Dealing With Doubts While Finding An Informed Faith

[KevinG]

I don't want to derail this thread as another "can spiritual experiences be trusted" thread... but in a nutshell I find anyone who believes they have the magic answer to knowing all truth (religionist or scientist) has forgotten that their perspective is necessarily limited by mortality and the limits of human reason.

Access to truth through a perfect God and through valid scientific process is not the same as being in posession of all truth at this time. We too often forget this and end up like the blind men bickering over the elephant being a snake, a tree or a wall.

Having faith in God and maintaining a respect for others claims about their connection with the eternal takes a great deal of humility.

[KevinG]

Our of curiosity, what do you think of people, such as myself, who are (I hope) decent people but no longer obey certain Mormon rules because they don't believe they have good grounds for belief that they ought to obey such rules?

It depends on the rules you refer to. On their face many Mormon "rules" make sense to obey because they will benefit your life and the lives of others regardless of belief (aspects of the word of wisdom, honesty, etc.

The only things I really disdain is people presenting a jaundaced view of Mormonism in order to justify their anger or scare others away. To me that is when the line between disagreement and hostility is crossed.

If you could clarify which rules you feel are not right to follow I could answer more intelligently and honestly.

[CV75]

I know this question was not directed at me, but I would like to chime in. The problem for me in relying JUST on spiritual experiences is that we can find members of every single church who has had spiritual experiences that told them they were in the true church and/or in the place God wanted them to be. I believe there is just ONE true Church. I feel a pressing need to find it. But if I rely JUST on spiritual experiences, then every church would be true.

I keep coming back to the idea that everything is spiritual, or at least has a spiritual component or aspect to it. I think we might be surprised by what constitutes a spiritual matter and what doesn’t.

I don’t think our primary impulse is to go about asking “What is spiritual?” but rather, “What is true?” When we find the answer, we become more settled within ourselves and with others, “as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things…” Wherever truth is to be found, these unifying qualities will be present.

Oddly enough, in order to find the answer, we have to apply whatever measure of childlike attributes we possess in asking the question, so those who are embattled internally and externally will have trouble doing this until they settle down. But anyone can do this, depending on individual desire and tolerance for childlike attributes.

This is why the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the Restored Gospel can only be ascertained by proceeding “as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things…” It doesn’t matter if one has a penchant for science and analysis or for religion and synthesizing ideas; these qualities can be applied by both kinds of people.

[CV75]

Was anyone else shocked to learn about the various versions of the FV, the different stories of the translation, etc.? Did it affect your testimony?

No, because life is very complicated.

[stevedallas]

stevedallas:

So you were a member but decided to leave?

The same problem exists with the conversion of Paul as presented in the Bible. Do we throw out Paul because of his differing accounts of the same event. Different versions of the Crucificion are in the Bible. Do we toss out those Apostles because of the differing accounts? My questions are not to diminish the Bible. I love the Bible. But the LDS do not claim it to be inerrant.

Same with JS and his First Vision. The Official Version is the only one we are bound to. As JS says himself says because of differing accounts were circulating ABOUT his experience, many not even his own. He decided to publish his own accounting of what he experienced.

With the translation process the only rational answer is the one that JS gave. He himself did not have the ability to translate, his English skills were very limited at the time of the translation

I had no trouble with the differing accounts from Paul simply because of the age of the Bible, the many translations over time and the fact it was reported by Luke. With Joseph, I had his actual diary. Or, at least, a copy of it. His differing accounts all came from him. I hesistate to say this next part lest I be accused of touting my credentials again, but when a witness has more than one account of an event, they are usually easily discredited.

But that was just one of many issues for me. I often say that had there been a board like this 25 years ago, I might still be LDS today.

[KevinG]

A referrence for the different accounts of the First Vision. http://www.eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm I found it instructive.

