold those things until they somehow find that testimony without them.

Remember a testimony is not a perfect knowledge, its a belief without seeing. testimonies are subject to doubt at times, and to be honest, if you take it the right way, it can be a very healthy refining tool when it happens.

now if i can ask, what exactly of your testimony are you questioning?

God, christ, christianity as a whole?

the Lds church, all of it, some of it...

or maybe your personal witnesses that you may think were coincidences instead of revelations?

specific questions get specific answers, thats all im saying :)

[apexviper13]

I notice you mentioned about questioning the strength of your testimony. Here's a question: how long has it been since you've bore your testimony? If you don't share your testimony with others over a period of time then, like a plant that's not given water, it diminishes over time.

[Guest tbaird22]

apex your comment reminds me of the John Bytheway talk called Weed your spirit grow your testimony. Try questioning your doubts instead of your testimony.

[Justice]

The hardest part about life is remembering. Although the gift of time has given us an opportunity to repent before we kick the bucket, it brings some negatives as well... like forgetting.

This is why it's so crucial to attend church each week and honestly and sincerely partake of the Sacrament. This is the way the Lord has given us to remember... and it works. It's a powerful symbol of what He has done for us, with actual bread and water to help drive the symbol deep into our being.

We must learn to use more and more of our time remembering Him. We must increase scripture study, prayers, service, and everything else we do in His name.

Staying away from these things only leads to a falling away.

Hang in there.

[Seminarysnoozer]

There is a logical aspect to faith, the best way to learn is by faith. I think the thing that has helped me with this issue of not knowing everything with proven certainty is to convince yourself that in reality 99% of all we do every day and almost everything we know is based in trust in someone else or something else. This very language that we speak is because we trusted our parents or others that what they were telling us is correct. I trust that a person made this computer correctly and that the electricity is delivered correctly. Pretty much all we learn about the gospel teachings is through someone else and their inspiration. Reading a book on any topic, searching the internet, learning from a teacher etc. is not learning through conviction but by trust, at least at first.

If I had to learn all that by myself during my lifetime, I think I would be stuck on simply getting enough food gathered for the day to stay alive. Our progress and our growth is intimately tied into faith and trust in others, benefiting from their growth and intelligence. The opposite of that is the idea that we must learn it all by ourselves, that is the wrong plan Satan presented, to try to get credit for himself.

The idea that we have to learn everything independently is, in my opinion, the source of this doubt and concern. Even in LDS discussion there is an idea that the only way to gain knowledge is to learn it on your own, that is false. Faith is a quicker way to learn.

I think one of the most important things to have faith in is the fact that we all matured before coming to this life. We all have lived more than several thousand years in the presence of God, likely way more than that. If we were in His presence for that length of time, learning uninhibited by evil influence and mortal weaknesses then we all know more than we could possibly ever learn in this lifetime. The goal is not to relearn all that over again in this life, that would be kinda silly if we get everything we previously learned back once we die. I think a strong desire to relearn everything puts the focus in the wrong place. The thing we are supposed to learn is faith promoting skills. The 'extra credit' goes to the one who figures it out by faith as opposed to some kind of objective evidence. "Objective evidence" was part of the pre-mortal life learning.

Sorry, went on there, my tangential writing probably didn't help much. Bottom line - strong faith in Christ, like a child is (I think) more valuable than a strong conviction. In other words a person can go through life with a "I know not why" but recognize divine influences without having to be convinced of the reasons behind those commandments or principles of anything and do well in learning that skill alone.

[mordorbund]

Are you worried about saying you KNOW these things to be true when you just believe? or are you struggling with belief as well? "To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful." If it is the former, then there is no need to feel disparaged; your belief is sufficient.

[unixknight]

You'll never prove the Gospel empirically.

As it should be.

If the Gospel could be proven 100% through evidence then there'd be no need for Faith. People who make decisions on pure reason and evidence would have no choice but to accept the truth of the Gospel because, well, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

What good is faith then?

Would people still be valiant for accepting and following the Gospel, or would they simply be doing what everybody else is doing because facts don't lie? What about people who refuse to accept the Gospel? Would they become social pariahs for being "Gospel Deniers?"

Sounds like a loss of choice to me. Whose agenda does THAT serve?

So it seems like your focus shouldn't be on evidence, but rather, boosting your faith. You've said your a very empirical evidence-based thinker. Well, evidence and the scientific method are great tools but they aren't one-size-fits-all solutions. Maybe it's time to look at new ways of thinking.

[ConvinceTheWorld]

take the prophet Joseph Smith Jr. for example, a lot of people dismiss him out right as nothing more then a charlatan. I have never received a witness of the spirit that Joseph actually was a prophet,

Read his Journal. You will no longer doubt.

That is the foundation of a testimony. Either He was a prophet or not.

Most people dont know this but Sir Isaac Newton wrote more on the bible than he did on physics. Check out these quotes from him brother. Mind you he died in 1727. Joseph Smith was born in 1805.

"For the prophets and apostles have foretold that as Israel often revolted and brake the covenant, and upon repentance renewed it, so there should be a falling away among the Christians, soon after the days of the Apostles, and that in the latter days God would destroy the impenitent revolters, and make a new covenant with his people. And the giving ear to the prophets is a fundamental character of the true church."

