When Doubts And Questions Arise

[CCRW]

I would like some advice on this.

 

How can I constructively share some thoughts in this lesson?

 

I doubt this is her true motive.  They announced in my ward that next Sunday's HPG lesson will be on March 2015 ensign article on Questions and Doubts.  I've read the article a couple times in anticipation.  And you know what, its about the worst advice that I can image.  Most any problem in life, I believe one would be encouraged to talk about it.  This article suggests total isolation, you/God and just buckle down.  This enemy of the church, wondering around in darkness which seems such a natural response to our loved ones having a crisis of faith is not helpful.  Yes there is going to be some anger, isolation will prolong this phase.

 

 

From personally experience, it actually makes some sense to me.

 

My husband worked for a guy once that was not a good boss.  He was in it all for what he could get out of it and didn't care about the job his employees were doing.  He was so bad that his self-centered leadership style eventually got part of the company shut down when he caused some accounts to be lost.

 

My husband and him did not get along great, but he dealt with it.  Then, my husband started working with a guy who also didn't like the boss, and since they had to travel a couple hours to job sites each day together they had plenty of time to 'talk about it'.  The result was that my husband's attitude got about 100 times worse.  Their negativity just fed off each other until it got to the point that my husband barely had a working relationship with his boss and was consumed by anger toward him.

 

Talking about our issues can really backfire depending on who we choose to talk about them with and what emotions we give in to when doing it.

 

bluebell actually makes my point.  When there is no where to turn among loved ones what's going to happen?  Exactly what you just explained above.  Results may have been different if the "talking" was between the boss and your husband.

 

Is this the article that you are talking about?  I see nothing about what you said here.  The whole point of the article is that while questions are natural we should should continue to be obedient while having those questions so that we can find out what Heavenly Father says on the matter.  It specifically mentions talking to your bishop.

 

What the author noticed is that when some started to question they stopped praying and reading scriptures etc.  My thoughts?  If you want the DJ to let you know what the last song on the radio was then you don't turn the radio off before he announces it.

yes this is the article.  I understand the point of the article.  Maybe worse than isolation it puts the individual in a position of likely failure.  If God does not answer those questions for them, why is that?  The individual will likely find it their fault, their weakness and only compound the problem.

 

As for the article telling the individual to talk to their bishop, you need to read this again.  This is again another very frustrating indoctrination, that the person is likely in sin if they are having these issues and need to talk to the Bishop about their sins, not their questions.

 

[thesometimesaint]

If any member is unhappy with the answer their Bishop gives them they are entitled to appeal all the way to the First Presidency if necessary.

[CCRW]

If any member is unhappy with the answer their Bishop gives them they are entitled to appeal all the way to the First Presidency if necessary.

I'm confused by your answer?  I'm suggesting that most go into incredible self reflection, pray and study when questions first arise and they have NO NEED to see the bishop (for transgression/sin) as they are doing exactly what the article tells them to do x10.  It seems we are seeing right here the indoctrination that I mentioned of instant reactions that the person is in sin.

Edited April 28, 2015 by CCRW

[HappyJackWagon]

"In practical terms, we must first ask ourselves, “Am I willing to do what it takes to get an answer from the Lord, or do I simply want to do things my way?” The Savior Himself taught this pattern when He said, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17)."

This is a slight variation on Moroni's promise. This is very problematic for many people. It assumes that all people will learn and experience the spirit like every other person. This is naive. For example, the BoM also relates the exercise of experimentation on the word as a way to receive answers but aassuming that ALL people will have the same experience you had is faulty and harmful.

It leaves the person who doesn't have the spiritual experience they were promised feeling worthless or broken. This talk is problematic in many ways, but this boils down to the idea that if you have doubts, it is your fauly because you are not faithful or sincere enough.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm confused by your answer?  I'm suggesting that most go into incredible self reflection, pray and study when questions first arise and they have NO NEED to see the bishop (for transgression/sin) as they are doing exactly what the article tells them to do x10.  It seems we are seeing right here the indoctrination that I mentioned of instant reactions that the person is in sin.

 

Having doubts isn't a sin. Letting those doubts mislead you into unacceptable actions is a sin.

