Doubt Is Not A Sin: Deseret News On Mattson, Fair, Doubt And Faith

[canard78]

Front page of DeseretNews.com

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865583665/Simple-faith-in-a-digital-age.html

This is not another Hans Mattsson thread (4 already should be enough!).

If I'd posted this in the back end of one of the 20+ page threads on Mattsson it would have been missed by most, and I think this article raises a few different questions to discuss.

Firstly, credit where it's due. A lot of people on this and other forums have presumed that Deseret News and other church related news outlets would ignore the Mattson story. Scott Lloyd was asked about it on this forum.

The article listed above is not a Mattsson story, it is a broader story about faith and doubt and how to find a balance.

It cited many independent scholars and mentioned, in a few paragraphs, the struggle Mattsson is having with Mormonism:

Some Latter-day Saints, however — 22 percent in the survey — find that "some teachings of the LDS Church are hard for me to believe." That number declines as individual educational level increases. Only 14 percent of LDS college graduates in the survey expressed such doubts. But anecdotal evidence suggests that other Latter-day Saints have been frustrated because the information and materials they are finding during Internet searches may not square with the things they have learned.

For example, a recent New York Times story focused on Hans H. Mattson, a third-generation Mormon and former bishop, stake president and Area Authority Seventy from Sweden who has been speaking openly, to the Times and elsewhere, about his doubts.

“I felt like I had an earthquake under my feet,” Mattsson told the Times. “Everything I’d been taught, everything I’d been proud to teach and witness just crumbled under my feet.”

There was no denigrating insinuations, no discrediting of him and his motives (as some have done here). There was no mention of what caused his "earthquake" but enough information about him that, for the curious, further details could be easily found.

So this raises three questions for discussion:

- Is this more evidence of a shift in attitudes and approaches to dealing with doubt? Is FAIR/Givens/Bushman etc going to get an increasingly high, while unofficial, profile in this discussion?

- The article quotes Givens under a clear sub-headline: “Doubt is not sin. Doubt can be the beginning of deeper understanding, as it was for Mormonism’s founder." Will LDS become more comfortable discussing doubt in church as a process to gain a deeper understanding? And will it help to de-stigmatise doubt?

- The only word from a called and ordained church leader was requoted from Elder Holland's April 2013 conference talk. What is the role of church leaders in all of this? Is it ok for them to comment in conference but not in a the press? The NYT story has a quote from the church spokesperson. But the spokesperson is an employee, not an apostle. Why is the church newsroom a better place for comment on spiritual matters of faith/doubt than a prophet?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Never known doubt to be referred too as a sin, but disbelief is considered a sin by almost all scripture...or should I say continued disbelief.

[Duncan]

I recall Christ saying, "Doubt not, fear not" I don't have the scriptures handy so I could be way off

[Bikeemikey]

Never known doubt to be referred too as a sin, but disbelief is considered a sin by almost all scripture...or should I say continued disbelief.

How would you define the difference.

[canard78]

Never known doubt to be referred too as a sin, but disbelief is considered a sin by almost all scripture...or should I say continued disbelief.

So you just move the goalposts so you can keep criticising?

[canard78]

I recall Christ saying, "Doubt not, fear not" I don't have the scriptures handy so I could be way off

Here:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Doubt+not%2C+fear+not%22

[Duncan]

Here:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q... not, fear not"

ha................................................................................ha...................................................................................................................................haw

[Calm]

Why is the church newsroom a better place for comment on spiritual matters of faith/doubt than a prophet?

Isn't that just standard procedure for responses to questions by journalists? Otherwise, I can see GAs being hassled by calls from journalists anytime anything LDS comes up in the news.

[canard78]

Isn't that just standard procedure for responses to questions by journalists? Otherwise, I can see GAs being hassled by calls from journalists anytime anything LDS comes up in the news.

Yes I suppose so. I don't expect the board of directors of McDonalds to give an interview to every journalist who is interested in a beef quality question.

[teddyaware]

Front page of DeseretNews.com

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865583665/Simple-faith-in-a-digital-age.html

This is not another Hans Mattsson thread (4 already should be enough!).

If I'd posted this in the back end of one of the 20+ page threads on Mattsson it would have been missed by most, and I think this article raises a few different questions to discuss.

