Seek and Ye Shall Find....

[bluebell]

Someone (might have been on a podcast, I can't remember) posited that there is more than one way to interpret all the times that the scriptures teach that if we seek, we shall find.  Normally, we take that to mean seeking truth, or seeking Christ, or seeking the gospel, etc.  But this person said that because faith is a required part of gaining a testimony, seeking isn't as straightforward as it seems.

If we seek for reasons to believe, then we will find them because that is an exercise of faith that God will honor, but the opposite is also true.  If we seek for reasons to doubt, the scripture is promising that we will find those as well.  This is one reason why Christ commands us to "doubt not".   Leaning into doubt will get us farther from Him because we are seeking the wrong things.

I had never thought of that before.  Is that a valid interpretation do you think?

[The Nehor]

Unless you are doubting your doubts. That for some reason is approved. I don’t know what the stance is on doubting your doubts about your doubts.

[manol]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is that a valid interpretation do you think?

Absolutely!

Quoting Elder Uchtdorf from his talk entitled "A Higher Joy", April 2024 General Conference:

“Jesus taught, ‘Seek, and ye shall find.’  I believe this simple phrase is not only a spiritual promise; it is a statement of fact. If we seek reasons to be angry, to doubt, to be bitter or alone, we will find them too. However, if we seek joy—if we look for reasons to rejoice and to happily follow the Savior, we will find them. We rarely find something we are not looking for."

In my opinion and (limited) experience, real change starts in the mind; and to be more specific, it starts with deliberately and consistently choosing one's thoughts, to the best of one's ability in the moment.  The "consistently" part is thus far not yet possible for me, BUT as soon as I become AWARE that I've allowed my thoughts to indulge in the path of least resistance and/or wallow in negativity, I have the opportunity to choose again. 

You mentioned something along these lines:

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is one reason why Christ commands us to "doubt not". 

The entire quote is an incredibly succinct "how to" blueprint:  "Look to me in every thought; doubt not, fear not." 

Imo our mindset can take us to heaven or to hell.  (I think those are both states of consciousness rather than geographic locations, whether in this world or the next.)

Something I find useful is, whenever I notice that circumstances permit me to choose what's "playing" in my mind, I can deliberately choose the most uplifting thoughts I know of.  I like to have a few particularly uplifting thoughts lined up and ready to go, and I change them up as I evolve.  They don't even need to have words:  I can let the orchestral music from the choral section of Beethoven's 9th ("Ode to Joy") play in my head and it transforms my state of mind. 

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Unless you are doubting your doubts. That for some reason is approved. 

Maybe because doubting your doubts is just a fun way to say to have faith.   

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, manol said:

Absolutely!

Quoting Elder Uchtdorf from his talk entitled "A Higher Joy", April 2024 General Conference:

“Jesus taught, ‘Seek, and ye shall find.’  I believe this simple phrase is not only a spiritual promise; it is a statement of fact. If we seek reasons to be angry, to doubt, to be bitter or alone, we will find them too. However, if we seek joy—if we look for reasons to rejoice and to happily follow the Savior, we will find them. We rarely find something we are not looking for."

In my opinion and (limited) experience, real change starts in the mind; and to be more specific, it starts with deliberately and consistently choosing one's thoughts, to the best of one's ability in the moment.  The "consistently" part is thus far not yet possible for me, BUT as soon as I become AWARE that I've allowed my thoughts to indulge in the path of least resistance and/or wallow in negativity, I have the opportunity to choose again. 

You mentioned something along these lines:

The entire quote is an incredibly succinct "how to" blueprint:  "Look to me in every thought; doubt not, fear not." 

Imo our mindset can take us to heaven or to hell.  (I think those are both states of consciousness rather than geographic locations, whether in this world or the next.)

Something I find useful is, whenever I notice that circumstances permit me to choose what's "playing" in my mind, I can deliberately choose the most uplifting thoughts I know of.  I like to have a few particularly uplifting thoughts lined up and ready to go, and I change them up as I evolve.  They don't even need to have words:  I can let the orchestral music from the choral section of Beethoven's 9th ("Ode to Joy") play in my head and it transforms my state of mind. 

Love it.  And I agree with you because it is my experience as well. 

Whenever I was feeling skeptical or grumpy or cynical, I noticed that there was always a whisper in the back of my head that leaned into a more faithful interpretation of whatever I was upset about or struggling with.  I used to ignore that whisper but when I started to listen to it, everything changed.  

