Interesting Interview with Spencer Fluhman

[smac97]

Here: Latter-day: Celebrating And Silencing Doubt In Mormon Communities

Bro. Fluhman is a professor of history at BYU and was appointed the director of the Maxwell Institute at BYU in 2016.

A few thoughts/observations:

1. The title is a bit misleading.  There is no discussion about "celebrating ... doubt."  

2. I've noticed a few instances of writers attempting to praise or lionize the concept of having "doubt" in a religious context.  I'm not sure I understand the point of this.  Any insights?

3. From the interview:

Quote

LEE HALE: Describe the kind of students who show up in your office. 

SPENCER FLUHMAN: All my students ... I think they all go through a process. They have to gain nuance. They have to gain complexity. That’s part of the university's job, its commitments.They come to see the world as one of greater complexity, greater nuance — for some greater wonder. For others, contradictions that are heavy. They're classic in a way. How do I know what I know? This new knowledge that I have is challenging the old knowledge that I had. What do I do now? So that's the philosopher's epistemological challenge, right? How do I know this stuff? How does anyone know anything? And that’s a classic university kind of experience. 

I very much appreciate this perspective and approach.  This reinforces the ideas espoused in the Hafens' book: Faith is Not Blind (discussed here), which are summarized this way:

Quote

A central cause of faith crisis in any age arises when we apprehend a gap between the real and the ideal. Simply minding this gap without ever bridging it arrests many a faith journey. The Hafens quote American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity (on) this side of complexity. But I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

They propose a tripartite model of spiritual progression. It begins with childlike simplicity — “innocent and untested.” Then stage two commences as believers juxtapose the ideal and the real. This is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.” But those who successfully navigate this stage arrive at, in Holmes’ words, a simplicity that transcends complexity — “a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.”

I recently bought this book for a friend who has recently had two family members leave the Church.  This book has been a big help in her organizing her thoughts and sorting out her perspective.  I highly recommend it.

Now back to the interview...

4. More from the interview:

Quote

LH: But it's mixed with a faith tradition where knowledge is so prized and so pivotal. The stakes are so high. 

SF: Well and where certainty is celebrated as a as a badge of belonging. And so for a student who doesn't have certainty: where do I fit in this community? I don't have certainty. What does that mean for me? So, they bring questions about the big stories I've been told and the new information I have now. The old stories now wobble a bit. Now what? Frankly this is no different though with questions of faith than it is in other history courses. I was told this story about the American past and now it's much messier and it's morally ambiguous. Nothing is more energizing to me than the students engagement on these things. It's remarkable. They're smart. 

I think Bro. Fluhman makes an important point about "certainty" being "celebrated as a badge of belonging."

I question whether "certainty" should be emphasized in this way.  I've summarized my thoughts previously here:

Quote

We should ditch {or at least re-visit and reconsider} the "I know" paradigm.  "I'd like to bear my testimony.  I know this church is true..."  Well, actually, no.  Most of us, I think, have faith that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that the Church is what it claims to be, etc.  "I know" has become an affectation, and an inaccurate one at that.  Just as people use "literally" to mean "figuratively" ("I was so bored yesterday, I was literally climbing the walls..."), I think members of the Church use "I know" to mean "I believe."  And in so doing we've set up an incorrect perception of things.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  (2 Cor. 5:7).  "{I}f a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it."  (Alma 32:17-18).  "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9).

We are supposed to not have a sure knowledge.  We are supposed to be proceeding in faith.  But we've made it seem like anything short of a pulpit-thumping "I know..." just isn't good enough.  But "I know" seems too rigid.  Too fragile.  Too glass-jawed.  "I believe...", on the other hand, gives us some room.  Some time and some space to absorb challenging/difficult things.  

5. More from the interview:

Quote

LH: What do you tell them? 