Firstly, credit where it's due. A lot of people on this and other forums have presumed that Deseret News and other church related news outlets would ignore the Mattson story. Scott Lloyd was asked about it on this forum.

The article listed above is not a Mattsson story, it is a broader story about faith and doubt and how to find a balance.

It cited many independent scholars and mentioned, in a few paragraphs, the struggle Mattsson is having with Mormonism:

There was no denigrating insinuations, no discrediting of him and his motives (as some have done here). There was no mention of what caused his "earthquake" but enough information about him that, for the curious, further details could be easily found.

So this raises three questions for discussion:

- Is this more evidence of a shift in attitudes and approaches to dealing with doubt? Is FAIR/Givens/Bushman etc going to get an increasingly high, while unofficial, profile in this discussion?

- The article quotes Givens under a clear sub-headline: “Doubt is not sin. Doubt can be the beginning of deeper understanding, as it was for Mormonism’s founder." Will LDS become more comfortable discussing doubt in church as a process to gain a deeper understanding? And will it help to de-stigmatise doubt?

- The only word from a called and ordained church leader was requoted from Elder Holland's April 2013 conference talk. What is the role of church leaders in all of this? Is it ok for them to comment in conference but not in a the press? The NYT story has a quote from the church spokesperson. But the spokesperson is an employee, not an apostle. Why is the church newsroom a better place for comment on spiritual matters of faith/doubt than a prophet?

Doubt is fine as a temporary way station on the way to greater faith, deeper testimony and, eventually, a perfect knowledge such as that possessed by the brother of Jared. But of one thing there is no doubt, and that is if the Restored Gospel is true, greater blessings and greater happiness await those who doubt not but believe. Doubters should be sympathized with and encouraged, but it's probably not a good idea to elevate doubt or a lack of faith to some sort of virtue. Doubt only becomes a constructive force when it is overcome by belief.

Edited July 27, 2013 by teddyaware

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................

http://www.deseretne...igital-age.html

................................................................

The article listed above is not a Mattsson story, it is a broader story about faith and doubt and how to find a balance.

An excellent article, canard, though quite brief. Thanks.

As I said earlier: We have not heard the last of this matter.

Like the response by Mollie at http://www.patheos.c...-skeptic-piece/ , in which she showed herself able to use statistics responsibly. The same is true of the Deseret News article here, in which it is shown that better educated Mormons have far less difficulty with the LDS belief system than the less well educated (by the non-Mormon Pew Research people).

And at end of that article note that Richard Bushman is very dubious about claims that members are leaving the LDS Church in droves. I have not as yet seen evidence of that claim myself.

...........................................

There was no denigrating insinuations, no discrediting of him and his motives (as some have done here). There was no mention of what caused his "earthquake" but enough information about him that, for the curious, further details could be easily found.

So this raises three questions for discussion:

- Is this more evidence of a shift in attitudes and approaches to dealing with doubt? Is FAIR/Givens/Bushman etc going to get an increasingly high, while unofficial, profile in this discussion?

- The article quotes Givens under a clear sub-headline: “Doubt is not sin. Doubt can be the beginning of deeper understanding, as it was for Mormonism’s founder." Will LDS become more comfortable discussing doubt in church as a process to gain a deeper understanding? And will it help to de-stigmatise doubt?

I don't know that militant doubt will be very faith-promoting or acceptable on the dais for testimony bearing or for formal sermons, but doubt is definitely not a sin, and anyone who thought so needs serious counseling. Most doubters or those who raise troubling questions in a Church setting do so after class on a one-to-one basis with the instructor (an LDS instructor even discussed that the other day with Doug Fabrizio on KUER's "Radio West"), or consult with sources on the internet. That may be out of either embarrassment for not having an "orthodox" view (is there such a thing?), or due to politeness and concern with the feelings of others -- not wishing to be disruptive..

- The only word from a called and ordained church leader was requoted from Elder Holland's April 2013 conference talk.

One of the best discussions of this problem is during a March 4, 2006, PBS interview with Jeff Holland at http://www.pbs.org/m...ws/holland.html .

What is the role of church leaders in all of this? Is it ok for them to comment in conference but not in a the press? The NYT story has a quote from the church spokesperson. But the spokesperson is an employee, not an apostle. Why is the church newsroom a better place for comment on spiritual matters of faith/doubt than a prophet?

