How Prevalent Are Serious Doubters In The Lds Church

[Hamba Tuhan]

On the other hand, since the organization of the Church in 1830, there have always been members who have fallen away, and among them, there have always been those who have become strident detractors. Yet the Church as an institution has continued to grow and progress in its mission.

 

I find it interesting that, precisely like their predecessors, those who fall away in our day are quick to predict that their cumulative exits spell doom for the Church. At minimum this seems to be an ahistorical view.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

Faith crises are also unique in that their end-game differs from other problems.  With porn, WOW, etc., the goal is to remove the behavior and restore trust.  For faith crises, there "is no going back."  The person has to find a new paradigm.  While that is very possible, it often means the person will have a different outlook than many of their friends/family.  So not only is there no going back for the person's testimony, there is no going back to the same relationships.

 

And yet I personally know people who have come back fully and often with a reinvigorated faith and an enhanced closeness to family and friends.

[kassie]

From one of the reader comments attached to the Deseret News article linked to in the OP:

 

If there is a perception that "compassion go[es] away pretty quickly," perhaps it is because the individual has moved from a state of expressing sincere doubts to stance of strident and hostile opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ. It might be a challenge to determine the person's position along that spectrum, but I would suggest that the appropriate response might differ accordingly. Understand, I'm not countenancing unkindness here, rather, defense when confronted with aggression.

 

To take a hypothetical example, suppose a doubting relative gets to the point of bitter and vocal opposition. His inability to keep his mouth in check might make a difference as to whether he remains welcome in my home around my impressionable children. If not, he may deem me as lacking compassion when, in reality, I am simply protecting my loved ones and sheltering my hearth and home from the influence of his bitterness and anger.I a

I agree wholeheartedly here. I have a sister-in-law I have discussed on other threads who left the Church within a year of her temple marriage because she found the temple rituals "creepy." Then she delved into all kinds of "historical" reasons that the Church "must not be true." Then she decided she needed to "educate" the rest of us on why we should leave the Church. It got to the point where it became disruptive at times in family gatherings which she perceived as an opportunity for our edification. My brother is still active, and she is allowing her children to be raised in the Church. Go figure. Eventually, I had to sit down with her and explain that if she couldn't abstain from these vitriolic attacks on the Church in our presence (particularly in the presence of my impressionable children and teenagers) that we just couldn't get together anymore. I had to make a choice to protect those I am responsible for. It hasn't stopped completely but at least now she doesn't do it in front of the children. 

Edited August 29, 2013 by kassie

[stemelbow]

How prevalent are serious doubters?  100%

 

Every single one of us seriously doubt a few things.  None of us are perfectly faithful.  it just so happens that many to most of us like to live an illusion of sorts in order to suggest that we aren't serious doubters. 

[boulder257]

How prevalent are serious doubters?  100%

 

Every single one of us seriously doubt a few things.  None of us are perfectly faithful.  it just so happens that many to most of us like to live an illusion of sorts in order to suggest that we aren't serious doubters. 

 

Interesting theory. So even the current prophet and quorom of the twelve have doubts about certain things?

[Tacenda]

Dan makes a good point. I think that we need to remember the shock value that the critics have when they post information on the web. I think that certain critic sites depend on shock value and they depend on the understanding that the members do not know this information, so the critics write it in such a way that would shock the member. Or at least jolt the member into a shock syndrome.

 

And when such members go to FAIR and read that such information may be true, the shock becomes deeper in the member and when they read the FAIR version it may not help because the event has been confirmed but with a different interpretation. I believe that most members want to read that what they have read on the critic site is a blatant lie.

I can vouch for that!  And for me when going to FAIR it led me to more things I'd never heard of before in the church.  But in the end, FAIR is invaluable for the church because if it weren't for them the church would be busy worrying over these items instead of doing the work they need to do, I guess.  And in my case I'd been very shallow in the church, never really studied church history, or the scriptures in depth so I was primed to go into a crisis.  But one thing I did have, was a belief that was ingrained deeply and that is why I fell so hard.  But now that I discuss on this board and go in the daily walk of holding a calling, attend weekly in church, and socialize with members, it makes it so I can stay LDS.  And hopefully come back to fully believing, if that's what is best.  I'm grateful that the tent is widening to hold members like me, IOW, feeling the love.               

[Buckeye]

And yet I personally know people who have come back fully and often with a reinvigorated faith and an enhanced closeness to family and friends.

 

I know people like this too.  When I said that people exit faith crises with different testimonies and different family relationships, I did not mean to suggest they will be worse than before the crisis.  Quite often they are better. 

[boulder257]

I know people like this too.  When I said that people exit faith crises with different testimonies and different family relationships, I did not mean to suggest they will be worse than before the crisis.  Quite often they are better. 