SF: I tell them, buckle up. Here we go. Now it gets good. Now it gets fun. Now it gets transformative because now we're pushing into places that demand something of us. If there's a moral implication for this idea or this problem or this intellectual conundrum — and there typically is — and we avoid it out of fear or laziness or superficiality, then we're doing an injustice to what the tradition demands of us. And that's a recurring constant unavoidable question about the pursuit of truth, pursuit of light, pursuit of the good. We're not alone in that. We're certainly not the only tradition that aggressively hungers for those things. But we are among those.

Wow!  This is just really good stuff.  I'm glad to hear it coming from Bro. Fluhman, particularly given his previous (2016) proposal that the Maxwell Institute not utilize its scholarly endeavors to speak to "the LDS audience," and "{s}peak instead to scholars, period."  I am hoping that this is the result of the Institute giving due attention to Elder Holland's charge, issued earlier this year, for it to be “a faithful, rich, rewarding center of faith-promoting gospel scholarship enlivened by remarkable disciple-scholars.”

Having spent the last 20+ years reading scholarly materials about the Restored Gospel, I can attest to what Bro. Fluhman is saying.  That we do need to "buckle up" when we encounter challenges to our faith.  That it does "get good" and "fun" and "transformative because now we're pushing into places that demand something of us."

Living according to, and defending and advocating for, the Restored Gospel is a much more robust and exciting experience when we move beyond complacency and really engage in "the pursuit of truth, pursuit of light, pursuit of the good."

Anyway, read the whole thing.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by smac97

[Ahab]

I think the principle of faith should be considered and talked about a lot more than it usually is, to really get down to the nitty gritty of it.  There are so many aspects of faith that seldom get mentioned, and I think the main reason may be that most people who understand it think most other people already understand what it is.  It just seems too basic to talk about to keep talking about, some people think, and I think there are a lot of people who think they know what it is who "don't really know a lot about it", in President Hinckley's vernacular.  Except of course people like President Hinckley do know a lot about it, and talk about it fairly often, but somehow a lot of the people who don't really know a lot about it still don't seem to know a whole lot about it even though it has been talked about from time to time.

I've talked about it several times before and most of you probably know about as much about it as I do, probably, but if you want to know and understand it better or just talk about it some more you could start another thread about it .

Those who don't know much about it just need to ask about it some more until they really, truly know what faith is all about.

 

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyway, read the whole thing.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think believe you are promoting him because his first name is Spencer.....  

Edited September 25, 2019 by RevTestament

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here: Latter-day: Celebrating And Silencing Doubt In Mormon Communities

Bro. Fluhman is a professor of history at BYU and was appointed the director of the Maxwell Institute at BYU in 2016.

A few thoughts/observations:

1. The title is a bit misleading.  There is no discussion about "celebrating ... doubt."  

2. I've noticed a few instances of writers attempting to praise or lionize the concept of having "doubt" in a religious context.  I'm not sure I understand the point of this.  Any insights?

3. From the interview:

I very much appreciate this perspective and approach.  This reinforces the ideas espoused in the Hafens' book: Faith is Not Blind (discussed here), which are summarized this way:

I recently bought this book for a friend who has recently had two family members leave the Church.  This book has been a big help in her organizing her thoughts and sorting out her perspective.  I highly recommend it.

Now back to the interview...

4. More from the interview:

I think Bro. Fluhman makes an important point about "certainty" being "celebrated as a badge of belonging."

I question whether "certainty" should be emphasized in this way.  I've summarized my thoughts previously here:

5. More from the interview:

Wow!  This is just really good stuff.  I'm glad to hear it coming from Bro. Fluhman, particularly given his previous (2016) proposal that the Maxwell Institute not utilize its scholarly endeavors to speak to "the LDS audience," and "{s}peak instead to scholars, period."  I am hoping that this is the result of the Institute giving due attention to Elder Holland's charge, issued earlier this year, for it to be “a faithful, rich, rewarding center of faith-promoting gospel scholarship enlivened by remarkable disciple-scholars.”

