Are Doubters Welcome

[LOSTONE]

I am not LDS / Mormon. I have talked to many who are and been to the church that is very close to my home. I was studying the LDS / Morons to better understand before I drew a conclusion. I didn’t want to be like a lot of people and make an ignorant judgment on what I’ve heard or without direct attempts to become informed. I was and still am a “Doubter” to a degree...However, I was never once made to feel like I was unwelcome by others in the church or the church. Even with my doubts expressed, I was always welcomed in and treated with respect and kindness. I can’t say this is how it works everywhere, but this is exactly how it worked with those I have come in contact with and the church I went to near my home. This is also how I have some Mormons as friends even when I am not one. Just my experience and I’m good with it.

[thesometimesaint]

So you're saying that doubts make someone unworthy because it means they don't have faith in Christ? I think many will agree with you but I would challenge this and the mere fact that there is diversity of opinion will mean there is diversity in practice. But could we agree that it would feel very unwelcoming to be worthy (orthoprax) yet not be permitted to fully participate? I would argue that one can be fully faithful to Christ while still having sincere doubts. In fact it may show greater strength to be faithful in the face of serious doubts than it would be to be faithful with a "knowledge" or firm belief in Christ and the truth claims of the church.

 

One of the requirements for being a member of the Church is faith in Christ. Without that all the rest is of no consequence.

[ERayR]

So you're saying that doubts make someone unworthy because it means they don't have faith in Christ? I think many will agree with you but I would challenge this and the mere fact that there is diversity of opinion will mean there is diversity in practice. But could we agree that it would feel very unwelcoming to be worthy (orthoprax) yet not be permitted to fully participate? I would argue that one can be fully faithful to Christ while still having sincere doubts. In fact it may show greater strength to be faithful in the face of serious doubts than it would be to be faithful with a "knowledge" or firm belief in Christ and the truth claims of the church.

 

It is not the doubts that cause unworthiness but what we do with them.

[Calm]

So you're saying that doubts make someone unworthy because it means they don't have faith in Christ? 

I dont see how you are getting these extreme positions from what people say.

 

If someone has significant doubts in the existence of Christ and does not know whether or not he even exists, do you think he can operate effectively using the Priesthood which is supposed to come from God?

 

Not all doubts have the same impact.  Some are significant, some aren't.  Grouping them altogether isn't paying attention to what is being said.

[bluebell]

So you're saying that doubts make someone unworthy because it means they don't have faith in Christ?

No, I'm not saying that.  I'm not sure how you got that from my post because i specifically said that it's not possible to make such a broad sweeping declaration.

 

I'll quote what i said exactly-

 

Can someone be worthy to exercise the priesthood if he doesn't believe in Christ and therefore cannot exercise faith in Him or the priesthood?

 

I think the answer to that probably depends on a lot of different factors and is best answered on a case by case basis by people who actual know the situation and are in a position to make such judgements."

 

And then i went to explain that my point is that we can't declare someone is 'worthy' to participate in ordinances of the gospel if they don't have faith in Christ or in the ordinance.  

 

They might be worthy and they might not but we can't pretend like faith doesn't matter to the extent that if someone has all the right actions we believe that is all that is necessary to know of them before we declare they are worthy to participate.  Doing so implies that faith does not matter in the least when performing these ordinances, and that's simply not true.

 

I would argue that one can be fully faithful to Christ while still having sincere doubts. In fact it may show greater strength to be faithful in the face of serious doubts than it would be to be faithful with a "knowledge" or firm belief in Christ and the truth claims of the church.

 

You said-But should a worthy priesthood holder, who has serious doubts about the power of the priesthood, be able to participate in priesthood ordinances

 

I agree that someone can be faithful to Christ without a testimony of the priesthood.  However, can someone exercise that priesthood in the name of Christ without having faith in the power they are trying to use?  As i said before, i don't know, but it's a necessary question to ask and really ponder when we find ourselves in a position where we HAVE to answer it.

[HappyJackWagon]

No, I'm not saying that.  I'm not sure how you got that from my post because i specifically said that it's not possible to make such a broad sweeping declaration.

