These days as a person with a secular worldview, I must confess up front I have a slight distaste for statements of faith. It’s not that all my beliefs or actions have scientific evidence to back them up. I try, but that would be a standard of perfection beyond any sane person’s ambition. Besides as we all know, 99% of our interactions in life are one-off situations—minutiae of work and home life where the grand repeatable ideas of science don’t hold sway. Oh sure, the laws of physics still apply, but we don’t live our lives in controlled circumstances. We aren’t lab rats, let alone accelerated particles.

Rather it’s that the word faith conjures up herds of images and assumptions that repel me. The idea that we should positively esteem popular notions of faith, that we should actively seek to increase our beliefs in unprovable claims, particularly claims which bear on our lives or on the physical world—this strikes me as obviously foolish and harmful. I think we humans already operate with too much certainty about nonsense, not to mention actual falsehoods. We don’t suffer from a lack of faith.

But the Mormon testimony, ah! now that’s a special breed of faith. I wonder if mainstream Christians would recognize this exotic creature as a brother to their thing-called-faith. Or would they see it like I do, as a kind of fetish? The LDS faithful venerate and… yes, cherish… what they call their testimony in a unique set of rituals and practices. If you want to understand members (what they call themselves) of The Church (as members refer to their religion), you must appreciate the contours of the Mormon Testimony.

View from a Mormon pulpit, where members stand to say "I know The Church is true!" Photo at Wheat & Tares: If I Were In Charge: Make “I Believe” As Valid As “I Know” In Testimonies By: Mike S May 24, 2011

I look back on my 20-plus years of Mormon testimony without real bitterness, but with a measure of fondness and rue. It’s like reminiscing about a great love which ended badly. You know how it goes. It’s tempting to blame myself or tell myself I knew better all along, but in reality I bought the whole thing. I was like other Mormons. That “testimony” was more precious to me than most other things in life.¹

Most of my friends in high school weren’t Mormon. Sure, we talked about beliefs a lot, but they were bemused at best by my “testimony”. My best friend in high school practically dared me: if something that special had happened to me… if I possessed that kind of special knowledge, why didn’t I share it with the world? Why didn’t I talk about it even more than I did.

Here’s the thing. Mormons aren’t content to believe. Notice that verb, believe? They aren’t happy with a mere verb. They aren’t even content with a relatively tame noun: faith. Faith is to Mormon “testimony” what coca leaves are to pure cocaine. Mormons have concentrated faith to its most concentrated form, refined it into an intoxicating drug… to the hottest, most extreme form of belief I have ever witnessed in person. That is the Mormon testimony.

Witness the Mormon Fast and Testimony Meeting. Members of The Church gather once a month. They are instructed to attend this meeting in a state of fasting, forgoing food but not water for up to 24 hours, except children and infirm. The usual worship service, Sacrament Meeting, is suspended so that members can participate in this monthly ritual.

Members of The Church take turns rising to the pulpit, or in some cases standing in place and accepting a portable microphone from an usher. They begin a heartfelt recitation of the reasons they “know The Church is true”. This testimony is extemporaneous, but it is almost always built out of a few set phrases. Children are taught the accepted mode of this performance from a very young age, primarily by example.

Before I tell you the words which make up the typical Mormon “testimony”, let me emphasize that heartfelt again is too weak a word. How often in daily life do we share tear-soaked stories of what we hold “most precious”? How often do we gentiles (as Mormons call us non-members) get to publicly expose the most tender, intimate feelings of our heart? To express in fervent tones how “absolutely CERTAIN” we are that “Joseph Smith was a prophet of God”?

View of 1934 pulpit from http://ldsarchitecture.wordpress.com/

Here are some more of the tried-and-true phrases from Mormon “testimonies”. These words give you a small taste of the Mormon “testimony”, but you must remember that just knowing the phraseology is not enough. You have to imagine your friends and neighbors reciting these clichés every month: their heads, hands and voices shaking in fervent belief, their faces streaming with tears of sincerity… swelling with the desire to make you believe as they do.