Having spent the last 20+ years reading scholarly materials about the Restored Gospel, I can attest to what Bro. Fluhman is saying.  That we do need to "buckle up" when we encounter challenges to our faith.  That it does "get good" and "fun" and "transformative because now we're pushing into places that demand something of us."

Living according to, and defending and advocating for, the Restored Gospel is a much more robust and exciting experience when we move beyond complacency and really engage in "the pursuit of truth, pursuit of light, pursuit of the good."

Anyway, read the whole thing.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I definitely share your discomfort that doubt in a faith context is a thing to be celebrated or lionized — any more than one should celebrate an itch that needs scratching or a thirst that needs to be quenched. If anything, we should celebrate the relief of the itch or the quenching of the thirst. 

Doubt can even be a bad thing if it hardens one to having his questions answered or his faith strengthened. 

I do believe questions can be good, as they can open the door or lead to greater knowledge. But questions and doubts are not synonymous. 

 

[Kenngo1969]

I've said this here, or something similar, before.  I don't really have many questions about the foundational events of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I think, perhaps, there could be some fascinating firesides held, say, during the Millennium, with such titles as, "Brother Joseph, What Were You Thinking?",  "Brother Joseph, What Were You Thinking?"  I think, if one is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and has a halfway-functioning brain, that questions are inevitable.  Questions notwithstanding, however, still, doubt and faith are choices.

I posted this on a similar thread back in May of 2018:

Quote

 

We're all our own triers of fact when it comes to faith claims: We determine what evidence we will admit when it comes to considering faith claims, what evidence we will exclude, how much weight we will give to any piece of evidence we choose to admit, how we will evaluate the evidence we choose to admit, and so on.

Is there evidence which, accorded a certain amount of weight and considered from one or more particular perspectives, militates against belief?  Of course.  I have such evidence in my own life.  I have seriously considered seeing how much gently-used law degrees from third-tier law schools are going for on e-Bay these days, this, after receiving what I thought was a clear impression to pursue the degree (and persisting in doing so despite considerable difficulty).  

I don't know if I'll ever secure law-related employment, let alone ever practice law.  The only thing I knew for certain when I  finally bit the bullet and decided to apply to law school is that I didn't want to answer phones for the rest of my life.  I still don't.  Still, I wasn't sure about the gargantuan commitment which law school and attempting to embark upon the practice of law entailed, so I got cold feet, withdrew before receiving any credit, and got a job.  Doing what, you ask?  Why, answering phones, of course!   So, I swallowed my fear and my pride, went back, and eventually (after more than a few more fits, starts, and missteps) graduated against all odds.  I was denied admission on character and fitness grounds, based largely (if not entirely, at the risk of oversimplifying) based on a complicated behavioral health history.

So, what am I doing now?  Why, answering phones, of course!  C'est la vie! The only thing I'm sure of?  "No, Ken, you didn't have to stick it out in law school ... as long as you didn't mind answering phones all day, every day, for the rest of your working life."  To my dying breath, I'll continue to aver that I'm actually good for something else.    Whether I'll ever be able to convince anyone else of that strongly enough that they'll actually hire me to do anything else, still, is an open question.

Yes, I've heard people argue that the evidence against belief is so strong that they had no choice in the matter, but I'm skeptical of that contention. Despite the fact that I'm a believer, I'm equally skeptical that God compels belief.  To do either would be to abridge agency.  In order for belief to be most meaningful, it has to be freely chosen.  Do I have questions?  I don't know how one could have a halfway functional brain and not have questions: "Lord, why has Thou thus dealt with me?"  But as Peter told Christ when the latter asked the former (rather plaintively, perhaps), "Will ye also go away?", "Lord, to whom shall we go?  Thou hast the words of eternal life" (see John 6).  

