Is there room in the church for doubt?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm not sure why you find it insulting. When he says he "struggles with it", I don't see that as judgment. Struggling with something means (to me) that you are going back and forth over something that you're not really sure about.

I'm not sure if this post was directed to me, but I did very much relate to this person's "struggle", because I have been there (and still am, to some degree, on certain things).

I don

[CV75]

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.

Good questions do not arise from doubt or reflect doubt. The very best questions are asked with an open mind. The definitions I use for faith and hope require that the objects of faith and hope are true; otherwise what is going on is merely belief (which isn't doubt either), which is passive and doesn't serve well for seeking or obtaining knowledge; doubt is just as, if not more, passive; both interfere with faith in and knowledge of something true.

Everyone to some degree comes across the struggle with misplaced belief and ignorance as well as doubt at some point. Faith and knowledge are what get them out of it. What is wrong is the effort to use doubt rather than faith as leverage, because it can't get someone too far in their quest for knowledge (for the reasons I mentioned earlier). Doubt (like belief) can challenge and mask the true object of faith and therefore prevents knowledge. Because doubt is so ineffective a learning tool, doubters call upon others who are not so inclined to join the fool's quest by applying pressure to such leverage, and the faithful will resist doing so.

I suspect the way people are treated on a message board is more a function of the way they express themselves than what they actually say, and the way people treat others is more a function of their own disposition than the way others express themselves, or even what others say.

When we come across something that creates a doubt, and if we seek to address that doubt by finding the truth, we can only do so by asking the right questions in the right way, which is with an open mind and with faith. Some choose to continue to feed the doubt and not apply faith, which is a much easier enterprise, as painful as it may be.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Bottom right hand side of the screen

[mercyngrace]

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.

I refer to that as shaking the rameumptom. It's fun to watch how just a few nudges from the bottom makes some people atop yell "Earthquake!!!"

edit: Not that I ever do this, mind you, it takes a certain talent which I don't possess. But Consig is a grand master rameumptom shaker.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Good questions do not arise from doubt or reflect doubt. The very best questions are asked with an open mind.

I don't think doubt and an open mind are mutually exclusive, because I don't believe the mind or these conditions is so static as to make them mutually exclusive.

Everyone to some degree comes across the struggle with misplaced belief and ignorance as well as doubt at some point. Faith and knowledge are what get them out of it. What is wrong is the effort to use doubt rather than faith as leverage, because it can't get someone too far in their quest for knowledge (for the reasons I mentioned earlier). Doubt (like belief) can challenge and mask the true object of faith and therefore prevents knowledge. Because doubt is so ineffective a learning tool, doubters call upon others who are not so inclined to join the fool's quest by applying pressure to such leverage, and the faithful will resist doing so.

I would replace "doubt" here with my defined "unbelief" from above, and agree with you on this part.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Bottom right hand side of the screen

[Fifth Columnist]

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?

What I hoped you would get from this anecdote is that not everyone lives an Internet Mormon existence (actually very few). Many church members actually believe what Elder Packer says about repeating something over and over until you believe it. They believe it and so they do that very thing with their children.

Cray, controlling parents, huh. Try parents that actually believe what Church leaders say!

[LifeOnaPlate]

What I hoped you would get from this anecdote is that not everyone lives an Internet Mormon existence (actually very few). Many church members actually believe what Elder Packer says about repeating something over and over until you believe it. They believe it and so they do that very thing with their children.

Cray, controlling parents, huh. Try parents that actually believe what Church leaders say!

I'm guessing you haven't read my response yet since it followed the one you responded to, but I hope you read and reply nevertheless! (For what it's worth, I don't think it will do to simply pull the Internet/Chapel card on this one, since I know plenty of Church members who don't surf the web on religious topics at all, and who also don't make their kids memorize a list of things to testify about. That is to say, you hoped he would get something out of the anecdote which is not actually present in the anecdote.)

[bluebell]

What does it mean though? Just that people agree with me?

It means that people agreed with something that was said in that particular post.

[bluebell]

What I hoped you would get from this anecdote is that not everyone lives an Internet Mormon existence (actually very few). Many church members actually believe what Elder Packer says about repeating something over and over until you believe it. They believe it and so they do that very thing with their children.

Cray, controlling parents, huh. Try parents that actually believe what Church leaders say!

