Dealing With Doubts While Finding An Informed Faith

[KevinG]

I never had much of a struggle with the history surrounding the LDS Church. When I was investigating I asked many questions about polygamy, race and other tidbits thrown my way.

In the intervening years I've spent much (too much?) time on the interwebz finding out more than I ever expected to find out, and in turn weighing each bit of information against the knowledge I have. I am a fan of the Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling) approach to laying it all out there and letting the reader draw their conclusions. After having read that book I was amazed at how much anti and pro Mormon information out there just wasn't so. I was also somewhat surprised at the information that was flattering and unflattering that was true. I guess I'm glad the Holy Spirit got to me and told me the LDS Church was where I should be - the intellectual stuff I can take my time and sort out without denying that foundation. But not everyone gets that epiphany kind of revelation. For some it is to believe on the words of those who have received a witness by the Holy Spirit. How do they weigh the evidence and exercise faith to believe, genuinely believe, not fake it until they make it.

It probably helps that my testimony of the truthfullness of the church is not based on any idea that the Saints are inerrant or our doctrines complete in this lifetime. I do understand how my sceptical friends can see what information is out there and have it be a stumbling block... anyway I'm rambling.

For the faithful, especially those of a very analytical mind set, how do you deal with troubling issues that surface while retaining your basic faith in the authority of the LDS Church and its leaders, past and present?

Please avoid bashing here- this is an inquiry into building faith in an imperfect world- not meant to be a rehash of all things curious about Mormonism.

[selek1]

DaddyG,

How dare you post something like this on these boards!?!

I agree with everything you posted!

Without exception!

So there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

As to how I deal with troubling issues while retaining my faith, the answer is simple.

It boils down (in my mind) to "reasonable doubt".

Like you, I discovered " how much anti and pro Mormon information out there just wasn't so".

It has been my experience that every instance of controversy presented which claims to undermine the Church has boiled down to some sort of he said/she said, or worse- an unsupported allegation by a third person.

I cannot think of a single controversy that I've reviewed which hasn't ultimately boiled down to either an unsupported (or more often, ignorant) opinion or to the word of someone with an axe to grind.

That experience stands unchallenged without exception or qualifier.

Even alleged "smoking guns" facts which serve as "lynch-pins" to anti-Mormon arguments are almost never established as clearly factual. Even Brigham Young's alleged desecration of the original Mountain Meadows cairn relies upon a single account- an account contradicted by that of other witnesses.

Worse- many of these "controversies" do not rely on facts at all- but upon innuendo, interpretation, and the desire to find controversy where none truly exists. Many of the MRM's criticisms fall into this last category.

I know that if it's truly important to my growth and faith as a Christian, Heavenly Father will make the truth of the matter clear.

I also know that not a single one of these alleged "controversies" has risen to that level.

Rather than being essential to my (or anyone else's) salvation, these "controversies" are almost singularly the province of pedants and ascetics.

Knowing that the "final word" on these controversies- especially coming from the anti-Mormon side of things- is almost never definitive or authoritative, I find it relatively easy to avoid becoming worked up over tentative allegations and scholarly debate.

Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa: I cheerfully admit that I find it much harder to stand idly by while good and decent men and women are abused by the uneducated, the uninformed, or the unprincipled.

It's one thing to have your own interpretation of evidence. It's something again to slander those unable to defend themselves based solely on one's own ignorance.

Edited November 1, 2011 by selek1

[KevinG]

I have found to my satisfaction that Mormon leaders foibles are either exaggerated or have a context that our critics aren't too honest about. However- I cannot say that Joseph Smith never hid anything about Polygamous marriage or that Brigham Young didn't start a long history of Priesthood segregation based on some protestant notions of race. (for example of criticisms with a kernel of truth).

However I also understand the context of Joseph's revelations and how he brought the church members into the knowledge of the Principle. This falls under "it was none of their business unless they were prepared to sacrifice and believe before being given sacred things".

I also understand the context of Brigham dealing with anti-abolitionist feelings on top of the other issues the Saints had to deal with may have given him reason to leave the integration of the Priesthood for another generation to deal with.

In many cases the error of Presentism (judging the past on the knowledge and sensibilities of the present) is at the root of many knocks against the church.