Sure, I could say, "You know what?  This isn't what I signed up for."  No, I don't want to spend the next 5, or 10, or 20, or 30 years answering phones. Candidly, there's a certain appeal to me to using my current station in life as a splendid excuse to chuck it all.  Whatever the next life might leave to be desired for me, a part of me is tempted to say, "So what?  It's gotta be better than this!"  But to borrow and slightly alter something once said by M*A*S*H's inimitable Major Frank Burns, "I believe in the sanctity of human life, no matter how ugly or disgusting it gets."  (He was talking about marriage.)  As Elder Banks, the African-American missionary in the film God's Army put it, "It's like God gives you a hundred reasons to believe ... and one or two not to, just so you can choose."

Notwithstanding any of the reasons I have for saying, "Forget it.  Just chuck it all.  This isn't what I signed up for" (the evidence I have that militates against belief), I choose, nonetheless, to believe.  If nothing else, the next life, even at its worst, still is going to be orders of magnitude better than this one.  But if I give that hope up, what else do I have?  Questions are inevitable; struggle is inevitable.  But doubt and faith are choices.

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/of-doubt-faith-questions-and-choices/

 

 

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I've said this here, or something similar, before.  I don't really have many questions about the foundational events of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I think, perhaps, there could be some fascinating firesides held, say, during the Millennium, with such titles as, "Brother Joseph, What Were You Thinking?",  "Brother Joseph, What Were You Thinking?"  I think, if one is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and has a halfway-functioning brain, that questions are inevitable.  Questions notwithstanding, however, still, doubt and faith are choices.

Yes, I agree, everything we do or believe is something we have chosen to do or believe, but I think we're supposed to actually seek faith from God to help us know what God knows.  Faith is an assurance, and it can come from ourselves, individually and subjectively, or it can come from some other person who we then choose to receive that assurance from.  And that someone else we should seek an assurance from, I believe, is God.  We should seek to receive an assurance from God.  At which point, if we choose to accept his assurance, then his assurance also becomes our own assurance, or faith, as well.  Our own faith based on the assurance, or faith, that God gave us.

That's what I have done, and what I have now.  I have faith that God has given to me.  On many issues. It didn't always start out as a strong faith, or assurance.  At least not as I initially felt it.  Sometimes it was just a very slight and gentle feeling that gave me just an inkling that  God was maybe trying to tell me something.  And as I paid more and more attention to that feeling and that idea, pondering it and thinking about it and wondering what exactly he was trying to tell me, maybe, it became more and more clear that he actually was trying to tell me something. At which point I would have said I was kinda sure that yes God was telling me something.  And then I went from kinda sure to pretty sure, and then over more time to really sure.  I was really sure God was not only trying to tell me something but that he had told me something.  And I knew what it was that God had been trying to tell me.  I had no doubt about it.  And then on I went, acquiring more knowledge through faith over time, line upon line and precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.  Growing in knowledge as I went on.

The apostle Peter in one of his letters talked about how we should grow in knowledge.  See 1 Peter 1:5  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/2-pet/1?lang=eng  

Knowledge is attainable, with God to help us get it.  And anyone who doesn't believe it should not doubt it so much.

[Kenngo1969]

50 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes, I agree, everything we do or believe is something we have chosen to do or believe, but I think we're supposed to actually seek faith from God to help us know what God knows.  Faith is an assurance, and it can come from ourselves, individually and subjectively, or it can come from some other person who we then choose to receive that assurance from.  And that someone else we should seek an assurance from, I believe, is God.  We should seek to receive an assurance from God.  At which point, if we choose to accept his assurance, then his assurance also becomes our own assurance, or faith, as well.  Our own faith based on the assurance, or faith, that God gave us. ...

I agree with what you say here.  The only tough part for me is that I have had what I believe to be unmistakable interactions with the Divine in which He has spoken absolute peace to my very soul, on the one hand, and yet, I have, on the other hand, had rather protracted occasions in which, notwithstanding earnest supplication regarding certain matters, with respect to specific answers or solutions, the Heavens have seemed Absolute, Pure Brass, the only discernible answer being, "Ken, I'm here, and I hear you.  Don't forget the 'did-I-not-speak-peace-to-your-mind-concerning-the-matter(s)?' occasions even in light of contrasting, seeming 'Brass Heavens' moments."