I think that sometimes we understand this concept (without every having put it into words), but we don't really want a new perspective, we want to feel validated in our old perspective instead.  Which is kind of weird since usually the old perspective isn't doing us any favors.

[Pyreaux]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Someone (might have been on a podcast, I can't remember) posited that there is more than one way to interpret all the times that the scriptures teach that if we seek, we shall find.  Normally, we take that to mean seeking truth, or seeking Christ, or seeking the gospel, etc.  But this person said that because faith is a required part of gaining a testimony, seeking isn't as straightforward as it seems.

If we seek for reasons to believe, then we will find them because that is an exercise of faith that God will honor, but the opposite is also true.  If we seek for reasons to doubt, the scripture is promising that we will find those as well.  This is one reason why Christ commands us to "doubt not".   Leaning into doubt will get us farther from Him because we are seeking the wrong things.

I had never thought of that before.  Is that a valid interpretation do you think?

Actually, a very old idea expressed in a new way. The scriptures do indeed put "seeking" in a conditional frame, as you say: what you set your heart on determines what you end up finding.

Jesus said, “Seek, and ye shall find” (Matthew 7:7). That’s usually read positively - seek truth, and you’ll find truth. But the inverse also appears true too: if you "seek for signs," you may get them but "unto condemnation" (Doctrine and Covenants 63:7–12). Likewise, those who "seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness" are condemned (Jacob 4:14). So, scripture shows that seeking isn’t neutral - it’s directed by intent.

What I see, as someone who sees esoteric things in scripture, is the unstated need for hierophants, guides and community.

Seeking in scripture is rarely a purely solitary quest. Priests, prophets, angels, or the Spirit often act as interpreters for seekers. Even Nephi, though he sought to see the vision himself, then immediately turned to the Spirit of the Lord to ask it questions (1 Nephi 11:1). Paul speaks of believers being “no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" if there is no ecclesiastic help (Ephesians 4:14). Without them, seeking can turn into wandering.

The way I see it, many Protestant traditions emphasize "sola scriptura" and personal searching. That can empower with freedom but can also leave people fragmented if they have no shared interpretive anchor. The LDS approach insists that seeking is done with the Spirit and under authorized guidance, which helps avoid the endless whirl of “every wind of doctrine."

So yes, that interpretation, that what you choose to seek, with faith or with doubt, determines what you will find, is valid. But paired with the recognition that God provides guides (Spirit, prophets, community) so that our seeking doesn’t just mirror our own bias.

Edited September 2, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Tony uk]

I imagine, that when we seek answers, through faith. Then we will be more open to understanding the truth, in whatever form that it may take. However, if we are doubtful or anyway negative, our search for the truth and the appropriate answers will be overshadowed by any doubts that we may have.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

If we seek for reasons to believe, then we will find them because that is an exercise of faith that God will honor, but the opposite is also true.  If we seek for reasons to doubt, the scripture is promising that we will find those as well.  This is one reason why Christ commands us to "doubt not".   Leaning into doubt will get us farther from Him because we are seeking the wrong things.

 

14 hours ago, manol said:

Quoting Elder Uchtdorf from his talk entitled "A Higher Joy", April 2024 General Conference:

“Jesus taught, ‘Seek, and ye shall find.’  I believe this simple phrase is not only a spiritual promise; it is a statement of fact. If we seek reasons to be angry, to doubt, to be bitter or alone, we will find them too. However, if we seek joy—if we look for reasons to rejoice and to happily follow the Savior, we will find them. We rarely find something we are not looking for."

I think “belief” and “doubt” are bad ways to frame the issue. What if we aren’t seeking reasons to believe or reasons to doubt. What if we just want to know what’s true. Seeking truth? If that leads to doubt in an old paradigm why is that bad? Why is belief in falsehood deemed good?

Edited September 2, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[stelf]

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

I think “belief” and “doubt” are bad ways to frame the issue. What if we aren’t seeking reasons to believe or reasons to doubt. What if we just want to know what’s true. Seeking truth? If that leads to doubt in an old paradigm why is that bad? Why is belief in falsehood deemed good?

This is where I am right now. I want to know what is true. I am not interested in cultivating faith in something that is false so I must engage in a search for what is actually true.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Someone (might have been on a podcast, I can't remember) posited that there is more than one way to interpret all the times that the scriptures teach that if we seek, we shall find.  Normally, we take that to mean seeking truth, or seeking Christ, or seeking the gospel, etc.  But this person said that because faith is a required part of gaining a testimony, seeking isn't as straightforward as it seems.

