Is there room in the church for doubt?

[Fly Fisherman]

Libs,

I haven't read through all the replies in this thread, so I apologize if this point has already been made. But just recently a rebroadcast on a BYU station of a talk given by a General Authority, Elder Kieth R. Edwards, Second Quorum of the Seventy, really touched me. He addressed the doubt Peter had when he fell in the sea while attempting to walk on water to the Savior, and that we need to view that doubt differently, in a more positive, faith-promoting light, believe it or not. This was symbolic to me that the Savior has a way to help us - we need to just go far enough so that He can save us, even with doubt.

Here is the talk: Faith is not Built on Minimums

And here is the point he made

In Matthew 14:22 we start reading:

"And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away. And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.

But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.

And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.

And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.

And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"

That story is often quoted to suggest that Peter had faltering faith. But I note as I read in Matthew that Jesus "constrained" all of his disciples to get into a ship. That suggests the presence of at least 12 people on the boat, but only one, only Peter, was willing to "get off the boat." And, while he doubted, he is only one of two people that are recorded in history as having "walked on water." Similarly, although his faith may have failed, it was at least strong enough to carry him close enough to the Savior that when he cried out for help, the Savior could stretch forth his hand and save Peter. Certainly Peter did more than his companions expected him to do - but perhaps not more than the Lord expected. Maybe if our faith is only strong enough to get us close enough to the Savior that he can take our hand and save us, that will be close enough.

So, therefore, even though Peter had doubted, his attempt to walk on water, really was exercising faith. Those who have doubts, by going to church and trying, really are exercising faith.

[Glenn101]

So, therefore, even though Peter had doubted, his attempt to walk on water, really was exercising faith. Those who have doubts, by going to church and trying, really are exercising faith.

If there were no room for doubt in the church I would not be a part of it, and I think I would have a lot of company.

Glenn

[thatjimguy]

Alma 32 is all anyone needs to know about "knowing".

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

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.

Read the full talk, there is some more context to his statements regarding previous witness and verbal testimony, etc.

[Libs]

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.

Honestly, I think it's rare that people ask questions with a truly open mind. I think, either doubt or faith can interfere with seeing something as it truly is. It's a lot more difficult to remain objective than most people think.

I do kind of understand what you're saying, though, as far as not allowing doubt to undermine your faith. A good balance is not a bad thing, when questioning.

The problem I had was having core beliefs about the church challenged in such a way that it didn't appear to me that there was much "doubt" about the truthfulness of them. It's one thing to have struggles with a few questions on the peripheral...but, quite something else to have the foundation ripped out from under you. Very difficult to maintain faith, in your questioning, when that happens.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

Like I noted, you have clearly outlined your rubric, I have added the caveat that these sources are filtered through your own understanding. (Other things could be taken into consideration, but that is a topic I've already beaten to death with you to no good end other than clarifying my own perspective to myself)

[Brade]

It's not the experiences (love and spiritual matters) that are different, the difference lies in how common the experience is.

I just want to try to be clear about what you are or are not claiming. It seems like you're suggesting that the experience of love and mystical experiences are similar enough that if you believe one is problematic in some way, then you're committed to the belief that the other is problematic in the same sort of way or for the same reasons (something like that). Am I interpreting you correctly or incorrectly?

[bluebell]

Alma 32 is all anyone needs to know about "knowing".

Isn't it interesting though that Alma specific says that once someone has a perfect knowledge of something they no longer have faith because faith is believe in something without knowing it for sure.

If we use Alma's definition of knowing, very few people would be able to testify that they know Jesus is the Christ, for example, because most people's knowledge of spiritual things comes from faith rather than being separate from their faith.

I think many people, when they testify that they 'know' something is true, are aware that they use 'know' in a very specific way which includes the use of faith and thus isn't a perfect knowledge yet.

[bluebell]

I just want to try to be clear about what you are or are not claiming. It seems like you're suggesting that the experience of love and mystical experiences are similar enough that if you believe one is problematic in some way, then you're committed to the belief that the other is problematic in the same sort of way or for the same reasons (something like that). Am I interpreting you correctly or incorrectly?

