"doubt Your Doubts Before You Doubt Your Faith"

[Palerider]

 

Ah, ok.  Yes, I do accept the existence of revelation from God.  I'm Orthodox, so naturally I believe the fullness of revelation is God's self-revelation in Christ.  Once accomplished, nothing else needed for salvation needed to be revealed.  That doesn't exclude personal revelation, aka experience of the divine presence leading to theosis.   All to be accomplished from within Holy Tradition, however, as exemplified by the saints.

 

This actually lines up pretty well with the Savior's teaching to the rich man in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.

When he states that (paraphrased), if they don't believe Moses and the prophets, they won't believe even if one was sent to them from the dead.

The only way someone could have believed Moses and the prophets was to have read the scriptures that existed at that time, for Moses was long passed on. Sending a living spirit/individual with experiential information wasn't going to help.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Palerider

[Brian 2.0]

are we still talking about doubts here?

[mfbukowski]

I started crying when he said "my friends"....there is such a total commitment to loving others in him.

I was in a meeting of perhaps 500 temple workers in the LA temple a few months back in which he spoke, and it was obvious that the numbers were too great for him to shake hands with everyone, so he extended his arms and said that he wanted each of us to feel as if he hugged each of us individually, because that was what he wanted to do, but could not because of the numbers.

 

The tears were streaming from virtually everyone.  It was one of the most spiritual meetings I have ever attended, and that was the spiritual highlight.  The feeling of love just poured over everyone and engulfed us.

[ChristKnight]

Ah, ok.  Yes, I do accept the existence of revelation from God.  I'm Orthodox, so naturally I believe the fullness of revelation is God's self-revelation in Christ.  Once accomplished, nothing else needed for salvation needed to be revealed.  That doesn't exclude personal revelation, aka experience of the divine presence leading to theosis.   All to be accomplished from within Holy Tradition, however, as exemplified by the saints. 

 

Yes, both Catholics and Orthodox believe in an "ongoing revelation" of sorts, where God continues to speak to His children (and never stopped), visitations from Heavenly entities have continued, and the revelation that is said to have been completed is that which is necessary for salvation, which has already been revealed, most especially in the revelation of Christ Himself.  I'm glad to have come to a better understanding of how the ancient churches understand revelation .

[Calm]

Talk here:

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

[DBMormon]

With this talk by Elder Uchtdorf and Elder Holland's at the last conference, we have moved from a "I Know" rhetoric to a "I believe, hope, have faith" and that's enough to be active, worthy, and participating.  Whereas before it felt like a second tier citizen.  You add to that the new curriculum coming on all levels along with the responses to tough issues that is forthcoming and I think we will have the general frustration by doubters within grasp of it subsiding.   I won't say the problem is licked and of course rhetoric like Pres. Uchtdorf's and Elder Holland's must continue, but I see those talks and the other stuff about to happen as being a giant leap at allowing people to remain while struggling and to allow them to begin asking tough questions without being told to get in line and knock it off.

[Tacenda]

I agree, and I need to mention the interview you had with Richard Bushman on your Mormon Discussions Podcast, which seems to disagree or maybe agree, with the premise to doubt your doubt. R. Bushman said, IOW's, we all must doubt first to then come to a faith in. Atleast that's how I took it. In other words, not know without determining first with knowledge, looking at everything in the church possible. I believe Bro. Bushman believes some truth in church history is useful, to counteract Bro. Packard's statement to CES faculty, not all truth is useful, or along those lines.

And I am in agreement to his comment DB, that your podcasts help that along as do open conversations in GD classes, he used the example of a discussion on porn, recently had in a GD class.

And kudos DB. I'm thinking back a year or two ago, when some on this board were not too forgiving of the openness of your doubt at the time, haha.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Tacenda

[WmLaw]

I agree, and I need to mention the interview you had with Richard Bushman on your Mormon Discussions Podcast, which seems to disagree or maybe agree, with the premise to doubt your doubt. R. Bushman said, IOW's, we all must doubt first to then come to a faith in. Atleast that's how I took it. In other words, not know without determining first with knowledge, looking at everything in the church possible. I believe Bro. Bushman believes some truth in church history is useful, to counteract Bro. Packard's statement to CES faculty, not all truth is useful, or along those lines.

And I am in agreement to his comment DB, that your podcasts help that along as do open conversations in GD classes, he used the example of a discussion on porn, recently had in a GD class.

And kudos DB. I'm thinking back a year or two ago, when some on this board were not too forgiving of the openness of your doubt at the time, haha.

How would I find this podcast that you mentioned?

[Tacenda]

How would I find this podcast that you mentioned?

Look at several threads down at "Faith Crisis, Apologetics, and Podcasts". I wish I could link, my computer is still not fixed, using my mobile.

[DBMormon]

I agree, and I need to mention the interview you had with Richard Bushman on your Mormon Discussions Podcast, which seems to disagree or maybe agree, with the premise to doubt your doubt. R. Bushman said, IOW's, we all must doubt first to then come to a faith in. Atleast that's how I took it. In other words, not know without determining first with knowledge, looking at everything in the church possible. I believe Bro. Bushman believes some truth in church history is useful, to counteract Bro. Packard's statement to CES faculty, not all truth is useful, or along those lines.

And I am in agreement to his comment DB, that your podcasts help that along as do open conversations in GD classes, he used the example of a discussion on porn, recently had in a GD class.

And kudos DB. I'm thinking back a year or two ago, when some on this board were not too forgiving of the openness of your doubt at the time, haha.

 

Thanks Tacenda, I have always been upfront and tried to be genuine.  I knew then many were hurting like me, and no one was addressing us the way we needed.  Now we have Bushman, Givens, Elder Holland, Pres. Uchtdorf, Mike Ash's "shaken faith syndrome", Marlin Jensen and his comments, and a lot already here or coming from the Church as an instituion.  It is getting better.  We can't stop here, we need to keep impressing people with this rhetoric but it is happening and I am confident, Faith Crisis as we see it today will be a much smaller issue in 10 years. 

 

It still bothers me to this day that in my first thread here  - http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57504-thoughts-on-church-history-theology-and-faith-crisis/

 

That many accuse me of being a troll, an anti-mormon.  They were harsh and accused falsely.  Some have said sorry, and a few continue to jump at me any chance they get, and most simply said nothing. some have been kicked off and others have resigned.... and returned.  So be it. When it comes to religious issues There are zealots on both sides of the isle and the most dangerous place is to stand between them.

Edited October 9, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

How would I find this podcast that you mentioned?

http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com

[Scott Lloyd]

Talk here:

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

I notice that on the statement that I selected as the title for this thread, President Uchtdorf has a footnote: "See F. F. Bosworth, Christ the Healer (1924), 23."

 

Is anyone here acquainted with this reference?

[CV75]

 "I Know" rhetoric

Now now, take a look at how often Elder Anserson said "We know..." compared with  the one time he said, “I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.” And then went on to say, "When we speak of the priesthood, there are many things we do know."

 

To say we know something of a doctrine or principle is not rhetoric; it is an honest assertion of  a truth we have beocme aware of through observation, inquiry, or information--especially from above.

[Spammer]

I've alread noted how helpful and encouraging I found Elder Uchtdorf's talk to be.  There's still more that needs to be done.  His efforts to educate church members that think people who leave were offended, lazy, or sinful need to be expanded to include judgements about people who seek but don't obtain a testimony.  Too often Moroni 10:3-5 is used as a measuring stick to judge whether someone is sincere in the effort.  There are many who prayed in faith with real intent and did not get the promised answer.  Besides taking offense, laziness, and sinfulness, Pres. Uchtdorf's list of inappropriate inferences church members make needs to include lacking faith, lacking real intent, and lacking sincerity.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've alread noted how helpful and encouraging I found Elder Uchtdorf's talk to be.  There's still more that needs to be done.  His efforts to educate church members that think people who leave were offended, lazy, or sinful need to be expanded to include judgements about people who seek but don't obtain a testimony.  Too often Moroni 10:3-5 is used as a measuring stick to judge whether someone is sincere in the effort.  There are many who prayed in faith with real intent and did not get the promised answer.  Besides taking offense, laziness, and sinfulness, Pres. Uchtdorf's list of inappropriate inferences church members make needs to include lacking faith, lacking real intent, and lacking sincerity.

You are probably right. I am sure we will hear more on this.

[Calm]

I notice that on the statement that I selected as the title for this thread, President Uchtdorf has a footnote: "See F. F. Bosworth, Christ the Healer (1924), 23."

 

Is anyone here acquainted with this reference?

I have been told the reference is:

 

"Don't doubt your faith; doubt your doubts, for they are unreliable."

 

There are a number of versions out there such as "doubt your doubts and feed your faith", "doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs".

 

Here is a link to the book:

 

http://tinyurl.com/kaajz65

Edited October 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I notice that on the statement that I selected as the title for this thread, President Uchtdorf has a footnote: "See F. F. Bosworth, Christ the Healer (1924), 23."

 

Is anyone here acquainted with this reference?

Available online here:

http://hopefaithprayer.com/books/Christ_the_Healer_FFBosworth.pdf

 

 

After you have planted your seed, you believe it is growing before you see it grow. This is faith that is "the evidence of things not seen." In Christ we have perfect evidence for faith. Any man or woman can get rid of his or her doubts by looking steadfastly and only at the evidence that God has given for our faith. Seeing only what God says will produce and increase faith. This will make it easier to believe than to doubt. The evidences for faith

are so much stronger than those for doubting. Don't doubt your faith; doubt your doubts, for they are unreliable.

[jkwilliams]

If faith were reliable, it wouldn't really be faith anymore, would it? Not trying to be critical, but that really doesn't make sense to me.

[CV75]

If faith were reliable, it wouldn't really be faith anymore, would it?

How so? The object of faith (God) is reliable, so by His grace our faith in Him is reliable. He liberally gives us grace (and faith as well) on His terms, as we are willing to receive it.

Edited October 9, 2013 by CV75

[Calm]

If faith were reliable, it wouldn't really be faith anymore, would it?