• I promised myself I wouldn’t cry. [Yes. They. Say. This.]
• Jesus is The Christ.
• Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.
• The other day my ___ [puppy] was almost ___ [caught in a table saw]. When it miraculously ___ [went my way], I knew that ___. [The Church was True, Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, Jesus was The Savior, etc.]
• I Know The Church Is True.
• … Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt. [!!]
• I don’t just believe, I KNOW it! I know it!
• At funerals, the deceased are praised for the sweetness or strength of their “testimony”. How powerful it was.
• Members repeatedly refer to their “testimony” as their most prized possession, precious above anything else except their family… and sometimes even more so.

All of this has terrific impact. You cannot help but be affected by the sheer emotional power of Mormon members’ personal conviction. For most of us, quotidian life drones along with trouble and uncertainty. At monthly Fast And Testimony Meeting, Mormons receive a bear-tranquilizer dose of complete certainty—high emotions and bodily fluids dished out like freshly cut nerves on a platter.

I am not writing to ridicule this ritual, although any deep sentiment is vulnerable to ridicule. (In my daily post-Mormon life, I’m as deeply sentimental as the next guy, and I don’t believe in taking cheap shots.) Instead, I’m trying to explore how unique, how singular is this thing Mormons call their “testimony”.

Here’s the strangest part. Sometimes they will talk about their past selves, but they will identify more strongly with their testimony than with their actual self. They’ll say, “I went through a period where my testimony was severely tested.” See the difference? They don’t say, “Sometimes I believe less strongly, but now I believe very, very strongly.” In effect they are saying,

“This ‘testimony’ is my real, true self. The rest of me—that part of me which would ever question this “testimony”—is like a foreign object. It is an intruder and I reject it.”

What more can I tell you? Mormons obsess about the influence of The Adversary, The Devil, The Evil One, The Father of Lies. (2) This is another way they split their mind. The good part is themselves, their “testimony” or “The Spirit”. The bad part is “The Adversary”.

God help them if members of The Church ever find themselves questioning! This is as dangerous a word as you can find in the Mormon vocabulary. It brings up dark, shadowy feelings of eternal peril—paranoia about an Adversary who is “cunning” and never-tiring in his efforts to deceive “yea! even the very elect!” (the special ones who are Chosen of The Lord)

True, Mormons believe that Judgment Day will be even more dire for “apostates” or “sons of Perdition”—those who once “knew the truth” and now “actively fight against it”. But I would argue that greater psychological paranoia swirls around members who are questioning, because apostates are by definition lost causes, whereas members who are questioning stand in a liminal state. On the one hand, safety. On the other, hellfire… losing any chance at exaltation and eternal life. Total loss.

This part is reminiscent of North Korea. With the passing of Kim Jong-Il, you may have heard that North Koreans conceive of themselves as a uniquely pure and paradoxically vulnerable race. Mormons are somewhat similar. Because The Evil One has singled them out, he targets even those who were “most valiant in the Pre-Existence”… “that he may deceive, yea!, even the very elect”. Mormons refer to themselves figuratively as Israel and to Utah as Zion.

This is another manifestations of Mormons’ “Chosen People” status, their spiritual narcissism… one more side of Mormon religious chauvinism.

¹ Like most Mormons, I did share my “testimony” pretty often. But even in my teens I could see both sides of the issue. I could see that my mainstream Christian and nonbelieving friends had logically consistent positions. And besides even Mormons—who repeat the slogan, “every member a missionary!”—don’t want to crash a party when they’re not invited. Like most people, I was abashed at sharing my testimony where I feared it was unwanted or subject to ridicule.

² Yes, Mormons believe in a personal Devil as well as a personal Savior. The LDS leadership frowns upon dwelling too long on The Adversary. But many a “testimony” has meandered into a confessional blow-by-blow about the coarse charms of The Evil One. These poorly received “testimonies” are more like 12-step confessionals of personal sin. In my experience, they only happened every few months, maybe once a year.