Where does Elder Packer say to repeat something over and over?

Aren't you simplifying his words to prove a point that his actual words otherwise would not prove?

[Libs]

"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.

Thanks, SilverKnight. Good post. I agree with most of it. I do kind of question your interpretation of what Boyd K. Packer said. I'd have to look that up again, to read the whole thing in context, because I remember coming away with the distinct impression that he was saying you can actually gain a testimony (that you do not currently have) by bearing it. I don't think that makes a lot of sense...and it leads other people to believe you have something that you really don't. What's wrong with just saying, you are trying to develop a testimony, even though it's not quite there, yet? I really think people would appreciate the honesty of that a lot more.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Where does Elder Packer say to repeat something over and over?

Aren't you simplifying his words to prove a point that his actual words otherwise would not prove?

(Bonus Hint: the answer to these questions are explicitly spelled out earlier in this thread, including a link to the original talk, quotes, and analysis!)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks, SilverKnight. Good post. I agree with most of it. I do kind of question your interpretation of what Boyd K. Packer said. I'd have to look that up again, to read the whole thing in context, because I remember coming away with the distinct impression that he was saying you can actually gain a testimony (that you do not currently have) by bearing it. I don't think that makes a lot of sense...and it leads other people to believe you have something that you really don't. What's wrong with just saying, you are trying to develop a testimony, even though it's not quite there, yet? I really think people would appreciate the honesty of that a lot more.

(Extra Bonus Hint: the answer to your questions about interpreting Pres. Packer's talk are explicitly spelled out earlier in this thread, including a link to the original talk, direct quotes, and analysis to consider!)

[CV75]

I don't think doubt and an open mind are mutually exclusive, because I don't believe the mind or these conditions is so static as to make them mutually exclusive.

I agree in a general sense they are not mutually exclusive in their operation, but alternatively entertaining doubt and an open mind on one subject (which, come to think of it, can be considered an either/or choice for the moment) does create an unstable situation for gaining knowledge on that subject, until faith wins over the vacillating attitudes.

[bluebell]

(Bonus Hint: the answer to these questions are explicitly spelled out earlier in this thread, including a link to the original talk, quotes, and analysis!)

Yes, i know. I was hoping my question would spure fifth to go over the article so he could notice what you have so kindly already pointed out about what Packer actually did say concerning testimonies.

[Libs]

This is Boyd K. Packer's statement (for future reference).

"It is not unusual to have a missionary say, 'How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?' Oh, if I could teach you this one principle. A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it! ... It is one thing to receive a witness from what you have read or what another has said; and that is a necessary beginning. It is quite another to have the Spirit confirm to you in your bosom that what you have testified is true. Can you not see that it will be supplied as you share it? As you give that which you have, there is a replacement, with increase!"

It sounds to me like he is saying that, if you just say the words, the Spirit will confirm them to you, as you say them.

That doesn't always hold up, but I suppose it could work for some.

[zerinus]

I understand perfectly well what a testimony should be, should not be, and often is in the LDS Church. Perhaps you do not understand that the best objective and fact based explanation for the phenomenon of a belief in God or Jesus Christ is that such beliefs arise from certain conditioned neuronal firing patterns in the brain, and to some extent depend on the existence or size of certain small structures in the brain.

Since this hypothesis can explain belief in the hundreds or thousands of various gods that humankind has worshipped over its history, including a primate God with a number of unusual human characteristics, it must be selected as the best hypothesis as opposed to the unfalsifiable hypothesis that the Mormon God actually exists.

Certainly all you can truthfully say in terms of testimony is what Bro. Petersen says, and that is that he believes deeply that God and Jesus Christ exist. Bro. Petersen deserves some credit for that small but important bit of restraint.

Do you think that it is possible to "know" anything at all; or do you think the word "know" should be banned from the dictionary altogether? Is there any situation in life where it would be permissible in your opinion to use the word "know" instead of "believe" or some other substitute?

[Libs]

(Extra Bonus Hint: the answer to your questions about interpreting Pres. Packer's talk are explicitly spelled out earlier in this thread, including a link to the original talk, direct quotes, and analysis to consider!)

Ah, thanks! I hadn't gotten to that, yet, so I went looking for it on my own.

I was surprised to see this thread at four pages, already, when I came in, today. I am still trying to catch-up!

