Is there room in the church for doubt?

[bluebell]

What I'm saying is that people who experience love claim to know that they, themselves, (the person making the confession of love) love somebody else. They don't claim to know that anything else about the world is or is not the case.

I think you might be simplifying this a bit.

People who love also claim to know that love exists in the world, that it is possible for people to love each other and that love is good and should be sought and that those who can't love are defective in some way.

Think about how a parent deals with another parent who does not love their child. They judge them as being wrong. They may even attempt to force them to have a relationship with their child.

A person claiming to know they're in love because they feel in love is making an claim much like a personal aesthetic claim

[LifeOnaPlate]

So, what you are saying is that belief in God and Jesus Christ can be materially affected by the physiological state of the brain.

I would say absolutely, yes to that question. Mormonism is shot through with a materialist outlook (see John Durham Peters, "Reflections on Mormon Materialism," Sunstone 16 (March 1993): 17-21 for an interesting take on this [.pdf]). The most basic missionary lessons talk about two purposes of earth life as including the opportunity to learn to choose the good, and to receive a physical body. I see these two things as very interrelated. So not only can belief in God and Jesus Christ be materially affected by the physiological state of the brain, so to can our relationships with friends, family, strangers, enemies, etc.

The vast majority of scientists, especially those in the neurosciences, would agree.

Believers and non-believers in God, yes.

Does this not tell you something about the subjective and highly labile nature of belief in things for which there is no physical evidence?

Technically, firings in the brain could be seen as a sort of physical evidence, only as the result of something at a distant remove comparatively, of course. We can be hooked up to a machine, for instance, and watch the brain patterns as a person views a picture of a deceased loved one or a funny cartoon and note the differences, and we can make some guesses as to what is being viewed even without seeing it ourselves if we understand the data enough. Of course, I don't think the existence of God can be "proved" this way, but it also can't simply rule out God's existence any more than it can rule out the existence of funny cartoons, which are obviously more accessible to all of us.

Knowing that my physical body is directly involved in my moods, preferences, and relationships with loved ones doesn't make me conceive of myself as a robot, automaton, etc., however. It makes me want to be more self-aware and self-evaluative, it makes me wonder about the interplay of spirit and body (which in Mormonism are of the same substance ultimately) and it makes me wonder about the accuracy or reliability of personal revelation, as well as interpersonal revelation, ie, conversations with friends, etc.

[bluebell]

As I understand it, you are claiming that feelings such as love are "real". So we agree that there are such things as subjective feelings, which all humans experience and which can be interpreted in various ways.

Yes, we agree on that.

This says nothing however about the external reality that is the object of the belief.

Yes, we agree on that as well. I am tired of some people who will that a subjective experience is suspect or inferior to an objective one as if the nature of the experience alone somehow proves a specific external reality.

A child's sincere belief in Santa Claus does not mean that the Santa Claus in which the child has been taught to believe actually exists in the real world.

Exactly. It is even important to point out that a child's objective experience with santa claus does not mean he exists either. My child is confronted with hundreds of objective evidences that santa exists during the christmas season, but it has no relevance on whether or not he actually does.

It's important to always remember that evidence is not proof and that lack of evidence is not proof.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The physiological state of the brain can also be influenced by belief of any kind.

Belief and knowledge are subjective regardless of their purported bases.

Well, that was a concise way to say what I took a long time to say!

[LifeOnaPlate]

You'd have to ask Glenn Miller about that one.

HIYO!

[LifeOnaPlate]

According to the scriptures, unbelief is a sin.

*According to BCSpace's take on the scriptures, unbelief is a sin. According to LifeonaPlate's take on the scriptures, we are dealing with some loaded terms that require much more unpacking than BCSpace is willing to allow, and that BCSpace's dogmatic assertions can actually be quite counterproductive to the faith of other people, and that it would do us well to tiptoe through the tulips rather than to steamroll the rosebuds.