 

Great point and wisely said. I think it is these tests of our faith that make us so confirmed and assured in our belief system. I for one would not have the faith I have today if I had not questioned certain ideas or teachings.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Since you appear disinclined to read any of his post other than what I quote here, I will go ahead and quote his concluding paragraph:

 

 

What accounts for the differences in reaction? Not, I think, the stupidity and superficiality of typical believers when contrasted with unbelievers. I see no evidence for that. And the scriptures and conference talks and doctrines that are known to the one group are precisely those known to the other. No, yet again I think it clear that extra-intellectual, extra-rational, factors have to be granted an explanatory role.

 

 

I've read through most of Dan's post and mostly found it to be stating the obvious.  I mean if we all saw things the same way, we wouldn't have different politcal parties, so many different protestant religions etc.  I'd agree that   Unfortunately Dan left out the only part that would have been interesting.  An examination of those "extra-intellectual, extra-rational factors" that explain our differences.  Since you linked to the article do you have any idea what they are?

[Scott Lloyd]

I've read through most of Dan's post and mostly found it to be stating the obvious. I mean if we all saw things the same way, we wouldn't have different politcal parties, so many different protestant religions etc. I'd agree that Unfortunately Dan left out the only part that would have been interesting. An examination of those "extra-intellectual, extra-rational factors" that explain our differences. Since you linked to the article do you have any idea what they are?

No.

As far as I know, you are welcome to sign up to comment on his blog and ask him.

My posting the link is by way of comment that there is not necessarily a cataclysmic wave of doubt besetting the Church right now, that other Church members have encountered and do encounter the same information and are not driven into crisis by it.

People in that category don't get a whole lot of press.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I never said sinning was an illegitimate reason to leave. While I don't judge a person for the reason they choose to leave or stop believing, IMHO intellectual/philosophical/historical reasons are the most valid or legitimate.

Much like one can join the church for any number of reasons: social, family pressure, cute missionaries, etc. While one could argue these are all acceptable, I believe the most valid or legitimate reason is being truly converted to the gospel.

 

There may be people out there that leave the church because they want to sin (I guess).  Part of the problem as I see it is that we are all sinning every single day (of course maybe I'm projecting here and most of the rest of my fellow church members have got the perfect thing going on). So anyone who leaves for whatever reason could be judged to leave to feel less guilty about their sins. In addition, the more visible sins like drinking, lack of garment wearing, living with a boyfriend / girlfriend seem more likely to occur after a loss of belief than before (i.e. I don't believe this stuff anymore so why not).

 

I don't really hear people say "He says he left the church because he was offended, but really he's a sinner so it was probably just so he could feel less guilty about those sins of his."

 

Why can't we just let people tell their own stories? Perhaps its because the historical stuff feels judgmental? Because we are so sure the church is true and we know the same stuff that someone else knows we can't understand how they could reach a different conclusion without some ulterior motive?

[stemelbow]

Interesting theory. So even the current prophet and quorom of the twelve have doubts about certain things?

 

I imagine so.  Thomas expressed doubt at some point.  Joseph Smith doubted polygamy, it seems, when it was first introduced to him.   

 

I'm not saying I would know any level of doubts any of the GAs have now, but I'm sure they have some doubt about something.  It seems clear that doubt is in there if faithfulness is not complete.  We all carry various levels of faith, it seems. 

[Scott Lloyd]

There may be people out there that leave the church because they want to sin (I guess). Part of the problem as I see it is that we are all sinning every single day (of course maybe I'm projecting here and most of the rest of my fellow church members have got the perfect thing going on). So anyone who leaves for whatever reason could be judged to leave to feel less guilty about their sins. In addition, the more visible sins like drinking, lack of garment wearing, living with a boyfriend / girlfriend seem more likely to occur after a loss of belief than before (i.e. I don't believe this stuff anymore so why not).

I don't really hear people say "He says he left the church because he was offended, but really he's a sinner so it was probably just so he could feel less guilty about those sins of his."

Why can't we just let people tell their own stories? Perhaps its because the historical stuff feels judgmental? Because we are so sure the church is true and we know the same stuff that someone else knows we can't understand how they could reach a different conclusion without some ulterior motive?

People are free to tell their own stories, but others are entitled to determine for themselves how much credence to give the stories.

If the Church's truth claims are to be viewed critically, why shouldn't challenges to those claims be viewed just as critically?

[Scott Lloyd]

I imagine so. Thomas expressed doubt at some point. Joseph Smith doubted polygamy, it seems, when it was first introduced to him.

I'm not saying I would know any level of doubts any of the GAs have now, but I'm sure they have some doubt about something. It seems clear that doubt is in there if faithfulness is not complete. We all carry various levels of faith, it seems.