This may be another area where you as a lawyer are trained to see the differing accounts as lacking credibility while I as an organizational behaviorist will see recollections with different levels of detail, emphasis of the pertenant parts for the audence or changed understanding of past events based on current knowledge.

(thats not meant to be an insult towards lawyers - but I have those too if you are interested)

[Garden Girl]

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......

That's my plan...

GG

[wenglund]

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?

Aside from apply the two Book of Mormon tests (Moroni 10 and Alma 32), I pragmatically evaluate the relevance and efficacy of the doubts in terms of meeting my primary objective--i.e. to become like Christ. If the doubts are in some meaningful way relevant to and/or may impede my progress in faith towards best achieving my objective, then I will prayerfully work towards resolution so as to continue to move forward. However, if they aren't relevant or are an impediment to my spiritual growth (typically they aren't), the doubts are then assigned a low priority, and are peacefully left to be addressed until after I have satisfied the higher priorities.

Often, I find that while working out the higher priorities and the things that really matter, my doubts are inadvertently resolved or rendered inconsequential.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

stevedallas:

There are many religious text that are far older than the Bible. Why don't you believe them? Say you live in the time and place of Jesus. Jesus was some 400 years after the last of O.T. prophets, and had yet to be established. There was no N. T.. What would you base your beliefs on?

I'm no lawyer, and I don't even play one of television. However my understanding is that slight variations over time do not discredit a witness. I've served on multipe juries over the years, and it is not the slight variations that convince me of their guilt(It actually was a very dark green car, and not black one after all), but the wholesale revisions. "I wasn't there". "Well I was there but I didn't pull the trigger". "Well I pulled the trigger but I wasn't aiming at him". "Well I was aiming at him, but didn't intend to kill him". "Well I was mad at him, pulled the trigger, and I was aiming at him, but I'm really a nice guy, and promise never to do it again. Can I go now"?

[Brade]

It depends on the rules you refer to. On their face many Mormon "rules" make sense to obey because they will benefit your life and the lives of others regardless of belief (aspects of the word of wisdom, honesty, etc.

The only things I really disdain is people presenting a jaundaced view of Mormonism in order to justify their anger or scare others away. To me that is when the line between disagreement and hostility is crossed.

If you could clarify which rules you feel are not right to follow I could answer more intelligently and honestly.

We need to be careful care about the moral language we use here. I didn't say that there are Mormon rules that are not right to follow (if by 'are not right to' you mean something like 'you shouldn't'). For example, I don't think you shouldn't not drink any alcohol. That would be to think that the rule of not drinking any alcohol is not right to follow (i.e. you shouldn't not drink, or, you should drink!). Rather, I think moderate alcohol consumption is permissible, which is a way of saying it's ok if you do it and it's ok if you don't.

So, to answer your question directly I don't think I can clarify which rules I feel are not right to follow because I don't think there are rules that I believe are not right to follow. On the other hand, I do think there are rules for which I'm under no moral obligation. The rule that I shouldn't drink any alcohol is one. I don't think there's anything immoral about moderate alcohol consumption. I also don't think there's anything immoral about not going to a Mormon church on Sunday, or buying things on Sunday, watching R-rated moves, not giving a portion of my income to the Church, not believing that Jesus is the son of God, unvitriolicly criticising Church leaders including the Church President, masturbating, responsible sex outside of marriage between consenting adults (including homosexual intimacy), etc.

But, we might be straying a bit from my question. You said you had a great deal of admiration for people who obey what you believe are God's commands when they don't have spiritual evidence that they should obey those rules. More specifically, my question is about people who have been raised in Mormonism or involved in Mormonism for a long time, don't have spiritual evidence that they should obey those rules, have reason to believe that some of those rules are not morally obligatory, and behave consistent with those rules not being morally obligatory. What are your thoughts about those people?

(This isn't a gotcha question, and I mean no hostility in asking it. I sincerely want to know what you think of the sort of people I've described)

[KevinG]

I'm no lawyer, and I don't even play one of television. However my understanding is that slight variations over time do not discredit a witness.

