I was recently reading an article about a new study on how being exposed to something over and over can trick us into beving it, even if it is false.
New research published in Cognition reveals that repeated exposure not only makes people more likely to believe information is true but also falsely remember knowing it beforehand.
The “truth effect’ demonstrates how repeated exposure to a statement can significantly influence our belief in its truthfulness, regardless of its actual accuracy. The ease with which our brain processes these repeated statements—a concept known as processing fluency—is often mistakenly interpreted as a signal of truth.
Apparently, Elder Oaks was right all along!
We gain or strengthen a testimony by bearing it. Someone even suggested that some testimonies are better gained on the feet bearing them than on the knees praying for them.
Being the lawyer that he is, I love how he gave himself plausible deniability with the “Someone even suggested….” line. “What, I never said that, I just said some once said it!” Sounds a lot like Trump: “A lot of people are saying…..”
So let’s take Elder Oak’s words literally. Assume a person does not have a testimony. There would be nothing to say in “bearing a testimony” because they don’t have one. But according to Oaks, you gain a testimony by bearing it. So when you first bear it, you are not telling the truth, because you have no testimony, you are just repeating what you’ve heard others say. Would this be a lie? Elder Oaks would understand this in a legal senses as perjury. If you say you “know Joseph Smith saw God”, but you don’t know, are you lying? But after two years saying over and over, is it still a lie, or do you now believe it, and always thought you believed it as the study showed?
I’ll just leave you with this quote
“Jerry, just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.”
George Costanza, Seinfeld
Your thoughts?
Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay
Wheat & Tares 
I remember going to scout camp combined with youth conference in the early 80’s. There was always the mandatory testimony meeting on the last day. All the kids would parrot the same newly learned adult phrases. If you did not share and have the courage to publicly speak and repeat the same words you were somewhat looked down on. I recall a few “rebel” kids stating “I am not going to repeat it, until I know it”. Those kids did not go on missions or marry in the LDS temple. If you did not go all in at 13-14 years of age and had a mind for yourself, you never fit in the LDS mold. Myself, I was all in and stated the needed “I know”….lines.
As OP notes there is zero encouragement to develop critical thinking or even ponder what any of it means at such a young age. Any one who differs from the company line is anti-Mormon. 40 years later some of the adults still rattle off the same verbiage, and have not developed beyond their 14 year-old self.
I ask what does testimony even mean? I understand in the business world, testimonies encourage get people to buy products. If I 👍 a product then I will tell others, eat this chocolate, buy this vacuum, this weight loss product changed my life.
Why does a Mormon testimony include Joseph Smith? The leap of JS is a prophet because I read parts the Book of Mormon, and bundling in this is the only true church and xxx is the Lord’s prophet…is an enormous leap. Can a Mormon testimony be a Christ testimony solely and exclude JS/BOM/RMN?
I think a better LDS testimony is: I avoided teen pregnancy because of the law of chasity, I do not do drugs because of the WoW, I drive the speed limit because I obey the laws of the land, I learned to be a better father because of what I learned in Priesthood. Real life in practical terms. That is a testimony to share that may help other people in life’s journey.
The truth of LDS testimony is to convince one self of why you are still paying tithing to the billion $ church, cleaning the chapel, and spending 2 hours in hard metal chairs….when subconsciously you know you could be serving food at a homeless shelter, communing with nature on a hike, reading “good” books, or spending quality time with your family, instead of listening to a whole room of parrots.
Each time the Priests parroted The Law, to Christ, he would counter with a more practical statement that would supersede the Law.
I issue my strongest possible condemnation to the mindless repetition of meaningless phrases that fills the modern so-called testimony meeting. This practice helps no one.
This practice does not help the speaker because it suppresses the speakers ability to engage in critical thinking. It encourages the speaker to seek attention by imitating the crowd without thought.
This practice certainly doesn’t help the listener, who is exposed to banal repetition that provides no opportunity to learn anything useful.