For me the context of exploring our human Prophets is very important in not using their decisions and words as an excuse to dismiss their prophetic calling. The aftermath of Zions Camp and the reaction of the brethren to Joseph's "folly" is a very powerful lesson.

Having said that those who knowingly spread dissention about God's annointed have a special place reserved for them if they cause even one innocent soul to flunder in their faith. I am pretty hard on those who I feel are obstinate and purposeful in teaching falsehoods about Mormonism.

Edited November 1, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

How dare you post something like this on these boards!?!

I agree with everything you posted!

Without exception!

So there.

Your mother wears Temple slippers!

[selek1]

For me the context of exploring our human Prophets is very important in not using their decisions and words as an excuse to dismiss their prophetic calling. The aftermath of Zions Camp and the reaction of the brethren to Joseph's "folly" is a very powerful lesson.

Having said that those who knowingly spread dissention about God's annointed have a special place reserved for them if they cause even one innocent soul to flunder in their faith. I am pretty hard on those who I feel are obstinate and purposeful in teaching falsehoods about Mormonism.

Well said, sir.

Very well said.

Your mother wears Temple slippers!

Alas! She does not.

I am a convert to the faith, and alone in that regard amongst my family

Of course, all I have to do to fix that is outlive them.......

Edited November 1, 2011 by selek1

[Arkholt]

If I have any doubts about the foibles of Church leaders, I just read the scriptures and read about the foibles of ancient prophets. Moses did some really stupid things, but he's seen as one of the greatest prophets ever. Heck, read the Doctrine and Covenants and read about all the really stupid things that Joseph Smith and his colleagues did, that God was really very unhappy about. Or, read about all the really, really stupid things the twelve apostles did, and Christ calling them out for it.

People do stupid things. Church leaders are no exception. That doesn't mean the Church isn't true.

[KevinG]

Well said, sir.

Very well said.

Alas! She does not.

I am a convert to the faith, and alone in that regard amongst my family

Of course, all I have to do to fix that is outlive them.......

Fair enough. My parents are good Protestants also. I have freely admitted to them that I will do their Temple work if they do not become members. They agreed to accept it if I am right!

[SeattleGrunge]

I experienced a dark and dreary time after realizing the overly fundamental doctrines I learned via CES and culture were not what they were put forth as. I held on the the fact that the church made me into a better person than I otherwise would have become. That coupled with the fact that even though I didn't know if the church was true anymore, I also didn't know that it wasn't true. I decided I'd rather error on the side of caution and live as if it were until I could decide one way or another for sure. I've come to a point where I am comfortable with the church, its history and core doctrines. I am 50% sure it is really the Church of Jesus Christ, but I'm ok with that because I think that is how God intends it to be. He doesn't want us to be able to rationalize the truth of the gospel, we must live by faith. Also, people like Bushman and Givens give me hope! I loved the Mormon Stories podcast with Givens.

[KevinG]

If I have any doubts about the foibles of Church leaders, I just read the scriptures and read about the foibles of ancient prophets. Moses did some really stupid things, but he's seen as one of the greatest prophets ever. Heck, read the Doctrine and Covenants and read about all the really stupid things that Joseph Smith and his colleagues did, that God was really very unhappy about. Or, read about all the really, really stupid things the twelve apostles did, and Christ calling them out for it.

People do stupid things. Church leaders are no exception. That doesn't mean the Church isn't true.

True enough - Jacob and Noah give me much more pause for thought than Joseph or Brigham. Then again the fact that God saw them as elect gives me hope for my own mischevious soul.

[altersteve]

Brother Orson Scott Card said it best:

"I'll question my questions, I'll doubt my doubts, confident that one way or another, everything will be reconciled."

[KevinG]

I experienced a dark and dreary time after realizing the overly fundamental doctrines I learned via CES and culture were not what they were put forth as.

I've taken some flak for this before but I don't think we do ourselves any favors by stifling dissention among youth or other students. There is a fine balance between teaching the faith and not allowing students to explore the hard questions.

Then again some people seem to specialize in disrupting classes that should be "mostly" faith promoting.