Careful - Steve might be a prosecutor.

[Garden Girl]

I agree, but teaching that our church literally believes the entire earth was baptised by imersion or Jonah was literally in the belly of a whale for a few days or that the earth is really on 6,000 years old is setting people up for a fall.

Hello Seattle...

I don't know that our Church teaches any of the above, and certainly not that the earth is "really 6,000 years old." IIRC these are left open without a definite position because we have scriptures, biblical and modern, that are not definitive. I know some Church presidents have held for the 6,000 year scenario... while others go with the more scientific view. And I think most members have similar differences in opinion. For instance, to me, Abraham Chap 4 discusses a creation that I interpret as possibly evolutionary, i.e., the gods "ordered" something and then sat back and waited to see if they would be obeyed...

How long did they have to wait, and what was the process that was taking place while what they had ordered was happening or "being obeyed."

GG

[KevinG]

Since God operates under a system of covenants I believe we are accountable for those things we covenant with God to do (or not do). For example, if someone has not covenanted with God to abstain from smoking then they are not under religious condemnation for doing so. The debate about how wise smoking has no bearing on that. On the other hand if I voluntarily convert to the LDS Church and agree to its commandments then I am accountable for what I do in relation to those commandments.

Taking it to another level, if I believe because God has revealed it to me that I should take on the covenants associated with the LDS church I am respobsible to act on that knowledge, when I do it is my responsibility to keep those commandments.

Only you can know your level of belief and accountability.

As a friend I would not go apoplectic if you ordered a wine in front of me. On the other hand if you were my son and I knew how you had been taught and that I respected your right to gain your own testimony during your upbringing I'd raise an eyebrow if you suddenly told me you didn't believe that the LDS church was true so you are drinking now.

Then we get to intent. Is it your intent to drink moderately for the possible health benefit or enjoyment? Do you refrain from drinking around those who you know it may offend (muslims, TBM parents, etc.) or do you do it as a symbol of your separation from your family tradition and do it in front of others as a mildly rebellious symbolic gesture?

Departing from a family tradition is difficult for all involved. In the end our intents and the results of our actions count heavily. Do we act from selfishness or do we love others as we do ourselves? This is what all the law and prophets hangs on.

Edited November 1, 2011 by DaddyG

[SeattleGrunge]

Hello Seattle...

I don't know that our Church teaches any of the above, and certainly not that the earth is "really 6,000 years old." IIRC these are left open without a definite position because we have scriptures, biblical and modern, that are not definitive. I know some Church presidents have held for the 6,000 year scenario... while others go with the more scientific view. And I think most members have similar differences in opinion. For instance, to me, Abraham Chap 4 discusses a creation that I interpret as possibly evolutionary, i.e., the gods "ordered" something and then sat back and waited to see if they would be obeyed...

How long did they have to wait, and what was the process that was taking place while what they had ordered was happening or "being obeyed."

GG

You are absolutely right that most of our leaders don't teach those things, but some do and the CES materials definitely promote those ideas. Because they don't significantly enough IMHO state that they aren't our doctrine, the LDS culture puts those forth frequently. That is why growing up in Utah I felt very strongly that the church's position was literal on those issues. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between the church's official position and the cultural doctrine.

[stevedallas]

A referrence for the different accounts of the First Vision. http://www.eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm I found it instructive.

This may be another area where you as a lawyer are trained to see the differing accounts as lacking credibility while I as an organizational behaviorist will see recollections with different levels of detail, emphasis of the pertenant parts for the audence or changed understanding of past events based on current knowledge.

(thats not meant to be an insult towards lawyers - but I have those too if you are interested)

lol. My mother sends me the latest attorney jokes all the time.