Questioning isn't a sin. Letting those questions mislead you into unacceptable actions is a sin.

Most sins are not serious enough to call your Church status/membership into question. What goes on between your ears is largely between you and God. What you do with what goes on between your ears is between you and the Church.

[Nofear]

I much prefer this author's (BYU history professor) approach to questions and doubts:

 

https://www.ldsbc.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1137%3Afaith-in-the-past-church-history-in-an-information-age&catid=50&Itemid=129

[Buckeye]

I much prefer this author's (BYU history professor) approach to questions and doubts:

 

https://www.ldsbc.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1137%3Afaith-in-the-past-church-history-in-an-information-age&catid=50&Itemid=129

 

Here's another good option: (http://rationalfaiths.com/you-belong/). I particularly like this part:

 

 

You may have noticed an implicit premise in what I’m saying, which is that we should want everyone to feel welcome at church, including those with doubts and concerns about the church. And it’s possible you’re asking yourself, “Well, do we really want them here? We’re here to nurture our faith. Do we really want to increase the number of skeptics in our congregations?” My response to these questions is, first, too many skeptics is not a problem we’re likely to have. For now, at least, we’re too good at driving them away. Second, with the possible exception of people who come to church to willfully antagonize, I think the answer is an emphatic yes: we should want everyone to be here, and we should want everyone to feel welcome here. Did Christ associate only with the faithful? He ministered to believers and unbelievers, to the sinful and to the repentant. You may say “Well – he was the Son of God, so his testimony was too strong to be shaken by anyone’s unbelief.” But I suggest an alternative: he was the Son of God, so his love was too strong to be shaken by anyone’s unbelief.

[CCRW]

Sumertime, the only reason I brought it up was that no where in the talk did it suggest to seek out someone to talk to about this.  Rain suggested that the article did tell you to talk to your Bishop.  I was just noting that it did not suggest to talk to your Bishop about your questions or doubts but to talk to him, not if, but when you become so despondent you turn to transgression.

 

Of course there is no one the article could suggest you go to, other than God - at this time.  It appears this is and will continue to change as the church is already changing curriculums to start the introduction of the issues

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited April 28, 2015 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

Sumertime, the only reason I brought it up was that no where in the talk did it suggest to seek out someone to talk to about this.  Rain suggested that the article did tell you to talk to your Bishop.  I was just noting that it did not suggest to talk to your Bishop about your questions or doubts but to talk to him, not if, but when you become so despondent you turn to transgression.

 

Of course there is no one the article could suggest you go to, other than God - at this time.  It appears this is and will continue to change as the church is already changing curriculums to start the introduction of the issues

 

I think that no single article can do justice to the need for wise counsel. We make a mistake in becoming despondent over our sins and shortcomings. God has provided a way to repent of our sins and overcome our shortcomings.

We of all people should be of the most good cheer. Our Bishops and other Church leaders are just as mortal and fallible as we are. I spent my entire professional life as a psychiatric social worker. Sometimes it does help to talk to someone else about our problems, and have them really listen.

[CCRW]

I spent my entire professional life as a psychiatric social worker. Sometimes it does help to talk to someone else about our problems, and have them really listen.

This is all I'm trying to say.  The HPGL grabbed me after class and was apologizing about the lesson, assuring me that it had been scheduled for a long time (only my 2nd time back in many a moon).  He somehow figured I would be offended, that it was targeting me.

 

The are several common themes among those that have a crisis of faith.  One of them is the all alone feeling of no one to talk to.  Always desiring someone to be willing to listen.  It's this kind of awkwardness which all sides need to work on.  And yet therein lies the danger as well, of spreading questions/doubt.

 

Its a very hard issue

Edited April 28, 2015 by CCRW

[Tacenda]

This is all I'm trying to say. The HPGL grabbed me after class and was apologizing about the lesson, assuring me that it had been scheduled for a long time (only my 2nd time back in many a moon). He somehow figured I would be offended, that it was targeting me.

The are several common themes among those that have a crisis of faith. One of them is the all alone feeling of no one to talk to. Always desiring someone to be willing to listen. It's this kind of awkwardness which all sides need to work on. And yet therein lies the danger as well, of spreading questions/doubt.

