Is there room in the church for doubt?

[Libs]

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

You're very welcome.

That link came from Boyd Petersen's testimony, up above this forum (the Mormon Scholars Testify forum)..

[zerinus]

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.

Thank you, it looks like we might be getting somewhere. So what do you classify as

[CV75]

Would you mind giving me an example of what you're talking about here?

our objective information is more of a closed system and limited, whereas the subjective mind works differently...it's more intuitive and faith can actually expand that.

if what we believed is shown to be untrue or corrupted, then we lose faith.

I think most of us believe we are always open to the truth. That doesn't mean we are, in actuality. So many preconceived notions can distort how we view things...and we all do have our preconceived ideas and filters through which we view the world. I do believe a real experience with God can remove some of those blinders, though.

certain information against the church led me to question

One example of my better life questions (noting that all things are spiritual): In my forties, I asked about snow-boarding. I had just started skiing again after a 25-year lapse, mostly because it was a way I could engage with our teenage children by volunteering as a chaperon for school discount tickets. After a very painful start on many levels, I was glad I asked as the sensation of floating and gliding, for me, is far superior to skiing, and since then I have learned a key for learning and enjoying many other new outdoor activities that require a leap of faith at my age (quite literally when it comes to zip-lining). Another example is from 1st or 2nd grade. I couldn

[LifeOnaPlate]

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?

You have a bad habit of only selectively responding to my posts. Of course, there are no rules saying you must do otherwise, and the habit is judged as "bad" from my own subjective opinion. But just to let you know, it's really annoying. My point is that your own personal anecdotes and life experiences can tell you a lot about yourself and your own experiences. From an academic standpoint they would need to be fleshed out in contrast to other experiences. Even noticing "trends" in "states" doesn't allow for simply referring to "the Church." You ask if it's academic or if you are "flat wrong." I don't think you're "flat wrong," I think you are being imprecise in the terms you're using, and that the overall claims you're making cannot be held up by the data you present. It's a problem of precision, and it seems the problem is that in this matter I expect more of it than you do. That's fine. I think I'm on more stable ground in this one. 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.

[Ahab]

I haven't really been paying attention to the "Mormon Scholar Testimonies" up at the top of the forum, but tonight I went in and read Boyd Petersen's testimony. His testimony interests me, because he is not one who says he "knows" anything about the church or God, but rather "believes" (deeply, I think) that it is true.

My bottom line is basically this: As long as we believe what we need to believe to be saved, we'll be saved.

Getting there is what the battle is all about.

[Libs]

One example of my better life questions (noting that all things are spiritual): In my forties, I asked about snow-boarding. I had just started skiing again after a 25-year lapse, mostly because it was a way I could engage with our teenage children by volunteering as a chaperon for school discount tickets. After a very painful start on many levels, I was glad I asked as the sensation of floating and gliding, for me, is far superior to skiing, and since then I have learned a key for learning and enjoying many other new outdoor activities that require a leap of faith at my age (quite literally when it comes to zip-lining). Another example is from 1st or 2nd grade. I couldn

[Libs]

My bottom line is basically this: As long as we believe what we need to believe to be saved, we'll be saved.

Getting there is what the battle is all about.

This is something I have had to work through...the whole idea of belief vs experience (experiential relationship with God).

I think our beliefs should come from a direct relationship with God. Belief, alone, can be pure fantasy, without that connection with Spirit.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks for answering my question. Sounds like your mother had some very good parenting skills. I'm also in awe of anyone who read the Bible through at such a tender age. I have a difficult time understanding a lot of it, even at my age, let alone at age ten. I did grow up in a Baptist Church and was exposed to the Bible (a verse here and there - plus we memorized a lot of verses), but never read the Bible through (cover to cover) until just recently.

I think objective evidence is something that can be externally proven. It's also the kind of evidence that caused a collapse of faith, in my case.

Subjective evidence is personal and cannot always be proven, but can be just as "true". I think most of our really valuable spiritual exeriences are subjective.

For me, there was a clash between the two that kind of threw me for loop for along time. I'm currently attempting to resolve that.

For what it's worth, I think you've been pretty astute in the way you've described your position here. This must be based on some older, better-worded statement, but getting the question right is half the answer, or something. And it seems to me you are really close to having half an answer.

Also, I turned this discussion into a blog post, I hope no one minds:

http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2010/12/revisiting-a-testimony-is-to-be-found-in-the-bearing-of-it/

[Ahab]

This is something I have had to work through...the whole idea of belief vs experience (experiential relationship with God).

I think our beliefs should come from a direct relationship with God. Belief, alone, can be pure fantasy, without that connection with Spirit.

True, which is why I rely on the Spirit to tell me what I should believe.