[CV75]

not sure what happened here--repeated post below

Edited November 1, 2011 by CV75

[stevedallas]

stevedallas:

There are many religious text that are far older than the Bible. Why don't you believe them? Say you live in the time and place of Jesus. Jesus was some 400 years after the last of O.T. prophets, and had yet to be established. There was no N. T.. What would you base your beliefs on?

I'm no lawyer, and I don't even play one of television. However my understanding is that slight variations over time do not discredit a witness. I've served on multipe juries over the years, and it is not the slight variations that convince me of their guilt(It actually was a very dark green car, and not black one after all), but the wholesale revisions. "I wasn't there". "Well I was there but I didn't pull the trigger". "Well I pulled the trigger but I wasn't aiming at him". "Well I was aiming at him, but didn't intend to kill him". "Well I was mad at him, pulled the trigger, and I was aiming at him, but I'm really a nice guy, and promise never to do it again. Can I go now"?

I see your point. For me, it was the fact the various versions had him at different ages, with differing accounts of who appeared and what was said. Those were fairly significant differences for me. I will say this, though it was a huge issue for me 25 years ago, it is not as big now. If that was my only issue, I would be rebaptized already.

But I do not wish to derail this thread with issues like that. I am curious, as to the thread's intent, how others dealt with issues like this. Also, when did they find out about these issues.

Keep in mind that 25 years ago, many of these issues were not as well known, and were certainly not openly discussed. At least not where I lived. There was no internet like what we have today and I did not have what might have existed back then.

When my testimony was lost, it was incredibly devastating. It was not the same as leaving the Baptist Church or Lutheran Church, etc. It was a crushing blow.

[CV75]

There's a lot of stuff that I think needs to get unpacked here. I'll do my best in the limited time I have right now.

First off, and I don't mean this with any disrespect, I'm not sure I understand "spiritually experiencing spiritual or physical evidence", but fleshing the meaning of that expression may not be material to the discussion, so I'm going to stop there. If you'd like explain what you mean, go for it, but if you also believe it isn't material, then let's just let that go. Second, I use the expression "spiritual experience" out of convenience, but at issue for me is whether there are such things as spiritual experiences in the relevant sense, or, more specifically, whether, even if there are, we could identify them as such.

What's the relevant sense? Here's what it isn't - merely being impressed or moved or whatever by something awe inspiring. I think in ordinary discourse saying you've had a spiritual experience when you look out at a beautiful sunset is perfectly alright and captures the sense of what you're experiencing - which need not have anything whatever to do with God, or gods, or powerful intelligences. But that's not the sense of 'spiritual experience' I mean and question.

The sense I mean is the sense in which by some external intelligence I may somehow (more on that 'somehow' later) have reasonable grounds to believe propositions like 'The Book of Mormon tells the story of people who lived', or 'God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith when he was a teenager', or 'The same Peter, James, and John from the New Testament visited Joseph Smith and gave him authority to act in God's place in certain respects'. In my experience with Mormonism that sort of spiritual experience, or rather truth-getting by spiritual experience, is described in this way: (1) a person engages in some religious behavior where that behavior is associated with the types of propositions just mentioned, (2) while engaged or subsequent to such behavior the person has a powerful, positive experience, (3) because of (2) the person now knows or has good reason to believe that the associated propositions mentioned in (1) are true.

Specifically that sense of spiritual experience, or rather truth-getting by virtue of spiritual experience, is the sense I am skeptical about. This will answer another question of your, I think. I don't believe this methodology is reasonable grounds for believing the sorts of propositions at issue. So, it's not merely that I think it doesn't work for me, I think people who claim to know or believe by that type of experience don't have good grounds for thier beliefs (which isn't to say their beliefs are false, just that they don't believe them for good reason). However, and I want this not overlooked, I do believe that that sort of methodology can be reasonable grounds for pursuing behaviors, or even religious commitment (I think I'd want to place some restrictions on how far one can reasonably commit on such grounds, but that should probably be saved for a different discussion).

