How Prevalent Are Serious Doubters In The Lds Church

[stemelbow]

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.

 

All gateways to doubting the BoM is historical.  Things will only go down hill after that.

[ERayR]

 I'm grateful that the tent is widening to hold members like me, IOW, feeling the love.               

 

Tacenda in my 70 + years the tent has always been there for "members like me you".  The love has always been there else I wouldn't be here now.  No matter how wide the tent, no matter how much love it can not help one bit until those being offered to cease to bite the hand reaching out to them.  Then and only then can we come together.

[ERayR]

Doubt is sin, The Nehor. 

 

 

I don't agree.  Doubt is part of learning.

[stemelbow]

I don't agree.  Doubt is part of learning.

 

I agree with you.  I was just playing with the Nehor

[cinepro]

I don't agree.  Doubt is part of learning.

 

Can you find a single reference in any Church publication that presents "doubt" as anything other than bad and the antithesis of "faith"?

 

 

 

“Faith precedes the miracle. It has ever been so and shall ever be. It was not raining when Noah was commanded to build an ark. There was no visible ram in the thicket when Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac. Two heavenly personages were not yet seen when Joseph knelt and prayed. First came the test of faith–and then the miracle. Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other. Cast out doubt. Cultivate faith.”

President Monson

“The Call to Serve,” Ensign, Nov. 2000, 48–49.

Edited August 29, 2013 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

It was a rather judgmental observation.

 

 

 

 

I'm wondering what there is unrighteously judgmental about the observation that degree or intensity of faith differs from individual to individual, in drawing a rather obvious contrast in that regard between a Hans Mattsson and a Bruce R.McConkie, and in applying lessons from Christ's parable of the sower to real life events and circumstances.

 

As for charitableness, there is great charity in my heart (and more than a little personal identification) as I consider, say, the account in Mark of the man's plaintive cry to Jesus, "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief" (Mark 9:24).

Edited August 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Can you find a single reference in any Church publication that presents "doubt" as anything other than bad and the antithesis of "faith"?

 

 

 

It's true that there are scriptural phrases such as "be not faithless but be believing." But these seem to be not by way of condemnation so much as admonition, exhortation and encouragement.

[ERayR]

 

Can you find a single reference in any Church publication that presents "doubt" as anything other than bad and the antithesis of "faith"?

 

 

 

 

Philippians 2:12 - Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

[Brian 2.0]

It seems that DOUBT is being view less and less as a negative these days, but I agree that has not historically or scripturally been the case.  Perhaps this is a good move to accomdate so many members that do doubt.

 

A move not unlike the church's historical moves to accomodate blacks, women, and gays.  Equal rights for doubters! 

Edited August 30, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems that DOUBT is being view less and less as a negative these days, but I agree that has not historically or scripturally been the case.  Perhaps this is a good move to accomdate so many members that do doubt.

 

A move not unlike the church's historical moves to accomodate blacks, women, and gays.  Equal rights for doubters! 

I sympathize to some degree with Cinepro's observation. It seems to me that doubt has never been regarded as a virtue to be pursued or cultivated, and I, for one, don't view it that way now. Rather it is a condition of mortality to be overcome through prayer, faith, fasting, study, pondering, etc.

[Calm]

Why can't we just let people tell their own stories? Perhaps its because the historical stuff feels judgmental?

I only urge caution when "their own stories" includes blaming others for their doubts or claims involve others that seem unlikely to me.  I think we should give the same benefit of doubt to the people those who leave blame as those who leave themselves.

[Calm]

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.

 

The problem with making that kind of judgement is that we appear to be toward the end of the process for him.  It might have seemed very different to us if we had been made aware of his issues closer to the beginning of them.  My understanding is that this was a process that took years where he read many books, many (most? I can't remember the list he gave) from a faithful POV.

Edited August 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[Brian 2.0]

I sympathize to some degree with Cinepro's observation. It seems to me that doubt has never been regarded as a virtue to be pursued or cultivated, and I, for one, don't view it that way now. Rather it is a condition of mortality to be overcome through prayer, faith, fasting, study, pondering, etc.