 

I'll quote what i said exactly-

 

Can someone be worthy to exercise the priesthood if he doesn't believe in Christ and therefore cannot exercise faith in Him or the priesthood?

 

I think the answer to that probably depends on a lot of different factors and is best answered on a case by case basis by people who actual know the situation and are in a position to make such judgements."

 

And then i went to explain that my point is that we can't declare someone is 'worthy' to participate in ordinances of the gospel if they don't have faith in Christ or in the ordinance.  

 

They might be worthy and they might not but we can't pretend like faith doesn't matter to the extent that if someone has all the right actions we believe that is all that is necessary to know of them before we declare they are worthy to participate.  Doing so implies that faith does not matter in the least when performing these ordinances, and that's simply not true.

 

 

You said-But should a worthy priesthood holder, who has serious doubts about the power of the priesthood, be able to participate in priesthood ordinances

 

I agree that someone can be faithful to Christ without a testimony of the priesthood.  However, can someone exercise that priesthood in the name of Christ without having faith in the power they are trying to use?  As i said before, i don't know, but it's a necessary question to ask and really ponder when we find ourselves in a position where we HAVE to answer it.

If a person doesn't believe in the power yet acknowledges the authority of the priesthood within the church then I absolutely think someone could participate in things like an ordination, baby blessing, sacrament etc. They may believe they have authority because the church has authorized them to do it. In other words, one could believe in the authority (within the church) while not believing in the power of the priesthood.

 

And even if a person doubts Christ as the savior and redeemer, they can still exercise faith in Him.

[thesometimesaint]

If a person doesn't believe in the power yet acknowledges the authority of the priesthood within the church then I absolutely think someone could participate in things like an ordination, baby blessing, sacrament etc. They may believe they have authority because the church has authorized them to do it. In other words, one could believe in the authority (within the church) while not believing in the power of the priesthood.

 

And even if a person doubts Christ as the savior and redeemer, they can still exercise faith in Him.

 

That is oxymoronic.

[HappyJackWagon]

That is oxymoronic.

Why?

[bluebell]

If a person doesn't believe in the power yet acknowledges the authority of the priesthood within the church then I absolutely think someone could participate in things like an ordination, baby blessing, sacrament etc. They may believe they have authority because the church has authorized them to do it. In other words, one could believe in the authority (within the church) while not believing in the power of the priesthood.

 

And even if a person doubts Christ as the savior and redeemer, they can still exercise faith in Him.

 

That doesn't make any sense to me.  Maybe you could clarify?

[HappyJackWagon]

Someone could have severe doubts yet still hope for a certain truth and behave accordingly. They could maintain worthiness and act in a faithful way even if they don't believe. It's a difference between faith, being faithful, and hope. They are interconnected but not synonymous.

[smac97]

I just read this article on Wheat and Tares addressing the issue of whether or not Doubters are welcome in the church.

 

http://www.wheatandtares.org/15843/are-doubters-welcome/

 

 

What do you think? Are doubters really welcome at church or are they merely tolerated when necessary?

 

I think sinners of pretty much every stripe are welcome.  And since we're all sinners...

 

The problem arises when a sinner wants to come to Church and advocate for his/her sin.

 

An adulterer is welcome in the Church.  "They that be whole need not a physician" and all that.  (Matthew 9:12).  But when an adulterer arrives in the Church and starts to attack the Church's doctrinal position on the Law of Chastity, tries to persuade others to join him/her in violating the Law of Chastity, etc., well, then the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing metaphor becomes apt.

 

A person addicted to opiates is welcome in the Church.  "They that be whole need not a physician" and all that.  (Matthew 9:12).  But when that person starts using access in the Church to attack the Church's doctrinal position on the Word of Wisdom, tries to persuade others to join him/her in violating the Word of Wisdom, etc., then the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing metaphor becomes apt.