Mike S writes If I Were In Charge: Make “I Believe” As Valid As “I Know” In Testimonies at Wheat & Tares Blog.

Last time I wrote that many Christians externalize their personal, human, emotional resources—as the influence of God, Jesus, the Comforter (Holy Ghost), so much that they think only Christians have these capabilities.

This kind of religious chauvinism runs even deeper in Mormons. Back when I was Mormon, we talked about one aspect of the Holy Ghost: The Comforter. When events in life are unbearable, Mormons believe The Comforter steps in to help righteous Mormons bear their troubles.

In fact, Mormons believe they are the only Christians who truly possess the Gift Of The Holy Ghost, which gives them special powers of discernment on spiritual matters and gives them special powers of clairvoyance and prescience when “prompted” by the “Holy Spirit” (synonym for “Holy Ghost” in Mormonism).

Mormons believe The Gift Of The Holy Ghost entitles them—and only them—to the constant companionship of the third member of The Godhead. This follows from their belief they are the only Christians authorized by God The Father (whom Mormons call Elohim) on the earth, the only latter-day heirs of the early Christian Church.

Mormons believe THE GIFT of the Holy Ghost is bestowed (only) through the laying-on of hands by Mormon Elders. This sharp distinction is an example of Joseph Smith’s obsessive word-splitting and parsing of words from the King James Bible. This sort of thing abounds in Mormon theology:

• The Holy Ghost. May fleetingly influence non-Mormons. Apparently sits in on Godhead board meetings, though they only need 2 chairs, because the Holy Ghost is the 1 member of the Godhead who doesn’t have a body. Third member of the Godhead: 3 separate personages who are “one in purpose”. This special caveat is so Mormons can claim to be monotheists even though they admit believing in 3 separate God-level beings: God the Father, Jesus Christ who Mormons identify with Jehovah, as well as the Holy Ghost or Holy spirit.
• The Gift Of The Holy Ghost. Special privilege, power, or faculty possessed only by Mormons. They must receive it in a ceremony of laying-on of hands by Mormon Elders, men authorized by the Mormon Church.
• The Light of Christ. Conscience possessed by everyone, including non-Mormons and—ironically—non-Christians. (Mormons group non-Mormon Christians with Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and all other non-Mormons.) Mormons believe even atheists have the Light of Christ.

Mormons believe non-Mormons may occasionally be comforted by the Holy Ghost—or their inherent conscience, which Mormons call The Light of Christ. But only Mormons are entitled to the constant companionship (“The Gift of”) The Holy Ghost.

When Mormons disagree with non-Mormons, they sometimes chalk it up to the Gift of the Holy Ghost. I’ve overheard my brothers muttering darkly about some third person, “That shows how you can only understand these things with the help of the Holy Ghost.”

Mormons often believe they must be right because only they have special powers flowing from The Gift Of The Holy Ghost.

I was a Mormon for over 20 years. Many, many times believed I felt the “promptings of the Holy Spirit” (Joseph Smith left Holy Spirit as a synonym for Holy Ghost instead of teaching his followers that it meant yet some new baroque doctrinal curlicue, thank goodness).

For over 20 years now, I have been convinced those “promptings” were emotional self-talk similar to feelings of conviction or certainty—nothing more, nothing less.

As I said before, we all have the same resources, the same feelings. We just tell different stories about them.

At Peer Reviewed By My Neurons a pointer to a fascinating little article in Journal of Consumer Psychology about the psychology of pricing.

[T]he study found that when a price includes a comma (e.g. $1,426 rather than $1426), people are more likely to pronounce it “fourteen-hundred and twenty-six” than “fourteen-twenty-six.” Because there are more words, more auditory processing time is needed, and the increased processing time creates the perception that the magnitude of the price is greater. The same effect occurred when cents were added to a price (e.g. $1426.85 was perceived to be of a significantly higher magnitude than $1,426).