Something else I ought to be clear about. I don't believe there are no spiritual experiences of the kind where divine intelligences communicate with people. There might be, I don't have a strong belief about that one way or another. What I'm saying is that even in the case that some divine intelligence does communicate with people, if such an intelligence communicates in the way I've described, it wouldn't form the basis for belief in the sorts of propositions I've gestured at - though such experiences may form reasonable grounds for belief that other sorts of propositions are true (e.g. 'I had a powerful experience while reading the Book of Mormon', etc.). The reason is simply this - there are too many plausible overriding factors for this type of methodology to form a reasonable basis for belief that the relevant kinds of propositions are true.

On my mission, for example, I had impressive experiences. One such experience occurred while I was teaching somebody about the restoration. For I time I thought the experience might count as evidence in favor of the restoration (which I was questioning at the time). However, there were too many other variables involved that couldn't be ruled out as explanations for the experience I had. For example, I was in a well structured environment where people knew of my issues and wanted me to believe and actively did things to try to help me believe. I was, at the time, somewhat depressed. The discussion was with a woman who was trying to change her life for the better after hard times. Our discussion was in a members home and the members were being very generous and kind. The investigator admitted that our treatment of her (the missionaries and the members) made her feel happy during a difficult time in her life, and that confession of hers made me feel very happy. And so on. I have no way of ruling those things out as causes of the experience I had, and independently, things like I just described have no necessary connection to propositions about the restoration.

In short, there was nothing about the experience that rules out that I could have felt the way I felt merely because I was helping somebody else feel better and for no other reason. Or, that I could have felt the way I felt merely because I was in a group that was encouraging me to believe certain things and positive experience were being reinforced in that way. Or, that I could have felt what I felt because of a combination of the two. Or, that I could have felt the way I felt because God made me feel that way so I'd believe some specific Mormon claims.

Earlier I used 3 steps to describe the methodology at issue here, but I think it's better characterized this way:

(1) Engage in a good behavior which also carries religious elements and associated propositions

(2) Feel (very) good

(3) ...?

(4) Believe that some of the associated propositions from (1) are true.

My guess at what's going on in (3) is this. I think (3) is an assumption that if you feel good while engaged in a good behavior which also carries religious elements and associated propositions, then the associated propositions are true. And I don't see any reason why I should accept that proposition.

There's another variant of truth-by-spiritual-experience which I haven't addressed here, and as to that methodology (which is distinct from the one I've just described), I'm on the fence as to whether it justifies religious beliefs. I can get into that in another post if anyone is interested, but, even if that other method does justify religious beliefs there are two problems I see in the current context: (1) more generally, from my survey of Mormon literature (and I've tried to stick to more authoritative sources for this) the method that I think might provide reasonable grounds isn't taught, and (2) specifically to my case, I haven't had experiences of this second type.

RE: "spiritually experiencing spiritual or physical evidence", I was looking for your thoughts on what you consider spiritual experience to be, as it can be had in relation to evidences presented as “spiritual” and/or “physical” in nature. In the back of my mind, I was thinking in terms of what I wrote in post #53, that everything is spiritual to the degree the one presenting or experiencing the evidence possesses the childlike qualities listed in Mosiah 3:19 (any one of us having some aspect, or the potential to exhibit some aspect, of these qualities).

I agree that awe may or may not be a response to a truth being revealed, and that feeling awe should not lead one to conclude that a truth has been revealed. It might direct his attention to consider whether a truth is being presented, but I don’t believe it constitutes the confirmation itself.

I see the sharing of external intelligence, human or divine, as a form of revelation. Whatever experience confirms its truth, whether immediate and powerful or gradual and sublime, resonates with the individual’s childlike qualities mentioned above (Mosiah 3:19). I would say that if the skepticism toward this experience or the conclusion drawn from it is not instigated by or associated with childlike qualities grounded in something else, then the skepticism should be questioned as being rooted in a “something else’ that lacks some element of truth. This would be so whether the revelation receiving the skepticism was true or not.