I think you are, but honestly, i'm not completely sure. I've been writing term papers and finals essays all day and my mind is pretty fuzzy at the moment.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Honestly, I think it's rare that people ask questions with a truly open mind. I think, either doubt or faith can interfere with seeing something as it truly is. It's a lot more difficult to remain objective than most people think.

I'm not convinced that it is always preferable to confront all situations and questions "objectively," or that it is even entirely possible. I think it is more realistic to talk about confronting things while being self-critical, humble, tentative, careful, etc., but "objectivity" doesn't seem entirely appropriate to many things. If I approached all disagreements with my spouse, for example, with objectivity I would likely come across as cold, disinterested, or condescending.

I do kind of understand what you're saying, though, as far as not allowing doubt to undermine your faith. A good balance is not a bad thing, when questioning.

iawtp

The problem I had was having core beliefs about the church challenged in such a way that it didn't appear to me that there was much "doubt" about the truthfulness of them. It's one thing to have struggles with a few questions on the peripheral...but, quite something else to have the foundation ripped out from under you. Very difficult to maintain faith, in your questioning, when that happens.

No doubt. That's when we pull out the "other people who have seen the same information as you come away with a different perspective, let's talk about it and see what we come up with" card.

[Libs]

Libs,

I haven't read through all the replies in this thread, so I apologize if this point has already been made. But just recently a rebroadcast on a BYU station of a talk given by a General Authority, Elder Kieth R. Edwards, Second Quorum of the Seventy, really touched me. He addressed the doubt Peter had when he fell in the sea while attempting to walk on water to the Savior, and that we need to view that doubt differently, in a more positive, faith-promoting light, believe it or not. This was symbolic to me that the Savior has a way to help us - we need to just go far enough so that He can save us, even with doubt.

Here is the talk: Faith is not Built on Minimums

And here is the point he made

So, therefore, even though Peter had doubted, his attempt to walk on water, really was exercising faith. Those who have doubts, by going to church and trying, really are exercising faith.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. Acting on faith, even when you have doubts. I did that for quite awhile. Tried to stay in the church, until I felt I was being a hypocrite by continuing.

That is a lovely thought, about Peter and the Savior, though. I like that. It puts a good visual to "stepping out in faith"..

[Brade]

I think you are, but honestly, i'm not completely sure. I've been writing term papers and finals essays all day and my mind is pretty fuzzy at the moment.

Fair enough, let me know when you've had time to think about it a bit more.

[Libs]

I'm not convinced that it is always preferable to confront all situations and questions "objectively," or that it is even entirely possible. I think it is more realistic to talk about confronting things while being self-critical, humble, tentative, careful, etc., but "objectivity" doesn't seem entirely appropriate to many things. If I approached all disagreements with my spouse, for example, with objectivity I would likely come across as cold, disinterested, or condescending.

Yeah, I hear ya. It may not always work well in human relationships, but isn't it somewhat necessary and even a good thing, when we are really trying to learn the truth of something (like the basis for our religious belief)? Not meaning to discount faith, but shouldn't there be a healthy blend of both?

iawtp

Ah..code. I am with the police? lol I have no clue!

No doubt. That's when we pull out the "other people who have seen the same information as you come away with a different perspective, let's talk about it and see what we come up with" card.

lol..yes, I've seen that card many times. I know other people, much smarter than me, do deal differently with the questions. Maybe, I am from Missouri. (the "show me" State)

I am not really seeking to re-enter the church, at this point. I am in the process of reintegrating some of that, which I believed to be good about the church, back into my life. I am seeing religion very differently these days, but one thing I believe the LDS Church has right is that there is truth (there is God) in most all religions. I do "know" that is true...as well as a few other things the church teaches. I don't have a testimony of Joseph Smith, but there are things, even in the Book of Mormon, that I believe are true...or that I just like (like Lehi's Dream...always loved that). I am trying not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Brade]

I think you are, but honestly, i'm not completely sure. I've been writing term papers and finals essays all day and my mind is pretty fuzzy at the moment.