Its a very hard issue

Right there with you.

[JLHPROF]

The are several common themes among those that have a crisis of faith.  One of them is the all alone feeling of no one to talk to.  Always desiring someone to be willing to listen.  It's this kind of awkwardness which all sides need to work on.  And yet therein lies the danger as well, of spreading questions/doubt.

 

I agree with this.

However it's been my experience that there are two kinds of doubters.

The first feel alone, with no one to talk to and seek someone to listen to their questions and help assuage their doubt.  I have great sympathy for them.

The second however have already allowed the doubts to take root and have no real interest in hearing explanations or excuses.

They sow discord.

 

This is evident with the polygamy issue.  There are those who discovered Joseph's practice of polygamy and sincerely seek guidance in coming to understand the history and his practice.  Then there are those who are so convinced that it was wrong that no amount of support is going to bring them around and they aren't seeking with questions but venting with anger.

 

This can apply to any one of our current issues - women's ordination, SSM, and so many others.  Some "doubters" are seeking to truly understand and come to terms.  The other "doubters" have made up their minds and are so sure of their opinions they want to spread that doubt everywhere they go.

[sheilauk]

Where does it say that one must remain in total isolation and not talk about your questions/doubts?  Admittedly, it doesn't say specifically you can/should, it concentrates on reminding people not to give up on doing the right things - scripture study, prayer, service, attending church, studying the best books, but it doesn't say you should never discuss it!  This would be my objection to the article, that it should probably have said to also find someone who can help find answers and do so in a kind way and that doesn't have to be a member of your family.  It may be best to find someone outside one's family, someone who will be more neutral, no stake in whatever decision is made.  But the article doesn't say don't talk about it.  My proviso would be, as was mentioned, be careful who you talk to.  Also, although the article does seem to reference speaking with your bishop if you think you are transgressing, its my understanding that we're advised to counsel with our bishop whenever we have any kind of problem or issue.  If he can't help then its to be hoped he will direct you to someone who will.  All of this bearing in mind that no one is perfect and we must all make allowances for all of us - even those who have questions/doubts should make allowances for those who don't or who don't respond in the way they would like.

 

I've spoken to a number of people about their questions/doubts and often suggested speaking to the bishop or stake president.

[CCRW]

The other "doubters" have made up their minds and are so sure of their opinions they want to spread that doubt everywhere they go.

I do agree  there is a difference ... questions to doubts to disbelief

 

 

It may be best to find someone outside one's family, someone who will be more neutral, no stake in whatever decision is made

 

I also agree with your comments ... its that line quoted, if only we could talk and listen, both sides within families.  Why are these issues so volatile on both sides.

[teddyaware]

I would like some advice on this.

 

How can I constructively share some thoughts in this lesson?

 

 

 

 

bluebell actually makes my point.  When there is no where to turn among loved ones what's going to happen?  Exactly what you just explained above.  Results may have been different if the "talking" was between the boss and your husband.

 

yes this is the article.  I understand the point of the article.  Maybe worse than isolation it puts the individual in a position of likely failure.  If God does not answer those questions for them, why is that?  The individual will likely find it their fault, their weakness and only compound the problem.

 

As for the article telling the individual to talk to their bishop, you need to read this again.  This is again another very frustrating indoctrination, that the person is likely in sin if they are having these issues and need to talk to the Bishop about their sins, not their questions.

 

In each and every instance when I've had unanswered questions about the Restored Gospel that caused me to wonder, I always worked on obtaining answers to these questions on my own (I must say that thanks my testimony I never allowed myself to succumb to the temptation to allow my Gospel questions to "sprout" into actual doubts),. And I obtained the answers I sought by giving myself over to diligent scripture study, deep and intensive pondering, and confident prayers of faith. By applying myself in this way, I have invariably found the answers to each and every question through powerful and undeniably convincing personal revelation.

 

As the Prophet Moroni so wisely counseled, obtaining personal revelation from the Holy Ghost is a much more satisfactory and effective way to get answers to Gospel questions than it is to rely on the "arm of flesh;" in this case the arm of flesh being well-meaning members of the Church whose reservoir of spiritual knowledge is far less than the infinite and eternal reservoir of spiritual knowledge possessed by the Holy Ghost. Going to members and not God for answers far too often becomes a crutch and the doubter may soon becomes a needy whiner because their spiritual house is not founded on the rock of revelation. But relying on the Holy Ghost isn't a crutch because, under the Father and the Son, He is the actual fount of all truth and knowledge. 

 

As a very real consequence of learning how to handle my Gospel questions in the way prescribed in the March 2015 Ensign article, I have never had to go to someone else pleading for help with nagging doubts. In fact, I have become so experienced in applying this methodology of truth discovery that I am now supremely confident God will help me find the answers to most any Gospel question I might have. If the Restored Gospel is true (and I know it is) and if Moron's promise is real, then following the counsel in the Ensign article is a far better option to take when one has questions.  But when one fails to learn how to receive personal revelation by becoming a minor prophet or prophetess in his or her own right, doubts can eventually become chronic and systemic and the members who try to help those with doubts, though well-meaning, eventually become little more than co-dependent enablers. The Ensign article is the way to go; revelation from God trumps imperfect human knowledge each and every time. But without living faith and confidence in Almighty God, none of what I describe is possible...

Edited April 29, 2015 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

I really want to help but I can't.

I have been quite solitary in my life in handling these kinds of things, and just hit the books and research the issue and see if I can find an answer I can cobble together, like picking up odd pieces of used lumber to build a house. I never trust anyone else to be able to answer better than I can, because I am the only one who knows what answer will satisfy me.

I don't trust that used shoes will fit my weird feet, and they will never be comfortable until I have essentially made them over to my specifications, so I don't ask for old shoes because I know they will not work for me

On the other hand, I do not feel much urgency to have an answer NOW

I know it will come eventually, or maybe I will have to be a Buddhist after all.

[mfbukowski]

In each and every instance when I've had unanswered questions about the Restored Gospel that caused me to wonder, I always worked on obtaining answers to these questions on my own (I must say that thanks my testimony I never allowed myself to succumb to the temptation to allow my Gospel questions to "sprout" into actual doubts),. And I obtained the answers I sought by giving myself over to diligent scripture study, deep and intensive pondering, and confident prayers of faith. By applying myself in this way, I have invariably found the answers to each and every question through powerful and undeniably convincing personal revelation.

 

As the Prophet Moroni so wisely counseled, obtaining personal revelation from the Holy Ghost is a much more satisfactory and effective way to get answers to Gospel questions than it is to rely on the "arm of flesh;" in this case the arm of flesh being well-meaning members of the Church whose reservoir of spiritual knowledge is far less than the infinite and eternal reservoir of spiritual knowledge possessed by the Holy Ghost. Going to members and not God for answers far too often becomes a crutch and the doubter may soon becomes a needy whiner because their spiritual house is not founded on the rock of revelation. But relying on the Holy Ghost isn't a crutch because, under the Father and the Son, He is the actual fount of all truth and knowledge. 

 

As a very real consequence of learning how to handle my Gospel questions in the way prescribed in the March 2015 Ensign article, I have never had to go to someone else pleading for help with nagging doubts. In fact, I have become so experienced in applying this methodology of truth discovery that I am now supremely confident God will help me find the answers to most any Gospel question I might have. If the Restored Gospel is true (and I know it is) and if Moron's promise is real, then following the counsel in the Ensign article is a far better option to take when one has questions.  But when one fails to learn how to receive personal revelation by becoming a minor prophet or prophetess in his or her own right, doubts can eventually become chronic and systemic and the members who try to help those with doubts, though well-meaning, eventually become little more than co-dependent enablers. The Ensign article is the way to go; revelation from God trumps imperfect human knowledge each and every time. But without living faith and confidence in Almighty God, none of what I describe is possible...

Yep.