[TAO]

Libs, I think, in all honesty, objective evidence won't really matter in the end. A world based solely on objective evidence is purposeless, and worthless to live in, that it is.

[44Foxtrot]

Thank you, it looks like we might be getting somewhere. So what do you classify as

[Kismet]

Doubt, as anything else in the world, is good. It is making an idol out of doubt which ensures disaster and despair.

[Kismet]

Libs, I think, in all honesty, objective evidence won't really matter in the end. A world based solely on objective evidence is purposeless, and worthless to live in, that it is.

Well put. Evidence, as in statement A corresponds to fact B, can only get you so far. Values and a transcendental meaning to life can't be had with evidence alone.

[zerinus]

Dreams, visions, hallucinations, and nightmares do not constitute objective evidence regarding the validity of their claimed content or message. This goes for mass hallucinations as well as individual hallucinations. For an example of objective evidence see the response to your China trip example.

* * *

Thank you. After reading your post I don't think that we have a lot left to talk about. Good luck. The only thing I can add to that is that I know that the Church is true.

[Libs]

For what it's worth, I think you've been pretty astute in the way you've described your position here. This must be based on some older, better-worded statement, but getting the question right is half the answer, or something. And it seems to me you are really close to having half an answer.

Half an answer? I was really hoping for a complete answer.

Also, I turned this discussion into a blog post, I hope no one minds:

http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2010/12/revisiting-a-testimony-is-to-be-found-in-the-bearing-of-it/

Good blog post. I just read it, plus the comments. It is a little confusing, what Packer was saying, because as you said, he kind of keeps changing his starting premise (is he talking to people who have no testimony at all, or to people who do have, at least, a small testimony?)..

[Libs]

Doubt, as anything else in the world, is good. It is making an idol out of doubt which ensures disaster and despair.

Doubt as an idol? That could be interesting to explore. Could you expand on that a little?

[Libs]

Libs, I think, in all honesty, objective evidence won't really matter in the end. A world based solely on objective evidence is purposeless, and worthless to live in, that it is.

I wouldn't say that, exactly. The world is here and we can see it. For me, that is objective evidence of a Creator or some force out there that caused it to come into being. Don't you think? At the very least, we have to admit this world is here and we see it, hear it, touch it. Those are all objective observations.

I think I do understand what you mean, though. It's the underlying "spirit" that is important and lasting.

[paulpatter]

If there were not room for doubt in the Church, why would faith (and its maintenance) be the first principle of the gospel?

[Libs]

If there were not room for doubt in the Church, why would faith (and its maintenance) be the first principle of the gospel?

Why would a person put their faith in something they seriously doubted?

[44Foxtrot]

Thank you. After reading your post I don't think that we have a lot left to talk about. Good luck. The only thing I can add to that is that I know that the Church is true.

I am reasonably certain that you do sincerely believe in the Church.

Thanks and Good Luck to you as well.

[TAO]

I wouldn't say that, exactly. The world is here and we can see it. For me, that is objective evidence of a Creator or some force out there that caused it to come into being. Don't you think? At the very least, we have to admit this world is here and we see it, hear it, touch it. Those are all objective observations.

According to physics, there would be a way for the universe to exist without a creator... no, I'm not talking about the way Stephen Hawking sees it.

So yes, there is a way, as some say. But it doesn't make me doubt because I rely on the Spirit.

I think I do understand what you mean, though. It's the underlying "spirit" that is important and lasting.

In the end I think, many will realize the above way talked of, and some will fall. Having faith is going to get more important these next few years; it's going to be the only thing that will pull us through. And yah, you can't have faith in 'objective evidence' (although I technically believe there is no such thing).

[Sky]

Howdy folks

[TAO]

I don

[Kismet]

Doubt as an idol? That could be interesting to explore. Could you expand on that a little?

What do you think drives the New Atheism? Do you think it's a tempered broad-mindedness? Or something different?

To me it seems you can make doubt something of a way of life. From the standpoint of philosophy it's like denying a whole banquet of rich, various fruits and settling for a few hermetically sealed apple slices for the fear that some of them will be wormy.

[Libs]

What do you think drives the New Atheism? Do you think it's a tempered broad-mindedness? Or something different?

I don't see it as particularly broadminded, no. Proponents can be quite narrow and intolerant, actually.

To me it seems you can make doubt something of a way of life. From the standpoint of philosophy it's like denying a whole banquet of rich, various fruits and settling for a few hermetically sealed apple slices for the fear that some of them will be wormy.

Yes, I see what you're saying. I think many atheists, today, are going beyond doubt, though, towards making arguments about things they "think" they know. Which is kind of interesting, because the question with which I started this thread had to do with whether or not someone can be a member of the LDS Church, without "knowing" that it's true.