Oh yeah, and I wish you all the best with all your term papers and finals stuff.

[Nathair/|\]

This might seem off topic at first; but I hope that when I try tie it all in, it will shed some light on Elder Packer's statement.

In October, I was blessed to baptize and confirm my baby girl. (She's eight, but she's still my baby girl.) I was nervous about what I was going to say; but after the opening words of the confirmation prayer, the blessing seemed to flow through me. When I had a moment to think about what had happened, I saw the connection with my next paragraph.

As you know, I have been studying ceremonial magic since spring equinox 2008. One thing I have learned is that ritual can unlock some important doors, (Volgadon can probably explain that better.) I realized that the ritual words of calling her by name, invoking the priesthood, etc, coupled with my intentionality, opened the door in my mind so I could receive the revelation I needed.

The point to all this, is that I think that the ritual of bearing your testimony saying "I Know," can open the door to receiving the assurance that you do actually know. Now this only works if you do have a testimony, which in context of the rest of the paragraph, I think is what Elder Packer was saying.

Yours under the esoteric oaks,

Nathair /|\

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ah..code. I am with the police? lol I have no clue!

I agree with that post.

I am not really seeking to re-enter the church, at this point. I am in the process of reintegrating some of that, which I believed to be good about the church, back into my life. I am seeing religion very differently these days, but one thing I believe the LDS Church has right is that there is truth (there is God) in most all religions. I do "know" that is true...as well as a few other things the church teaches. I don't have a testimony of Joseph Smith, but there are things, even in the Book of Mormon, that I believe are true...or that I just like (like Lehi's Dream...always loved that). I am trying not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

word

[Tarski]

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.

I assert what we both know to be true for the same reasons we know that most Mormons close their eyes during a prayer and for the same reason we both know that most LDS men where a shirt and tie to church. Do we need case studies and surveys for that?

Having been raised in an active LDS family that lived in several wards in several states I think I have a high chance of noticing real trends at least in the states.

Do you actually believe I am flat wrong or is your objection just academic?

[TAO]

It's just interesting to me, because I did leave the LDS church, full of doubts, feeling I couldn't really express them within the confines of the church.

The LDS church does have doubters in it. It's not really our business to seek them out, and such.

But I do know this... for me... when I doubt, I am as a hypocrite. I don't look at others problems, for I have enough problems to fix about myself, but I will say this: I do all I can to get rid of the doubts in my mind, for they are dangerous beyond compare. What others do, I don't know, but for me, doubts must not be had.

[CV75]

Honestly, I think it's rare that people ask questions with a truly open mind. I think, either doubt or faith can interfere with seeing something as it truly is. It's a lot more difficult to remain objective than most people think.

I do kind of understand what you're saying, though, as far as not allowing doubt to undermine your faith. A good balance is not a bad thing, when questioning.

The problem I had was having core beliefs about the church challenged in such a way that it didn't appear to me that there was much "doubt" about the truthfulness of them. It's one thing to have struggles with a few questions on the peripheral...but, quite something else to have the foundation ripped out from under you. Very difficult to maintain faith, in your questioning, when that happens.

Granted, there a very few times (maybe as few as three) that I asked a good question with a truly open mind--but those times have made all the difference in my life, the answers serving as incredibly powerful keys to obtaining further light and knowledge on a sure "trajectory" for lack of a better word.

As far as faith goes, I think we may be operating with different definitions/understanding. For me, faith requires something real or true as the object/subject (whether we

[44Foxtrot]

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?

Of course it is possible to "know" something (by definition). And the several commonly used definitions of knowledge are quite different from those of belief.

One definition of belief is: " - a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing." Belief requires no proof or objective evidence.

A similarly cast definition of knowledge is: "... the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association." Knowledge does require proof or objective evidence.

So unless one has objective evidence that God or Jesus Christ exist, it is (by definition), not possible to have a knowledge that they exist.

