Is there room in the church for doubt?

[ELF1024]

Until we all have a prefect knowledge there will always be room for doubt.

[SilverKnight]

She then asks her children (aged 10 and younger) to get up and practice testifying of those things.

If that isn't extreme pressure verging on brainwashing, then I don't know what is.

This woman's methodology is clearly an aberration that stands in contrast to what the LDS teaches on how to gain a testimony.

What are we supposed to glean from this anecdote? That there are crazy, controlling parents in the world?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Not only is it annoying, but its also been discouraged by Church leaders at the highest institutional level.

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.

I agree, the more perfunctory end-of-testimony obligatory list could stand to fade away.

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.

I think you state the problem well and I agree with much of what you're saying here. At the same time, I've seen critics pull quotes from Pres. Packer's "Candle of the Lord" talk before and make some similar points. The first time I remember reading the talk was on my mission, it was included in some recommended reading stuff our Mission President provided. I remember hearing some elders testifying that Packer's encouragement helped them find a confident voice, and that they felt the Spirit as they made the effort. I think that is what Packer was going for, that the Spirit would accompany a testimony.

Interestingly, some people seem to disregard other council from that same talk, which I think ought to be deeply considered by anyone who thinks that simply saying words like "I know" is going to do the trick:

There is something else to learn. A testimony is not thrust upon you; a testimony grows. We become taller in testimony like we grow taller in physical stature; we hardly know it happens because it comes by growth.

You cannot force spiritual things. Such words as compel, coerce, constrain, pressure, and demand do not describe our privileges with the Spirit. You can no more force the Spirit to respond than you can force a bean to sprout or an egg to hatch before its time. You can create a climate to foster growth, nourish, and protect; but you cannot force or compel: you must await the growth. Do not be impatient to gain great spiritual knowledge. Let it grow, help it grow, but do not force it or you will open the way to be misled.

-Boyd K. Packer, "The Quest for Spiritual Knowledge", New Era, Jan. 2007, 2

[LifeOnaPlate]

First you say this:

After 31 years and the many Wards I have attended

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Word.

[bluebell]

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.

Why do you suspect such?

I have two little boys, both old enough to be bearing their testimony if they wanted to in sacrament meeting, and i have never felt any kind of pressure to have them do so. I've never discussed bearing their testimonies in sacramenting with them nor have we ever practiced it at home in case they wanted to.

Quite literally, it is not even on my radar as a mother. Judging by the number of my friends who also have kids who have never shared a testimony in sacrament, i'm guessing i'm not a loner on this one.

I'm sure it happens but it bugs me when people act as if it's a foregone conclusion that this is how LDS families deal with such things.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Of course, we would all point out that such pressures are not unique to the LDS Church, nor do they apply to all members, nor do they invalidate any truth claims whatsoever, but merely have bearing on the way people arrive at certain positions rather than the accuracy of such positions. (These caveats seem missing from your posts, so I thought I'd toss them in. If you disagree you are free to sound off, which goes without saying even though I said it.)

[bluebell]

After 31 years and the many Wards I have attended

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm sure it happens but it bugs me when people act as if it's a foregone conclusion that this is how LDS families deal with such things.

Grading and discussing math papers must be pretty boring, so he needs to blow off some steam by tearing down the religion he used to believe in. He does this by assuming all Mormons think like he thought, and proceeds from there. Of course, I know of no ethnographic studies of Tarski or surveys etc. which have any bearing on these claims of mine. I just going with a Tarski-esque assertion by experience!

[bluebell]

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

Thanks. I try.

I'm supposed to be writing three more papers for finals week so maybe it's not so great that i can't seem to drag myself away right now though.

(I've also noticed from the number of times i'm having to edit posts that i can't seem to type coherent sentences anymore either.)

[CV75]

Where it's about faith, it's really about gaining knowledge, and not about doubt. Granted, knowledge eradicates both faith and doubt. But when faith in a subject is replaced with knowledge of it, more faith is generated, allowing us to obtain more knowledge on that subject; when doubt about something is replaced with knowledge of it, that's where doubt and the chance for added knowledge on that subject ends. Unless faith is subsequently introduced or accepted.