Is it any wonder that attendance is plummeting? One can only make it through so many testimony meetings by watching Dua Lipa music videos on the sly.
Do the leaders ever think about what they are teaching? First of all, they teach the youth to get up and say what is expected as a “testimony”, then they have youth interviews where the youth are asked questions that have answers that are “what you are supposed to say”. How different is it to say to the congregation, “I know the BoM is true,” or to say to the bishop, “I pay a full tithing.” One is baring your testimony = good and the other is lying = bad, but both are saying what is expected, even demanded. One is encouraged as a harmless stretching, while the other is supposedly a whole different situation. But they are exactly the same in that they are saying what is the socially approved and expected answer.
If we are going to preach against lying, then maybe we should not encourage lying in socially approved situations.
It makes one wonder. Does Oaks ever realizes he is encouraging lying? Or is he so in the habit of lying for the lord that he can’t see it? Is his current testimony just saying all the right things with no concern for if those things are true? Can we even trust people like him to know the difference between truth and convenient lies? Is *he* still baring his testimony whether he knows it is true or not.
At the most basic, we can be pretty sure that he did exactly this and convinced himself something is true by saying over and over that it is. He started out not knowing a thing and told himself lies until he was convinced those lies were true. Very telling.
I’ll give teenagers and Elder Oaks just a little more credit than the OP.
I did not parrot everything I heard. Having been taught to think, be truthful, have integrity, and avoid peer pressure—things I learned from my parents and, somewhat ironically, the Church—I wasn’t just going to just get up there and say something I didn’t know. I had no fears about standing up during a Youth Conference and expressing other things though, or that I thought the viability of a Testimony was plausible. Most of my friends and youth in the ward held the same standard.
And yet, it was those conferences in which my understanding of how the Spirit works really started to take off. Halfway through or after some of those sincere “Plausimonies” I’d experience the Spirit telling me I really did know more than I let on or that there was much more “viability” than I realized, to the point that saying “know” probably would not have given me any guilt, discomfort, or dissonance. Greater experiences with the Spirit came with deeper dives into the Book of Mormon, but this was a huge start.
I was also caught off guard in some of those conferences by people who I thought did not have a testimony and wouldn’t be afraid to admit that then offer some of the most sincere and genuinely believable testimonies and experiences I’ve ever heard. I learned to be a lot more careful in how I judge from those experiences.
I don’t think Elder Oaks is implying lying is okay. He’s advocating to put yourself in as many places as possible to feel the Spirit testify. I’ll admit it doesn’t always work that way and that manipulation does, in reality, exist in many cases. But based off my experiences, the system is not broken and can lead to some really great things.
In the legal world, a testimony is a declaration of truth based upon one’s witnessing of events. Testimony can also mean ‘witness’ or ‘evidence.’ In other Christian churches, a testimony is a declaration of belief based upon some sort of spiritual witness. In the Mormon world, the meaning of testimony is unique in that it often means belief itself, not just the declaration of it. Only in the Mormon church can you gain or lose a testimony. Worse yet, there is the idea that testimonies are often fragile and easily lost and that you must be protective of it by lots of repetition, immersion in believe environment, and avoidance of ideas that challenge it. Sorry, but in the real world, there isn’t a really big concern that people will lose belief in ideas that have lots of evidence behind them. I think the worry of the church is that people will lose belief because the evidence behind the truth claim is actually lacking.
If it’s true that one can gain a testimony by declaring it, that would mean that one could believe any Church to be true by repeating it over and over again. I guess that’s why we have hundreds (thousands?) of religions in the world. Funny how if you were born in Utah and became LDS you just happen to be born into the truth. Same with a Baptist down South or a Muslim kid in Saudia Arabia. These folks are so lucky that they just happen to born in an area where the true Church resides.