[LifeOnaPlate]

"I

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

*According to BCSpace's take on the scriptures, unbelief is a sin. According to LifeonaPlate's take on the scriptures, we are dealing with some loaded terms that require much more unpacking than BCSpace is willing to allow, and that BCSpace's dogmatic assertions can actually be quite counterproductive to the faith of other people, and that it would do us well to tiptoe through the tulips rather than to steamroll the rosebuds.

He quotes scripture and he is dogmatic?

[Tarski]

According to the scriptures, unbelief is a sin.

..and what greater peer pressure to "find" and proclaim a testimony than this??

So thanks for providing evidence for the situation I describe in my so far neglected post above---more dramatic evidence I couldn't have asked for.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yes, we agree on that.

Yes, we agree on that as well. I am tired of some people who will that a subjective experience is suspect or inferior to an objective one as if the nature of the experience alone somehow proves a specific external reality.

Exactly. It is even important to point out that a child's objective experience with santa claus does not mean he exists either. My child is confronted with hundreds of objective evidences that santa exists during the christmas season, but it has no relevance on whether or not he actually does.

It's important to always remember that evidence is not proof and that lack of evidence is not proof.

blue, I've enjoyed your responses up in herr. Nicely done.

[LifeOnaPlate]

..and what greater peer pressure to "find" and proclaim a testimony than this??

So thanks for providing evidence for the situation I describe in my so far neglected post above---more dramatic evidence I couldn't have asked for.

*evidence which Tarski will use to uncritically prove a point without acknowledging other perspectives, big shocker.

[LifeOnaPlate]

He quotes scripture and he is dogmatic?

Actually he didn't quote scriptures here, he just asserted his dogma ("characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts") that unbelief is a sin. You'll notice he tried to add a little nuance a bit further on by defining sin as that which leads a person away from God. I would point out that unbelief in certain things (like say, in the claim that God is immaterial and static, and that humans are utterly depraved and saved by grace alone and predestination) can actually help lead one closer to God as I tend to understand God. There are very important ways unbelief can help us draw closer to God, sometimes even when it appears otherwise to onlookers, who have been encouraged to "judge not" lest the same judgment is meted out on them.

[mnn727]

I believe doubt is a part of everyones life and its ok.

I used to dislike F&T meetings also until I started mentally replacing their "know" with "believe" and actually listening to the content of what people were saying.

The sad thing is Christ himself said belief alone is just fine -- blessed actually.

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

[Tarski]

*evidence which Tarski will use to uncritically prove a point without acknowledging other perspectives, big shocker.

Uncritically?

The fact that you have the ideas you do does not change the overwhelming trend in Mormon culture of which there can be no doubt. I doubt the church would survive if everyone bucked the trend as you seem to in this one issue.

The trend is all that is needed for my point. I don't need it to be exceptionless.

..and evidence is evidence- one more data point cannot be ignored just because you find it embarrassing.

[SilverKnight]

"I know..."

What to make of this bit of institutional jargon that has pervaded the church.

On one hand it is a harmless synonym for "believe" that has been adopted into the cultural vocabulary of the church. It is simply a way of saying "believe" or "feel", and mormons understand perfectly what another member means when they say "I know". "I Know" is merely a mormon tradition, no more insidious than reciting some favorite sctiptures, the lords prayer, a hail mary, a hebrew poem, or a muslim prayer.

On the other hand, the critics make a strong point when they talk about the emotional conditioning of children to stand and rehearse some meaningless testimony mantra told to them by their parents and their leaders. Especially depressing for me is parents who lead their small child by the hand and actively coaches them what to say, line by line, at the pulpit.

Equally unfortunate is the parts of a testimony we are told we "should" have. This wrote list is often attached as an afterthought to an otherwise heartfelt and genuine testimony. Last week a young sister bore a moving testimony of the love she feels at church and the love she has for Christ, then was obliged to spoil it by listing how she also knew the BoM-JS-Monson was true. You could hear the sincerity leave her voice when she rattled off this meaningless list she felt obliged to tack on the end.

