Faithful Questioning

[cinepro]

Did you really arrive at that conclusion from the material quoted? Or are you just being a flippant poster?

Glenn

What else could "faithful questioning" be? Or, to put it another way, why does the word "questioning" need any sort of modifier? Why isn't regular "questioning" the ideal for LDS?

The blind spot in Elder Hafen's theory of "faithful questioning" is the (necessary) presumption that people only leave the Church because they have been lied to about the history.

He also needs to address the problem of people who learn true things about the Church, and even after reading the finest and most nuanced apologetic arguments, remain unconvinced and decide they don't want to associate with the Church anymore.

When it all comes down to it, I doubt very, very few LDS leave the Church because of anti-Mormon lies. Anti-Mormon lies are only effective at keeping people away from the Church. It's the stuff that is true that is the most dangerous, and no matter how "faithful" your questioning is, it isn't going to help to deal with the truths that some people find so unpleasant.

[Lamanite]

What else could "faithful questioning" be? Or, to put it another way, why does the word "questioning" need any sort of modifier? Why isn't regular "questioning" the ideal for LDS?

The blind spot in Elder Hafen's theory of "faithful questioning" is the (necessary) presumption that people only leave the Church because they have been lied to about the history.

He also needs to address the problem of people who learn true things about the Church, and even after reading the finest and most nuanced apologetic arguments, remain unconvinced and decide they don't want to associate with the Church anymore.

When it all comes down to it, I doubt very, very few LDS leave the Church because of anti-Mormon lies. Anti-Mormon lies are only effective at keeping people away from the Church. It's the stuff that is true that is the most dangerous, and no matter how "faithful" your questioning is, it isn't going to help to deal with the truths that some people find so unpleasant.

My faith quite often helps me "deal" with truth and belief.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Cold Steel]

One of the more pernicious arguments that critics make is that Latter-day Saints need to continually question their faith if they're to remain intellectually honest. They point to the statements of church leaders that we should guard our convictions and testimonies at all costs and even accuse them of hiding the truth in some cases.

In all the cases where I've been able to study the claims by critics (where there's enough available information to study them), I find there are suitable answers. But in cases where we're asked to assume that we know what happened, or we're treated to criticisms where we're told what early church leaders were thinking, teaching or doing behind the scenes, I don't buy it. Once one is satisfied that he or she has a legitimate testimony of the Gospel, if they continue to search and question it, I've found that they can replace the seed of faith with the seed of doubt, and if given the soil and nourishment to grow, they can leave the church. Anyone who's studied church history and knows of what happened in Kirtland, and how after many spiritual manifestations, people lost faith and drifted away.

Elder John A. Widsoe was fond of saying that testimonies weren't lost, they are taken. This is why critics often lace their arguments with criticism of the Brethren. The Adversary knows that driving a wedge between the people and the leaders is one of the surest ways to ensure that the seeds of doubt find the correct soil. If Latter-day Saints walk away from the things they can't answer or understand, they'll almost assuredly be berated and scorned. "It's only the truth," they're told. "Why be afraid of the truth?" After all, aren't we to question all things and hold fast to the truth? At first it all sounds reasonable, but that logic has led to many falling away. (In school, an atheist professor openly scorned Christianity and mocked both Evangelicals and Catholics. He had a list of books he challenged the students to read and consider, and some took him up on his challenge and later lost faith not only in their religions, but in all religion. Had they been older and better versed, they may have successfully resisted, and some did. Some just stopped reading the books and went back to reading the Bible. And they paid a price for it in class by being ridiculed.)

Brigham Young saw some of the stalwarts that apostatized in Kirtland and he feared that if they could fall, he could as well. Many of those returned, but he was well to fear. That's why I guard my faith, because I no longer underestimate the Adversary.

So I don't agree that we need to question in all areas, neither do I believe our general authorities of today are hypocrites. Their job is to build up the Kingdom of God, and they don't underestimate the Adversary either. There's not a religious belief system on Earth that can't be relentlessly challenged. At some point we have to draw a line in the sand and commit ourselves to what we know.

[Lamanite]

One of the more pernicious arguments that critics make is that Latter-day Saints need to continually question their faith if they're to remain intellectually honest. They point to the statements of church leaders that we should guard our convictions and testimonies at all costs and even accuse them of hiding the truth in some cases.

In all the cases where I've been able to study the claims by critics (where there's enough available information to study them), I find there are suitable answers. But in cases where we're asked to assume that we know what happened, or we're treated to criticisms where we're told what early church leaders were thinking, teaching or doing behind the scenes, I don't buy it. Once one is satisfied that he or she has a legitimate testimony of the Gospel, if they continue to search and question it, I've found that they can replace the seed of faith with the seed of doubt, and if given the soil and nourishment to grow, they can leave the church. Anyone who's studied church history and knows of what happened in Kirtland, and how after many spiritual manifestations, people lost faith and drifted away.

