"doubt Your Doubts Before You Doubt Your Faith"

[canard78]

And yet Elder Oaks's talk is every bit as important and needed as President Uchtdorf's.

 

I agree it was eloquent and masterful -- and it is destined to be quoted again and again.

 

If I can find something to 'like' about all of the talks... it's a reminder that even among 15 sustained prophets there can be such a diverse expression of belief and faith.

 

I was travelling during the Sunday morning broadcast (time zone differences) but I'll give it a listen later. I'm too happy in the warm and fuzzies of President Uchtdorf's talk (coupled with President Caussé one too) to be able to get railed by anything else that can easily be left for another day.

[Scott Lloyd]

If I can find something to 'like' about all of the talks... it's a reminder that even among 15 sustained prophets there can be such a diverse expression of belief and faith.

 

I was travelling during the Sunday morning broadcast (time zone differences) but I'll give it a listen later. I'm too happy in the warm and fuzzies of President Uchtdorf's talk (coupled with President Caussé one too) to be able to get railed by anything else that can easily be left for another day.

Hang on to the warm and fuzzies as long as you can. Don't be in a hurry to get back in the fray.

[wenglund]

It's a terrible choice: be true to yourself or lose your family.

 

Such is often the choice of heterosexual adulterers.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Hmmm. I've always been taught that you should be true to yourself, no matter the cost. If your friends required you to, say, drink with them, is there some point at which you should put your friends first and give in?

 

I was taught by secular culture to be true to yourself. Within the gospel I have been taught to lose yourself, and be true to Christ.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 6, 2013 by wenglund

[Scott Lloyd]

"Sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin."

 

Another direct and timely statement from conference, this one from the sermon of Elder Russell M. Nelson in the same vein as Elder Oaks's earlier talk.

[canard78]

Hang on to the warm and fuzzies as long as you can. Don't be in a hurry to get back in the fray.

Kevin's "Prophet and church paradigms" post a few months back was a huge influence on my willingness to accept that all members (including leaders) speak from a personal paradigm. Including me.

I like his perspectives and they contributed to my ability to not feel the need to "join the fray" every time I disagreed with something someone said.

Edited October 6, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

Any chance we could move the inevitable SSM discussion to a new thread? Seems a shame to spoil this one.

[Scott Lloyd]

Any chance we could move the inevitable SSM discussion to a new thread? Seems a shame to spoil this one.

I'd have no problem with that.

 

In fact, it wouldn't bother me if the inevitable SSM discussion failed to materialize.

[Scott Lloyd]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-top-mormon-leader-acknowledges-the-church-made-mistakes.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=print

 

A Top Mormon Leader Acknowledges the Church ‘Made Mistakes’ By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

One of the top leaders in the Mormon Church acknowledged in an address to the church’s global membership on Saturday that past leaders had “made mistakes” that had caused some Mormons to have doubts, an admission that amounts to a significant change in tone in the leadership’s approach to Mormons who question, dissent or defect from the church.

“We respect those who honestly search for truth,” President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, second counselor in the church’s top governing body, the first presidency, said in the speech.

The church has in the past excommunicated prominent scholars and even low-profile members who publicly voiced doubts about its history or theology, and many Mormons who have lost their faith have been shunned by their friends and family. But recently, with some Mormons taking to the Internet to share their doubts, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which now claims 15 million members, have been confronted with a bigger problem they could no longer ignore.

“We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of church history — along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable and divine events — there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question,” Mr. Uchtdorf said, speaking to 20,000 Mormons gathered for the 183rd semiannual general conference in Salt Lake City, and millions more watching telecasts and over the Internet.

On Saturday evening, about 200 women, according to The Associated Press, staged a demonstration outside to protest the church’s male-only priesthood, demanding entrance to a men’s-only priesthood meeting.

Mr. Uchtdorf, a Mormon from Germany who is considered by those who study the church to be a potentially modernizing influence, did not specify what leaders or mistakes he was referring to.

But he said: “To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.”

He said it was wrong for other Mormons to assume that those with doubts “have been offended or lazy or sinful.” He said that the church “honors personal agency,” and that the church’s first prophet, Joseph Smith, “had questions and sought answers.”

Scott Gordon, president of FAIRMormon, a group that defends the church, said: “I believe this is the clearest statement made in recent times that church leaders have made mistakes in the past. Coming from a member of the first presidency, the highest level of leadership in the church, makes it especially powerful.”

 

Interesting piece in the NYT.

Dan Peterson has a great take on this New York Times piece on his blog.

 

In short, the Times is heralding something that is not all that revolutionary.

[Helen47]

I found Oak's speech has some good points but his explanation of concern over drop in population growth, Maybe the low wages may preclude people from having children. Australia minimum wage is twice that of the US, Also a conservative party introduced a baby bonus for new babies (4000 dollars) and makes transfer payments until the child reaches 16. 