If one does make the extraordinary claim that they have "special knowledge" regarding the existence of supernatural god and his son, then one would be obligated to provide extraordinary proof, along with a reasonable explanation as to how their "knowledge" of their particular god is any different from the "knowledge" that humankind has had that more than a thousand other gods also existed.

The problem becomes acute for Mormons because, unlike orthodox Christianity which claims that God is somehow "unknowable" and exists outside of space and time, Mormons have constructed a primate God of flesh and bones who they claim obeys the laws of nature. This in spite of the fact that the Mormon God is obliged to break the laws of nature to accomplish all of the miraculous things that are attributed to him.

Since it is not possible, by definition, to have a knowledge of the Mormon God, would it not be better of Mormons would simply state that they believe that their god and his son exist. To claim the knowledge that such beings exist without any objective evidence whatsoever for the claim is the height of arrogance, and some might even say delusion.

[OUmd]

The full article is here:

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=boyd_petersen

Thank you so much for posting this. It is beautiful.

[Libs]

This might seem off topic at first; but I hope that when I try tie it all in, it will shed some light on Elder Packer's statement.

In October, I was blessed to baptize and confirm my baby girl. (She's eight, but she's still my baby girl.) I was nervous about what I was going to say; but after the opening words of the confirmation prayer, the blessing seemed to flow through me. When I had a moment to think about what had happened, I saw the connection with my next paragraph.

As you know, I have been studying ceremonial magic since spring equinox 2008. One thing I have learned is that ritual can unlock some important doors, (Volgadon can probably explain that better.) I realized that the ritual words of calling her by name, invoking the priesthood, etc, coupled with my intentionality, opened the door in my mind so I could receive the revelation I needed.

The point to all this, is that I think that the ritual of bearing your testimony saying "I Know," can open the door to receiving the assurance that you do actually know. Now this only works if you do have a testimony, which in context of the rest of the paragraph, I think is what Elder Packer was saying.

Yours under the esoteric oaks,

Nathair /|\

This is interesting, as I have always been interested in esoteric/eastern philosophy and practices. Is this just something you're studying out of curiosity...or actually incorporating into your LDS religion? Seems like there are many young people who are doing this combination thing, today. Is that okay with your Bishop? Or do you mention it? (Not judging, just curious)

I do totally understand what you're saying, though, and would agree that there is, potentially, a real principle at work there.

Thank you for the input.

[Nathair/|\]

This is interesting, as I have always been interested in esoteric/eastern philosophy and practices. Is this just something you're studying out of curiosity...or actually incorporating into your LDS religion? Seems like there are many young people who are doing this combination thing, today. Is that okay with your Bishop? Or do you mention it? (Not judging, just curious)

I do totally understand what you're saying, though, and would agree that there is, potentially, a real principle at work there.

Thank you for the input.

My approach to Druidry and magic is similar to how I understand those Saints who are Freemasons approach that aspect of their spirituality. That is, it influences my total world view and spiritual practice, but the core is the Restored Gospel. I haven't mentioned it to my current bishop, (I recently moved across ward boundaries), but I have discussed it with other bishops including my Institute director and none of them have asked me to give it up.

[Libs]

Granted, there a very few times (maybe as few as three) that I asked a good question with a truly open mind--but those times have made all the difference in my life, the answers serving as incredibly powerful keys to obtaining further light and knowledge on a sure "trajectory" for lack of a better word.

Would you mind giving me an example of what you're talking about here? What question and how was it answered? Are you talking about asking God in prayer, whether or not the church is true (or something along that line?). I am guessing that's it, because you said it gave you the key to obtaining further light and knowledge.

As far as faith goes, I think we may be operating with different definitions/understanding. For me, faith requires something real or true as the object/subject (whether we

[Libs]

My approach to Druidry and magic is similar to how I understand those Saints who are Freemasons approach that aspect of their spirituality. That is, it influences my total world view and spiritual practice, but the core is the Restored Gospel. I haven't mentioned it to my current bishop, (I recently moved across ward boundaries), but I have discussed it with other bishops including my Institute director and none of them have asked me to give it up.

Very interesting. Thanks for the response.