The kids I worry about the most are the ones who grow up with the attitude of "don't make me look bad" as opposed to genuine growth, faith in Christ, mistakes and repentance... Those are the ones who I see go off the rails when they are faced with what appears to be contradictions in what they were taught.

[ERayR]

I never had much of a struggle with the history surrounding the LDS Church. When I was investigating I asked many questions about polygamy, race and other tidbits thrown my way.

In the intervening years I've spent much (too much?) time on the interwebz finding out more than I ever expected to find out, and in turn weighing each bit of information against the knowledge I have. I am a fan of the Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling) approach to laying it all out there and letting the reader draw their conclusions. After having read that book I was amazed at how much anti and pro Mormon information out there just wasn't so. I was also somewhat surprised at the information that was flattering and unflattering that was true. I guess I'm glad the Holy Spirit got to me and told me the LDS Church was where I should be - the intellectual stuff I can take my time and sort out without denying that foundation. But not everyone gets that epiphany kind of revelation. For some it is to believe on the words of those who have received a witness by the Holy Spirit. How do they weigh the evidence and exercise faith to believe, genuinely believe, not fake it until they make it.

It probably helps that my testimony of the truthfullness of the church is not based on any idea that the Saints are inerrant or our doctrines complete in this lifetime. I do understand how my sceptical friends can see what information is out there and have it be a stumbling block... anyway I'm rambling.

For the faithful, especially those of a very analytical mind set, how do you deal with troubling issues that surface while retaining your basic faith in the authority of the LDS Church and its leaders, past and present?

Please avoid bashing here- this is an inquiry into building faith in an imperfect world- not meant to be a rehash of all things curious about Mormonism.

I think one must get that personal revelation it is true. Then if something is troubling be able to put it aside until you have found enough information to allow you to place it in context. However, first you must have the certainty of the witness of the Holy Ghost.

[KevinG]

I think one must get that personal revelation it is true. Then if something is troubling be able to put it aside until you have found enough information to allow you to place it in context. However, first you must have the certainty of the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Absolutely! But I have had enough conversations with people who have struggled to get their answer from God and who have not been given the personal revelation - and not because of personal unworthiness.

D&C 46:13 To some it is given by the ^aHoly Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to ^abelieve on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

[ERayR]

I've taken some flak for this before but I don't think we do ourselves any favors by stifling dissention among youth or other students. There is a fine balance between teaching the faith and not allowing students to explore the hard questions.

Then again some people seem to specialize in disrupting classes that should be "mostly" faith promoting.

The kids I worry about the most are the ones who grow up with the attitude of "don't make me look bad" as opposed to genuine growth, faith in Christ, mistakes and repentance... Those are the ones who I see go off the rails when they are faced with what appears to be contradictions in what they were taught.

It has been my experience that the hard questions are fine as long as we teach them to put htem in perspective. The truth is that the gospel of Jesus

Christ as promulgated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. If there is anything that cast doubt on that then we haven't gotten all the information or it has been presented inaccuratly.

[KevinG]

Yes! All truth comes from the pure source of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I heart D&C 93!

Some of my legalistic and philisophical friends here take issue with us calling these things "true". It helps to understand the context of "true" as meaning "authoratative", "established by God" and "as much as has been revealed".

Placing an expectation of inerrancy on the descriptor "true" can be a stumbling block to concrete, linear thinkers.

Of course sometimes criticizing our housewives, plumbers and children for using the word "true" meaning something other than the refined understanding of classic philosophers is just another excuse for those wanting to criticize.

Edited November 1, 2011 by DaddyG

[ERayR]

Absolutely! But I have had enough conversations with people who have struggled to get their answer from God and who have not been given the personal revelation - and not because of personal unworthiness.

D&C 46:13 To some it is given by the ^aHoly Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to ^abelieve on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

So it was with me but it wasn't because it wasn't there. It was because I was wanting and expecting something more. When I finally recognized my answer the scripture Peace I leave with you, not the peace of the world but my peace I leave with you had new meaning to me. It is for us to wait upon the Lord not the other way around.

Edited November 1, 2011 by ERayR

[cinepro]

For the faithful, especially those of a very analytical mind set, how do you deal with troubling issues that surface while retaining your basic faith in the authority of the LDS Church and its leaders, past and present?