If we seek for reasons to believe, then we will find them because that is an exercise of faith that God will honor, but the opposite is also true.  If we seek for reasons to doubt, the scripture is promising that we will find those as well.  This is one reason why Christ commands us to "doubt not".   Leaning into doubt will get us farther from Him because we are seeking the wrong things.

I had never thought of that before.  Is that a valid interpretation do you think?

Yes, I believe it is valid, and it says so right here in D&C 88  :

63 Draw near unto me and I will draw near unto you; seek me diligently and ye shall find me; ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

64 Whatsoever ye ask the Father in my name it shall be given unto you, that is expedient for you;

65 And if ye ask anything that is not expedient for you, it shall turn unto your condemnation.

Jesus says “doubt not” only once in the New Testament (Matthew 21, and it is so much like Helman 10, it refers to the sealing power); in D&C He only says it twice; in 6, He says it about Himself, and in D&C 8, about translation.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Actually, a very old idea expressed in a new way. The scriptures do indeed put "seeking" in a conditional frame, as you say: what you set your heart on determines what you end up finding.

Jesus said, “Seek, and ye shall find” (Matthew 7:7). That’s usually read positively - seek truth, and you’ll find truth. But the inverse also appears true too: if you "seek for signs," you may get them but "unto condemnation" (Doctrine and Covenants 63:7–12). Likewise, those who "seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness" are condemned (Jacob 4:14). So, scripture shows that seeking isn’t neutral - it’s directed by intent.

What I see, as someone who sees esoteric things in scripture, is the unstated need for hierophants, guides and community.

Seeking in scripture is rarely a purely solitary quest. Priests, prophets, angels, or the Spirit often act as interpreters for seekers. Even Nephi, though he sought to see the vision himself, then immediately turned to the Spirit of the Lord to ask it questions (1 Nephi 11:1). Paul speaks of believers being “no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" if there is no ecclesiastic help (Ephesians 4:14). Without them, seeking can turn into wandering.

The way I see it, many Protestant traditions emphasize "sola scriptura" and personal searching. That can empower with freedom but can also leave people fragmented if they have no shared interpretive anchor. The LDS approach insists that seeking is done with the Spirit and under authorized guidance, which helps avoid the endless whirl of “every wind of doctrine."

So yes, that interpretation, that what you choose to seek, with faith or with doubt, determines what you will find, is valid. But paired with the recognition that God provides guides (Spirit, prophets, community) so that our seeking doesn’t just mirror our own bias.

I find that context is half (or more) of interpreting these two sayings ("seek and ye shall find" / "doubt not") in a functional manner. Doubt is more of a barrier to seeking (stops it cold or arrests it not too far along) more than seeking is a barrier to doubt (it opens up the options to do so). For this reason, when seeking any good thing, I think it's best to be specific and not a generalist; discipline (balancing the two mental states, leading out and building upon the seeking aspect and mastering the doubts that undermine the more expansive seeking) makes a big difference. Successful people normally do not seek doubt, but knowledge and other good things.

Just a few random examples from D&C:

Section 4, it refers to desires to serve God.

Section 11, to things pertaining unto righteousness

Section 88:63-64, to the 62 previous verses, draw near to Christ, and expedient.

Section 88: 83, to the 20 previous verses, 58 subsequent verses.

And in the Four Gospels, we also have different contexts and applications almost every time it is said. The same with “doubt not,” which is said by Jesus only once in the New Testament. In D&C 6, this phrase centers on Christ and in D&C 8, on translation.

Young Joseph Smith did not seek doubt. He sought salvation and had some questions about what his elders were teaching about that.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

I think “belief” and “doubt” are bad ways to frame the issue. What if we aren’t seeking reasons to believe or reasons to doubt. What if we just want to know what’s true.

It's a good question.  Can we just seek for truth without any bias for or against the information or sources we have to sift through to get there?  

I don't know how to seek for truth without faith or doubt playing a part in the process.  As an example of what I mean, I have a degree in history.  But in order to get it, I had to trust that the college I attended could actually impart the knowledge that I needed.  I had to trust that my professors knew what they were talking about.   I couldn't verify either of those things independently, it was all trust (or faith) in the system that put those people or institutions in a position of authority.  Eventually, I would be able to judge them on merit but for me, that was a process that had to start with trust.  Even if I did research before applying to that school or taking these professor's classes, it would still be me getting 'truth' from sources that I could not personally verify at that point in my life.  

Faith and doubt seem to be irrevocably connected to discovering truth, from my perspective.  So I don't think I can answer your question because I have no personal experience with it.