[gtaggart]

Loved President Uchtdorf's talk. On a related note, here's a favorite quote from Chauncey Riddle who used to teach philosophy at BYU:

 

“That’s one thing philosophy does for you.  It teaches you to take everything with a healthy dose of skepticism, including anything any human being says on any subject, anytime, anywhere.  Now some people are very willing to be skeptical of the President of the Church, but they’ll believe their doctor without asking a question.  That should be reversed.  The person we ought to be least skeptical of is the President of the Church, but I think we should even be skeptical there.  Now don’t misunderstand me when I say that: When I say skeptical, I mean we shouldn’t take what we think he’s saying at face value.  We should be skeptical of our interpretation of what he’s saying.  We should say, ‘Father, am I understanding what you really want me to understand from what [the Prophet] says?’  I think if we take that attitude and we’re skeptical about what we think he’s saying, we’ll be in closer touch with Heavenly Father, and that is the source of all good things.”

[wenglund]

I found Oak's speech has some good points but his explanation of concern over drop in population growth, Maybe the low wages may preclude people from having children. Australia minimum wage is twice that of the US, Also a conservative party introduced a baby bonus for new babies (4000 dollars) and makes transfer payments until the child reaches 16. 

 

If low wages precluded people from having babies, there wouldn't be the disturbing rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancies in the inner cities (see HERE).

 

Besides, while Australia's minimum wage may be higher than the U.S. (see HERE), their fertility rate is lower (1.77 as compared with 2.06--see HERE). So, there is an inverse relationship from the one you supposed.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Palerider]

 

Great talk.

 

And this is from one of those doubters who has left activity.

 

He hit on a lot of great points you don't often hear:

 

- He said the assumption of "sin, offended, and lazy" isn't always the case.  There are plenty of other reasons it could be

- There are things in church history that could cause people to question

- Leaders in the past have made mistakes and have been wrong

- Someones agency in searching for truth could take them out of the church and we (believers) need to respect that agency just as we (believers) ask people to respect member's agency to believe.

 

Some of those points have been made before, but Uchdorf said it all at once, very clearly.   Much appreciated.

 

And as for the "doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith" line.  It's good advice.  Don't be so quick to lose your faith.

 

I know I doubted by doubts for years without doubting my faith.  Eventually my search did lead me to doubting my faith, but I don't even see that path as violating the quote from Uchdorf.  

 

As for his urging to "stay a little longer" or "come back"  that's where I am at this point.  I do love the people, the culture (the good parts), and it's my heritage -- it's easy to feel "at home" with Mormons.  I don't actually believe any longer and it seems that Uchdorf is saying that even that's okay (obviously hoping I will get back to belief) saying "there's room for me."  

 

I do want to try "going back" while feeling like I'm being "honest" with myself.  I'm fine with people knowing where I stand, but I'm not going to go up in testimony meeting and say, "FYI, I'm pretty much an atheist right now, just so you know."  So I'm sort of at this middle ground where the bishop knows, but everyone else in the congregation assumes I'm full believer and talks to me assuming as much, and I just kind of nod and say, "yeah" ... and that disconnect is what makes me feel like I'm "playing a part" when I go to church.

 

 I don't know.  I guess everyone would eventually figure it out as time went on and realized I wasn't wearing garments, etc.  Curious if anyone on this board is in that same position.

 

I'm not going down the atheist path because of my experience with reading the new Testament and gaining a testimony of the Savior from that point of reference.

I would however be uncomfortable sitting on my hands in church because when somebody says something that I know isn't true, I have a tendency to speak up. Therefore to keep from becoming a thorn in the side of local leadership I choose to remove myself from activity.

Can't bring myself to do the painted on smile, nodding thing when confronted with falsehood.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Palerider

[CMZ]

I think better counsel would be to always question and doubt because you stop thinking and learning and growing the second you stop questioning and think you know. If faith is misplaced, it does not merit a privileged place above doubt.

 

I think most members go through this process intentionally or not. Accepting a principle now is not proof you've never doubted it before. Likewise, believing in a principle now is not proof that you haven't thought it through.

Edited October 6, 2013 by CMZ

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

That line just given by President Uchtdorf in the Saturday a.m. session has my vote for pithiest quote of the conference.

 

The entire talk is beautiful -- and especially timely.

Had I not already done this since a boy, I would not believe anything, this is just common sense to doubt our doubts first...problem is common sense in no longer common.

[wenglund]

 I'm not going down the athiest path because of my experience with reading the new Testament and gaining a testimony of the Savior from that point of reference.

I would however be uncomfortable sitting on my hands in church because when somebody says something that I know isn't true, I have a tendency to speak up. Therefore to keep from becoming a thorn in the side of local leadership I choose to remove myself from activity.

Can't bring myself to do the painted on smile, nodding thing when confronted with falsehood.

 

I can appreciate this. I used to feel the same way (as a believer).

 

However, I have since come to the opinion that the gospel is less about being right and more about becoming good and helping others to do likewise, and this by doing good and building good relationships, And, sometimes "being right" gets in the way of what I view the gospel is really about. It now matters less to me whether a person comments are "true" in my estimation, than whether their words and deeds edify and bring us closer together unto Christ.