 

I don't know if I've ever heard of doubt being regarded as a virtue or something to be sought after... but just that if someone finds themselve doubting, it's not a time to panic and you are not "sinning."

 

While I was slightly jesting in my latest post, it is actually a lot like how the general stance of gays has gone in the church.  When I was growing up, "being gay" was a sin.  And now we it's been dissected a bit further and having "Same Sex Attraction" is NOT a sin, only acting on those attraction is.   Doubt is going much the same way.  I don't what the final steps will be... "Having doubts is fine, but wallowing in them is not"?  

Edited August 30, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[ERayR]

I sympathize to some degree with Cinepro's observation. It seems to me that doubt has never been regarded as a virtue to be pursued or cultivated, and I, for one, don't view it that way now. Rather it is a condition of mortality to be overcome through prayer, faith, fasting, study, pondering, etc.

 

Doubt has not been a virtue but it is not the doubt itself that is bad but how one chooses to deal with it.

[Scott Lloyd]

For youth, the primary problems are social and economic issues.  Changing gender roles, female ordination, and especially gays.  Something like 75% of young adults in the US support SSM.  For church youth, the numbers are probably less, but not much.  That issue is a potential trainwreck.

 

I've been pondering this statement for a couple of days now.

 

It would be tragic indeed if we were to see a mass exodus of our youth from the Church because they could not abide the teachings of the Church on this topic. But are we in for a train wreck?

 

In my own youth I witnessed a great deal of societal foment with changing values regarding pre-marital or extra-marital sex. I wonder whether those who were born after the advent of the sexual revolution (beginning in the late '60s) can truly recognize or appreciate the contrast between then and now.

 

As for me, I clearly remember what it was like. Yes, there has long been rampant violation of the law of chastity, but until that time, it was not widely viewed as acceptable like it is today.

 

I suppose someone back then could have said the Church was facing a potential train wreck regarding its youth with the increasing tension between changing values of society and the Church's steadfastness. Forty years after the fact, I can say the train wreck never materialized. The laws and commandments of God remain what they are, and the faithful in the Church, young and old, continue to embrace them, regardless of what the world at large might say or do.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Doubt has not been a virtue but it is not the doubt itself that is bad but how one chooses to deal with it.

Indeed.

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem with making that kind of judgement is that we appear to be toward the end of the process for him.  It might have seemed very different to us if we had been made aware of his issues closer to the beginning of them.  My understanding is that this was a process that took years where he read many books, many (most? I can't remember the list he gave) from a faithful POV.

I still see a contrast between his experience and that of nearly every other individual I've personally known or encountered who has held a high Church calling. And I still agree with Daniel Peterson that differences in the way people deal with the same information seem to indicate that there is something else at play beyond a pure intellectual evaluation of the problematic issues.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Brian 2.0]

Doubt has not been a virtue but it is not the doubt itself that is bad but how one chooses to deal with it.

 

I agree.  And I think what happens next is where beleivers/doubters/apostates get in conflict.

 

If someone who is doubting continues to search/pray/study/etc and comes to the conclusion that they no longer believe... have they "dealt" with the doubt in the "wrong" way?

 

I think everyone agrees that "doubt happens" but if the doubter moves from doubt back to belief, he's seen as dealing with doubt the "right" way, and if he moves from doubt to disbelief, he's seen as dealing with doubt in the "wrong" way.  And the doubter doesn't like that accusation.  Is there no way to view both paths as valid or "right"?

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree.  And I think what happens next is where beleivers/doubters/apostates get in conflict.

 

If someone who is doubting continues to search/pray/study/etc and comes to the conclusion that they no longer believe... have they "dealt" with the doubt in the "wrong" way?

 

I think everyone agrees that "doubt happens" but if the doubter moves from doubt back to belief, he's seen as dealing with doubt the "right" way, and if he moves from doubt to disbelief, he's seen as dealing with doubt in the "wrong" way.  And the doubter doesn't like that accusation.  Is there no way to view both paths as valid or "right"?