Speaking from your perspective, how has seeking truth (with no bias for or against the outcome) lead you to truth?  What has that process looked like in your life?  It's a sincere question, not a gotcha.  I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

Quote

Seeking truth? If that leads to doubt in an old paradigm why is that bad? Why is belief in falsehood deemed good?

I don't think it is.  Even Christ said that we have to be willing to leave our old ways and beliefs to follow Him.  That requires a paradigm shift and doubt in what was and faith in something new.  There's no way around that.  

Hopefully some others will share their thoughts on the question too, because it's another good one.  Let me think about it some more before giving my thoughts.  I have some ideas but I need to dig into them deeper.

[JVW]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Someone (might have been on a podcast, I can't remember) posited that there is more than one way to interpret all the times that the scriptures teach that if we seek, we shall find.  Normally, we take that to mean seeking truth, or seeking Christ, or seeking the gospel, etc.  But this person said that because faith is a required part of gaining a testimony, seeking isn't as straightforward as it seems.

If we seek for reasons to believe, then we will find them because that is an exercise of faith that God will honor, but the opposite is also true.  If we seek for reasons to doubt, the scripture is promising that we will find those as well.  This is one reason why Christ commands us to "doubt not".   Leaning into doubt will get us farther from Him because we are seeking the wrong things.

I had never thought of that before.  Is that a valid interpretation do you think?

Faith is a principle that applies to every aspect of life, and the older I get the more I believe in the statement "seek and ye shall find, ask and it shall be given you". And, relating to what @Pyreaux said in most, if not all, of my seeking I consult sources produced by a hierophant of some kind. Whether it's a religious or scientific expert, or a loved one or friend who I trust in whatever matter I'm dealing with.

In a recent thread in this forum there was a discussion about Joseph Smith and treasure digging. I learned a lot from that thread, but what I learned most of all is that whatever someone wants to believe about Joseph they have sufficient evidence to support them in that belief.

This is the case with Jesus Christ's divinity, the authenticity of the Bible (is it an embellished myth, or not?), the Book of Mormon, any given church or religious sect around the world, any political or scientific movement, etc. Now, there will always be people on either side of a given issue who appear to be certain about their position and treat opponents as if they are idiots. This is on both sides. In their own way they are following the command to doubt not after having arrived at their personal destination of truth. The problem with this is that a lot of people believe that they've discovered truth when really they've only settled deeply into their own personal belief system.

Covid was the time in which I learned a lot about the power of faith. As one who values thinking critically, and understanding that in order to do so I need to be exposed to conflicting views and seriously consider each, I came to discover a personal guiding principle that I think would work well for anyone to adopt. Choose to focus on, and build, a belief in whatever causes one to experience the least amount of anxiety, depression, pain, suffering, and/or cognitive dissonance.

I choose to believe in Jesus Christ because I feel better about my life when I strive to follow Him as I understand Him from the scriptures and teachings of my church. Do I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that Islam or Hinduism are wrong? No. Do I think converting to a sect outside of Christianity will bring me more fulfillment out of life than I currently already have? No. Do I think there are others with personalities who jive better with non-Christian beliefs? Yes.

Whatever desire someone seeks to fulfill, they will naturally be inclined to agree with any data they come across that supports their desires. It is a natural part of life, but it can be a really sucky part of life if either A) The desire sucks, like a desire for self-destruction or B) They aren't cognizant of their true desires. My sister's life is a wreck and she has no idea why, and it's impossible for me to tell her that it's because she wants it to be. Subconsciously she feeds off of the suffering and the drama. She prefers to win the argument of who has it worse instead of who has it better. But she doesn't recognize it and what she is seeking is ultimately self-destruction.

[JVW]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can we just seek for truth without any bias for or against the information or sources we have to sift through to get there?  

No, that's impossible.

[Nofear]

I also read the Sermon on the Mount as a kind of temple sermon, if not some account of a version of the endowment (Dave Butler calls it the "Course of the Lord").

If you seek, that which has been withheld until the appropriate time will be revealed.
If you knock, knock, knock it will be opened unto you.

This interpretation, if it has any merit, doesn't invalidate your perspective as the scriptures are often multivalent. But, it might be a perspective that may add layers to your understanding.

[Pyreaux]

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think “belief” and “doubt” are bad ways to frame the issue. What if we aren’t seeking reasons to believe or reasons to doubt. What if we just want to know what’s true. Seeking truth? If that leads to doubt in an old paradigm why is that bad? Why is belief in falsehood deemed good?