Elder John A. Widsoe was fond of saying that testimonies weren't lost, they are taken. This is why critics often lace their arguments with criticism of the Brethren. The Adversary knows that driving a wedge between the people and the leaders is one of the surest ways to ensure that the seeds of doubt find the correct soil. If Latter-day Saints walk away from the things they can't answer or understand, they'll almost assuredly be berated and scorned. "It's only the truth," they're told. "Why be afraid of the truth?" After all, aren't we to question all things and hold fast to the truth? At first it all sounds reasonable, but that logic has led to many falling away. (In school, an atheist professor openly scorned Christianity and mocked both Evangelicals and Catholics. He had a list of books he challenged the students to read and consider, and some took him up on his challenge and later lost faith not only in their religions, but in all religion. Had they been older and better versed, they may have successfully resisted, and some did. Some just stopped reading the books and went back to reading the Bible. And they paid a price for it in class by being ridiculed.)

Brigham Young saw some of the stalwarts that apostatized in Kirtland and he feared that if they could fall, he could as well. Many of those returned, but he was well to fear. That's why I guard my faith, because I no longer underestimate the Adversary.

So I don't agree that we need to question in all areas, neither do I believe our general authorities of today are hypocrites. Their job is to build up the Kingdom of God, and they don't underestimate the Adversary either. There's not a religious belief system on Earth that can't be relentlessly challenged. At some point we have to draw a line in the sand and commit ourselves to what we know.

I think I both agree and disagree.

Simply, I think being overly critical can be detrimental to spiritual wellness. However, I believe that spiritual and intellectual growth can be accelerated and enhanced through sincere and "faithful" inquisition. Keeping in mind that "spiritual" and "intellectual" are not mutually exclusive, rather, they seem to be complimentary in my experience.

A questioning mind does not equal doubt or apostasy. Once our seeds of faith have been planted in fertile soil and have taken root-- I think it a wonderful thing to wonder and wander in a world full of idea's.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Mighty Curelom]

It seems to me that "faithful questioning" in the context of Mormonism means asking questions that fall within the Mormon paradigm. Questions like "What is the process for repentance?" or "How can families be forever?" are "faithful questions," because they assume Mormonism is true, and has answers for these questions. "Unfaithful" questions would be inquiries that DO NOT assume Mormonism is true--that may even question the veracity of Mormonism per se.

You can ask "What did Joseph Smith see in his first vision?" but you cannot ask "Did Joseph Smith fabricate the first vision?"

[Lamanite]

"Did Joseph Smith fabricate the first vision?"

I've asked that question and remain a faithful- believing member of the Church. For example, we may ask if these things are "not" true. Same difference. I can ask any question I want. Grounded in sincere and humble inquiry I can explore a world full of idea's and not fear.

It's a fun place to reside.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Mighty Curelom]

I've asked that question and remain a faithful- believing member of the Church. For example, we may ask if these things are "not" true. Same difference. I can ask any question I want. Grounded in sincere and humble inquiry I can explore a world full of idea's and not fear.

It's a fun place to reside.

Big UP!

Lamanite

You can ask that question. That is, it's physically possible. But the question "Did Joseph Smith fabricate the first vision" is, almost by definition, an "unfaithful" question.

Look at it this way: faith and doubt are opposites. If you ask the question "Did Joseph fabricate the first vision," you're expressing doubt. If the question is sincere, it shows that you're considering the possibility that Joseph did, in fact, fabricate the first vision. And that's what doubt is--entertaining the possibility that your belief in X is incorrect.

So, since faith and doubt are opposites, you cannot "faithfully" ask a question that implies doubt.

[Lamanite]

You can ask that question. That is, it's physically possible. But the question "Did Joseph Smith fabricate the first vision" is, almost by definition, an "unfaithful" question.

Look at it this way: faith and doubt are opposites. If you ask the question "Did Joseph fabricate the first vision," you're expressing doubt. If the question is sincere, it shows that you're considering the possibility that Joseph did, in fact, fabricate the first vision. And that's what doubt is--entertaining the possibility that your belief in X is incorrect.

So, since faith and doubt are opposites, you cannot "faithfully" ask a question that implies doubt.

Some doubt and some faith can exist simultaneously. See Alma 32.

I can ask and search while doubting, and still maintain the slight possibility that it could be true. Who could not doubt to a greater or lesser degree that some kid saw Jesus and God and then translated gold plates? I suspect all of us at times doubted to some degree until that doubt dissipated as a result of study and faith.

And if that wasn't your experience then that's ok too.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[erichard]

...

[Mortal Man]

Right now the church has no institutional mechanism in place to deal with doubting/questioning members.

FAIR/FARMS/Maxwell/MADB as well as a new crop of apologetic books are indeed useful, but I doubt many members or church leaders even know about them.