There is temporary room for doubt in terms of dealing with ambiguity, patience in learning, and so forth, but eventually if progress in knowledge is to be found, it is through the exercise of faith.

[BCSpace]

According to the scriptures, unbelief is a sin.

*According to BCSpace's take on the scriptures, unbelief is a sin.

Pardon me for assuming that you knew the scriptures and the doctrine.

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 have found that typically my views are counterproductive to one's faith in erroneous views when compared to the Church's views. But rail as much as one likes, I think one would be hard pressed to find even a single view of mine that is not in lock-step with LDS doctrine other than the small ones I've already freely admitted to like the global flood. Now this board is squeamish when it comes to trying to find out the truth, but feel free to make a thread about my views on the other board and we can go through them one by one. However, if you can convince the mods, I am happy to defend all my views here and I am confident that those with an ear to hear will hear and if it's a stumbling block to someone else, well, the gospel itself is surrounded by them ala the parable of the sower.

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.

You're welcome! But so far, you can't criticize me in this respect without criticizing the Church itself. Since I claim to believe in the Church, your post is evidence that my belief here is the same as the Church's. That does not bode well for those who may agree with you if their goal is to be one with the Church.

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.

I thank Pa Pa for proving you wrong by his referencing of the D&C. Despite the fact that the Church's new site is awkward, a search there on "unbelief" and "sin" would've produced positive results for you.

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.

Yet another truism you'll find reflected in LDS doctrine if you have the will to search for it (assuming you don't already know it).

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.

I suppose it might lead to a Pauline or Alma the Younger/sons of Mosiah type of experience, yes.

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.

There are actually a few good articles in Sunstone or Dialogue. But essentially those media productions are a limbo for those struggling in the throes of personal apostasy (admitted to by the author of the article referred to in the OP's post) and it's interesting sometimes to see which way they go. In fact, the article referred to in the OP is very much like the average critical post at Shady Acres (mormondiscussions dot com).

[BCSpace]

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

Indeed!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

First you say this:

Then you say this:

If politics are never discussed in the Church meetings you attend, I have to wonder how you're so confident that your politics and religion align so easily. (Perhaps this is because politics can be discussed without invoking the specific terms "Republican" and "Democrat." That's my guess, anyway.)

I see precisely nothing about "conservative believes" in that scripture, oddly enough.

Let me help you little one. In Ward meetings "worship meeting" politics is not discussed. Our beliefs (or conservative beliefs) in family, marriage, work, service to community, self reliance come from those whom you claim to sustain as Prophets and by extension coming from God. The scripture I quoted was one that stated that "unbelief is sin", for which you attacked BCSpace for pointing out. bring your "A Game" next time.

You need to stop picking fights. You are banned from the thread. MOD

[Libs]

It seems to be a fairly common phenomenon that a deep interest in any subject, noble or not, can overtake one's priorities and uproot them from a spiritual grounding. When the intellect is stimulated and exercised and humility, faith, hope, and charity are not, spirituality will certainly have to give way. The needs of the spirit are easily ignored in favor of those that are more readily accessed.

I don't think it's a matter of trading one for the other. If faith and hope are placed in something that is not true, then they are misplaced. I think that is what most people struggle with, when they find out certain things they thought were true, might not, in fact, be true...or at least not true in the way they had first perceived them. That's not to say that faith and hope should be thrown out the window, everytime we learn something that "might" be contrary to our beliefs. But, I don't think it's "wrong" to have questions or doubts, or to acknowledge those things. I did not feel free to do that in church, at all. I've also seen the way some people here have been treated, when they bring up their doubts (like Consig and a couple of others). It's almost like people fear that kind of questioning, as they accuse people of heading for apostasy, when the questions come up.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Now this board is squeamish when it comes to trying to find out the truth, but feel free to make a thread about my views on the other board and we can go through them one by one.

Not sure what you're referring to here with your "beliefs," I was pointing out that your interpretation is not binding on me, and the assertion that your belief is "lockstep" with official "Church doctrine" is a declaration of victory without a fight. If you're inviting me to the MormonDiscussions board I'm not interested in spending time there any more.