I agree that we should seek truth for its own sake. None of us should settle. If an old paradigm isn't true, letting it go isn't a bad thing. The problem is how we often go about it. As the scriptures warn, some people are "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7). Why? I think that happens when we look for truth in the wrong places or reject the very thing that can guide us to it.

Or as @bluebell is saying truth isn't just about the information being presented; it's also about the receiver's willingness to accept it. If their mind is already set against it, if they've decided in advance that they 'won't believe the truth even if it was told to you', will be rejected.

This is the trap of skepticism: Doubt can become a closed system that prevents new information from entering. The person who says "I won't believe until you prove it" can, ironically, be the very one who makes it impossible to be convinced. They've built a wall of predetermined unbelief that no amount of truth can get through.

If I'm looking for reasons not to believe, I'll find them. I can find human flaws in prophets, unanswered historical questions, and apparent paradoxes. However, none of that necessarily means the gospel isn't true. If God is real, then truth isn't always something we can control or understand on our own terms.

As Alma warned, we can take the seed of faith and "cast it out by your unbelief" (Alma 32:28). In that case, the seed was good and true, but skepticism killed it before it could grow or bear the fruit that would show you it was good and true.

A skeptic might say, "I just want to know what's true, and I won't have faith until it's proven." But in practice, that sets the bar so high that even when truth is offered, it might not register. Scripture calls this "resisting the Spirit" (Acts 7:51). Faith isn't the opposite of truth, it's a disposition that allows you to receive the truth. Without faith, we often just end up confirming our own biases and doubts. That's the folly of the spirit of skepticism.

The Folly of Skepticism

Edited September 3, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Amulek]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

If we seek for reasons to believe, then we will find them because that is an exercise of faith that God will honor, but the opposite is also true.  If we seek for reasons to doubt, the scripture is promising that we will find those as well.  This is one reason why Christ commands us to "doubt not".   Leaning into doubt will get us farther from Him because we are seeking the wrong things.

I had never thought of that before.  Is that a valid interpretation do you think?

I think so. 

Imagine someone who prays and studies the scriptures asking sincerely, "God, please help me know if Jesus Christ lives." They approach the endeavor with a heart open to belief and look for experiences, feelings, or insights that confirm that truth. They may notice small promptings, moments of peace, or clarity during study and prayer. Each of these experiences strengthens their faith which makes them more likely to notice further confirmations. Their seeking, done in faith, helps invite God's response and allows them to receive it.

Now, imagine if someone approaches the same question thinking, "I bet this is all made up - show my why it's false." This person's mind and heart are tuned to notice contradictions, unanswered questions, or inconsistencies. They may find arguments, historical complexities, or emotional discomforts that reinforce skepticism. Because they are actively seeking doubt, the process tends to produce the outcome they are focused on. 

The difference here isn't necessarily in God withholding or granting truth differently; it's in what your heart is oriented toward. I believe that's partly why Jesus warns against doubting in ways that turn the heart away - the seeking itself has consequences.

I believe that is entirely consistent within the LDS paradigm - the intent of your heart and your exercise of faith are crucial in how revelation and spiritual experiences are received.

 

[manol]

On 9/2/2025 at 7:56 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think “belief” and “doubt” are bad ways to frame the issue. What if we aren’t seeking reasons to believe or reasons to doubt.

I'll attempt to convey my understanding of the general process Elder Uchtdorf is talking about in non-religious terms:

We all have confirmation biases whereby we subconsciously tend to align our perceptions with our (conscious or subconscious) beliefs and expectations; in other words, we tend to see what we are looking for (and if our subconscious is calling the shots, we don't realize it).

Let's suppose a person suspects their cognitive bias is working against them by causing them to have unnecessary negative perceptions. They reason it out like this: Perception arises from beliefs and expectations; and beliefs and expectations in turn arise from default thought patterns.

So instead of trying to directly control their perceptions, or to directly control their beliefs and expectations, they focus on consistently choosing to directly control their thoughts to the best of their ability in the moment.

Over time deliberately choosing the most beneficial thought(s) one is able to in the moment can shift a person's default thought pattern, which in turn shifts their beliefs and expectations, which results in a corresponding shift in their perception. The outside world has not changed, but their seeing of it has.

 

On 9/2/2025 at 7:56 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What if we just want to know what’s true.

If you'd like to have an in-depth conversation about “how to know what's true”, I'll do my best, but I don't have a very big repertoire. If so, can you start by describing (briefly if you prefer) your thoughts on “how to know what's true”?