I suppose we could fault any leader for having a press secretary, and for giving himself some breathing room to consider the issues in a more than cursory way. Our media culture doesn't appreciate that and has no sense of perspective or patience. Indeed, even when a spokesperson or the head of an organization is quoted by the press, it is nearly always very brief and out of context. Sound-bites rule!!

Yet LDS Church leaders have been speaking to such issues for years. You make it sound like it's all brand new, that nobody cares, or that, if they do show some compassion, it all just started yesterday. Is that fair or accurate?

Edited July 27, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Tacenda]

Robert, I know you weren't addressing the above post to me but I'd like to apologize for saying you just wanted all this to go away, the fact that you took the time to listen to the recent radio show shows you care a lot more than some, to understand the dilemma the member has when they doubt. Thank you for that.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, I know you weren't addressing the above post to me but I'd like to apologize for saying you just wanted all this to go away, the fact that you took the time to listen to the recent radio show shows you care a lot more than some, to understand the dilemma the member has when they doubt. Thank you for that.

Thank you for that, Tacenda.

I always think of you as a wonderfully nice person -- kind of like the kitten icon you use.

And I love cats.

[bu11fr0g]

My own opinion is that there is intentional whitewashing. We have certain expectations from politicians, different from those for academic historians, park service tour guides, business media reps, lawyers, newspaper stories, editorials, etc.

i think our current time is an era of disappointment with all sources of knowledge -- from the Church included.

Too often the Church feels like it is presenting info more like a lawyer in a media trial.

[Duncan]

My own opinion is that there is intentional whitewashing. We have certain expectations from politicians, different from those for academic historians, park service tour guides, business media reps, lawyers, newspaper stories, editorials, etc.

i think our current time is an era of disappointment with all sources of knowledge -- from the Church included.

Too often the Church feels like it is presenting info more like a lawyer in a media trial.

do you think these people know everything but just aren't saying it? maybe they don't know and when asked they don't know how to respond

[Tacenda]

Front page of DeseretNews.com

http://www.deseretne...igital-age.html

This is not another Hans Mattsson thread (4 already should be enough!).

If I'd posted this in the back end of one of the 20+ page threads on Mattsson it would have been missed by most, and I think this article raises a few different questions to discuss.

Firstly, credit where it's due. A lot of people on this and other forums have presumed that Deseret News and other church related news outlets would ignore the Mattson story. Scott Lloyd was asked about it on this forum.

The article listed above is not a Mattsson story, it is a broader story about faith and doubt and how to find a balance.

It cited many independent scholars and mentioned, in a few paragraphs, the struggle Mattsson is having with Mormonism:

There was no denigrating insinuations, no discrediting of him and his motives (as some have done here). There was no mention of what caused his "earthquake" but enough information about him that, for the curious, further details could be easily found.

So this raises three questions for discussion:

- Is this more evidence of a shift in attitudes and approaches to dealing with doubt? Is FAIR/Givens/Bushman etc going to get an increasingly high, while unofficial, profile in this discussion?

- The article quotes Givens under a clear sub-headline: “Doubt is not sin. Doubt can be the beginning of deeper understanding, as it was for Mormonism’s founder." Will LDS become more comfortable discussing doubt in church as a process to gain a deeper understanding? And will it help to de-stigmatise doubt?

- The only word from a called and ordained church leader was requoted from Elder Holland's April 2013 conference talk. What is the role of church leaders in all of this? Is it ok for them to comment in conference but not in a the press? The NYT story has a quote from the church spokesperson. But the spokesperson is an employee, not an apostle. Why is the church newsroom a better place for comment on spiritual matters of faith/doubt than a prophet?

Kind of makes a person like me feel validated. The acknowledgement finally. But I think the situation in Sweden is going to produce a domino affect and it might get worse before it gets better. I know the church has survived an exodus of disaffected members before and this will be like a sieve and will keep only the strongest of members. Or it will remain status quo, and there will be those that stay because it's a good way to live.

