When Doubts And Questions Arise

[SmileyMcGee]

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).

"Desire to believe" is not the same as experimenting. Desiring to believe would taint your experimentation with pervasive bias. If I want to believe the BOM is true I am more likely to accept confirming evidence and ignore or rationalize away evidence that contradicts, rendering my experiment worthless.

In addition, the warnings against doubt seem to ignore the limitations on the acquisition of knowledge. I will always have some degree of doubt because I have no way to justify certainty. I may feel good when reading the BOM, but I have no way of verifying whether those feelings came from satan or God or some other source.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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.”

 

Choosing to accept a scientific method of experimetnation is hardly the same thing as choosing to believe. Also, exercising faith is not the same thing as choosing to believe. I think we're speaking a different language here.

[pogi]

Second, doubt is just a reaction to uncertainty, given the evidence provided. I don't believe it's inherently evil. 

 

Doubt is a choice, and not the only possible one.  When uncertainty arises, you actually have two possible ways to respond - doubt or hope.  Without certainty, there is always room for hope.  Two different seeds, two different outcomes. 

 

I also agree that doubt is not inherently evil, but it is also not inherently helpful in matters of faith.

Edited April 29, 2015 by pogi

[MormonFreeThinker]

I have no way of verifying whether those feelings came from satan or God or some other source.

 

We can say with a reasonable certainty that feelings of love, compassion, peace, kindness do not come from Satan. 

[Calm]

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.

But there are people who don't feel free to share and shut down in difficult and heated conversations. It has nothing to do with being LDS (well, that can add complications but it would occur anywhere for them) but simply a part of their personality.

 

What makes one person feel welcome may make another feel totally out of place and needing to leave.

 

I don't know how to solve that problem myself save go one on one with individuals, in writing if necessary.   I am someone who freezes up in heated conversations...it is almost like a physical attack (this has never happened with a church member btw), my mind goes blank...since it is obvious that I don't avoid debates, even vigourous ones here, it is not the disagreement itself that is the problem for me....I suspect it is the complication of trying to explain myself and understand others as well in limited time.  In heated or difficult discussions, people don't usually listen all that much or give enough time for others to say their thoughts.

 

The only heated discussions I've ever seen be productive are ones that only involved two people and they keep coming back to it until they solve it, not something that can be done in a limited time one day a week.

[CV75]

 Choosing to accept a scientific method of experimetnation is hardly the same thing as choosing to believe. Also, exercising faith is not the same thing as choosing to believe. I think we're speaking a different language here.

From the start of these posts I used language from 2 Nephi 2 and Alma 32. Do you believe you are using different language to reply?

 

But at some juncture in any experiment, one more than merely chooses to try it; he chooses to believe it is worth trying, whether on its own merit or some other overriding point.

 

And even after exercising faith, one must choose to believe in order to progress (Alma 32:34-36): “And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing… O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea… and now behold…  is your knowledge perfect? Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith…” You can choose to lay aside or keep your faith, which is the same as choosing to believe or not.

[stemelbow]

But there are people who don't feel free to share and shut down in difficult and heated conversations. It has nothing to do with being LDS (well, that can add complications but it would occur anywhere for them) but simply a part of their personality.

 

What makes one person feel welcome may make another feel totally out of place and needing to leave.

 

I don't know how to solve that problem myself save go one on one with individuals, in writing if necessary.   I am someone who freezes up in heated conversations...it is almost like a physical attack (this has never happened with a church member btw), my mind goes blank...since it is obvious that I don't avoid debates, even vigourous ones here, it is not the disagreement itself that is the problem for me....I suspect it is the complication of trying to explain myself and understand others as well in limited time.  In heated or difficult discussions, people don't usually listen all that much or give enough time for others to say their thoughts.

 

The only heated discussions I've ever seen be productive are ones that only involved two people and they keep coming back to it until they solve it, not something that can be done in a limited time one day a week.

I know what you mean and I agree. It's not like opening up Church to free-for-all talk is the solution. too many other problems might result. But in the end I'm still kind of left frustrated sitting in meetings that feel almost useless.