 

On 9/2/2025 at 7:56 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Seeking truth? If that leads to doubt in an old paradigm why is that bad?

Imo a genuine search for truth cannot reasonably be confined to only that which is within a person's comfort zone; imo that would actually be a search for confirmation of what one already believes.

Ime quite often new truth comes at the cost of one's old, often cherished, paradigm.

 

On 9/2/2025 at 7:56 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why is belief in falsehood deemed good?

Is it? 

Maybe there are scenarios where belief in a falsehood is arguably "good", but I don't think that's something very many people aspire to. 

 

Edited September 3, 2025 by manol

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 9/1/2025 at 6:00 PM, bluebell said:

If we seek for reasons to believe, then we will find them because that is an exercise of faith that God will honor, but the opposite is also true.  If we seek for reasons to doubt, the scripture is promising that we will find those as well.  This is one reason why Christ commands us to "doubt not".   Leaning into doubt will get us farther from Him because we are seeking the wrong things.

I had never thought of that before.  Is that a valid interpretation do you think?

Not in my opinion.

The human brain dislikes not having narratives. We can find reasons to believe anything at all (even the most illogical or irrational things) if we seek for reasons to believe. On a subconscious level, we call this confirmation bias. Even within religion, blind faith is a bad thing. And since confirmation bias isn't something that is exclusive to religious belief, the same sorts of tools we employ to recognize our own biases more generally work well within a religious context. The blind believer and the dedicated skeptic will never find real reasons to believe (or disbelieve) - even if they think they have. It is unreasonable to suggest that the Pharisees and the Sadducee didn't believe (and didn't have reasons to believe). Rather, it is easy to believe the wrong things if we are looking for reasons to believe them. Believing too much isn't that much better than not believing at all - and instead of not doubting, we need to be more like the father who cried out (Mark 9:24): "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." Belief is more of a journey of discovery and not a decision.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Not in my opinion.

The human brain dislikes not having narratives. We can find reasons to believe anything at all (even the most illogical or irrational things) if we seek for reasons to believe. On a subconscious level, we call this confirmation bias. Even within religion, blind faith is a bad thing. And since confirmation bias isn't something that is exclusive to religious belief, the same sorts of tools we employ to recognize our own biases more generally work well within a religious context. The blind believer and the dedicated skeptic will never find real reasons to believe (or disbelieve) - even if they think they have. It is unreasonable to suggest that the Pharisees and the Sadducee didn't believe (and didn't have reasons to believe). Rather, it is easy to believe the wrong things if we are looking for reasons to believe them. Believing too much isn't that much better than not believing at all - and instead of not doubting, we need to be more like the father who cried out (Mark 9:24): "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." Belief is more of a journey of discovery and not a decision.

I agree, belief is very much a journey.

I'm not sure I'm following you on your conflating of seeking belief with blind faith.  Can you elaborate or clarify?

[bluebell]

On 9/2/2025 at 6:56 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Seeking truth? If that leads to doubt in an old paradigm why is that bad? Why is belief in falsehood deemed good?

I've been thinking more about my thoughts on this.  My feelings are that the issue is about what we lead with, and not where we end up.  Doubt in false things and leaving untruth behind is progress.  If the journey leads to doubt in a false thing then I think that was a worthwhile journey. 

But can starting out the journey with doubt, and moving through the journey with doubt, ever get us onto a road that doesn't lead to doubt?  I don't personally think it can.  I think in order to seek truth, you need to start from a place of believing the truth you are looking for actually exists.  A position of faith.

I know that other people's mileage varies, but that is how I would answer your question.

[stelf]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've been thinking more about my thoughts on this.  My feelings are that the issue is about what we lead with, and not where we end up.  Doubt in false things and leaving untruth behind is progress.  If the journey leads to doubt in a false thing then I think that was a worthwhile journey. 

But can starting out the journey with doubt, and moving through the journey with doubt, ever get us onto a road that doesn't lead to doubt?  I don't personally think it can.  I think in order to seek truth, you need to start from a place of believing the truth you are looking for actually exists.  A position of faith.

I know that other people's mileage varies, but that is how I would answer your question.

I think about this thing a lot. In my professional life I am a biostatistician that works in all areas of clinical trials. A key piece of being able to proceed with a clinical investigation is something we call equipoise. Basically, we can't have too strong a conviction one way or the other about how the results of the trial will go. 