[let’s roll]

Agree that there are a number of good insights on these topics in the Hafen’s book.

I’m not sure I share the OP’s level of discomfort on the use of “know” re “believe.”  I do cringe a bit when those on the front side of complexity (using the Hafen’s term) testify of what they “know” in a sweeping sense but am comfortable with use of “know” rather than “believe” for those on the other side of complexity...who have the “certainty” gained through their journey through that complexity.

Also, I think “know” is the more apt description for my experience with Deity in a number of respects.  I can say I know I have felt both a burning in my bosom and a stupor of thought on different occasions in my communion with God.  I can say I know I’ve felt the peace and rest promised by the Savior to those who come unto Him as well as the fear and doubt attendant to turning away from Him.

 

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I agree with what you say here.  The only tough part for me is that I have had what I believe to be unmistakable interactions with the Divine in which He has spoken absolute peace to my very soul, on the one hand, and yet, I have, on the other hand, had rather protracted occasions in which, notwithstanding earnest supplication regarding certain matters, with respect to specific answers or solutions, the Heavens have seemed Absolute, Pure Brass, the only discernible answer being, "Ken, I'm here, and I hear you.  Don't forget the 'did-I-not-speak-peace-to-your-mind-concerning-the-matter(s)?' occasions even in light of contrasting, seeming 'Brass Heavens' moments."

I'm not sure if I'm correctly understanding your terminology here.  What's the main difference, if any, between both "contrasting" occasions?  What do you mean by "Pure Brass" or "Brass Heavens"? Do you mean sometimes you feel God giving you his assurance and sometimes you do not, depending on what you are thinking?

If I'm understanding you correctly, I think that's the way it's supposed to happen, just as when you talk to someone else about something when sometimes you feel they agree with you and sometimes they do not.  Or sometimes they ask, "Did you understand what I said?"

Sometimes, actually a lot of the time, I am really slow to understand something, or maybe I just prefer to have more time to think about something before I come to any conclusions.  And I'm that way with my wife, too, sometimes.  All she sees is me staring and sometimes she'll playfully wave her hand in front of my eyes to see if I'm still there, mentally, paying attention to her.  Sometimes I just need or prefer to have a lot of time to think about things while trying to tune everything else out so I can focus on what I am thinking about.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Ahab

[ksfisher]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I agree with what you say here.  The only tough part for me is that I have had what I believe to be unmistakable interactions with the Divine in which He has spoken absolute peace to my very soul, on the one hand, and yet, I have, on the other hand, had rather protracted occasions in which, notwithstanding earnest supplication regarding certain matters, with respect to specific answers or solutions, the Heavens have seemed Absolute, Pure Brass, the only discernible answer being, "Ken, I'm here, and I hear you.  Don't forget the 'did-I-not-speak-peace-to-your-mind-concerning-the-matter(s)?' occasions even in light of contrasting, seeming 'Brass Heavens' moments."

I think that most people have experienced what you describe.  I've had times where fervent prayer brings no comfort, yet at other times see the hand of God in what others may see as trivial matters. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by ksfisher

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I think that most people have experienced what you describe.  I've had times where fervent prayer brings no comfort, yet at other times see the hand of God in what others may see as trivial matters. 

I would hope that rarely, if ever, is there an occasion in which prayer does not, at least, bring some form of comfort.  (Cf. Christ being forsaken on the cross: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?")  As I indicated, rarely, if ever, have I felt forsaken.  Rather, sometimes, the "answer" is simply, "Ken, I'm here, and I hear you."

I wish you well.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/24/2019 at 6:19 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

............I do believe questions can be good, as they can open the door or lead to greater knowledge. But questions and doubts are not synonymous. 

The learning process depends upon students asking meaningful questions.  Nugh Nibley worried that BYU students didn't ask questions.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The learning process depends upon students asking meaningful questions.  Nugh Nibley worried that BYU students didn't ask questions.

I agree with you about meaningful questions and the learning process. Do you take my point about questions and doubts not being synonymous?