Also, when Boyd K Packer said his infamous "a testimony is found in the bearing of it" talk, I don't think he meant for us to fake it and lie until we can honestly say we have a real testimony. Rather, I think he meant that consciously saying the things we believe to be true is a lot like counting our blessings, that the act of expressing this gratitude may cause us to realize the fruit of our belief, and help the spirit confirm its truth to us.

Ultimately I think pressuring young people to say they "know" things are true that they really don't is a bad idea. A testimony should be a simple statement of personal belief, and nobody should feel obliged to add disengenuous lists at the end.

LDS people should feel that its okay NOT to have a testimony of item X, and not feel pressure to lie and say they do. There are a great many things in the LDS church I do not have a testimony of, so I choose to testify of those things I strongly believe, and omit those things I don't.

[Tarski]

I believe doubt is a part of everyones life and its ok.

I used to dislike F&T meetings also until I started mentally replacing their "know" with "believe" and actually listening to the content of what people were saying.

It doesn't help that much when one considers how children are coached in what to believe or what to say they believe. This can't help but have effects on a person that remain into adulthood and effects what adults are willing to say they believe. Just how authentic are such statements of belief when the culture provides early coaching and de facto peer pressure to believe? The inauthenticity can even be detected in the cliche and recycled phrasing.

[44Foxtrot]

*According to BCSpace's take on the scriptures, unbelief is a sin. According to LifeonaPlate's take on the scriptures, we are dealing with some loaded terms that require much more unpacking than BCSpace is willing to allow, and that BCSpace's dogmatic assertions can actually be quite counterproductive to the faith of other people, and that it would do us well to tiptoe through the tulips rather than to steamroll the rosebuds.

I believe the correct expression here is, " - stomp though the nasties".*

_____________________________________________________

*From the Stomping through the Nasturtiums version of the Tiny Tim song.

[mnn727]

It doesn't help that much when one considers how children are coached in what to believe or what to say they believe.

You're right, and I still cringe when I see little kids go up to the pulpit, but until they do have a testimony (ie which to me means belief) I think its ok to use your parents.

Same thing happened in the Protestant Church and home I grew up in, belief in God was assumed and never debated or doubted so its not unique to Mormons.

I'n not disagreeing, I wish if people meant believe they say believed instead of 'know'

[44Foxtrot]

"I know..."

What to make of this bit of institutional jargon that has pervaded the church.

On one hand it is a harmless synonym for "believe" that has been adopted into the cultural vocabulary of the church. It is simply a way of saying "believe" or "feel", and mormons understand perfectly what another member means when they say "I know". "I Know" is merely a mormon tradition, no more insidious than reciting some favorite sctiptures, the lords prayer, a hail mary, a hebrew poem, or a muslim prayer.

On the other hand, the critics make a strong point when they talk about the emotional conditioning of children to stand and rehearse some meaningless testimony mantra told to them by their parents and their leaders. Especially depressing for me is parents who lead their small child by the hand and actively coaches them what to say, line by line, at the pulpit.

Equally unfortunate is the parts of a testimony we are told we "should" have. This wrote list is often attached as an afterthought to an otherwise heartfelt and genuine testimony. Last week a young sister bore a moving testimony of the love she feels at church and the love she has for Christ, then was obliged to spoil it by listing how she also knew the BoM-JS-Monson was true. You could hear the sincerity leave her voice when she rattled off this meaningless list she felt obliged to tack on the end.

Also, when Boyd K Packer said his infamous "a testimony is found in the bearing of it" talk, I don't think he meant for us to fake it and lie until we can honestly say we have a real testimony. Rather, I think he meant that consciously saying the things we believe to be true is a lot like counting our blessings, that the act of expressing this gratitude may cause us to realize the fruit of our belief, and help the spirit confirm its truth to us.

Ultimately I think pressuring young people to say they "know" things are true that they really don't is a bad idea. A testimony should be a simple statement of personal belief, and nobody should feel obliged to add disengenuous lists at the end.

LDS people should feel that its okay NOT to have a testimony of item X, and not feel pressure to lie and say they do. There are a great many things in the LDS church I do not have a testimony of, so I choose to testify of those things I strongly believe, and omit those things I don't.

