Testimony

To you, how reliable is a person's testimony? What factors do we need to take into account?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints states that God and Jesus (Why they separated in their communication I'll never know) came to Joseph Smith one night and told him about the future of Christianity, an angel then came and directed him to find some golden plates which he translated with some friends- Mormonism was born.

This statement is based on the testimony of Smith, three witnesses and another eight witnesses, all who testify to have seen these Golden Plates and maybe even the angel. Is this testimony reliable? Smith made himself President of a Church and became quite powerful, also, many of the 3,8 witnesses were his relatives who also gained...however some of the witnesses fell out with Smith and subsequently were kicked out the Church...but they never retracted their testimony...does this add to its reliability?

In court, Mr. Peter Anderson, a black mechanic was on stand for murder, the key witness of the prosecution was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and obviously hated blacks- however he did tell the truth under oath and Mr. Anderson was indeed guilty of the murder...however...would you believe the key witness? Or would you assume his testimony unreliable due to his membership of the KKK?

In both these examples, the testifiers have something to gain so it is understandable that their testimony would be treated with suspicion.

However, take the apostles, who post-Christs' death wandered the known world spreading Jesus' gospel (writing it down was a Roman thing and it was common for stories to be spread by word of mouth though as we see from some letters they could write and did) anyway they apostles didn't really have a comfortable life running from the Roman Empire but they did it anyway, indeed they were killed for spreading these words...but not just killed, Crucified one of the most gruesome painful deaths imaginable. Why? They didn't gain very much, didn't profit from the riches that their Church would eventually get...so is their testimony reliable? They choose extremely painful deaths to spread what they believed to be the Word of God...religious fanatics perhaps? Though...they had known Jesus in life, and seen him die...if their testimony is false...who made up the resurrection, why and why were they willing to die for this lie?

Ok, final example, your friend comes to you and tells you something that you find hard to believe...say the world at the back of the wardrobe...is the person mad...you'd probably think they must be but upon closer inspection you could conclude they're not, they don't lie...so must we assume their testimony is correct?

If their is no motive for lying, or in fact an incentive not to lie why would they?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
To you, how reliable is a person's testimony? What factors do we need to take into account?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints states that God and Jesus (Why they separated in their communication I'll never know) came to Joseph Smith one night and told him about the future of Christianity, an angel then came and directed him to find some golden plates which he translated with some friends- Mormonism was born.

This statement is based on the testimony of Smith, three witnesses and another eight witnesses, all who testify to have seen these Golden Plates and maybe even the angel. Is this testimony reliable? Smith made himself President of a Church and became quite powerful, also, many of the 3,8 witnesses were his relatives who also gained...however some of the witnesses fell out with Smith and subsequently were kicked out the Church...but they never retracted their testimony...does this add to its reliability?

In court, Mr. Peter Anderson, a black mechanic was on stand for murder, the key witness of the prosecution was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and obviously hated blacks- however he did tell the truth under oath and Mr. Anderson was indeed guilty of the murder...however...would you believe the key witness? Or would you assume his testimony unreliable due to his membership of the KKK?

In both these examples, the testifiers have something to gain so it is understandable that their testimony would be treated with suspicion.

However, take the apostles, who post-Christs' death wandered the known world spreading Jesus' gospel (writing it down was a Roman thing and it was common for stories to be spread by word of mouth though as we see from some letters they could write and did) anyway they apostles didn't really have a comfortable life running from the Roman Empire but they did it anyway, indeed they were killed for spreading these words...but not just killed, Crucified one of the most gruesome painful deaths imaginable. Why? They didn't gain very much, didn't profit from the riches that their Church would eventually get...so is their testimony reliable? They choose extremely painful deaths to spread what they believed to be the Word of God...religious fanatics perhaps? Though...they had known Jesus in life, and seen him die...if their testimony is false...who made up the resurrection, why and why were they willing to die for this lie?

Ok, final example, your friend comes to you and tells you something that you find hard to believe...say the world at the back of the wardrobe...is the person mad...you'd probably think they must be but upon closer inspection you could conclude they're not, they don't lie...so must we assume their testimony is correct?

If their is no motive for lying, or in fact an incentive not to lie why would they?

because they're douche bags perhaps?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
To you, how reliable is a person's testimony? What factors do we need to take into account?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints states that God and Jesus (Why they separated in their communication I'll never know) came to Joseph Smith one night and told him about the future of Christianity, an angel then came and directed him to find some golden plates which he translated with some friends- Mormonism was born.

This statement is based on the testimony of Smith, three witnesses and another eight witnesses, all who testify to have seen these Golden Plates and maybe even the angel. Is this testimony reliable? Smith made himself President of a Church and became quite powerful, also, many of the 3,8 witnesses were his relatives who also gained...however some of the witnesses fell out with Smith and subsequently were kicked out the Church...but they never retracted their testimony...does this add to its reliability?

In court, Mr. Peter Anderson, a black mechanic was on stand for murder, the key witness of the prosecution was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and obviously hated blacks- however he did tell the truth under oath and Mr. Anderson was indeed guilty of the murder...however...would you believe the key witness? Or would you assume his testimony unreliable due to his membership of the KKK?

In both these examples, the testifiers have something to gain so it is understandable that their testimony would be treated with suspicion.