Please avoid bashing here- this is an inquiry into building faith in an imperfect world- not meant to be a rehash of all things curious about Mormonism.

Your question is dealt with by several Mormon thinkers in the book "A Thoughtful Faith". I highly recommend it.

[cdowis]

The best advice I heard was at my graduation from BYU:

If you have an issue that troubles you, place it on your "shelf of disbelief". From time to time take it down and think about it. Over time you will gradually have a better understanding of the solution.

I have found this to work for me on many issues. Specifically the Salamander Letter was very troublesome for me, but I just put it on the shelf and eventually I avoided the mistake of moving away from the church over this issue. It was a fraud, of course.

It is a matter of faith and patience that things will work out. I have no issues now that I find troublesome, having examined those issues over the decades. I don't have complete answers but enough of one to give me peace. Some of those answers I have shared here on this forum.

[Storm Rider]

I never had much of a struggle with the history surrounding the LDS Church. When I was investigating I asked many questions about polygamy, race and other tidbits thrown my way.

In the intervening years I've spent much (too much?) time on the interwebz finding out more than I ever expected to find out, and in turn weighing each bit of information against the knowledge I have. I am a fan of the Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling) approach to laying it all out there and letting the reader draw their conclusions. After having read that book I was amazed at how much anti and pro Mormon information out there just wasn't so. I was also somewhat surprised at the information that was flattering and unflattering that was true. I guess I'm glad the Holy Spirit got to me and told me the LDS Church was where I should be - the intellectual stuff I can take my time and sort out without denying that foundation. But not everyone gets that epiphany kind of revelation. For some it is to believe on the words of those who have received a witness by the Holy Spirit. How do they weigh the evidence and exercise faith to believe, genuinely believe, not fake it until they make it.

It probably helps that my testimony of the truthfullness of the church is not based on any idea that the Saints are inerrant or our doctrines complete in this lifetime. I do understand how my sceptical friends can see what information is out there and have it be a stumbling block... anyway I'm rambling.

For the faithful, especially those of a very analytical mind set, how do you deal with troubling issues that surface while retaining your basic faith in the authority of the LDS Church and its leaders, past and present?

Please avoid bashing here- this is an inquiry into building faith in an imperfect world- not meant to be a rehash of all things curious about Mormonism.

Friend, I do it the same way that you do it. The Holy Spirit is my source for all truth. Truly, I seek to be as Peter and to know the Christ as a result of what God tells me and not because of what men say. I do not "need" or require scripture to believe in Jesus; my foundation is Jesus Christ and nothing else.

History, IMO, is a blind man's game. We seek for all the pieces of the puzzle and never are able to find them all. As a result, some use only a few pieces and then deduct a completely faulty conclusion. Others find more of the pieces, but still do not have a completely picture or undestanding. I choose to learn as much as I can, hold onto the Spirit, and let the understanding of man grow in knowledge as much as it can. Eventually, both sides may become one.

[Hamba Tuhan]

For the faithful, especially those of a very analytical mind set, how do you deal with troubling issues that surface while retaining your basic faith in the authority of the LDS Church and its leaders, past and present?

To me, the miracle of the Restoration is that it left behind an actual artefact (a whole constellation of them, to be more precise). This is not some intellectual exercise, unless we force it to be so; it's a practical one. To take just one example, certain historians have made much hay over the issue of Melchizedek Priesthood restoration, specifically the lack of contemporary accounts. Now, it helps that I'm a professional historian who deals everyday with the messiness of constructing coherent narratives about the past when, unfortunately, the record I have to work from is fractured, incomplete, contradictory, and filled with inexplicable gaps. But--and far more important--the Melchizedek Priesthood exists, not in the murky past but in my everyday present. It is an artefact which I have access to. Consequently, as fun as it may be to toss around theories about how it may all just be something someone fabricated to consolidate power or whatever the current critical explanation du jour may be, what I really should be doing is testing the thing itself. And this is where things get truly miraculous because the priesthood, when tested, is precisely what it claims to be.

Do I know exactly when it was restored? Nope. Do I know if the narrative we currently use is reliable and accurate in every detail. Again, no. In fact, it would be surprising if it were. Do I know through repeated personal experience that the Melchizedek Priesthood really is the power and authority of God? Yes, with certainty.