[Kenngo1969]

18 hours ago, Ahab said:

I'm not sure if I'm correctly understanding your terminology here.  What's the main difference, if any, between both "contrasting" occasions?  What do you mean by "Pure Brass" or "Brass Heavens"? Do you mean sometimes you feel God giving you his assurance and sometimes you do not, depending on what you are thinking?

If I'm understanding you correctly, I think that's the way it's supposed to happen, just as when you talk to someone else about something when sometimes you feel they agree with you and sometimes they do not.  Or sometimes they ask, "Did you understand what I said?"

Sometimes, actually a lot of the time, I am really slow to understand something, or maybe I just prefer to have more time to think about something before I come to any conclusions.  And I'm that way with my wife, too, sometimes.  All she sees is me staring and sometimes she'll playfully wave her hand in front of my eyes to see if I'm still there, mentally, paying attention to her.  Sometimes I just need or prefer to have a lot of time to think about things while trying to tune everything else out so I can focus on what I am thinking about.

For me, the Heavens being brass means that even if some (many?) specific answers are not forthcoming, lack of such answers isn't (I hope!) a sign of God's indifference, or worse, of His disfavor.  Notwithstanding lack of specific guidance on some fronts, that does not leave me entirely bereft of assurance of some kind (usually that God is aware of me and that He loves me, even in light of His seeming silence on these things).

Edited September 26, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[blueglass]

Spencer FLuhman in his interview with Brooke and Josh Miller said "the revelatory process is intentionally murky"

"the prophets and apostles make mistakes" - cited doctrine and covenants scriptures on prophetic fallibility. 

regarding our lgbt brothers and sisters, "we need to mourn with them, mourn with those who mourn run to them we need to embrace them"

Fluhman didn't believe the brethren intended to cause this pain and alienation**

Fluhman characterized our lgbt approach as "a failing" for the church.

"We need to have charity for the apostles and prophets."

**who has intentions to cause pain and alientation?  

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Spencer FLuhman in his interview with Brooke and Josh Miller said "the revelatory process is intentionally murky"

I can go along with that description.

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

"the prophets and apostles make mistakes" - cited doctrine and covenants scriptures on prophetic fallibility. 

Yep.  

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

regarding our lgbt brothers and sisters, "we need to mourn with them, mourn with those who mourn run to them we need to embrace them"

Yep.

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Fluhman didn't believe the brethren intended to cause this pain and alienation**

**who has intentions to cause pain and alientation?  

Yep.

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Fluhman characterized our lgbt approach as "a failing" for the church.

That's too broad.

In the words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life."

The Church certainly has made mistakes, but it's current efforts are quite admirable, and I think will continue to be refined and improved.  Will they be effective across the board?  No.  That's a necessary consequence of man's use of agency in this fallen, Telestial world.  

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

"We need to have charity for the apostles and prophets."

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[blueglass]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can go along with that description.

Yep.  

Yep.

Yep.

That's too broad.

In the words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life."

The Church certainly has made mistakes, but it's current efforts are quite admirable, and I think will continue to be refined and improved.  Will they be effective across the board?  No.  That's a necessary consequence of man's use of agency in this fallen, Telestial world.  

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

Agreed.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with you about meaningful questions and the learning process. Do you take my point about questions and doubts not being synonymous?

Depends very much on how such terms are used.  If someone is questioning his faith, that suggests doubt.  Not the same as just asking ordinary questions in an academic setting.

We are all here on this board because some kid in 1820 had some doubts and questions.  Elder Holland has suggested:

Quote

When doubt or difficulty come, do not be afraid to ask for help. If we want it ... humbly and honestly .., we can get it. The scriptures phrase such earnest desire as being of “real intent,” pursued “with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God” (2 Ne 31:13).  I testify that in response to that kind of importuning, God will send help from both sides of the veil to strengthen our belief.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng .

 

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

For me, the Heavens being brass means that even if some (many?) specific answers are not forthcoming, lack of such answers isn't (I hope!) a sign of God's indifference, or worse, of His disfavor.  Notwithstanding lack of specific guidance on some fronts, that does not leave me entirely bereft of assurance of some kind (usually that God is aware of me and that He loves me, even in light of His seeming silence on these things).

Oh, okay, yeah, I get that sometimes. It's like sometimes he just doesn't want to answer some of my questions. I'll usually take a break when that happens. But that doesn't mean I won't ask him again sometime later.  Persistence sometimes pays off, I have found.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, blueglass said:

**who has intentions to cause pain and alientation?  

Unfortunately I have known a few.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Depends very much on how such terms are used.  If someone is questioning his faith, that suggests doubt.  Not the same as just asking ordinary questions in an academic setting.

We are all here on this board because some kid in 1820 had some doubts and questions.  Elder Holland has suggested:

 

I don’t agree that questioning of one’s faith necessarily suggests doubt. One can have unanswered, even troubling, questions about the faith but still have strong faith. In fact, I think that pretty much describes all who are faithful. We can’t know everything at this juncture, and having strong faith does not mean we do. 

Joseph Smith had questions, but there is no indication in any of the narratives that he doubted God’s existence or love. On the contrary, it is faith that motivated his search for answers, not his doubt. 
 

The question at hand in this thread is whether doubt (as distinguished from questioning) is a thing to be celebrated or lionized.  The quote from Elder Holland does not indicate that it is; rather, it is a thing to be alleviated, sometimes by seeking help. I see no indication that doubt is to be cherished, gloried in, sustained or wallowed in. 
 

To your first sentence, any term or phrase can be used erroneously. It does not mean the incorrect usage alters the normative definition. 

Edited September 27, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t agree that questioning of one’s faith necessarily suggests doubt. One can have unanswered, even troubling, questions about the faith but still have strong faith. In fact, I think that pretty much describes all who are faithful. We can’t know everything at this juncture, and having strong faith does not mean we do. 

Joseph Smith had questions, but there is no indication in any of the narratives that he doubted God’s existence or love. On the contrary, it is faith that motivated his search for answers, not his doubt. 

......................

The way I see it, Joseph clearly had serious doubts about claims by churches to have the truth.  He wondered whether any of them might be true.  That's real doubt.  Yet you are correct, he had great faith in what prayer could do.  I have no problem with someone seriously doubting what he has been told, or what has been handed to him as a fixed tradition.  An individual needs to find out for himself it such claims are true.  That also requires the individual to be open enough to ask for or seek answers.  Someone who is already satisfied that he has adequate answers is not going to ask.  Brother Brigham used to worry about such Saints who lived on borrowed light:

Quote

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.  JD, IX:150, Jan 12, 1862.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The way I see it, Joseph clearly had serious doubts about claims by churches to have the truth.  He wondered whether any of them might be true.  That's real doubt.  Yet you are correct, he had great faith in what prayer could do.  I have no problem with someone seriously doubting what he has been told, or what has been handed to him as a fixed tradition.  An individual needs to find out for himself it such claims are true.  That also requires the individual to be open enough to ask for or seek answers.  Someone who is already satisfied that he has adequate answers is not going to ask.  Brother Brigham used to worry about such Saints who lived on borrowed light:

 

What if the individual is satisfied he has adequate answers because that knowledge has already come to him through personal revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost? Do you require he keep asking for answers he has already been divinely given?

My concern here (and the point brought up in the OP) is about those who seem to want to remain in a state of perpetual doubt and who appear to wear their doubt as a badge of intellectual honor or to advocate that others do so. Would that not be at least as bad as being “already satisfied that [one] has adequate answers”?

Regarding Joseph, it seems to me his state was not so much one of doubt as it was of bewilderment over contradictory claims and an urgency to resolve the question of which, if any, were correct. That’s how I read the accounts of the First Vision. In no wise do I see Joseph as wanting to remain in perpetual doubt or as celebrating doubt. On the contrary, the passage he cited in James, read in context, seems to celebrate unwavering faith. (“But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.)