The approach described here seems very reasonable to me. If more members were to demonstrate this kind of judgement and candor in their testimonies, F&T Meetings could be a vastly improved experience for all concerned, including non-members and the occasional rationalist who may be in attendance at the invitation (or insistence) of friends or relatives.

[SilverKnight]

It doesn't help that much when one considers how children are coached in what to believe or what to say they believe.

There have been steps away from this in recent years. IIRC, there was a letter or talk (by Dallin H Oaks) on testimony-bearing. It said children should not be coached in their testimony, and should only bear their testimony in sacrament meeting if they can do so unaided.

In our ward, primary children have their own testimony meeting during primary, and do not share their testimonies in sacrament meeting.

[Tarski]

There have been steps away from this in recent years. IIRC, there was a letter or talk (by Dallin H Oaks) on testimony-bearing. It said children should not be coached in their testimony, and should only bear their testimony in sacrament meeting if they can do so unaided.

In our ward, primary children have their own testimony meeting during primary, and do not share their testimonies in sacrament meeting.

Unaided or not, the social and parental pressure to assert knowledge or conviction is there. I suspect "unaided" translates into memorized and therefore more effectively internalized.

[Fifth Columnist]

I know a woman who instructs her children in family home evening that a testimony should include the following things:

• [*]

[*]1. God is our loving Father in Heaven.[*]2. His Son, Jesus Christ, is our Savior and Redeemer.[*]3. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.[*]4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I identify with the comments. If you're insulted by them, consider how he might feel when folks beat the political drum in church or demonstrate what he feels is a lack of tolerance.

After 31 years and the many Wards I have attended

[SilverKnight]

Unaided or not, the social and parental pressure to assert knowledge or conviction is there. I suspect "unaided" translates into memorized and therefore more effectively internalized.

I agree, but it is still an incremental step in the right direction.

I have no reason to be skeptical of the "unaided" directive, I think the intent is to make testimonies more genuine.

This is the counsel given on LDS.org on Testimony Meeting:

He then invites members to bear brief, heartfelt testimonies of the Savior, His teachings, and the Restoration. Parents and teachers should help children learn what a testimony is and when it is appropriate for them to express it. Younger children should learn to share their testimonies at home or in Primary until they are old enough to bear an appropriate testimony unaided in fast and testimony meeting.

http://lds.org/ensign/2004/08/worshiping-at-sacrament-meeting?lang=eng

[LifeOnaPlate]

Uncritically?

The fact that you have the ideas you do does not change the overwhelming trend in Mormon culture of which there can be no doubt. I doubt the church would survive if everyone bucked the trend as you seem to in this one issue.

The trend is all that is needed for my point. I don't need it to be exceptionless.

Just curious, how many surveys, case studies, ethnographies, etc. are you basing your numbers on? Or are you just basing it on your own experience hearing people use the same sort of words to describe their faith in a communal/ritualistic setting? Your "trend" is an uncritical generalization that no sociologist or anthropologist would take seriously in itself. Not that they are the arbiters of all truth, but the fact remains that one would expect a more rigorous approach from someone who values scientific perspectives.

..and evidence is evidence- one more data point cannot be ignored just because you find it embarrassing.

Who said anything about embarrassment? To the extent that it communicates a negative vibe to various members of the church I think it's unfortunate. You and I would likely agree that an open Sunday School lesson or sacrament meeting talk is not likely to foster doubt in certain matters, or to encourage the discussion of doubt in certain matters. At the same time, there are other interpersonal opportunities to discuss such things, and I've participated in a lot of conversations to that end, so it all depends on what sort of "doubt" we're talking about, what it is said to be directed at, what sort of avenues are closed and which are opened, and how rigorously an average Mormon might be expected to have thought about epistemology in general. I think it can be persuasively argued that Mormonism itself allows for doubt (even calls for it) and when my argument is described in plain terms to many members we could reasonably expect many to agree with more nuanced views.