[SilverKnight]

What I hoped you would get from this anecdote is that not everyone lives an Internet Mormon existence (actually very few).

What exactly is an 'internet mormon experience'?

I have known many very devout (Chapel) LDS families - none of them do anything like the bizarre example you described.

Many church members actually believe what Elder Packer says about repeating something over and over until you believe it.

When you say 'many church members' you are simply spouting nonsense.

Most members are completely unaware of BKP's single statement on the subject.

Incidentally, if you want some context on BKP's statements, refer to LifeonaPlate's previous posts in this thread.

They believe it and so they do that very thing with their children.

Utterly baseless garbage.

The idea that many mormon parents line their children up to practice memorized testimonies is completely absurd.

Cray, controlling parents, huh. Try parents that actually believe what Church leaders say!

There are innumerable talks, sermons and lessons about what a testimony is, how to get one, and how to bear one.

That you think you found one outlier statement by one general authority, along with some extreme example to support it, is not at all compelling or convincing.

[Libs]

It's not a utah thing. I've never lived in utah but i've seen in happen some wards i've been in. Not the 'believe verses know' thing but politics and the bashing of liberals has happened a few times.

The idea that God is a conservative republican is often implied in church and it's a shame (and an embarrassment) when it happens.

Thanks, bluebell. Good comments. I agree.

[SilverKnight]

Thanks, SilverKnight. Good post. I agree with most of it. I do kind of question your interpretation of what Boyd K. Packer said. I'd have to look that up again, to read the whole thing in context, because I remember coming away with the distinct impression that he was saying you can actually gain a testimony (that you do not currently have) by bearing it. I don't think that makes a lot of sense...and it leads other people to believe you have something that you really don't.

Boyd K Packer seems to be saying, "If you bear your testimony, the Spirit will confirm the truth of it to you."

That is the plain meaning of his words.

I certainly don't agree with him, but I don't think "Lie and pretend you have a testimony" is what he had in mind.

What's wrong with just saying, you are trying to develop a testimony, even though it's not quite there, yet? I really think people would appreciate the honesty of that a lot more.

Nothing.

I think so too.

[BCSpace]

According to the scriptures, unbelief is a sin.

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

It can be. But not necessarily so. I differentiate by noting what actions are being taken in the face of doubt as I outlined in my original posts on this thread. However, it certainly is unbelief to follow after that which the Church is against. And besides, someone did state in this very thread:

"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."

And to that I would add answer that it would be wrong to stroke or stoke someone's (or even one's own) unbelief in the Church if you want them to be active and believing. I've had the privilege being being part of many conversions and those that refrain from such stroking are the ones that usually end up being long term and temple blessed, which is the goal.

[BCSpace]

Boyd K Packer seems to be saying, "If you bear your testimony, the Spirit will confirm the truth of it to you."

That is the plain meaning of his words.

I certainly don't agree with him, but I don't think "Lie and pretend you have a testimony" is what he had in mind.

Would you agree or disagree with John 7:17? Before you answer, I am not necessarily comparing it to bearing testimony though I certainly think bearing testimony is doing His will.

[BCSpace]

(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).

Feel free to quote any LDS scripture or anything the Church teaches as part of my "rubric".

[daz2]

I take President Packer's advice a little differently. I don't think he means that we should say something we don't believe--rather, I think he means that we should say what we do believe. And as we put into words what we do believe, we may surprise ourselves (I know that I have surprised myself sometimes). Organizing my thoughts into words--either written or spoken--helps me understand my own thinking, analysis and conclusions better than if I never try to articulate them.

If we don't believe with enough certainty to say we "know", then we should say what we do "know", which is that we know that we believe, or that we hope, or that we feel assured, or that a teaching resonates with us. If testimony means stating our experience or perceptions (which is what it is in court), then it is a tautology that testimony comes from stating or "bearing" testimony.

I do think that the focus of testimony in meetings or in teaching generally should be on our positive experiences and thoughts, but I think there is room (as there is in court) to qualify or indicate lack of certainty. Oft times the credibility of a witness is enhanced when he or she does not claim certainty about everything is is willing to acknowledge honestly doubt about some things.

In sum, I think President Packer means that if we state our feelings and conclusions (our "testimony") authentically, we gain new insights or strengthen our thinking and that we may learn something about our thoughts.