I agree that there are overriding factors that would cause one to misapply a divine communication; happens all the time. From my perspective, no matter how well-meaning an individual, these would include anything that detracts from the childlike qualities associated with truth as much as any human weakness or handicap.

I agree with your assessment of the mission experience you shared and I believe it illustrates a common dynamic. I think at the very least we can conclude that the charity and unity displayed was good.

I agree that Step 3 does not arise from being “as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things…” nor from seeing things as they really are (the whole reason for seeking the truth).

I’ll refer back to post #53 again. As an example, following Moroni’s Promise will not yield a spiritual experience that qualifies as a confirmation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon if the underlying “natural man” overrides the Light of Christ that fuels the childlike qualities essential for asking for, discovering and receiving the truth. On the other hand, your three steps would work when the childlike qualities are applied—but it would work to confirm the correct object or principle of truth.

I realize this may be offensive to some, coming across as if it is an indictment that those who are not childlike enough will not receive a witness. But we are all natural men and we all have the Light of Christ, so no one is at any disadvantage or better than the other with what they do with these two aspects of our makeup. Recognizing there are always exceptions, I rely on John 9:3 to explain why some may not come to know the truthfulness of the things of God as others might.

[KevinG]

You are absolutely right that most of our leaders don't teach those things, but some do and the CES materials definitely promote those ideas. Because they don't significantly enough IMHO state that they aren't our doctrine, the LDS culture puts those forth frequently. That is why growing up in Utah I felt very strongly that the church's position was literal on those issues. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between the church's official position and the cultural doctrine.

Complain to Dan Peterson. I hear he works with the curricula department and just loves to get complaints.

[stevedallas]

Careful - Steve might be a prosecutor.

not anymore. I stopped being a prosecutor in 1993

[Brade]

I realize this may be offensive to some, coming across as if it is an indictment that those who are not childlike enough will not receive a witness. But we are all natural men and we all have the Light of Christ, so no one is at any disadvantage or better than the other with what they do with these two aspects of our makeup. Recognizing there are always exceptions, I rely on John 9:3 to explain why some may not come to know the truthfulness of the things of God as others might.

I don't find it offensive. I don't agree with you, but I don't think you're a jerk.

[KevinG]

not anymore. I stopped being a prosecutor in 1993

You can take a boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy.

I am teasing you a lot - my brother is an engineer so our use of brain hemispheres is often quite different. Complementary but not always easy to see how.

[SeattleGrunge]

Complain to Dan Peterson. I hear he works with the curricula department and just loves to get complaints.

In his Mormon Stories interview he said how he strongly wishes the CES/correlation material could be different, and even made some changes one on the history of Isaiah, but the changes were removed and he was even reprimanded from an anonymous person in the correlation department for trying to make that change.

[stevedallas]

You can take a boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy.

I am teasing you a lot - my brother is an engineer so our use of brain hemispheres is often quite different. Complementary but not always easy to see how.

I appreciate you and your patience.

[KevinG]

I think childlike humility is critical in sustaining a testimony. There are two major reasons this is important:

1. If we are so proud of the completeness of our knowledge that we cannot endure finding out "what we knew just aint so" we risk shutting out new knowledge or rejecting what we have based on learning something new. Brigham really had the Saints pack coffee on the trek west?! *faint*

2. If we demonstrate pride and closed mindedness to others to the point where we cannot admit our human-ness and all the weaknesses in knowing and doing that come with it, we will ostracise those trying to understand us or become like us. Either by offending their sense of fairness or by making them believe they could never live up to our perfect standard.

I started a thread a while back about an overactive drive to make our children perfect perhaps costing them their testimonies or self-worth. I caught some flak for it and was accused of having an axe to grind, but I have seen first hand the damage of someone parenting from the perspective of "don't embarass me" instead of "do what is right let the consequence follow".