I am convinced that this state of equipoise is the one we should maintain in order to best place us to discover truth. It is the state in which we are most likely to "objectively" look at data and allow actual evidence to update our beliefs. 

I know that my experience in the church, although common, is not universal. But I was never given any opportunity for equipoise regarding church doctrine. Instead I was essentially told what was right by my parents and church leaders from a very young age and I grew up with "church is true" as my default position. If we have a worldview that makes us unwilling to even entertain the idea that our beliefs could be wrong I think we are set up to not reach the truth.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, stelf said:

I think about this thing a lot. In my professional life I am a biostatistician that works in all areas of clinical trials. A key piece of being able to proceed with a clinical investigation is something we call equipoise. Basically, we can't have too strong a conviction one way or the other about how the results of the trial will go. 

I am convinced that this state of equipoise is the one we should maintain in order to best place us to discover truth. It is the state in which we are most likely to "objectively" look at data and allow actual evidence to update our beliefs. 

I know that my experience in the church, although common, is not universal. But I was never given any opportunity for equipoise regarding church doctrine. Instead I was essentially told what was right by my parents and church leaders from a very young age and I grew up with "church is true" as my default position. If we have a worldview that makes us unwilling to even entertain the idea that our beliefs could be wrong I think we are set up to not reach the truth.

So you must have neither faith nor doubt, but be unbiased?  That makes sense, especially with interpreting data.  As a very amateur historian, I have had to take a similar approach to topics because the references often had to be interpreted, and interpretation is so heavily influenced by bias.  But that was possible because I was not invested in any specific outcome.  I didn't care enough for bias to really be that much of a problem.

Honestly speaking, I don't think it's possible for me (maybe for most people?) be neutral when it's something that I do care about.  Neutrality requires a blank page to write on, and when you already have strong feelings about something, the page isn't blank and won't ever be again (in my view).  So I don't know how to be neutral about Christ, or the gospel.  There's too much baggage.

Have you been able to find neutrality in your question for spiritual truth?  (sincere question)

[Benjamin McGuire]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure I'm following you on your conflating of seeking belief with blind faith.  Can you elaborate or clarify?

Sure.

I am drawing a distinction between seeking belief and seeking reasons to believe. If we are seeking reasons to believe, then the belief is already a foregone conclusion, and our search is only about looking for validation of our beliefs. The same could be said for deciding not to believe and then looking for justifications or reasons not to believe. In both situations, we have a pre-existing belief and we are merely looking for ways to make that decision to believe (or not to believe) seem more rational to ourselves. This is roughly equivalent to the idea of blind faith (or blind disbelief on the other side of the coin) in the sense that there isn't any real questioning or challenging of that beginning belief stage. Mature faith doesn't come just from seeking belief, it comes from situating that belief in a reality that can present a complex challenge to belief. Why is it that prayers aren't always answered? The simple belief is that there are reasons known to God and unknown to us - and so in such an answer to the question, we find reasons to believe (just think of that Garth Brook's song - Unanswered Prayers).

I might further suggest that belief itself isn't something that we search for - it is already a compromise when we can't know. Alma 32 is about testing belief - and it presents a philosophy of belief that is coupled to knowledge. We are allowed to be skeptical - because in our skepticism, we test belief out. And when our belief doesn't yield fruits, we can know that the belief is wrong. This isn't belief or doubt, it is a rationalism towards truth and expectations. If we have a belief that God should do X when we do Y, and God doesn't, then we shouldn't be looking for ways to salvage that belief by modifying the conditions on X or Y. Rather we should, instead, look at out beliefs themselves and see if they are true or not.

One of the more memorable of the examples of all of this is the whole thing with Harold Camping. When his predictions failed, his followers simply doubled down on it with another try (predicting the beginning of the millennium). That story contains a lot of people believing far too much - and following this idea of looking for reasons to believe as opposed to examining the beliefs themselves.

23 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Or as @bluebell is saying truth isn't just about the information being presented; it's also about the receiver's willingness to accept it.

In fact, truth is just about the information. Something isn't not-true because no one is willing to accept it. And our willingness to accept an idea doesn't somehow make it truth. Our ability to follow truth is certainly dependent on our willingness to accept it - but - if we are willing to accept untruth as truth, it gets complicated. So the mindset of belief or doubt isn't what we want to learn (or to have). What we want is a pattern to follow by which we accept or adopt truth. And within religious contexts, this is always going to be a murky gray area. Alma addresses this through his testing of truth. We test the claim, and it produces results, we can learn truth from that test. 