It depends on the man, I suppose. Hans Mattsson (and I acknowledge he was not a GA) seems to have withered rather easily.

On the other hand, can anyone read the testimony of Bruce R. McConkie, the one given not long before he died, and discern any doubt there?

Edited August 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

People are free to tell their own stories, but others are entitled to determine for themselves how much credence to give the stories.

If the Church's truth claims are to be viewed critically, why shouldn't challenges to those claims be viewed just as critically?

I 100% agree with both. It is fine to deal with challenges as critically as we can. We all have to weigh the various evidence in front of us and we all must judge.  What I'm saying we should avoid is stuff like calling you a liar when you say that God has revealed to you that this is his church. If you say you honestly believe that what purpose could be served by saying you are delusional and brainwashed? It does not further any meaningful discourse. It prohibits it. The flip side of that is true as well. The only person's heart we can know is our own. The judgement we pronounce on others reflect our own biases more than anything else.  Obviously we have to make judgement everyday to get through life.  However if we want to help others or understand others then we must have some trust that when people are relating their own stories they are doing so in good faith. (IMHO of course).

Edited August 29, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[stemelbow]

It depends on the man, I suppose. Hans Mattsson (and I acknowledge he was not a GA) seems to have withered quite easily.

On the other hand, can anyone read the testimony of Bruce R. McConkie, the one given not long before he died, and discern any doubt there?

 

Indeed.  i don't see that anyone will discern doubt in many conference talks either.  Discerning doubt based on purposeful talks would be difficult any time.  That doesn't mean the speaker is completely faithful.  I don't know, though, maybe I'm seeing this differently.  I would suggest God does not view us as doubters so much as people who are trying to learn to be faithful.  But, it seems apparent, the lack in our faithfulness is due to our own doubts--whether they be doubts about particular teachings, faith itself, or doubt in ourselves--the result is the same.

[stemelbow]

Scott said: 

 

It depends on the man, I suppose. Hans Mattsson (and I acknowledge he was not a GA) seems to have withered quite easily.

 

I just don't think anyone withers very easily at all.  Indeed, it seems it took quite a personal toll on Mattson--quite an internal difficult battle, if you will.  On the face of it, it may seem when faced with doubts he smoothly lost faith, or whatever you want to call it, but I do't think that makes it easy. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott said:

I just don't think anyone withers very easily at all. Indeed, it seems it took quite a personal toll on Mattson--quite an internal difficult battle, if you will. On the face of it, it may seem when faced with doubts he smoothly lost faith, or whatever you want to call it, but I do't think that makes it easy.

What I meant was there seems to have been comparatively little resistance on his part to loss of faith when he encountered what he said are troubling issues.

In using the word "withered" I have in mind the parable of the sower and its illustration of the various states of the soil into which the seed of the gospel was cast.

Dan Peterson's point is well taken that the things that bothered Mattsson and others have been well known for a long time to a lot of good and intelligent men and women who have never been thrown into a faith crisis by a knowledge of them.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

Scott said: 

 

 

 

 

I just don't think anyone withers very easily at all.  Indeed, it seems it took quite a personal toll on Mattson--quite an internal difficult battle, if you will.  On the face of it, it may seem when faced with doubts he smoothly lost faith, or whatever you want to call it, but I do't think that makes it easy. 

 

Yes, I found that a rather uncharitable accusation

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, I found that a rather uncharitable accusation

An observation, not an accusation.

And no more uncharitable than the Savior's parable of the sower, which I cited in my follow-up post.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

I never said sinning was an illegitimate reason to leave. While I don't judge a person for the reason they choose to leave or stop believing, IMHO intellectual/philosophical/historical reasons are the most valid or legitimate.

I disagree. I doubt the reasons really matter at all.

[stemelbow]

What I meant was there seems to have been comparatively little resistance on his part to loss of faith when he encountered what he said are troubling issues.

In using the word "withered" I have in mind the parable of the sower and its illustration of the various states of the soil into which the seed of the gospel was cast.

Dan Peterson's point is well taken that the things that bothered Mattsson and others have been well known for a long time to a lot of good and intelligent men and women who have never been thrown into a faith crisis by a knowledge of them.

 

 

I see what you mean.  I can agree.

[stemelbow]

I disagree. I doubt the reasons really matter at all.

 

Doubt is sin, The Nehor. 

[Senator]

An observation, not an accusation.

 

 

It was a rather judgmental observation.

 

 

 

 

 

I know, I know.....just like my retort to you.......

[The Nehor]

Doubt is sin, The Nehor.

Then I am the greatest of sinners as I also doubt that I will be attacked by marauding goblins on the way home from work today. I also doubt that I will experience the Second Comforter when I get home. I also doubt that I will come home and find that my home is now made of chocolate.