[teddyaware]

do you think these people know everything but just aren't saying it? maybe they don't know and when asked they don't know how to respond

They do know how to respond, but they can't do so with propriety, and here's why:

As a faithful, testimony bearing member of the Church, I must say I'm wondering if an anybody here has ever stopped to realize that it may just be that there is no way for the leaders to answer these questions in a way good enough to satisfy the doubters. Perhaps the leaders know that if they give "meat" answers to those who are only able to digest "milk" it will only further compound the problem. If members who are unworthy or unprepared to receive the meat of the gospel are given the meat anyway, they might very well choke on that meat or spit it out and trample all over it, thereby creating a public relations nightmare for the Church

For some reason, when members of the Church have an axe to grind common sense goes out the window. Did it ever dawn on any of the "axe grinders" on this board that there is no way for the leaders to answer these questions because they already know the doubters will not accept the real answers because they're just not spiritually ready to receive the mysteries of God?

By definition, those who doubt or have lost their faith are only prepared to receive milk answers to tough gospel questions. It's those of unshakable faith and great knowledge who are by very nature more likely to receive and properly digest the meat of the gospel. The scriptures teach this principle over and over again; but the 'axe grinders' are too blind or invested in knocking the Church leaders to realize the meat of the gospel is not for the "babes" of the Church (you can be a member of the Church for a long time and still only be a babe in faith). Paul describes the kind of member who is ready to receive and properly digest the meat of the gospel:

"12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Hebrews 5)

That last verse says it all -- when a babe in the gospel is given spiritual meat, they are not experienced and mature enough to be able to discern whether or not that spiritual meat is something good or something evil. By griping about the early members of the Church who knew and put into practiced a "meat" version of the gospel, the doubters and axe grinders reveal for all to see they are unprepared to receive the mysteries of God.

The above is reposted from another thread.

Edited July 27, 2013 by teddyaware

[canard78]

An excellent article, canard, though quite brief. Thanks.

As I said earlier: We have not heard the last of this matter.

Like the response by Mollie at http://www.patheos.c...-skeptic-piece/ , in which she showed herself able to use statistics responsibly. The same is true of the Deseret News article here, in which it is shown that better educated Mormons have far less difficulty with the LDS belief system than the less well educated (by the non-Mormon Pew Research people).

Survey data is my job and I agree with you that I would put far more weight on the results of the Pew research than the survey Dehlin did.

I'd be a little hesitant to conclude that a better education reduces the likelihood that member will have doubts. The data could also be turned on its side to say "those who believe wholeheartedly in all of the church teachings are more likely to follow the prophet's council to get the best possible education." Returned missionaries are also more likely to have a higher education. Members raised in the church and more likely to have a higher education than converts. And converts are more likely to "find some aspects of Mormonism hard to believe."

So the data that DN reports is technically accurate, people in the church with a higher education are more likely to believe the whole thing. But... That may be because those people are raised in the church RMs who went through college as part of the process. If someone would like to send me the SPSS file I'll happy root around in the data. DN picked the stat that suited their story. It's not inaccurate and the source is certainly more reliable than the NYT's research.

But it's also not good research to throw in one statement or statistic without context. We tell the critics off for that. "Utah has the highest rate of depression meds" is an accurate statement. But it's not good research given Utah has a higher number of mothers therefore more people susceptible to post-natal depression as well as a lower likelihood to self-medicate with a glass of wine in the evening or a cigarette to 'calm the nerves.'

The Dehlin data is not fully reliable, the survey design has flaws and the sampling technique is in no way representative. But that doesn't mean it's entirely useless. It's still an interesting snapshot of the people who remain actively involved in the Mormon 'bloggernacle' (which is where it was sample) and yet do not believe all of the church's doctrine.

Given those people have a skew towards higher education too, we can hypothesise further:

It does not mean that all of those who leave the church for any reason are higher educated. But it does suggest that those who remain engaged in the bloggernacle are more likely to have a higher education. Or those who have a higher education and were also previously highly committed are less likely to leave for apathy/low commitment. Like a pendulum, the further we are in, the more will be needed to allow us to leave.

Finally it may also be, from these two sources, those who have a lower education are more likely to go less-active but not leave entirely and therefore still self-identify as LDS while also expressing some doubts. The higher educated may have become disenfranchised over history or policy and left completely/resigned membership. As such, they would might self-identify as LDS when contacted the survey. This would leave the remaining educated base of LDS more skewed towards full belief.

Many possibilities. But I don't think it would be safe to tell the young men tomorrow in church that, "if you get the highest possible education you will be less likely to doubt "

And at end of that article note that Richard Bushman is very dubious about claims that members are leaving the LDS Church in droves. I have not as yet seen evidence of that claim myself.