[SmileyMcGee]

I really struggle with the general narrative coming from the church regarding doubt. First, articles like the one in the ensign assign a level of agency to doubt and belief that I don't think is possible. The suggestion that I just choose to believe is completely unhelpful. Second, doubt is just a reaction to uncertainty, given the evidence provided. I don't believe it's inherently evil. And let's not confuse skepticism with cynicism. Lastly, each talk or article that I've read involves some special pleading: "doubt your doubts"...really? Should this be universally applied? Why should I doubts my doubts about the lds church? (Cue circular reasoning)

Edited April 29, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Nofear]

However it's been my experience that there are two kinds of doubters.

The first feel alone, with no one to talk to and seek someone to listen to their questions and help assuage their doubt.  I have great sympathy for them.

The second however have already allowed the doubts to take root and have no real interest in hearing explanations or excuses.

They sow discord.

 

I'm not sure the dichotomy is all that helpful. It seems more likely to me that a relatively continuous spectrum exists between these two positions. But even if not, our job is to be loving and supportive of individuals no matter where they are. "A soft answer turns away wrath" and very often disarms attempts at discord. The common judges in Israel can deal with the wolves in sheep's clothing, but we have to be careful not to be the little boy who cried wolf.

[CV75]

I really struggle with the general narrative coming from the church regarding doubt. First, articles like the one in the ensign assign a level of agency to doubt and belief that I don't think is possible. The suggestion that I just choose to believe is completely unhelpful. Second, doubt is just a reaction to uncertainty, given the evidence provided. I don't believe it's inherently evil. And let's not confuse skepticism with cynicism. Lastly, each talk or article that I've read involves some special pleading: "doubt your doubts"...really? Should this be universally applied? Why should I doubts my doubts about the lds church? (Cue circular reasoning)

I think in these suggestions, “choose to believe” means to “experiment upon [the message], and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe…”

 

Also, the full plea is to “doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” That is a very specific application of the principle.

 

I think the plea means, “Doubt your doubts before you doubt your particle of faith or even before you doubt your desire to believe.” Who is going to doubt his own desire (whether for good or evil) that he experiences and acknowledges in the very moment?

 

If someone has zero particle of faith and zero desire to believe, doubt isn’t an issue because there would be no compound in one for doubt to even exist (2 Nephi 2:11).

[HappyJackWagon]

"I think in these suggestions, “choose to believe” means to “experiment upon [the message], and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe…”"

Experiementing and exercising faith is very different than choosing to believe. If the idea was shared the way you suggest I wouldn't have any problem with it. We can choose to be faithful. We can choose to experiement. We can't choose to believe.

[CCRW]

teddyaware, mfbukowski,

 

I wonder if personal revelation is easier/more natural to others than it was for me.  I know I focused with fasting and prayer weekly for 8 years to this this very end.  Maybe it was just my own personal trial, but it was the heavens turning to brass that after two years led to such pain as to turn away.  I like Mark am solitary by nature.  The OP here is in question of family members of my HPG members that might be struggling and how as stronger members we might help them.  Do we simply email this article to our son's and daughters when they struggle?

[CV75]

"I think in these suggestions, “choose to believe” means to “experiment upon [the message], and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe…”"

Experiementing and exercising faith is very different than choosing to believe. If the idea was shared the way you suggest I wouldn't have any problem with it. We can choose to be faithful. We can choose to experiement. We can't choose to believe.

In order to choose experimentation (which is a true principle), we have to first choose to believe in it. If experimentation (e.g. comparing contrasts) were not an eternal principle, we could not exercise faith (in other words, choose belief) in it.

 

According to 2 Nephi 2, if there were no choice, neither belief nor doubt would matter—they wouldn’t exist (from the header, “Freedom of choice (agency) is essential to existence and progression.”

[stemelbow]

I say, please just let us be ourselves at Church and talk openly about whatever is in our souls at the moment. Who cares if it becomes difficult or heated. At least it's a place where people are free to share, rather than a place to control the message, and repeat dogma.

I say that, and I realize so many in the Church simply dont' see it the same. They like, for some reason, the way it is. They like to "repeat dogma" and swim around in a controlled environment when discussing things at Church. What drives me crazy is sweet relief to so many. I don't know if changing things is for the best. I don't know if keeping it the same is for the best either. All I know is far fewer are like me than not like me. Who am I to upset the majority (even though I do sometimes)?