I wish there was a church-sanctioned forum for such dialogue, because it certainly isn't at church.

[Lamanite]

interesting.

Hi Lamanite,

It seems that "defending the church", and "defending the gospel" is often equated to "defending the leaders".

But is it not possible that the church could be true, the gospel could be true and yet the leaders should not be sustained because of problems they are having?

So does "faithful questioning" include the right to NOT sustain the church leadership, and to have a controversy over the leadership?

Is it not just as wrong to prejudge a person as guaranteed to be right and good, just because of the office they hold in the church, as it is to prejudge a person as wrong and evil for some reason?

Is it not possible to defend the principles of the gospel and the truths of the gospel-- and agree with all the revelations and promises the Lord has given the church-- and yet not pass judgment (one way or another) on the men in the flesh with blood in their veins who happen to hold high offices in the church?

Should not our faith in the Gospel and gospel truths be independent of who fails or who makes mistakes?

We know that almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose, immediately exercise unrighteous dominion.

So it sure seems to me that "defending the leaders" could really be just the normal politics of men, and not really the same as "defending the gospel" and "defending the church".

Richard

You said a lot here. Good stuff...but could you bottom line it for me??? Or, can you perhaps tell me what in particular you would like me to address?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[nicolasconnault]

Very interesting thread. I have three things that come to mind on this topic:

1. It is psychologically impossible to put everything into question constantly. Stereotypes, enduring beliefs and habits are all essential to healthy psychological functioning. Religious beliefs are a decision to implement certain ideas and accept them as "truths" in spite of incomplete certainty, then base one's daily choices on these beliefs. I have a brother-in-law who is constantly shifting from one philosophical idea to another, from one religion to another, and who has an attitude that will never lead him to any sort of stability, because he will not make permanent room in his mind for ignorance alongside knowledge, however small that room may need to be. He is forever learning, and never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
2. You don't have to have "Faith" in everything. In fact there are very few things that we, as LDS, are asked to absolute faith in (faith in God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the atonement, the restoration, the prophets and apostles). The temple recommend interview doesn't even ask us if we have faith in the scriptures! The majority of religious beliefs allow room for "faithful questioning", which is not necessarily a dichotomy (is it true or not?), but can include questioning like "Is my understanding accurate?" or "What else can I learn about this?". The word "questioning" isn't necessarily contingent with doubt, but always with curiosity.
3. When we're asked to question our leaders, I think this is proportionately relevant to how local those leaders are. You should definitely not accept everything your husband says without questioning, and this goes on up the chain of authority with less and less need to worry about the validity of what is being said or asked. I've never found even the slightest reason to question any decision made by the prophets and apostles, not just because I agree with their decisions, but because I would feel like an ark-steadier if I got up on my high horses to decry the stupidity of their decision (c.f. discussion on the new edition of the GP manual).

[erichard]

You said a lot here. Good stuff...but could you bottom line it for me??? Or, can you perhaps tell me what in particular you would like me to address?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Well, the bottom line for me is that I sincerely believe the church was set by the Lord, it is His church, and He will watch over it.

And yet, I also believe that the present leadership should NOT be sustained. The Lord is trying the Saints "in all things" as promised in D&C 136:31.

So I believe a member should have the right to not sustain even the President of the church, and should have the right to not reject the reasons for that decision-- and should also have the right to seek for a D&C 107:81-84 type trial to end the controversy over the church President.

And the member should have the right to do this without being automatically excommunicated for apostasy.

But my honest experience in the church is that, above all else, it is considered apostasy to have a serious controversy over the President of the church. There are many quotes used to perpetuate this situation, but I believe the scriptures themselves do not support this situation.

For instance D&C 107:81-84 and JST Mark 9:40-48

Richard

[Lamanite]

Well, the bottom line for me is that I sincerely believe the church was set by the Lord, it is His church, and He will watch over it.

And yet, I also believe that the present leadership should NOT be sustained. The Lord is trying the Saints "in all things" as promised in D&C 136:31.

So I believe a member should have the right to not sustain even the President of the church, and should have the right to not reject the reasons for that decision-- and should also have the right to seek for a D&C 107:81-84 type trial to end the controversy over the church President.

And the member should have the right to do this without being automatically excommunicated for apostasy.

But my honest experience in the church is that, above all else, it is considered apostasy to have a serious controversy over the President of the church. There are many quotes used to perpetuate this situation, but I believe the scriptures themselves do not support this situation.

For instance D&C 107:81-84 and JST Mark 9:40-48

Richard

I have had disagreements with my Bishop during Ward council about policies and procedures. I still sustained him.

I have never openly disagreed with my local leadership publicly even when I may have disagreed privately on matters concerning policy or procedure.

I have never disagreed with local leaders or the Brethren on matters concerning doctrine.

I think not sustaining the Prophet is directly and indirectly in opposition to every covenant made as a member of the Church.

Big UP!

Lamanite