 

A person who has doubts about some aspect of Church doctrine or history is welcome in the Church.  "They that be whole need not a physician" and all that.  (Matthew 9:12).  But when that person starts to agitate against the Church's doctrines, vilify the Brethren, preach and persuade others to reject the Church's position in favor of his/her on the point of doctrine, etc., then the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing metaphor becomes apt.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Calm]

If a person doesn't believe in the power yet acknowledges the authority of the priesthood within the church then I absolutely think someone could participate in things like an ordination, baby blessing, sacrament etc. They may believe they have authority because the church has authorized them to do it. In other words, one could believe in the authority (within the church) while not believing in the power of the priesthood.

But wouldn't that be the same as kids playing house?  One kid plays mom and the other dad and the rest of the kids do what they say because the game has them being the authority figures, but they know in the end that the authority has no meaning outside the game.

 

Without Christ endowing the Priesthood with power, it is just a status thing that means no more than names on paper.  Is that fair to the others who are participating in faith?

Edited January 21, 2015 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

If a person doesn't believe in the power yet acknowledges the authority of the priesthood within the church then I absolutely think someone could participate in things like an ordination, baby blessing, sacrament etc. They may believe they have authority because the church has authorized them to do it. In other words, one could believe in the authority (within the church) while not believing in the power of the priesthood.

 

And even if a person doubts Christ as the savior and redeemer, they can still exercise faith in Him.

 

 see your point and actually believe there are those doing just that.  They are performing ordinances by the authority bestowed on them and as long as that authority has not been revoked they are authorized to do so.

 

That is oxymoronic.

 

Not really.  See above.

[smac97]

I like this definition better than the others above.  But now we are into motives which are impossible to judge

 

Well, not really.  Not always.  Motives can become apparent through word and deed.  Secular courts, lawyers and judges, are constantly evaluating motives based on evidence.  Judges in Israel can do the same, and they also have the Spirit to aid in such discernment.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

You seem to be playing the idea that Faith and doubt are opposites and one with doubts can not act in faith

 

Elder Ballard said ""doubts are not incongruent with dedicated discipleship"  hence while we have taught in the past they are opposites and where doubt is faith can't be.... but I think we have to reevaluate this and come to grips that for many Doubt and faith coexist and in fact faith is about moving forward in spite of the doubts one has

 

I agree with this sentiment.  The issue is which of the two, faith or doubt, predominates over the other.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Calm]

Someone could have severe doubts yet still hope for a certain truth and behave accordingly. They could maintain worthiness and act in a faithful way even if they don't believe. It's a difference between faith, being faithful, and hope. They are interconnected but not synonymous.

Bluebell seems to be talking about doubters who have are closer to the edge of no hope (perhaps they would like something to be true, but are relatively certain that it isn't) than doubters who are in the middle and see it as just as probable that Christ exists as he doesn't or don't know in their heart if he exists, but have no tendency not to believe in him and also sincerely hope that he does exist.

 

Those who say "I don't think God exists, but I wish he did because that would be nice and I am going to pretend that he does because I like that kind of world better even if it is likely just make-believe" are at a significantly different level than someone who says "Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief".

 

I think the issue is which does the person allow to dominate their life, their hope or their doubt.  If their doubt is stronger, it is imo better for them to take a step back and if they truly want to believe work on that without participating in things that others trust they have the faith to do so…giving a priesthood blessing or baptizing someone or blessing the sacrament is not just about the person performing the ordinance, but is as much or more so about the person receiving it.  If the person receiving the ordinance desires it from someone who has faith in what they are doing, don't they deserve that chance?  Or at least if is a one on one experience share with the one getting the blessing etc. one's significant doubts about the power of what one is being asked to do and let them choose.  (though I don't think one should put one's kids in that place of having to choose because they may see it as asking them to accept or reject them as a father, better to talk about it with their wife)

Edited January 21, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

 see your point and actually believe there are those doing just that.  They are performing ordinances by the authority bestowed on them and as long as that authority has not been revoked they are authorized to do so.

 

 

Not really.  See above.

I have no doubt that this happens.  Is it the preferred way of doing things (if people were more open about their doubts would they be encouraged to step back from performing priesthood ordinances if they lacked faith in the actual power or would they be encouraged to continue acting as if they believed even if they didn't) or does it happen because the Church operates on the principle of agency and allowing people to choose for themselves how they will act within certain parameters?