What changes is the encoding of price in the viewer’s memory. From the original article:

In this paper, we demonstrate that including commas (e.g., $1599 vs. $1599) and cents (e.g., $1599.85 vs. $1599) in a price’s Arabic written form (i.e., how it is perceived visually) can change how the price is encoded and represented verbally in a consumer’s memory. In turn, the verbal encoding of a written price can influence assessments of the numerical magnitude of the price. These effects occur because consumers non-consciously perceive that there is a positive relationship between syllabic length and numerical magnitude.

Just as the field of design—broadly writ—means building things to interact smoothly with our perceptions, especially the unconscious; as an outsider I guess I’d call this sort of study merchandising, the design of the consumer experience with the products. As I write this, it all sounds terribly obvious. But I suppose just as design (or good writing for that matter) comprises dozens or hundreds of technical rules, merchandising is partly built from an arsenal of technical principles—hidden from but operating on the consumer.

Merchandising and the fine art of pricing remind me of the equally slippery field of compliance techniques. I enjoyed Cialdini’s slim volume on persuasion and compliance and I learned a lot I about how salespeople get us to do their bidding. (The book is shamelessly promoted at Wikipedia. I’ll omit a more direct pointer here.) As a result, I now routinely refuse free samples (see Reciprocity). After reading about the reflexive, uncontrollable power of the reciprocity drive, I also believe Congress cannot be trusted not to promote their donors’ interests above those of the electorate.

Predictably Irrational, by Dan Ariely, is by far my favorite source on promotion and irrational behavior. After all, isn’t irrationality the soul of PR, merchandising, compliance gaining, and sales? The whole point of these methods is to spoof the expected-value model of the rational consumer from classical economics. Ariely’s book is worth ten Freakonomics and Persuasion volumes put together.

Coulter, K., Choi, P., & Monroe, K. (2011). Comma N’ cents in pricing: The effects of auditory representation encoding on price magnitude perceptions Journal of Consumer Psychology DOI: 10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.005

I used to buy FM jogging radios every few years, hoping they’d finally work while… well… jogging. Or hiking. They never did. Reception was always spotty and full of static. All in all, they were exercises in consumer frustration—broken promises and technological impotence.

With the iPhone’s radio apps, that’s changed. I use NPR’s iPhone app all the time, and Sentient Meat has previously profiled the (very simple) KPCC app version 1. It did only one thing—play KPCC’s live stream—and it did it well. It wasn’t flawless but it did a good job.

KPCC’s new app has hit iTunes App Store, and it looks very good. In version 2.0, KPCC appears to have leapfrogged other radio apps, going from one of the smallest sets of features to one of the richest.

Sleep Timer

When I travel, I sometimes use my phone as a clock radio. Now KPCC does an even better impression of a clock radio with a sleep timer and alarm clock.

Member Benefits, including location sensing

I like KCRW’s app and it used to put KPCC’s to shame. But now KPCC’s has pulled ahead. One way is Member Benefits which shows you KPCC sponsors near you offering special deals.

Here’s some of KPCC’s rundown of their new features:

What’s New in Version 2.0

A completely re-imagined, re-designed KPCC iPhone app that dramatically expands your access to all of KPCC’s news and information. The new app goes way beyond live streaming– here’s a quick list of some of the major new features:

Enhanced Live Streaming

– An interactive program schedule
– Live stream radio bookmarks let you listen to a program once it is available on-demand
– You can now pause the live stream and start from where you left off.

On-Demand Audio

– Access to on-demand audio for all KPCC programs and our partner content. Listen to archived episodes of AirTalk, Marketplace, This American Life… whenever and wherever you want!

News Headlines

– You can now read our latest digital news stories online. Our best content from the web is served up fresh daily; read the latest local news and listen to KPCC at the same time.

KPCC Videos

– Watching the latest KPCC videos inside the app.

Member Benefits Directory

– Quickly find businesses nearby that offer Member Benefits discounts. It only takes a few taps to find a discount nearby, get directions on your phone, or call to make a reservation.

Quick Mobile Pledging

– Tap the Pledge button to become a member and support the KPCC voices you know and trust!.

 

SPEAKING of falling under the influence of our future cephalopod overlords…

This just in—GIANT SQUID seen as pawns in the global homosexual agenda:

I must have missed that meeting. –Mr S M

A lesson from Dante Shepherd at Surviving the World.

Brilliant little video, It Getteth Better, showing how you can satirize something and still love it. Draw your own conclusions, but it’s pretty clear the video’s makers are on the same side as the It Gets Better series of videos.

Critics of the video say it’s against God. That’s silly. It’s against simpleminded and bigoted theology.

—Video from Simon & Schuster marking of publication THE LAST TESTAMENT: A Memoir by God, co-written with David Javerbaum, the 11-time Emmy Award-winning former head writer and executive producer of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

In a Wired article, Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up, Jonah Lehrer writes about the ways our assumptions (and experience) blinker us from seeing new evidence, even when it’s staring us in the face.

Lehrer tells a layered story, rich with examples, such as Kevin Dunbar’s look at how scientists actually work.

[W]hen experiments were observed up close — and Dunbar interviewed the scientists about even the most trifling details — this idealized version of the lab fell apart, replaced by an endless supply of disappointing surprises. There were models that didn’t work and data that couldn’t be replicated and simple studies riddled with anomalies. “These weren’t sloppy people,” Dunbar says. “They were working in some of the finest labs in the world. But experiments rarely tell us what we think they’re going to tell us. That’s the dirty secret of science.”

This reminds me of my lower-division astronomy class at Caltech in the 1980s. Maartin Schmidt taught us about various methods for measuring Hubble’s Constant (for expansion of the cosmos) involving red shift measurements and type 1-A supernovae. The problem was, different methods for measuring distance yielded different values for Hubble’s Constant (and for the amount of mass in the cosmos). As measurements and computations became more precise, the discrepancy only got more glaring.

Then in the 1990s (long after I had decided an astronomer’s life was not for me), Dark Energy and Dark Matter were finally offered as the least bizarre explanations for what at first had seemed like experimenter error.

Scientific experiments are an attempt to screen out the chaos of everyday existence – to shine a beam of light narrow enough to illuminate a single, repeatable fact of nature. But the teeming world is always right outside the door of our neat little experiment, and often the chaos finds a way inside. Even when it doesn’t – and here is Lehrer’s main point – we have a human tendency to discard new results as mere gibberish. Our expertise gets in our way.

We can’t escape this tendency (so suggests Dunbar’s experiment where students’ brains were observed while they watched videos of falling balls), but our predicament is not hopeless. Lehrer offers up some helpful strategies for escaping the trap of our own preconceptions.

How to Learn From Failure
Too often, we assume that a failed experiment is a wasted effort. But not all anomalies are useless. Here’s how to make the most of them. —J.L.

1. Check Your Assumptions
   Ask yourself why this result feels like a failure. What theory does it contradict? Maybe the hypothesis failed, not the experiment.
2. Seek Out the Ignorant
   Talk to people who are unfamiliar with your experiment. Explaining your work in simple terms may help you see it in a new light.
3. Encourage Diversity
   If everyone working on a problem speaks the same language, then everyone has the same set of assumptions.
4. Beware of Failure-Blindness
   It’s normal to filter out information that contradicts our preconceptions. The only way to avoid that bias is to be aware of it.

So it seems the illness is chronic and the prescription takes constant work. But at least there is some kind of remedy.

From the bad old days when we were “the love that dare not speak its name”, how wonderful that our numbers include some of the most successful and highly respected names in journalism and commentary – Anderson Cooper (CNN), Rachel Maddow (MSNBC), Ari Shapiro (NPR), Andrew Sullivan, and John Rabe (SCPR), just to name a handful of standouts.

Even more impressive, these are hard-hitting journalists or commentators who happen to be gay, but their personal lives are an issue only on extremely rare occasion. They might speak about their spouse or relationship if they happen to be part of an anecdote which contributes to a story. But otherwise it’s not news.

And in the longer timeframe that measures the evolution of our culture, that is news.

The love that dare not speak its name
Now will not shut up.

—with apologies to Oscar Wilde