Edited September 27, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What if the individual is satisfied he has adequate answers because that knowledge has already come to him through personal revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost? Do you require he keep asking for answers he has already been divinely given?

I side with Brother Brigham and Hugh Nibley on that one.  Living on borrowed light ain't where it's at.

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My concern here is about those who seem to want to remain in a state of perpetual doubt and who appear to wear their doubt as a badge of intellectual honor or to advocate that others do so. Would that not be at least as bad as being “already satisfied that [one] has adequate answers”?

Yes  skepticism may be an intellectual position, but can be justified by some very sophisticated philosophical conclusions which we should respect -- about epistemology -- and are very much worth discussing.  Being in a state of perpetual doubt as part of an unstable mental condition (possibly including depression and an inferiority complex) is a horse of another color and may require the services of a good therapist.

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Regarding Joseph, it seems to me his state was not so much one of doubt as it was of bewilderment over contradictory claims and an urgency to resolve the question of which, if any, were correct. That’s how I read the accounts of the First Vision. In no wise do I see Joseph as wanting to remain in perpetual doubt. 

Rather than being bewildered, Joseph appears to have been a very well-adjusted and determined young man, even at 14.  I admire his spunk and independent judgment.  Most kids I knew at that age (including me) would not have had the courage to take such a step into the unknown, to ask such an important question.  Most kids that age are oblivious to the really important questions.  Joseph was a true leader, and it isn't hard to imagine that he was one of the noble and great ones in the Divine Council.

It took me at least a decade longer than Joseph to get my bearings and to start asking the really difficult questions.  I remember coming out of class one day at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of my classmates saying to me that he was thankful that I had asked some good questions in class -- questions he was hesitant to voice.  That made an impression on me then, a kind of wake-up call.  I realized how important it is that we not remain silent when something needs to be said.  Part of the reason I am on this board.

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I side with Brother Brigham and Hugh Nibley on that one.  Living on borrowed light ain't where it's at.

Yes  skepticism may be an intellectual position, but can be justified by some very sophisticated philosophical conclusions which we should respect -- about epistemology -- and are very much worth discussing.  Being in a state of perpetual doubt as part of an unstable mental condition (possibly including depression and an inferiority complex) is a horse of another color and may require the services of a good therapist.

Rather than being bewildered, Joseph appears to have been a very well-adjusted and determined young man, even at 14.  I admire his spunk and independent judgment.  Most kids I knew at that age (including me) would not have had the courage to take such a step into the unknown, to ask such an important question.  Most kids that age are oblivious to the really important questions.  Joseph was a true leader, and it isn't hard to imagine that he was one of the noble and great ones in the Divine Council.

It took me at least a decade longer than Joseph to get my bearings and to start asking the really difficult questions.  I remember coming out of class one day at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of my classmates saying to me that he was thankful that I had asked some good questions in class -- questions he was hesitant to voice.  That made an impression on me then, a kind of wake-up call.  I realized how important it is that we not remain silent when something needs to be said.  Part of the reason I am on this board.

You’re saying that Brigham Young and Hugh Nibley advocated continually asking for answers that one has already been given through the power of the Holy Ghost? That being confident in revelation one has personally received amounts to “living on borrowed light”? I don’t see that in any of the quotes you have cited. 

When I used the word “bewildered” in reference to Joseph, I was contrasting that with “doubtful,” which you seem to want to ascribe to him. I was not intending to imply that he was unstable or imbalanced. Sheesh. Consider Joseph’s autobiographical account in Joseph Smith 1 to see why I used the term “bewildered.” I think it is an apt descriptor of the state of confusion he was in regarding which of the competing sects was right, but It is not a reference to his mental health or stability. 
 

Finally, it seems to me you are circling back to how we began this conversation, which was to discuss the distinction between questioning and doubting, which, as I said earlier, I do not view as synonymous. 

Edited September 27, 2019 by Scott Lloyd