Given what I said earlier, that doubt is not a virtue or a vice, but rather, a condition that must be overcome, if the individual moves from doubt to disbelief, I would say he has not yet overcome the condition, and I would hold out hope that he someday would do so.

[ERayR]

I agree.  And I think what happens next is where beleivers/doubters/apostates get in conflict.

 

If someone who is doubting continues to search/pray/study/etc and comes to the conclusion that they no longer believe... have they "dealt" with the doubt in the "wrong" way?

 

I think everyone agrees that "doubt happens" but if the doubter moves from doubt back to belief, he's seen as dealing with doubt the "right" way, and if he moves from doubt to disbelief, he's seen as dealing with doubt in the "wrong" way.  And the doubter doesn't like that accusation.  Is there no way to view both paths as valid or "right"?

 

What is the wrong way?  My vision of this mortal experience is that it is a time of sifting and choosing.  A time for each to fid where thay are most comfortable.  So to answer your question as I see it, it can only be wrong if they choose that which is contrary to thier nature.   If they will only be content in a terrestrial or telestial existance then it is not wrong,  If they will only be content in a celestial existance they are wrong.  It is all part of the testing and sifting.

[ERayR]

Given what I said earlier, that doubt is not a virtue or a vice, but rather, a condition that must be overcome, if the individual moves from doubt to disbelief, I would say he has not yet overcome the condition, and I would hold out hope that he someday would do so.

 

 

In my scenario the doubter may not want to overcome the doubt and is happy with that choice and it is OK.  If the doubter is not totally comfortable with the choice there is still some work to do.

[Brian 2.0]

What is the wrong way?  My vision of this mortal experience is that it is a time of sifting and choosing.  A time for each to fid where thay are most comfortable.  So to answer your question as I see it, it can only be wrong if they choose that which is contrary to thier nature.   If they will only be content in a terrestrial or telestial existance then it is not wrong,  If they will only be content in a celestial existance they are wrong.  It is all part of the testing and sifting.

 

But you admit you are declaring one "better" than the other, right?  The three kingdoms of glory aren't often taught as "different strokes for different folks" and of equal value.  

 

I can't "follow my nature" and still end up in kingdom where I can be with my wife forever if "my nature" pushes me towards disbelief in Joseph Smith or God.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Calm]

 And I still agree with Daniel Peterson that differences in the way people deal with the same information seem to indicate that there is something else at play beyond a pure intellectual evaluation of the problematic issues.

I would totally agree.  There is just too many people who know the same stuff that have remained believers and even become stronger believers to not lend support to it being a more complicated picture than many present it as (knowledge vs. ignorance).

 

I would love to do a long range study of members, their current state of beliefs, upbringing and environment and a whole lot of other variables that occur in life and see who ends up staying in the faith and who leaves.  The subject fascinates me from a psychological POV and I feel it important to learn for supporting fellow Saints as well.  I wouldn't be surprised to find that Church has done something like this in hopes of determining how best to support the members in their faith.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I only urge caution when "their own stories" includes blaming others for their doubts or claims involve others that seem unlikely to me. I think we should give the same benefit of doubt to the people those who leave blame as those who leave themselves.

Completely agree!

[Hamba Tuhan]

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?

 

I have frequently expressed that anyone who has experienced what I have experienced would have to be either evil or mad to choose to leave the Church. No doubt a handful of apostates fall into one or both of those categories, but I don't think very many do. Consequently, I've been forced to conclude that most of those who actively apostatise must not have had the same experiences as I have had and continue to have. (Of a necessity one must continue having such experiences if one is to avoid earlier experiences fading into the dim fog of spiritual amnesia -- perhaps the most common route out of active participation though not necessarily into apostasy.)

 

On this point, I'm reminded of the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith himself: 'I don’t blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself'.

 

Of course, this conclusion merely pushes the question out one ring further: How is it possible for some to be active Church members yet never experience the things that should accompany their membership and participation? To which I have a tentative answer, though I fear that those who tragically choose to disassociate themselves over 'intellectual issues' wouldn't find it any less 'judgemental'.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan