"doubt Your Doubts Before You Doubt Your Faith"

[jkwilliams]

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-

 

I guess I don't see the church as being equal to Christ.

[wenglund]

I guess I don't see the church as being equal to Christ.

 

I am sure I don't--not that this is necessarily pertinent to what I have said.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

I am sure I don't--not that this is necessarily pertinent to what I have said.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You seemed to suggest that being true to Christ requires refraining from homosexual behavior. I know a number of Christians who would disagree.

[Palerider]

 

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.

 

 

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-

 

Unfortunately I think we're talking about something a little bigger than a few wayward comments here.

I have fundamental problems with some things most members see as "good" things. For instance the temple.

I've been temple worthy for the past 36 years so my not being able to attend isn't a part of this arguement.

The issue is that I see no evidence in the Savior's preaching in the New Testament for any esoteric construct that gives special blessings to members that qualify through a measurement of righteousness imposed by man.

It has problems on two distinct levels.

1. Man cannot (and should not) attempt to measure righteousness. Only God can do that with equanimity and infallibility.

2.The esoteric construct of temple endowments and sealings keeps (supposed) blessings from members who may be doing their best to love the Lord. For instance, today in the talk preceding Thomas Monson's, the speaker iterated that there are some challenges that we will fight for our entire lives without overcoming. To me that might include something like alcoholism. Yet an "off the wagon" alcoholic, no matter how hard he tries will never qualify for a temple recommend. So he is restricted by virtue of something over which he may have no power.

This unwarranted and unscriptural tendency towards gnosticism in the church is only heightened by the introduction of something like the "second anointing", that is supposedly coming back into vogue as of lately.

I just don't see these pseudo-ordinances as having place in the true Gospel of Christ. It sort of belies the "plain and simple" things that Nephi bemoaned the loss of and speaks to an evolution of eliteism within the Mormon faith.

Yeah.....I got problems with this stuff.......

Edited October 7, 2013 by Palerider

[ERayR]

You seemed to suggest that being true to Christ requires refraining from homosexual behavior. I know a number of Christians who would disagree.

 

I do too but I rather tend to go with the direction from God.

[jkwilliams]

I do too but I rather tend to go with the direction from God.

 

Depends on what you think the direction is from God.

[Lady_Lullaby]

Doubt is always an element of faith, as faith ceases to be faith when there is no longer doubt. Years ago I heard President Eyring say that too often we considered a questioning mind a negative thing, but we ought to see it more as a desire for knowledge and understanding.

So, yes, in my view doubt is not only a virtue but is a necessity. Others, such as President Monson, clearly disagree with me.

 

I highly recommend the book: "Holding Fast: Dealing with Doubt in the Latter Days" by Robert Millet.  He makes it clear that questioning is natural but that there is a responsible way of questioning.  I enjoyed it and it helped me have greater patience, compassion and understanding for my husband who admits his own difficulties with the idea of faith.

[jkwilliams]

I highly recommend the book: "Holding Fast: Dealing with Doubt in the Latter Days" by Robert Millet.  He makes it clear that questioning is natural but that there is a responsible way of questioning.  I enjoyed it and it helped me have greater patience, compassion and understanding for my husband who admits his own difficulties with the idea of faith.

 

I have that book and have read it.

[Lady_Lullaby]

President Uchdorf has been on a roll with giving great talks lately.  There was a lot I like about this one.  It was a breath of fresh air to hear him speak to the fact that people leave the church for various reasons other than being lazy, sinful, or being offended. 

Amen and Amen.  

[Glenn101]

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?

 

But what if "being true to yourself" means being the hail fellow well met drinking buddy?

 

Glenn

[ERayR]

I guess I don't see the church as being equal to Christ.

 

I  am sure you don't but to those of us who see the Prophet(s) as being Gods spokes men It is quite close.

[ERayR]

Depends on what you think the direction is from God.

 

Yes it does but that is a choice each must make for themselves.

[wenglund]

You seemed to suggest that being true to Christ requires refraining from homosexual behavior. I know a number of Christians who would disagree.

 

There are also a number of Christian who would disagree that being true to Christ requires not having sex outside the bonds of marriage. There may be some Christians who believe that incest isn't inconsistent with Christ-like living. Some Christian may not view shirking parental responsibility as necessarily un-Christ-like. I suspect that there isn't a moral code that isn't disputed somewhere or at some time within Christianity. In fact, the scriptures prophesy that such will happen (I have in mind the passages in Timothy that were quoted during GC).

 

The point, to me, isn't what this and that Christian may or may not believe is consistent with Christ-like living, but, as MFB intimated, the results of their respective beliefs--i.e. do the beliefs draw one closer to Christ or distance one from him. Ultimately, I will leave that judgment between Christ and each individual, though I also feel at liberty to express my perception of things from my LDS point of view, while granting to others the same right.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 7, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Unfortunately I think we're talking about something a little bigger than a few wayward comments here.

I have fundamental problems with some things most members see as "good" things. For instance the temple.

I've been temple worthy for the past 36 years so my not being able to attend isn't a part of this arguement.

The issue is that I see no evidence in the Savior's preaching in the New Testament for any esoteric construct that gives special blessings to members that qualify through a measurement of righteousness imposed by man.

It has problems on two distinct levels.

1. Man cannot (and should not) attempt to measure righteousness. Only God can do that with equanimity and infallibility.

2.The esoteric construct of temple endowments and sealings keeps (supposed) blessings from members who may be doing their best to love the Lord. For instance, today in the talk preceding Thomas Monson's, the speaker iterated that there are some challenges that we will fight for our entire lives without overcoming. To me that might include something like alcoholism. Yet an "off the wagon" alcoholic, no matter how hard he tries will never qualify for a temple recommend. So he is restricted by virtue of something over which he may have no power.

This unwarranted and unscriptural tendency towards gnosticism in the church is only heightened by the introduction of something like the "second anointing", that is supposedly coming back into vogue as of lately.

I just don't see these pseudo-ordinances as having place in the true Gospel of Christ. It sort of belies the "plain and simple" things that Nephi bemoaned the loss of and speaks to an evolution of eliteism within the Mormon faith.

Yeah.....I got problems with this stuff.......

 

Aside from this being tangential, I have no wish to try and talk you out of your big problems with this big stuff. You are welcome to them. Rather, I simply wish to point out that your big problems underscore what my point. You seem all concerned about being right about the alleged un-scriptural nature of temple interviews and worship, rather than focusing on the good or bad results of each. Your's is, as MFB indicated, a fundamentalist approach, and you are free to chose it. Just be aware that there are other approaches--approaches that may enhance rather than detract us from becoming like Christ.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lady_Lullaby]

I thought the thread was about the quote in the OP about how you should doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith, but apparently I am mistaken.

 

Watching the talk, my response as an intransigent apostate is that I appreciate the counsel from President Uchtdorf against assuming people leave because they want to sin or have chosen to follow Satan; that a leader of the church would extend that kindness and willingness to understand to someone like me touched me deeply. I hope very much that his expression of compassion and understanding will be embraced more broadly.So much misunderstanding and hard feelings could be avoided on all sides. 

 

I so deeply agree.  I had a conversation about this very thing with my mother a couple of weeks ago in regards to my husband's feelings regarding faith and the church.  She admitted that in times past she used to believe someone had to be sinning to leave the church, but that she is learning that isn't always true.  I'm guessing she and my dad enjoyed hearing this message from an authority since it will give them assurance.  I've believed it without hearing the authorities say it, but I'm grateful it's been said so others can hopefully let this sink in.

[Glenn101]

My thoughts on doubts keep leading me back to this refrain, Who is on the Lord's side?" That is my overriding concern, to be on the Lord's side. There is too much at stake, too much riding on my decisions to toss out the spiritual experiences I have when faced with possible or supposed mistakes made by leaders current or in times past.

 

I just want to make sure I am on the Lord's side. That, to me, is the bottom line.

 

Glenn

[Palerider]

 

Aside from this being tangential, I have no wish to try and talk you out of your big problems with this big stuff. You are welcome to them. Rather, I simply wish to point out that your big problems underscore what my point. You seem all concerned about being right about the alleged un-scriptural nature of temple interviews and worship, rather than focusing on the good or bad results of each. Your's is, as MFB indicated, a fundamentalist approach, and you are free to chose it. Just be aware that there are other approaches--approaches that may enhance rather than detract us from becoming like Christ.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But I see that approach as being one established by the church's paradigm, not mine. Even today in his talk, Uchtdorf was careful to say the church needs a diversity of people, but he wasn't neccesarily saying a diversity in approach to doctrine or criteria for receiving the "blessings" of the temple, etc.

In my experience the approach has always been, "you may speak your mind privately, but in the end just get in line and shut up publicly". So the church needs to take responsibility for establishing the "fundamental approach" and, if they want to change it, they need to state it from the pulpit so we can all relax a little.

On a cautionary note regarding what some people think is "good", the Savior was adamant that there were "Many [who] will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matt. 7:22-23

I'd hate to see people who were going along THINKING they were doing great things, get a rude wake-up call in the end.

John 4:24 says that worshipers "must worship [God] in spirit and truth", so the question becomes, "is doing something just because it seems too be "good", and one gets warm fuzzies from it, a reason to believe that God approves?"

I've always had a little bit of a problem with that scripture in the BofM that says if something leads you to do good then it is of God, if something leads you to do evil, it's of the devil (paraphrased).

To me, that leaves "good" as a subjective value.

How about we say, "God establishes what is "good" and what is "evil" and we abide by what God says.....?"

Edited October 7, 2013 by Palerider

[Lady_Lullaby]

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 think my husband is in a bit similar position.  He is still attending church with me and our children but he has told me he doesn't know if he believes in God.  He has a hard time acting on something that is a feeling.  He has a hard time deciding to have faith, because what is that really?  He has talked to me about the faith-gene etc.  He grew up in the church, served a mission, we were married in the temple, but he said he is tired of waiting to 'know' and that he just doesn't feel like he'll ever be like members of the church who fully accept and are at home in the church.  He is highly introverted and very logically minded.  The Church is a very social environment and tends to be heavy on the feely-side in many settings.  I know it is not the easiest environment for him to say the least.  He believes nobody can really know unless they see God and that if God is real, He knows him and will understand him as he is because he made him.  He said he is basically a Mormon agnostic.  He is keeping the commandemnts in every way but tithing.  He stopped paying 2 years ago when he had shared his feelings with me and said it feels like giving money to an organization, not to God, and he would like to use his money towards savings and other goals.

 

I feel I live in a weird space in the church.  I believe their doctrines, I have a testimony of Christ, I attend the temple and pay my own tithing out of my tiny earnings, but I'm not in the same immoveable, undoubting, always sure sort of place I was when I was younger.  From the outside, it probably appears to everyone that we are the Morman-Norman hehe (made that up=normal LDS) type of family.  My dear husband attends with me because he doesn't want us to experience the feeling of being abnormal living here in UT.  It is such a selfless sacrifice on his part to give this service to me and my girls.  I know we are the only reason he goes.  I'm guessing we might also be the only reason he prays and stays in the room for Family Night etc.  I know he doesn't really believe it all anymore, or at least struggles to believe it. He said after telling me how he felt that he know it would be a big deal for me because he'd never vocalized it to me fully, but that it was a relief to him to not feel like he had to keep pretending anymore.  Perhaps some people in the church would jump to the conclusion that he must just be lazy or in sin to have been an active member before but now someone who doesn't accept callings or pay his tithing, but it was such a comfort to have this contradicted at the pulpit by Elder Uchdorf.  I don't fully know everything my husband wrestles with internally when it comes to faith and membership and activity in the church.  But I do know that I love him with all my heart and I told him, maybe when we were first married and I was a 'baby' in life, if he had told me then, I might have made a different choice, but not now.  I don't just love him because he had a check mark on the list of Mormon Marriage Material (lol), I love him for him, I choose him for him - doubts, weaknesses and all.  

 

So, Brian, I believe that you are brave and good in your questions and considerations, you want to have integrity and not false. I honor that. There is room for you in the church, of course there is.  You are not obligated to share your every thought with everyone.  Yes, people will make assumptions about what you believe.  But people make assumptions about everything wherever we go and I'm guessing if someone flat out asked you what you believe, you'd be comfortable sharing an honest answer.  All of us are all in different places regarding testimony to each and every principle, doctrine, and standard of the church.  We hopefully can do better at accepting everyone where they are and really live up to our claim to be Christians - those who will and do love their fellow man.  I hope you continue to feel at home in church/the culture.  I hope you find people who you can confide in and trust and feel of their love.  I'm happy to discuss this in messages further if you wanted as well.  It is nice to find this forum - to find others who have 'left the bubble' but don't fit the stereotypes of what those in the bubble said those outside the bubble are like!  hehe 

 

 

[Lady_Lullaby]

I have that book and have read it.

 

 

Alrighty then!    He stated his opinions as fact at times, but all in all, I found it good food for thought.

[wenglund]

But I see that approach as being one established by the church's paradigm, not mine. Even today in his talk, Uchtdorf was careful to say the church needs a diversity of people, but he wasn't neccesarily saying a diversity in approach to doctrine or criteria for receiving the "blessings" of the temple, etc.

 

Quite the contrary. You described the diversity within the Church, yourself (i.e. so-called elitism vs non-elitism), and rejected it.

 

The Church's paradigm is rife with diversity, arrayed along the spectrum of progression, with divergent approaches for different points along the array.  The church gives milk to those who can only ingest milk, and it later gives meat to those who can eat meat. It teaches fundamentalistically (i.e. in terms of right and wrong) to those who are in the fundamental stages of development, and it teaches esoterically (what is good and which betters mankind vs what is bad and damnable) to those in mature stages of development, and points in-between. It teaches linearly and literalistically to the young in the gospel (i.e. via Sunday School lessons and the like), and it teaches globally and symbolically to the adults (via the temple). It gives the lower laws (laws of carnal commandment) and lower priesthoods, and lower rituals and covenants to those at an Old Testament level of development, and it gives higher laws and priesthood and rituals and covenants to those at a New Testament level of development, It builds upon the somewhat objective by finding great value and advantage in the subjective.

 

So, no, there isn't just the one approach established by the Church's paradigm. there is diversity of starting and ending points and points in-between. The one approach is but all that you evident see and will accept and think is "right." It is precisely your's. You are stuck in fundamentalism, and wont have anything but fundamentalism, and this has created big problems for you in how you view the Church. And, that is your choice, if you wish and think that is best..

 

Again, I am not trying to get you to change. I am simply positing a different approach, one that isn't focused on whose right or wrong (though right and wrong may still be important), but focused on who is coming unto Christ and progressing in him.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 7, 2013 by wenglund

[Palerider]

 

I think my husband is in a bit similar position.  He is still attending church with me and our children but he has told me he doesn't know if he believes in God.  He has a hard time acting on something that is a feeling.  He has a hard time deciding to have faith, because what is that really?  He has talked to me about the faith-gene etc.  He grew up in the church, served a mission, we were married in the temple, but he said he is tired of waiting to 'know' and that he just doesn't feel like he'll ever be like members of the church who fully accept and are at home in the church.  He is highly introverted and very logically minded.  The Church is a very social environment and tends to be heavy on the feely-side in many settings.  I know it is not the easiest environment for him to say the least.  He believes nobody can really know unless they see God and that if God is real, He knows him and will understand him as he is because he made him.  He said he is basically a Mormon agnostic.  He is keeping the commandemnts in every way but tithing.  He stopped paying 2 years ago when he had shared his feelings with me and said it feels like giving money to an organization, not to God, and he would like to use his money towards savings and other goals.

 

I feel I live in a weird space in the church.  I believe their doctrines, I have a testimony of Christ, I attend the temple and pay my own tithing out of my tiny earnings, but I'm not in the same immoveable, undoubting, always sure sort of place I was when I was younger.  From the outside, it probably appears to everyone that we are the Morman-Norman hehe (made that up=normal LDS) type of family.  My dear husband attends with me because he doesn't want us to experience the feeling of being abnormal living here in UT.  It is such a selfless sacrifice on his part to give this service to me and my girls.  I know we are the only reason he goes.  I'm guessing we might also be the only reason he prays and stays in the room for Family Night etc.  I know he doesn't really believe it all anymore, or at least struggles to believe it. He said after telling me how he felt that he know it would be a big deal for me because he'd never vocalized it to me fully, but that it was a relief to him to not feel like he had to keep pretending anymore.  Perhaps some people in the church would jump to the conclusion that he must just be lazy or in sin to have been an active member before but now someone who doesn't accept callings or pay his tithing, but it was such a comfort to have this contradicted at the pulpit by Elder Uchdorf.  I don't fully know everything my husband wrestles with internally when it comes to faith and membership and activity in the church.  But I do know that I love him with all my heart and I told him, maybe when we were first married and I was a 'baby' in life, if he had told me then, I might have made a different choice, but not now.  I don't just love him because he had a check mark on the list of Mormon Marriage Material (lol), I love him for him, I choose him for him - doubts, weaknesses and all.  

 

So, Brian, I believe that you are brave and good in your questions and considerations, you want to have integrity and not false. I honor that. There is room for you in the church, of course there is.  You are not obligated to share your every thought with everyone.  Yes, people will make assumptions about what you believe.  But people make assumptions about everything wherever we go and I'm guessing if someone flat out asked you what you believe, you'd be comfortable sharing an honest answer.  All of us are all in different places regarding testimony to each and every principle, doctrine, and standard of the church.  We hopefully can do better at accepting everyone where they are and really live up to our claim to be Christians - those who will and do love their fellow man.  I hope you continue to feel at home in church/the culture.  I hope you find people who you can confide in and trust and feel of their love.  I'm happy to discuss this in messages further if you wanted as well.  It is nice to find this forum - to find others who have 'left the bubble' but don't fit the stereotypes of what those in the bubble said those outside the bubble are like!  hehe 

Excellent observations. My wife was, for a time, exactly where you are now. She made the transition quite well when she could see that my lifestyle wasn't going to change.

Having had the chance to do the research herself, on her own timeline, we are actually quite close in how we view the church now.  

Edited October 7, 2013 by Palerider

[CMZ]

President Uchtdorf's talk is being universally acclaimed here, including among those who class themselves as doubters.

 

While that is a fine thing, we should beware lest we read into it an endorsement or even an acquiescence to the practice of sowing or nurturing seeds of doubt among the young, the recently converted, the distressed, or others whose faith is currently vulnerable or weak.

 

I don't believe that is what was intended here. Hence, the quote that I picked out as the title for this thread.

 

I also don't think President Uchtdorf intends for people to say, "Oh, finally a leader was nice. That's nice," and then have nothing change in their life. President Uchtdorf wants people to be active in the Church not so he can feel like he has control over them but because he wants them to have the blessings that come from that, first and foremost being a greater outpouring of the Spirit (no, I'm not saying non-members, less-actives, the disenfranchised, etc., can never feel the Spirit).