[SmileyMcGee]

We can say with a reasonable certainty that feelings of love, compassion, peace, kindness do not come from Satan.

Why?

[CCRW]

I actually tried to go back to church about 5 years ago, I made it for about a month and knew I could not remain silent and would have only disrupted.  When I say "try to come back" this is what I'm talking about.

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65288-alternate-voices-and-correlation/

[HappyJackWagon]

 

From the start of these posts I used language from 2 Nephi 2 and Alma 32. Do you believe you are using different language to reply?

 

But at some juncture in any experiment, one more than merely chooses to try it; he chooses to believe it is worth trying, whether on its own merit or some other overriding point.

 

And even after exercising faith, one must choose to believe in order to progress (Alma 32:34-36): “And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing… O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea… and now behold…  is your knowledge perfect? Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith…” You can choose to lay aside or keep your faith, which is the same as choosing to believe or not.

 

He must choose to accept the results. In the event there are inconclusive results he may choose to act faithfully even though he has no reason to believe, other than hope.

I can no more choose to believe certain aspects of the literal church teachings as I can choose to believe that the earth is flat or that Santa drives a flying sleigh. It doesn't work. Based on my experiement upon the different words I don't find any good fruit in a flying Santa, a flat earth, or certain truth claims. I can't force myself to believe those things, no matter how much I may want to. The best I can do is set aside my unbelief and act in faith, hoping that enough is true to make it worth while.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Why?

 

because that is like asking if the world is real or not, you don't live your life thinking that you could be a brain in a vat. 

 

It is reasonable to assume that love, peace, and charity does not come from the devil. 

 

If it does, all humanity is in trouble and we can't do anything about it. 

Edited April 29, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[JLHPROF]

I actually tried to go back to church about 5 years ago, I made it for about a month and knew I could not remain silent and would have only disrupted.  When I say "try to come back" this is what I'm talking about.

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65288-alternate-voices-and-correlation/

 

It's important to recognize that the restored gospel is true, regardless of how much, how little, or how correlated the Church teachings on it may be.

There are many things in Church teachings that I disagree with.  Doesn't stop the Church being God's Church.  I study, I pray, I learn for myself.  I don't feel any need to cause a ruckus at Church or to spread the things I've concluded to others, especially if it might weaken a testimony.

Everyone is entitled to learn at their own pace on any subject.  Some will always be content with nothing but lessons on the first principles of the gospel.  Others will always want to dig a little deeper into meatier doctrines.

It still doesn't change that this is Christ's restored Church, regardless how much/little/correlated their doctrine may be.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

It's important to recognize that the restored gospel is true, regardless of how much, how little, or how correlated the Church teachings on it may be.

There are many things in Church teachings that I disagree with.  Doesn't stop the Church being God's Church.  I study, I pray, I learn for myself.  I don't feel any need to cause a ruckus at Church or to spread the things I've concluded to others, especially if it might weaken a testimony.

Everyone is entitled to learn at their own pace on any subject.  Some will always be content with nothing but lessons on the first principles of the gospel.  Others will always want to dig a little deeper into meatier doctrines.

It still doesn't change that this is Christ's restored Church, regardless how much/little/correlated their doctrine may be.

 

So if one doesn't accept that all church teachings are true, what does it mean to say the Church is true?

What does TRUE mean in this context? Does it mean that God accepts the best efforts of the church as an institution? Does it mean that the church does good in bringing people to God? Or does it mean the church is God's ONLY church even when the prophets get it wrong?

[CCRW]

Happy Jack;

 

I think I found what will help me with this whole truth thing, and hopefully help me to be more acceptable of others this go around in this thread if it helps:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65281-literalism/

[JLHPROF]

 

 

So if one doesn't accept that all church teachings are true, what does it mean to say the Church is true?

What does TRUE mean in this context? Does it mean that God accepts the best efforts of the church as an institution? Does it mean that the church does good in bringing people to God? Or does it mean the church is God's ONLY church even when the prophets get it wrong?