Nothing like a good epistomological discussion to kick off the sabbath! This is a very succinct, thought-provoking post and I thank you Bishop Bill for making me ponder this morning. It makes me think about an exchange that I was listening to between Ezra Klein and a fellow from the conservative American Enterprise Institute shortly after the 2020 election. Ezra brought up the disconcerting fact that a large share of Republicans respond in survey questions that they knew the 2020 election was rigged/stolen.
The AEI fellow himself obviously knew that was a lie and wasn’t defending it. But his mild and apologetic counter to Ezra that in his estimation, the declaration of faith of “I know Donald Trump won the 2020 election” should be viewed more along the lines of a loyalty statement to a tribe more than an empirical one. I don’t really buy that, but it’s an interesting way to interpret many so-called testimonies in the church today. This could be considered costly signaling to denote in-group affiliation witin a group. This is kind of how I see testimonies functioning today within the church.
But it does lead to the larger problem in that one can’t really disentangle what is really meant by “I know” or bearing one’s testimony. I think we need to move away from confusing empirical, testable knowledge vs declarations of faith. It would be a lot healthier if anyone bearing their testimony shifted to “I believe that” or “I hope that” or at the very least limit their testimonial statements to much narrower declarations. “Oh Say, What Is Truth?” Indeed.
Long comment below, an excerpt from a sacrament meeting talk I gave last year. I called that advice about a testimony out as faulty, and still stand behind that assessment.
I grew up in the church, and can remember from a young age being perplexed when people bore their testimonies in absolutes – they knew that this was the one true church, knew beyond a shadow of a doubt, etc. I remember being skeptical and thinking that every kid like me sitting in a church somewhere was hearing people say that their specific church was the only true one. That skepticism has remained throughout life for me.
I served in a bishopric for a few years, and when it was my turn to conduct testimony meeting I tried following Boyd K Packer’s advice that a testimony is to be found in the bearing of it. I recognize that doing this is a leap of faith and can help some people develop or strengthen a testimony. However, if I’m being transparent, I didn’t feel honest with myself by doing that. I felt like I was proclaiming things as knowledge when I actually had belief, or hope but not knowledge. I felt like I was publicly lying, to the extent that I didn’t want to take the sacrament. But I was fearful that members with good intentions but no boundaries would ask my wife why her bishopric counselor husband wasn’t taking the sacrament. I often wondered what was wrong with me, if so many other people could emphatically say they know but I couldn’t say that without feeling disingenuous.
In the years since then, I’ve made peace with the fact that my feelings and beliefs about God, Christ and the gospel don’t usually align with what I hear other people say. D&C 46 speaks about how it is given to some to know, and to others to believe. I’ve stopped being critical of myself and accepted that my perspective doesn’t fit neatly into the template, or sometimes is opposite of the template. I’ve learned to live with the fact that sometimes things taught in general conference bother me and are harmful to people. I have become ok with following my own path and finding peace and the warmth of God’s love wherever I find it, even if it’s not at church, in the temple or in the scriptures. My walk with God through this life can (and should) be unique to me.
Ethan, I appreciate your thoughts and I am in my own way, following the same path that you have found. Thank you.
I strongly dislike the true false narrative many people adopt in testimony meeting. This kind of black and white thinking doesn’t reinforce anything good in my opinion. The world doesn’t come in all or nothing, black or white, true or false bad or good. I have always harbored a level of contempt for people that do the “without a shadow of a doubt” approach. If you aren’t having any doubts, where did you leave your brain?
Black and white thinking contributes to poor mental health. Any good counselor or therapist will help you to see the gray, or the uncertainty in every picture. This is a reality we have to accept and live with in life. Obsessive compulsive disorder is a a mental health disorder caused by resisting the natural uncertainty of every day life. There’s so much we don’t know and can’t know, and that’s normal and the way it should be. It’s immature to have an expectation that you can absolutely know everything without uncertainty.