[Stargazer]

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-

 

Wade I tried to nav to your blog using the link in your sig, but it 404'd. 

[Palerider]

 

Quite the contrary. You described the diversity within the Church, yourself (i.e. so-called elitism vs non-elitism), and rejected it.

 

The Church's paradigm is rife with diversity, arrayed along the spectrum of progression, with divergent approaches for different points along the array.  The church gives milk to those who can only ingest milk, and it later gives meat to those who can eat meat. It teaches fundamentalistically (i.e. in terms of right and wrong) to those who are in the fundamental stages of development, and it teaches esoterically (what is good and which betters mankind vs what is bad and damnable) to those in mature stages of development, and points in-between. It teaches linearly and literalistically to the young in the gospel (i.e. via Sunday School lessons and the like), and it teaches globally and symbolically to the adults (via the temple). It gives the lower laws (laws of carnal commandment) and lower priesthoods, and lower rituals and covenants to those at an Old Testament level of development, and it gives higher laws and priesthood and rituals and covenants to those at a New Testament level of development, It builds upon the somewhat objective by finding great value and advantage in the subjective.

 

So, no, there isn't just the one approach established by the Church's paradigm. there is diversity of starting and ending points and points in-between. The one approach is but all that you evident see and will accept and think is "right." It is precisely your's. You are stuck in fundamentalism, and wont have anything but fundamentalism, and this has created big problems for you in how you view the Church. And, that is your choice, if you wish and think that is best..

 

Again, I am not trying to get you to change. I am simply positing a different approach, one that isn't focused on whose right or wrong (though right and wrong may still be important), but focused on who is coming unto Christ and progressing in him.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think we may be talking about two different things here. Feel free to give me your definition of "fundamental" if you like.

[CMZ]

So much of the discussion on this (whatever the take on it is) seems to center around, "Is the Church presenting good evidence of its truthfulness at the current moment? I'm not really sure what to believe, or maybe I've kind of made up my mind one way or the other. There's some historical stuff I don't like so, yeah, I don't really believe in the Church now. Sure it's a good social thing. I'll give it that."

 

All of this type of discussion to me is peripheral at best (NOT saying certain issues are unimportant, or "Your testimony will grow if you ignore certain things."). It's only looking at external things (however important they may be) with almost nil discussion of the inner, personal issues.

 

As a member of the Church one can operate in two different ways, and they are almost completely separate tracks of functioning. One is going through the motions, taking readings now and then of how "the Church" (as though it's a separate entity from you, as though every member of the Church except you IS the Church) is "treating" you, taking readings now and then of how the Church is perceived to be "treating" others, wavering with every time some new point is brought up (pro or con) on the historicity of the Book of Abraham, etc. You don't quite leave the Church but you listen to conference so you can point out why something wasn't quite good enough (not the case with all, I know) or to relent that maybe a GA actually made a good point, but somehow it's still not quite enough to convince you to be active, or more active, or active and believing.

 

The other track to take is when you take the Spirit for your guide. When you do this everything turns out different. You don't have a crisis of faith just because somebody else has a crisis (I recently had somebody ask me, "How come you haven't left the Church yet? Didn't you read that thing I sent you about how somebody else left because they found troubling information on the Internet?" as though that somebody else's decisions make my decisions). You don't shut yourself off to what different people are saying about the Book of Abraham, or polygamy, or gay marriage, or blacks and the Priesthood, or whatever, but you also have had the experience of having many questions answered in the past and you get used to that happening and you get comfortable with it because you see the process that is occurring. More importantly, you devote yourself to an intensive study of the scriptures and other inspired writings and you don't get bent out of shape because a particular manual might not mention a particular point. These are two distinct methods of functioning: one focused on the external things, and one actually building communion with the Spirit.

Edited October 7, 2013 by CMZ