 

I suspect there are leaders who would assume that it is okay for a nonbeliever to participate because it gives them a chance to be exposed to the actual power and thus they might begin to have faith and other leaders who see it as appropriate that anyone participating believe there is power behind the ordinances even if they don't understand or have certainty in what kind of power it is.

[Mystery Meat]

But wouldn't that be the same as kids playing house?  One kid plays mom and the other dad and the rest of the kids do what they say because the game has them being the authority figures, but they know in the end that the authority has no meaning outside the game.

 

Without Christ endowing the Priesthood with power, it is just a status thing that means no more than names on paper.  Is that fair to the others who are participating in faith?

 

This. Not only is it not fair, it is dishonest. 

 

Look I understand, us Mormons have developed quite the sense of community. But it is a sad reality that in order to be full participants (meaning rights to attend the Temple even for family events or participate in sacred ordinances) one has to meet certain conditions. I get the sense (and I understand why) that some want to be able to participate in those sorts of things and maintain their weakness/sin/doubt. It cannot be so.

[thesometimesaint]

Why?

 

You can't believe and not believe the same thing at the same time. IE; I can't believe my car will start, and not start at the same time. It is only in the starting or not starting that confirms the fact.

Edited January 21, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[bcuzbcuz]

I would say that doubtERS are welcome at church and certainly in The Church, but not so much doubtING while at church.  Forums like this and others are great places to express and hash out some doubts and issues, and I appreciate having this kind of outlet and place for honest discussion to help me work through some things.  But while in church on Sundays, it's more about worship and instruction and edification and service.  

I think it's okay when a teacher or member in a class setting says something that you disagree with to *very tactfully* express that you understand that issue in a different way, and I do think that can be important to do now and then so that the urban legend and "cultural doctrine" kind of stuff doesn't keep getting perpetuated forever.  But even then, I would be wary of correcting something that could lead specifically to *doubt,* in a time and setting that is meant for worship.  

 

 

Sounds a lot like "Don't ask, Don't tell." You can have all the doubts imaginable, just don't talk about them.

[Kenngo1969]

sometimes we see what we want to see.  Also... no emoticon?  your losing it!

In a forum such as this one, whether one is using it according to its stated purposes as set forth in the Board guidelines is a question for the moderators to resolve.  Thus, what you, I, or anyone else see(s) is of little consequence if they choose to take no action.  In some other venue, is it possible that I might conclude (mistakenly) that someone's raison d'etre is to foment contention rather than to explore possible answers to sincere questions?  Yes.  Even in such a venue, however, my tolerance for such activity is apt to be higher than it would be if the same thing were to occur in a class for which I'm responsible, in Church. In the last-named venue, sincere questions are one thing; question begging is quite another.  I think the modern-day version of Korihor would be quite easy to spot (if, admittedly, less easy to deal with, short of inviting him to remove himself or to be removed) in such a setting.  I realize that response is apt to be unsatisfactory on several levels: "If we can't ask such questions at church, where can we ask them?"  Responses by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to such a dilemma, while they may be indirect, are not irrelevant.  While your mileage probably varies, I think recent measures taken by the Church are moving it in the right direction.

[Calm]

Sounds a lot like "Don't ask, Don't tell." You can have all the doubts imaginable, just don't talk about them.

More like "appropriate behaviour in the appropriate forum" to me.

[ERayR]

I agree with this sentiment.  The issue is which of the two, faith or doubt, predominates over the other.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

It depends on which direction one chooses to act upon.

[ERayR]

Sounds a lot like "Don't ask, Don't tell." You can have all the doubts imaginable, just don't talk about them.

 

It should be a personal issue to be worked on/out with ones Priesthood leader (Bishop).

[HappyJackWagon]

You can't believe and not believe the same thing at the same time. IE; I can't believe my car will start, and not start at the same time. It is only in the starting or not starting that confirms the fact.

But we were referring to faith, not belief.

 

And it is very easy to believe that it is both possible my car will start and possible it won't. But I get in and turn the key because I hope that it will start. So by turning that key I'm exercising faith.