Belief comes about when we can't know something because it doesn't exist in isolation. Belief in an isolated claim with nothing to support it is the purest definition of blind faith. But generally, we believe things because we have relatively good reasons to do so. I go to work with the belief that my employer will pay me for my work. The fact that this employer has done so consistently (and on time) for the past 18 years provides some reasonable justification for that belief. We may have a belief in God because of some experience we have had. But should that belief in God suddenly translate to a whole range of beliefs about other things? These are questions connected to the problem of looking for reasons to believe (and looking for reasons to doubt). We can certainly believe that God speaks to us personally. So did the Lafferty brothers. The epistemology of truth is a complex question - and we aren't going to get there through pithy slogans and memes. And in our world of lies and fake news, the ability to find truth is becoming a skill we all need to develop ...

Finally -

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think in order to seek truth, you need to start from a place of believing the truth you are looking for actually exists.  A position of faith.

I think that this isn't as simple as it sounds. That we can speak of truth suggests that we believe truth exists. I am reminded of that line in the Indiana Jones movie The Last Crusade. Professor Jones tells his class: "Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If you want truth, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is just down the hall." People who like that quote rarely pay attention to what comes next. Professor Jones goes on to say "We do not follow maps to buried treasure and X never, ever marks the spot”. The irony intended in this statement by the movie script (and that is lost by extracting the quote from its context) is that the movie presents an Indiana Jones who is indeed searching for truth, who follows a map to the buried treasure, and over the course of the adventure discovers that X can indeed mark the spot (none of which Jones is actually looking for). We start by believing that truth exists. But, the idea that "the truth that we are looking for actually exists" is a slippery slope. The truth that exists may not be the truth we are looking for. And the question is: how do we respond when we start to discover that a difference exists between the truth that we want and the truth that is there? Elder Bruce Hafen in his book The Believing Heart takes a believers approach to this question. His discussion is a good starting point - and to give you a bit of a taste -

Quote

 

Given, then, the existence of a gap for most of us between where we stand and where we would like to be, and given that we will have at least some experiences that make us wonder what we are to do, I think there are three different levels in dealing with ambiguity.

At level one, there are two typical attitudes, one of which is that we simply do not—perhaps cannot—even see the problems that exist. Some seem almost consciously to filter out any perception of a gap between the real and the ideal. For those in this category, the gospel at its best is a firm handshake, an enthusiastic greeting, and a smiley button. Their mission was the best, their ward is the best, and every new day is probably going to be the best day they ever had. These cheerful ones are happy, spontaneous, optimistic, and they always manage to hang loose. They are able to weather many storms that would seem formidable to more pessimistic types, though one wonders if they have somehow missed hearing that a storm was going on.

 

He goes on to deal with his other two levels - and the discussion is good. I tend to frame it differently. But here is that blind faith issue. An unwillingness (or even an inability) to recognize the gap between what we think is true and the reality we actually experience is not a sustainable faith.

[stelf]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

So you must have neither faith nor doubt, but be unbiased?  That makes sense, especially with interpreting data.  As a very amateur historian, I have had to take a similar approach to topics because the references often had to be interpreted, and interpretation is so heavily influenced by bias.  But that was possible because I was not invested in any specific outcome.  I didn't care enough for bias to really be that much of a problem.

Honestly speaking, I don't think it's possible for me (maybe for most people?) be neutral when it's something that I do care about.  Neutrality requires a blank page to write on, and when you already have strong feelings about something, the page isn't blank and won't ever be again (in my view).  So I don't know how to be neutral about Christ, or the gospel.  There's too much baggage.

Have you been able to find neutrality in your question for spiritual truth?  (sincere question)

I don't think it's about not having faith or doubts. If there was no faith at all then we would never investigate new drugs or treatments. I think equipoise is much more about a lack of certainty. I believe @Navidad recently posted in a different thread about this. I think we run into trouble when we are so certain of things that they can't be challenged. I have many people in my life that are this way. Their conclusions are what comes first and so they dismiss anything that challenges those. I see this in my work at times as well. A researcher is convinced that a particular treatment will be effective and is resistant to the analysis we perform.

As for spiritual truth, I feel the same way. I was brought up to be certain about the gospel and the church. I think we are explicitly taught this by the church leaders. I think the stories of Abraham, Moses, and Nephi are about demonstrating unflinching loyalty even when confronted with commandments that seem immoral. To me this is blind obedience. It is saying that we should trust in our conclusions even when everything is telling us to doubt. I no longer see this as a virtue. 

So, I was never spiritually neutral and I am not now.