However, if you can convince the mods, I am happy to defend all my views here and I am confident that those with an ear to hear will hear and if it's a stumbling block to someone else, well, the gospel itself is surrounded by them ala the parable of the sower.

To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a stumbling block is just a stumbling block.

You're welcome! But so far, you can't criticize me in this respect without criticizing the Church itself. Since I claim to believe in the Church, your post is evidence that my belief here is the same as the Church's. That does not bode well for those who may agree with you if their goal is to be one with the Church.

I think you have confused a post by Tarski as being written by me. Your comment doesn't apply to me, and given that Tarski and I are disagreeing on this matter for the most part, your comment likewise does not apply to him.

I thank Pa Pa for proving you wrong by his referencing of the D&C. Despite the fact that the Church's new site is awkward, a search there on "unbelief" and "sin" would've produced positive results for you.

The verse applies to a specific person, and please note that the scripture can be read in different ways. It can be read as certain instances of unbelief, given all of the variables God can consider, can be considered a sin by God. A mentally handicapped person who does not believe, for example, probably wouldn't be rightfully considered a sinner based on your rigid read.

I suppose it might lead to a Pauline or Alma the Younger/sons of Mosiah type of experience, yes.

Thus, unbelief in and of itself cannot correctly be called a sin in all cases. Case closed!

There are actually a few good articles in Sunstone or Dialogue. But essentially those media productions are a limbo for those struggling in the throes of personal apostasy (admitted to by the author of the article referred to in the OP's post) and it's interesting sometimes to see which way they go. In fact, the article referred to in the OP is very much like the average critical post at mormondiscussions dot com.

Which happens to be the place you'd like me to spend more time, interestingly enough.

[Libs]

Libs, thanks for the post. As you know, you're not alone in feeling like doubt has little place in Church meetings, testimony meetings, etc. I've written elsewhere that Mormons typically place heavy emphasis on the importance of a testimony which is based on personal metaphysical experiences with God, coupled with the testimony of others. So statements directly challenging beliefs can feel threatening and personal. In a culture stressing the importance of "knowing," doubt may easily be seen as an aberration; perhaps something to avoid, fear, or reprimand. From another perspective doubt is the arbiter of an open mind, freedom, and wisdom. In LDS devotional history there are some great prototypes for doubt, most notably in Joseph Smith's uncertainty in searching for forgiveness and the true religion of God (resulting in the first vision) or his later prayer in Liberty Jail asking where God had gone (resulting again in revelation). While such stories set an example, hindsight bias reveals their happy ending, while the uncertainty in experiencing current personal doubt can be a tremendous obstacle. I wrote a blog post on the topic which you might like: "Is Doubt a Sin?"

Thanks much, LOAP. I haven't read your blog post, yet, but I will...sounds interesting. I like the title.

I think doubt really is a very natural part of faith, for most of us. Some are better at suppressing it, I think, than others.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Let me help you little one.

I don't find your age jokes charming or amusing, I certainly don't feel they are spoken in love or any sort of affection. Your better self knows that it's not charitable to honk the horn like this, yet you keep doing it. Why?

The scripture I quoted was one that stated that "unbelief is sin", for which you attacked BCSpace for pointing out.

As you'll notice above, BCSpace responded by agreeing with some of my response to the scripture you included. BCspace and I seem to be agreed that there are important exceptions to the idea that "unbelief" is a "sin" every time in all circumstances. Indeed, there are scriptural examples to the contrary (I point that out because BCSpace confines his rubric to the standard works as he understands them, thus I am trying to give examples which fall into his accepted perspective).

bring your "A Game" next time.

I don't view this as a contest or a game, but your comment reflects the possibility that you do, which would help explain your loaded comments about age and your attempts at oneupmanship. (Another thing that helps explain it is the exchange we had a while ago where you felt I was disrespecting my elders.)

Bring your "disciple of Christ" game next time and we both stand a much better chance at being winners, IMO.

[Libs]

I've never sensed that expression of doubt directly results loss of good standing unless such expression is so pervasive as to appear to affect the faith of others or disturb the functioning of the unit/organization to which one belongs. One must be trying or at least desire to believe to remain in good standing. Inactivity is likely to result in failure to qualify for a TR or advancement in the priesthood.