We do have a choice about the words we use in testimony meeting as members of the church. I feel it’s very important not to pretend I know things I don’t. I still bear my testimony, but I use more careful language. For instance:
I will say, “I have faith in Jesus Christ that he has a plan for all people.” or “I have hope for a glorious resurrection as taught in the New Testament” or “I am deeply convicted that the most important thing for me is to follow Jesus Christ in how he treated other people, and I am deeply committed to do so.”
I have also gotten away with “In President Nelson’s first press conference a reporter asked him about Joseph Smith’s polygamy. He responded that we don’t have any infallibility doctrine. I believe President Nelson and our other leaders are sometimes inspired.”
I also share my love for my church community or for a certain verse in the Book of Mormon.
I think when we parrot the same trite phrases we set a bad example in every category and we serve up cold mush instead of sharing real experience and conviction. To build better mental health in our community we can model something better.
I know that my wife loves me. In fact, I know it well enough that I can say, “I know,” with full confidence. And yet, do I know it as well as I know that I love her? I think the best answer I can come up with is that there are different ways of knowing. And even though the former is a bit different than the latter I can just as easily bet my life on both of them. Time and experience can amount to a knowing of sorts–even before the veil is rent.
If you repeat something often enough, it becomes true or if you believe it, it’s not a lie are both false narratives. If this is what our Testimony meetings are based on, no wonder the church is having members leave.
When I was on the bishopric ànd conducting the meeting I always said I believed.
I am in hospital at present having had a stroke. I do not like being in hospital but am very impressed by the hospital the care and enthusiasm of the staff. I am thankful for universal healthcare. I have been here for a week. I will be getting ongoing physiotherapy, and I will not be getting a bill, someone will come to see if my house needs modifying.
Our conservative party want to reduce the number of immigrants. All the doctors, most of the nurses, and most of the other staff are immigrants, if immigration is reduced who will staff the hospitals? Trump says he will send home 11million undocumented people, ŵhat services do they provide?
I have a testimony of my tesla model X
Ethan, kudos to you for saying that in sacrament meeting, and kudos to your ward if they accepted it graciously. I’m in the same boat with you and Raymond, and it’s quite the interesting journey.
Jack, yep, we all know lots of things, until we find out we’re wrong. Feelings of certainty are sadly fallible.
Geoff-Aus,
Sorry you are in the hospital. I have a testimony that positive thoughts by you and your family can help in your recovery. Also, my daughter has a Tesla X, and I have way too much fun in it when I use it to pick up the grandkids!
Geoff-Aus,
Sending you good vibes and a speedy recovery from here. My wife and I both drive model 3s. I have a testimony that EVs are amazing, but also that Elon Musk is a terrible person who seems to be doing everything in his power to elect Donald Trump. I won’t begrudge anyone buying an EV (even a Tesla), but Musk’s rhetoric has been especially damaging to the LGBTQ, immigrant, and black/brown community. Anyone in the EV market might consider a Kia, Hyundai, Ford, Volvo, or GM. EV 9 in Georgia is spectacular for a large Mormon family. Here in southern Utah we pay $.60 to drive what 1 gallon of gas would cost us.
I issue my strongest possible condemnation to the stroke that has felled our brother Geoff. May he be granted a speedy recovery.
Jacob L,
Within the LDS context, I’ve also come to see “testimony” essentially function more as a statement of tribal loyalty than of first-hand experience. And unfortunately, but predictably, “testimony gloves” (see https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2008/10/testimony-glove?lang=eng) frequently function as boxing gloves used to beat epistemological integrity and humility into a corner while the crowd cheers in Dunning-Kruger Arena.
This statement by Oaks that has been oft-repeated doesn’t really sit well after the Big Lie. Fun fact, as Instereo also points out, the more you say something (true or not), the more you believe it. This is especially true for things are aren’t fact-based, but are more theoretical or perspective-oriented. In some ways it’s like something a work colleague said to me years ago: “You’re either the most liberal conservative or the most conservative liberal I’ve ever met.” Truth is, I was neither. Just an independent. Testimonies are saying things that build a framework to explain your life, to confirm your loyalties, to set your values. But Oaks is right, even if they literally aren’t your explanations, your loyalties, and your values, repeating them over and over will make them feel like yours.