 

So, rather than becoming a thorn in people's side through electing myself the arbiter of "truth" for everyone, I can now genuinely smile in appreciation of all the good going on around me, and through the smile, I become an uplifting rose instead of a thorn.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 6, 2013 by wenglund

[CMZ]

 

From Daniel Peterson: Of course, many Latter-day Saints have tended to place their leaders on pedestals that their leaders haven’t themselves claimed to occupy.  As the old joke goes, “The Catholic Church teaches that the pope is infallible, but no Catholic really believes it.  The Mormon Church teaches that its leaders are fallible, but no Mormon really believes it.”

 

 Perfect.

[jkwilliams]

I was taught by secular culture to be true to yourself. Within the gospel I have been taught to lose yourself, and be true to Christ.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Yes, I was thinking of this secular counsel:

 

Integrity is not governed by the presence of others. It is internally, not externally, driven. Elder Marion D. Hanks (1921–2011) of the Seventy told of the man and his small son who “stopped at an isolated cornfield on a remote country road” and eyed the delicious corn beyond the fence. The father, after looking in front of him, behind him, to the left of him, and to the right of him, “started to climb the fence” to take some ears of corn. His son looked at him and said reproachfully, “Dad, you forgot to look up.”⁷

In Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, Polonius says to his son Laertes:

 

To thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.

 

What wonderful counsel! We have a choice. We can either seize the moment and take control of our lives or become mere puppets to our environment and our peers. (Tad Callister, Ensign, Feb. 2013)

[Palerider]

 

I can appreciate this. I used to feel the same way (as a believer).

 

However, I have since come to the opinion that the gospel is less about being right and more about becoming good and helping others to do likewise, and this by doing good and building good relationships, And, sometimes "being right" gets in the way of what I view the gospel is really about. It now matters less to me whether a person comments are "true" in my estimation, than whether their words and deeds edify and bring us closer together unto Christ.

 

So, rather than becoming a thorn in people's side through electing myself the arbiter of "truth" for everyone, I can now genuinely smile in appreciation of all the good going on around me, and through the smile, I become an uplifting rose instead of a thorn.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think what you say has merit, but at some point truth has to bear sway. There have been a lot of bad things done in the past with good intentions that a little truth could have prevented. "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." must have meant quite a bit to the savior or he wouldn't have said it.

I don't set myself up as arbiter of truth, I just try to call em' as I see em'.....

[wenglund]

Yes, I was thinking of this secular counsel:

 

Undoubtedly, the counsel had in mind the religious notion of sexual proclivity rather than the secular principles of Christ-centered character. Context is so over-rated.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

Undoubtedly, the counsel had in mind the religious notion of sexual proclivity rather than the secular principles of Christ-centered character. Context is so over-rated.

 

That was my point: in the church, we are to be true to ourselves except when doing so conflicts with the gospel, hence the tough choice gays in the church face.

[Tiki]

Scott Gordon, president of FAIRMormon, a group that defends the church, said: “I believe this is the clearest statement made in recent times that church leaders have made mistakes in the past. Coming from a member of the first presidency, the highest level of leadership in the church, makes it especially powerful."

I'd have no problem with that.

 

In fact, it wouldn't bother me if the inevitable SSM discussion failed to materialize.

I'll never know why this is such a big deal for FAIRMormon, given Gordon's statement. Which is why I as a lifelong active member of the LDS Church, and a few years younger than Scott Lloyd, as Scott has revealed his mission years, ..which is why I have never been a fan of FAIR. I suspect FAIR will willy-nilly post it on its site and refer to it frequently when promoting the teachings of men, mingled with scripture. And I mean all those entries relating to science contradicting with scripture: evolution, a universal flood vs a local, location of the garden of Eden, bom geography, etc. etc. It'll be interesting to see how Brother Gordon uses it.

[wenglund]

I think what you say has merit, but at some point truth has to bear sway. There have been a lot of bad things done in the past with good intentions that a little truth could have prevented. "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." must have meant quite a bit to the savior or he wouldn't have said it...

 

Good point--though in the relatively few times since my mind has been refocused where I have faced such a situation to a meaningful extent (most have been relatively inconsequential), I have found it best not to address the rightness or wrongness of the comment, but rather explore how it may lead to bad things.

 

I don't set myself up as arbiter of truth, I just try to call em' as I see em'...

 

Okay. And, I respect your choice to stay away. Hopefully, you understand that I am not trying to talk you back into something you don't want to do. I am simply offering a plausible way to non-thorn-illy return if or when you so desire.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 7, 2013 by wenglund

[Tiki]

This quote by President Eyring in the Priesthood Session was powerful:

"Our human tendency is to be impatient with the person who cannot see the truth so plain to us. We must be careful that our impatience is not interpreted as condemnation or rejection."

Then he reminded us that Charity never faileth.

[wenglund]

That was my point: in the church, we are to be true to ourselves except when doing so conflicts with the gospel, hence the tough choice gays in the church face.

 

But, that wasn't my point. My point was about losing oneself and being true to Christ.

 

I may add that doing so makes the choice less tough for anyone with a propensity towards ungodliness.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-