For me, inactivity was the only way I felt free enough to question the church. I didn't really care about a TR, at that point. I was confused and feeling more and more isolated in my confusion.

It is what it is. However, there is no intolernace in the Church of that which is good. So why complain about intolerence for that which is evil Again, it all comes down to a desire to believe.

For me, it came down to listening to my own personal conscience (what I believed God was telling me) vs what the church was saying (on certain issues, like homosexuality). That created a conflict I could not resolve within the church. Some people do, so not saying it can't be done.

According to the scriptures, unbelief is a sin.

Do you equate "doubt" with "unbelief"? I don't.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't think it's a matter of trading one for the other. If faith and hope are placed in something that is not true, then they are misplaced. I think that is what most people struggle with, when they find out certain things they thought were true, might not, in fact, be true...or at least not true in the way they had first perceived them. That's not to say that faith and hope should be thrown out the window, everytime we learn something that "might" be contrary to our beliefs. But, I don't think it's "wrong" to have questions or doubts, or to acknowledge those things. I did not feel free to do that in church, at all. I've also seen the way some people here have been treated, when they bring up their doubts (like Consig and a couple of others). It's almost like people fear that kind of questioning, as they accuse people of heading for apostasy, when the questions come up.

Right, so some other questions we could turn to include:

1. Whether this type of reaction you describe is incidental or necessary to Mormonism

2. Whether the incidental or necessary reaction is required or encouraged by Mormon culture or Mormon doctrine

3. What some good responses might be when a person brings up doubts or questions

4. What some good responses might be from people who have doubts and who are not particularly embraced when they make them manifest

5. How the doubter might go about receiving help in ways that do not encourage adverse reactions (which themselves, again, can be analyzed as to why they occur)

etc.

[SilverKnight]

I've also seen the way some people here have been treated, when they bring up their doubts (like Consig and a couple of others). It's almost like people fear that kind of questioning, as they accuse people of heading for apostasy, when the questions come up.

Consig is a gadfly, who loves pushing the buttons of certain posters.

He is not a persecuted doubter, though he loves it when he can provoke a sentence of judgment from a flummoxed dogmatist.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Do you equate "doubt" with "unbelief"? I don't.

This is an interesting question. I think there are scriptural examples where "unbelief" stands in for "doubt," such as when the man asks Jesus to heal his child and says "help thou my unbelief." On another level, though, perhaps it would be useful to describe unbelief as a willful decision to disregard evidence, spiritual witness, etc., or to be overly cynical, whereas doubt would simply represent worries, questions, anxiety, etc. Unbelief in this view would be seen as an action as much as a though; it is what someone does with doubt, not the fact that doubt exists. The flip side is that doubt is not necessarily a virtue either. Doubt is neither virtue nor vice, but a condition in which our actions help determine the flow.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't find your age jokes charming or amusing, I certainly don't feel they are spoken in love or any sort of affection. Your better self knows that it's not charitable to honk the horn like this, yet you keep doing it. Why?

As you'll notice above, BCSpace responded by agreeing with some of my response to the scripture you included. BCspace and I seem to be agreed that there are important exceptions to the idea that "unbelief" is a "sin" every time in all circumstances. Indeed, there are scriptural examples to the contrary (I point that out because BCSpace confines his rubric to the standard works as he understands them, thus I am trying to give examples which fall into his accepted perspective).

I don't view this as a contest or a game, but your comment reflects the possibility that you do, which would help explain your loaded comments about age and your attempts at oneupmanship. (Another thing that helps explain it is the exchange we had a while ago where you felt I was disrespecting my elders.)

Bring your "disciple of Christ" game next time and we both stand a much better chance at being winners, IMO.

Lighten up...and someone gave you two rep points for dressing me down...AGAIN!

Your quote...

I don't find your age jokes charming or amusing,

You would have to be there.

I gave my rep points to BC

[LifeOnaPlate]

Lighten up...and someone gave you two rep points for dressing me down...AGAIN!

Your quote...

You would have to be there.

I don't know what rep points are, but keep them coming! Seriously, though, let's knock off this age stuff. If you really think it's a valid criticism then make that clear. Otherwise, take into consideration that I am asking you to cut it out.

[Libs]

"I