Last month we had a typical testimony meeting, but for some reason the bishopric decided to do some enforcement on 'improper' testimonies.
A young couple was brought into the bishop's office and told that their daughter should not bear her testimony unless she could say it without any help from parents. A single older man was told not to tell such long stories in his testimony. Those involved were hurt by the instruction. The older man declared that he would not bear any more testimonies - at least for a while. And the younger couple said they were not going to change their practice - but did not show up at all this week, which is very unusual for them.
In between these two testimony meetings, the Deacon's quorum advisor instructed the Deacons regarding what a proper testimony consists of, and challenged each deacon to bear their testimony.
This month, much of the meeting consisted of several Deacons repeating basically the same testimony. It was nearly word-for-word identical. My #2 son could not wait to get back to his seat to check off the testimony requirement in his Duty to God pamphlet. Seriously, he literally checked off bearing his testimony!
This was a difficult meeting for me to sit through, because I knew what was going on with all parties. I can see both sides on this. I don't want to listen to long non-testimonies, but I don't want to listen to people repeating the same basic testimony over and over again. And in this case, a few people got their feelings hurt in a way that I felt was so unnecessary.
Where should lines be drawn about censoring testimony?
What is the risk/reward involved with criticizing a testimony?
How do you balance encouraging people to bear testimony, yet controling what they say?
This little controversy seems so unnecessary, in that I do not think it was worse than any other testimony meetings I have attended.