"An angel must fly through the midst of heaven with the everlasting Gospel to preach to all nations, before Babylon falls, and the Son of man reaps his harvest. (quoting Rev. 14:6)"

"For as the few and obscure Prophecies concerning Christ's first coming were for setting up the Christian religion, which all nations have since corrupted, so the many and clear Prophecies, concerning the things to be done at Christ's second coming, are not only for predicting but also for effecting a recovery and re-establishment of the long-lost truth, and setting up a kingdom wherein dwells righteousness. The event will prove the Apocalypse, and this Prophecy, thus proved and understood, will open the old Prophets and all together will make known the true religion, and establish it." - Sir Isaac Newton

Think about this. According to the bible, the new covenant would be made right before "knowledge was increased and people run to and fro". If you look at a timeline of technology beginning with the first vision it becomes noticably clear.

Also one other point i would like to emphasize is this. Moses led the Israelites out of bondage in egypt hence the word "exodus". Think about church history. Literally a latter-day covenant exodus out of bondage. Puts things into perspective.

Edited August 9, 2011 by ConvinceTheWorld

[John_Galt_Lives]

Universeman, you might find this interesting. The following is a recounting of an event in the life of an acquaintance of mine

(unsubstantiated faith demoting experience removed by moderator, please read site rules)

Just a disclaimer: I don't know the guy who posted this well, so I don't know that this is true by first-hand experience. But it sounds VERY plausible to me, and I have no reason to believe that it is made up.

Edited August 14, 2011 by john doe

[ConvinceTheWorld]

Universeman, you might find this interesting. The following is a recounting of an event in the life of an acquaintance of mine

Just a disclaimer: I don't know the guy who posted this well, so I don't know that this is true by first-hand experience. But it sounds VERY plausible to me, and I have no reason to believe that it is made up.

why when everybody is trying to strengthen his testimony, you are trying to break it down?

Edited August 14, 2011 by john doe

[bytor2112]

why when everybody is trying to strengthen his testimony, you are trying to break it down?

Because he is an atheist and these type of stories are numerous, but, all that tells me is that they weren't "feeling" the Spirit. For those of us who have and do "feel" the Spirit and "hear" the whisper of the "still small voice" it is undeniable and cannot be mistaken for emotion or anything of this world. It does on occasion evoke emotions and causes us to weep, but it is not emotion alone.....but the tender touch of the love of God that causes our tears.

[Sali]

Thank you for your post bytor, I really needed that today. :)

As far as Spirit/emotion/feeling are concerned. I have had two separate friends on two separate occasions attend Church with me. One was during Sacrament and one was a friend of my daughter, around the 16 year old age group at the time, who was attending Youth and I showed her around the building. She said this after she had entered the Chapel. Both of these friends had not been 'primed' if you want to call it that. They had not really been told anything about the Church, but both of them, within minutes of walking in the Chapel asked why they felt so good in there. That their hearts were light and full was how they both described it. I always go back to this if I start to become troubled about this subject.

I think that we use the word 'feel' when we describe how we experience the Spirit, as for lack of a better term. But maybe at times the more correct description would be that the Spirit leaves an impression.

[Just_A_Guy]

Universeman, you might find this interesting. The following is a recounting of an event in the life of an acquaintance of mine named Tyler Young. (It is available publicly on the internet.)

Just a disclaimer: I don't know the guy who posted this well, so I don't know that this is true by first-hand experience. But it sounds VERY plausible to me, and I have no reason to believe that it is made up.

Well, yeah; the guy pretty much admits that the criticisms of his Mormon friends were correct: he deceived himself into receiving the "revelation" he wanted to receive. It does not follow that everyone who has received a revelation confirming Mormonism, has similarly deceived himself. In many cases (my own included), the revelation comes in spite of and not because of the recipient's personal desires.

It is indeed important that we not merely rely on emotions ("the heart") in obtaining our testimonies. Our scripture clearly tells us that the Spirit speaks to our hearts in conjunction with our minds.

Good feelings can be one facet of feeling the Spirit, but dopily walking around with smiles on our face does not constitute a spiritual manifestation per se. It should be accompanied by mental enlightenment, strengthening, and understanding.

Incidentally, your argument is not new. The trap many atheists fall into is to insist that we as believers can not verify the unverifiable, but then arrogating that same prerogative for themselves.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

why when everybody is trying to strengthen his testimony, you are trying to break it down?

Who says he's trying to break someone's testimony down? That story can easily be true and we should be prepared to have our faith and testimonies challenged.

A testimony that is never tested or tried, is simply an affirmation.

What happens to the Elder who gives a blessing of healing and the person dies? Does that mean that the Elder's faith wasn't right? Was the Elder's testimony not strong enough? These things happen! Does this mean that the church isn't true? That the priesthood doesn't work?

In that story, was the baby okay? Who gives the definition of "okay"? If the Lord said the baby was "okay" He could mean that the baby is safe with Him. Isn't that "okay"?

The Holy Spirit teaches us in different ways - each according to how well they have learned to be in-tune with the promptings they receive. Some of us receive it as "clarity". A burning in the bosom and swelling in the heart happens to me as I hear good, moving music. (Click on my profile and watch the video. It'll get you.) Sometimes, it's a very small voice asking me a question.

Just because you can feel the spirit strongly in a priesthood blessing doesn't mean that the blessing will come to pass.

Once we feel that it is of the Spirit, then we need to nourish that particular seed and properly act upon it. But even doing that, doesn't guarantee an outcome that is to our liking.

[Just_A_Guy]

A testimony that is never tested or tried, is simply an affirmation.

In legal circles, if the opposing side doesn't have a chance to cross examine the witness, they say that the witness' testimony is "undeveloped".

Undeveloped testimony can be misleading, and is therefore generally inadmissible in court.