“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit…”
The bearing of our testimony is typically accompanied by the witness of the spirit to our own souls (as well as to others) that the record we bear is true. That’s why bearing testimony to others can strengthen our own witness of the truth.
@Geoff – Aus I had to come back and wish you well after seeing your comment earlier today. I’m glad you’re able to get good care now and moving forward. We are pulling for you.
Geoff, may you get better soon. My dad had a stroke about two years ago. It has changed things for him a bit, but with determination he has managed to recover to a good degree. I hope the same for you.
Maverik,
The boxing glove analogy of a testimony is something that I’ve noticed too. I remember having a discussion with my best friend on this issue. He was uncomfortable with having his daughter sit through one-on-one worthiness interviews with the bishop and took a stand and said that he wouldn’t allow his daughter to do so and thus limited her ability to get a limited use recommend perform baptisms for the dead with the youth group (this was before the policy change of allowing a parent to accompany a minor). This caused a minor division between him and his wife, for whom the policy bothered but not enough to do anything about. He recounted to me the baffling and disconcerting experience of having his inlaws weighing in on the issue and bear their testimony to him in an aggressive, pugilistic way against him as being an unrighteous head of the household. The way he recounts it was that he was almost being spiritually coerced (“nice eternal family you got there, it would be a shame if something happened to it…).
We are familiar with physical abuse and emotional/verbal abuse, but I’m not sure we talk enough about spiritual abuse and what that might look like. In my view it is very wrong when a testimony is used as a means of attacking or punching back. I think if anyone is using a testimony as a way of trying to win an argument or shutdown a debate or critical thinking, they are not in a place of spiritual enlightenment.
Best wishes Geoff, for your recovery.
I always disliked that testimony gained in the bearing of it, which I regard as coercion, plain and simple, and which I never believed anyway.
I can’t recall the last time I got up in a fast & testimony meeting. A very very long time ago. When I give talks in sacrament meetings, I stick to things I believe, and never claim knowledge. I express gratitude, though apparently that’s frowned upon now. The last couple of times I was asked to speak I declined. One was a peculiarly specific topic assignment I didn’t feel able to address honestly ( the importance of the golden plates). The last time I was told I could choose my own topic, but after some consideration I said I didn’t feel I had anything to say.
I have to think the downvotes on Geoff’s comments are for the stroke. I upvoted for Geoff’s speedy recovery, but I am also anti-stroke. I hope you recover quickly and without lasting effects, and I’m glad you are getting wonderful care.
Also wishing Geoff a speedy recovery. It sounds like you’re in good hands.
If I think back to when I was an all-in believer, I can see where DHO is coming from. To him, the truthfulness of JS, the BOM, the priesthood etc is as obviously settled as the shape of the earth. Have you been hoodwinked by those silly flat earthers? Just keep repeating the world is round until you see reason.
The problem is, of course, as Jack pointed out, that while the shape of the earth can be verified by measurement, people’s testimonies rely on that nebulous thing we call The Spirit. The Spirit, to an observer, could look like anything from elevation emotion to mass hysteria to confirmation bias to romantic love. Only to the person experiencing it (or getting validation from it) does it look like any kind of divine bestowal of truth or knowledge.
Many mormon testimonies include things like, “When I meditate on the sacrifice of Jesus, I feel overwhelmed by a feeling of love.” Or, “When I read the Book of Mormon, I feel peace.” Awesome! I don’t doubt their sincerity for a second! No complaints here. It is only in the logical jump from there to, “Therefore I know Russell M Nelson is God’s prophet today and we should follow his counsel” that we have a problem.
I love the gospel. That’s all I can know.