We tend to have faith that our loved ones love us since we can't prove it by looking into their minds but just have to rely on indirect evidence.

 

Does this mean that our faith in love is unreliable?  

[jkwilliams]

We tend to have faith that our loved ones love us since we can't prove it by looking into their minds but just have to rely on indirect evidence.

 

Does this mean that our faith in love is unreliable?

It certainly can be.

[jwhitlock]

It still bothers me to this day that in my first thread here  - http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57504-thoughts-on-church-history-theology-and-faith-crisis/

 

That many accuse me of being a troll, an anti-mormon.  They were harsh and accused falsely.  Some have said sorry, and a few continue to jump at me any chance they get, and most simply said nothing. some have been kicked off and others have resigned.... and returned.  So be it. When it comes to religious issues There are zealots on both sides of the isle and the most dangerous place is to stand between them.

 

Interesting that you'd bring this up. The thread you referenced wasn't nearly as one-sided as you seem to infer here.

 

Sometimes doubters (not all of them) don't come across very well when they're expressing themselves. This can lead to conflict on both sides, with the doubter claiming that he is misunderstood, and those defending the church misinterpreting what they're trying to say - because of the way the doubter is expressing things.

 

In fairness, it's difficult in this particular situation not to come across as attacking or to feel like one is being attacked. It's compounded on this board by some who delight in getting in their digs against the church, and those who feel a need to defend against those digs. That sets the stage, so when a doubter shows up trying to express himself in what is perceived as a similar manner, confrontation occurs.

 

In any case, I'm glad to see that you've clarified your perspective and position over time. Some of the posters on that thread, who are normally rather patient in these types of things, seemed to be getting rather irked with how you were coming across.

[DBMormon]

Now now, take a look at how often Elder Anserson said "We know..." compared with  the one time he said, “I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.” And then went on to say, "When we speak of the priesthood, there are many things we do know."

 

To say we know something of a doctrine or principle is not rhetoric; it is an honest assertion of  a truth we have beocme aware of through observation, inquiry, or information--especially from above.

You misunderstand me.  By rhetoric, I don't mean negative.  It is simply the words one chooses to use to explain a issue.  I find the rhetoric is peak of to be quite positive.  Also what we know, I am not calling rhetoric but rather his willingness to also use the rhetoric of things we don't know.  I meant no knock at all on Elder Anderson, I appreciated and enjoyed his talk much.  Rhetoric in and of itself is not positive or negative and I intended a positive meaning to it and thought I conveyed that with my rhetoric

[DBMormon]

Interesting that you'd bring this up. The thread you referenced wasn't nearly as one-sided as you seem to infer here.

 

Sometimes doubters (not all of them) don't come across very well when they're expressing themselves. This can lead to conflict on both sides, with the doubter claiming that he is misunderstood, and those defending the church misinterpreting what they're trying to say - because of the way the doubter is expressing things.

 

In fairness, it's difficult in this particular situation not to come across as attacking or to feel like one is being attacked. It's compounded on this board by some who delight in getting in their digs against the church, and those who feel a need to defend against those digs. That sets the stage, so when a doubter shows up trying to express himself in what is perceived as a similar manner, confrontation occurs.

 

In any case, I'm glad to see that you've clarified your perspective and position over time. Some of the posters on that thread, who are normally rather patient in these types of things, seemed to be getting rather irked with how you were coming across.

I was in the midst of a faith crisis, I was angry, bitter,sarcastic, and frustrated........  I admit that.  The trouble is that some are unable to handle one in crisis who displays these emotions.  When such person truly needs empathy compassion and fellowship; some are only able to try to win the war of words.  It is also easier to decide one is the enmy rather then deal with a struggler in the place that they are. 

 

Also time gives clarity.  While there were 3-5 individuals who were too harsh.  More people were nice and compassionate then I thought when it was happening.  I had a lack of trust with the Church and it showed up in my lack of trust in communicating on that thread.  I read comments in that threa today that I then thought were rude and now i see love in some of those posts.

[jkwilliams]

I was in the midst of a faith crisis, I was angry, bitter,sarcastic, and frustrated........  I admit that.  The trouble is that some are unable to handle one in crisis who displays these emotions.  When such person truly needs empathy compassion and fellowship; some are only able to try to win the war of words.  It is also easier to decide one is the enmy rather then deal with a struggler in the place that they are. 

 

Also time gives clarity.  While there were 3-5 individuals who were too harsh.  More people were nice and compassionate then I thought when it was happening.  I had a lack of trust with the Church and it showed up in my lack of trust in communicating on that thread.  I read comments in that threa today that I then thought were rude and now i see love in some of those posts.

 

Anger and hurt are natural emotions when you feel your trust has been betrayed. I went through a period of maybe 2 years when I was hurt and angry, but it passed. The worst thing you can do is suppress what you're feeling in the mistaken belief that such emotions shouldn't be expressed. Get them out but in ways and places that are unlikely to do damage to your relationships with loved ones, and then move on. But one thing I learned is that you can't expect sympathy from people who don't feel what you're feeling, especially if the focus of your emotion is something they believe in passionately.