However, take the apostles, who post-Christs' death wandered the known world spreading Jesus' gospel (writing it down was a Roman thing and it was common for stories to be spread by word of mouth though as we see from some letters they could write and did) anyway they apostles didn't really have a comfortable life running from the Roman Empire but they did it anyway, indeed they were killed for spreading these words...but not just killed, Crucified one of the most gruesome painful deaths imaginable. Why? They didn't gain very much, didn't profit from the riches that their Church would eventually get...so is their testimony reliable? They choose extremely painful deaths to spread what they believed to be the Word of God...religious fanatics perhaps? Though...they had known Jesus in life, and seen him die...if their testimony is false...who made up the resurrection, why and why were they willing to die for this lie?

Ok, final example, your friend comes to you and tells you something that you find hard to believe...say the world at the back of the wardrobe...is the person mad...you'd probably think they must be but upon closer inspection you could conclude they're not, they don't lie...so must we assume their testimony is correct?

If their is no motive for lying, or in fact an incentive not to lie why would they?

because god is a dick. thats why he lied about heaven and hell 😎

if testimonys are true how come there are hardly any jesus's today or any angels making virgins pregnant

i got a testimony: jesus asked me to start my own religion on th internet

as for the people who died for their testimonies, i think these people become blinded by their own lies

Originally posted by chickenlover98
because god is a dick. thats why he lied about heaven and hell 😎

i agree

but anyone can just say prove that heaven and hell aint real

Originally posted by the welsh one
i agree

but anyone can just say prove that heaven and hell aint real

That isnt for debate here 🙂

Originally posted by the welsh one
if testimonys are true how come there are hardly any jesus's today or any angels making virgins pregnant

i got a testimony: jesus asked me to start my own religion on th internet

as for the people who died for their testimonies, i think these people become blinded by their own lies

Religious Experiences are actually on the up, so there are people claiming to be made pregnant, or see the Blessed Virgin etc.

Its possible that they became blinded by their own lies yes. Convincing? I don't think they all became so blinded they would go through Crucifixion.

I believe the unexplainable can happen...simple as that.

No human can know the true nature of reality.

The question that you raise, whether or not a person’s testimony is reliable, is a difficult one indeed. Based on what I have been able to determine through personal research and the opinions of others, I am of the opinion that, depending on the amount of credibility or evidence supporting a person’s testimony, the more one should consider that their testimony may contain some truth. That being said, I am also of the opinion that various aspects can affect, alter or undermine a person’s testimony.

Based on the examples above, I give my opinions:
•I find little credibility in the testimony of Joseph Smith and his followers. I have seen no evidence to support their claims. Why people would lie about such things does escape me, however.

•Regarding the racist and his testimony, if there was evidence supporting his testimony, I would at least take it into consideration, although I would also consider the bias that his stance on the equality of people might have on said testimony.

•Oh, don’t get me started on the Apostles and Disciples. I trust very little of what they wrote, as the Gospels (et al.) were written between ten and thirty years after the death of the Christ, during which time his messages could have been altered, misapplied, etc. I also find their claims of divine influence and actual heavenly ascension rather dubious.

So, in other words, I might be willing to believe peoples' testimonies if I was provided with ample proof. I suppose.

Alas, I believe I have said enough....I'm actually quite tired, so this may not have come off as coherent or intelligent as I desired.

Well........I don't believe in weird crap.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well........I don't believe in weird crap.

😛

Well, then how can you believe in anything? It all seems so strange to me....

Well there are supernatural things. But many other things are just stories. Stores based on older stories.

But can supernatural things be proven to be thus? Or can they not be explained (if not wholly satisfactorily)?

Well, if it seems to have a human spin to it, then it's probably false.

Hmm. That's an interesting way of putting it.

As I have said before, I like to hope that there is more to our existence than what is tangible to us; yet I can't bring myself to believe in them unconditionally, without some sort of justification or proof.

Testimony is not credible. People can maliciously make things up, but people can unconsciouly make things up too (like those dreams when you get up and run through your day, only to find that upon waking up, you haven't done anything yet)

Independant observation is the only reliable way to assess information.

Originally posted by Alliance
Testimony is not credible. People can maliciously make things up, but people can unconsciouly make things up too (like those dreams when you get up and run through your day, only to find that upon waking up, you haven't done anything yet)

Independant observation is the only reliable way to assess information.

Yet would you not agree that such observation is also susceptible to much the same aspects which may affect, alter or undermine a person's testimony?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No human can know the true nature of reality.

That begs the question: what is reality? Is it the input we get from sensory organs (like our eyes) or is it independent of human awareness. Another interpretation of your statement is that humans are inherently incapable of understanding reality, while I think that we just have not had enough time to try. (Is your statement a reflection of the current situation, or a prediction that no human ever will) This actually sounds a little like Buddhist philosophy, but I am so uneducated in that area that I will reserve comment to try to avoid looking like a fool...

Originally posted by Alliance
Testimony is not credible.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav

The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints states that God and Jesus (Why they separated in their communication I'll never know) came to Joseph Smith one night and told him about the future of Christianity, an angel then came and directed him to find some golden plates which he translated with some friends- Mormonism was born.

I prefer the story of him being tarred and feathered.