I don't know that militant doubt will be very faith-promoting or acceptable on the dais for testimony bearing or for formal sermons, but doubt is definitely not a sin, and anyone who thought so needs serious counseling. Most doubters or those who raise troubling questions in a Church setting do so after class on a one-to-one basis with the instructor (an LDS instructor even discussed that the other day with Doug Fabrizio on KUER's "Radio West"), or consult with sources on the internet. That may be out of either embarrassment for not having an "orthodox" view (is there such a thing?), or due to politeness and concern with the feelings of others -- not wishing to be disruptive..

One of the best discussions of this problem is during a March 4, 2006, PBS interview with Jeff Holland at http://www.pbs.org/m...ws/holland.html .

I suppose we could fault any leader for having a press secretary, and for giving himself some breathing room to consider the issues in a more than cursory way. Our media culture doesn't appreciate that and has no sense of perspective or patience. Indeed, even when a spokesperson or the head of an organization is quoted by the press, it is nearly always very brief and out of context. Sound-bites rule!!

Yet LDS Church leaders have been speaking to such issues for years. You make it sound like it's all brand new, that nobody cares, or that, if they do show some compassion, it all just started yesterday. Is that fair or accurate?

I think it's a fair point and I said something similar in my post to Cal earlier. Elder Holland said what he wanted to in conference. It's not their needed role to comment on every news story.

Edited July 27, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

Delete duplicate

Edited July 27, 2013 by canard78

[thesometimesaint]

We all see through that glass darkly, and I have plenty of questions. But to me doubt is something else. The Lord is always true to his promises.

[Tacenda]

When you take into account the Don Bradley's of the world, it doesn't quite hold water that the more educated the less likely to doubt. And Don Bradley gives someone hope that they can come back to a belief too, it may be different and even more rich, or enough to get one through, but it is something. In fact I feel just the opposite, the more educated or steeped in the religion the harder they fall. It's the inactive but still believer that has it pretty good, because in members eyes they are looked at far favorably than the active member that disbelieves or doubts. Usually the inactive that is the so called Jack Mormon, still holds a belief but doesn't like the lifestyle. So still hope is held out for them. But some that come across the unbeliever, no matter how hard they tried or how well they lived the religion before, they are dumped and termed apostates.

[Scott Lloyd]

Front page of DeseretNews.com

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865583665/Simple-faith-in-a-digital-age.html

Firstly, credit where it's due. A lot of people on this and other forums have presumed that Deseret News and other church related news outlets would ignore the Mattson story. Scott Lloyd was asked about it on this forum.

Thank you for giving credit where it's due.

Yes, I was asked about it the other day and responded (correctly, as it turns out) that a colleague of mine was at that very moment, working on a piece.

The author, Joe Walker, and I conversed about it yesterday. He expressed that it had been his intent to bring some perspective and insight to the subject by giving it a broader treatment than merely rehashing the events in Sweden, which, after all, are only a microcosm of what has been going on around the Church. I'm proud of him for the work he has done here.

I've known Joe for many years. He is a superb journalist and an even finer human being: compassionate, caring, intelligent and -- it sounds cliche to say so but true in his case -- a friend to everyone.

[bluebell]

We all see through that glass darkly, and I have plenty of questions. But to me doubt is something else. The Lord is always true to his promises.

Doubt is something different than questions to me as we'll. Doubt as it is used in the scriptures seems more like the opposite of faith.

[Kenngo1969]

... I'd be a little hesitant to conclude that a better education reduces the likelihood that member will have doubts. ...

[FYI, I'm not trying to quote you out of context here, Canard, I just wanted to "cut to the chase" and include only what I'm responding to, since your post is available in its entirety elsewhere on the thread. Please don't be offended if you don't think I included enough.]

I agree with your assertion above. I don't think that it's the case, necessarily, that the more education one has, the less one is prone to doubt. However, I do think that, in general, the higher one's educational level (depending on what field that education is in, perhaps) the more likely it is that one is able to tolerate ambiguity without feeling as though s/he must jettison an entire paradigm.

Does that make sense?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

How would you define the difference.

As my children grew older they doubted there was a Santa Claus...on December 24th...They BELIEVED!