And this is something I could never know if all I ever did was to back and forth the issue in my own head, regardless of how clever I may be. It is also why people who, for whatever reason, have no access to the great swirl of information, pro et con, can also be certain in their knowledge of core things. 'If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.'

Edited November 1, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan

[J Green]

To me, the miracle of the Restoration is that it left behind an actual artefact (a whole constellation of them, to be more precise). This is not some intellectual exercise, unless we force it to be so; it's a practical one. To take just one example, certain historians have made much hay over the issue of Melchizedek Priesthood restoration, specifically the lack of contemporary accounts. Now, it helps that I'm a professional historian who deals everyday with the messiness of constructing coherent narratives about the past when, unfortunately, the record I have to work from is fractured, incomplete, contradictory, and filled with inexplicable gaps. But--and far more important--the Melchizedek Priesthood exists, not in the murky past but in my everyday present. It is an artefact which I have access to. Consequently, as fun as it may be to toss around theories about how it may all just be something someone fabricated to consolidate power or whatever the current critical explanation du jour may be, what I really should be doing is testing the thing itself. And this is where things get truly miraculous because the priesthood, when tested, is precisely what it claims to be.

Do I know exactly when it was restored? Nope. Do I know if the narrative we currently use is reliable and accurate in every detail. Again, no. In fact, it would be surprising if it were. Do I know through repeated personal experience that the Melchizedek Priesthood really is the power and authority of God? Yes, with certainty.

And this is something I could never know if all I ever did was to back and forth the issue in my own head, regardless of how clever I may be. It is also why people who, for whatever reason, have no access to the great swirl of information, pro et con, can also be certain in their knowledge of core things. 'If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.'

Always love your insights, Hamba, and this post is one of the best I've ever read on a message board. Thanks for taking the time to articulate it.

[Brade]

I've said before several times that if I trusted spiritual experience as a valid means of truth-getting, then I'd probably believe fundamental Mormon claims, contrary evidence be damned. The central issue for me is the validity of truth-getting via spiritual experience, and after over a decade of noodling it over I've resolved that I simply don't trust spiritual experience as a valid means of truth-getting. Having concluded that, I'm left to assess the best available evidence without divine aid and the best available evidence taken as a whole seems to weigh against the truth of many of Mormonisms central claims.

[CV75]

For the faithful, especially those of a very analytical mind set, how do you deal with troubling issues that surface while retaining your basic faith in the authority of the LDS Church and its leaders, past and present?

After what I have experienced, I’m not one to get troubled except for my sins and plateaus in spiritual growth.

I almost expect that someday some piece of sophisticated evidence will come forth that completely disproves the Book or Mormon once and for all (and hasn’t it already, for many?). Except for the elect, of course.

In addition to my initial spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost, which I have never doubted for an instant for over 40 years now, continuing to receive the tangible and intangible benefits of keeping the covenants of life have been enough. I am quite grounded in that, so whatever storm may rage around me, the restored priesthood continues to bless me.

I suppose, like any other tool, an analytical mind can contribute to one's faith as well as challenge it.

[KevinG]

Your question is dealt with by several Mormon thinkers in the book "A Thoughtful Faith". I highly recommend it.

Thank you!

[stevedallas]

Maybe I was never truly ready to be LDS. I heard the missionary discussions, prayed about it, and was certain I needed to get baptized. I never heard any of the issues that are so freely discussed on the board ie. the various versions of first vision, that how Joseph translated the plates was not how I was taught, that the temple ceremonies are very similar to Masonic rituals, etc etc. When these things came to light, it chiseled away at my testimony until I it was gone. I had no one who could help, no one really knew how to deal with my questions back then (it is has been almost 25 years since I left the LDS Church). The Church is smarter today. The issues are discussed and not hidden, so when members hear them, they are not surprised. When I asked questions back then, I was told to forget my questions and just have faith. So, my questions just festered. Now, people have answers and are not afraid to discuss. I know many of you think I am a troll. So be it. But I apreciate this thread and I appreciate when I see answers to my questions that are not laced with meanness. I do not expect to gain a testimony hear. But, maybe, by virtue of these discussions, my testimony will have a chance to return.

Thank you for this thread.