 

It means that it is Christ's Church, run by his priesthood authority.  Sometimes a doctrine may be wrong.  Doesn't remove the ownership or the authority.

As as it is his authority that runs the Church he is the only one who can correct it.

 

In this context "true" has to do with source/origin/attribution, not content.

As in, Christ is the true vine.  Joseph Smith is the true head of this dispensation.  The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the one true God.  The Book of Mormon is true means it is from God, not that it is without error.

 

At least that's my opinion.

Edited April 29, 2015 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

 

 

He must choose to accept the results. In the event there are inconclusive results he may choose to act faithfully even though he has no reason to believe, other than hope.

I can no more choose to believe certain aspects of the literal church teachings as I can choose to believe that the earth is flat or that Santa drives a flying sleigh. It doesn't work. Based on my experiement upon the different words I don't find any good fruit in a flying Santa, a flat earth, or certain truth claims. I can't force myself to believe those things, no matter how much I may want to. The best I can do is set aside my unbelief and act in faith, hoping that enough is true to make it worth while.

I think there are choices to be made all along the way. Of course if someone insists they cannot choose to believe (or not), they have no choice in a practical sense.

 

But the word “will” is often used to express “ choice” or “refusal” as in these three examples which do not use the word to express a future tense:

 

Helaman 3:28: “Yea, thus we see that the gate of heaven is open unto all, even to those who will believe on the name of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.”

 

D&C 35:2: “I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.”

 

3 Nephi 21:11: “Therefore it shall come to pass that whosoever will not believe in my words, who am Jesus Christ, which the Father shall cause him to bring forth unto the Gentiles, and shall give unto him power that he shall bring them forth unto the Gentiles, (it shall be done even as Moses said) they shall be cut off from among my people who are of the covenant.”

 

I don’t think anyone is advocating that you force yourself to believe or choose to believe (that would not be choosing!). I think choosing to set aside your unbelief and act in faith is a viable alternative to “doubting your doubts before you doubt your faith” (to me they are the same thing). In both methods, a person is choosing to believe something.

 

I think the saving grace is “the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” that the scriptures above indicate as a choice to believe in.

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

I recently have had thoughts similar to this. In fact, it was the Spirit that told me to stop going to other people for strength, confidence and surety. They are mortal and fallible. The Spirit strongly imprinted on my mind the need to approach the Lord with faith. 

 

The fruit of this decision has been real and lasting.

[Mystery Meat]

We can't choose to believe.

 

I don't know about "we", but I chose to believe after learning a lot of the tricky Church history issues. Nurturing doubt or nurturing belief is very much a choice. We may make that choice more difficult (seemingly impossible) depending on how much we nurture one above the other (think about all of those members of the church who can't/won't even consider "anti-mormon" teachings).

[SmileyMcGee]

because that is like asking if the world is real or not, you don't live your life thinking that you could be a brain in a vat.

It is reasonable to assume that love, peace, and charity does not come from the devil.

If it does, all humanity is in trouble and we can't do anything about it.

Sorry, I read your original comment as "we can be reasonably certain that [negative feelings] come from satan." Edited April 30, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[teddyaware]

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?

 

It's fine and often advisable to counsel with those who are struggling, but when engaged in such counseling it should be made clear that the best course to take is to follow the principles set forth in the March 2015 Ensign article.

[Calm]

I recently have had thoughts similar to this. In fact, it was the Spirit that told me to stop going to other people for strength, confidence and surety. They are mortal and fallible. The Spirit strongly imprinted on my mind the need to approach the Lord with faith.

The fruit of this decision has been real and lasting.

I have believed for a long time this is why God doesn't use the "thus sayeth the Lord" route of leadership very often...so that we are more likely to seek him out through the Spirit than take the easier, more comfortable road of just asking our leaders to tell us what to do.

If their direction was always spot on, why would we need to put any effort into listening to the Spirit or for those who don't register that presence for whatever reason (medication for me for three years) trying to find God's voice in the actions of others and other things. No need for any meetings really save meeting up with the bishop once a week or month with a list of questions for him to answer and off we go until the next time we accumulate enough to merit an appointment.

Edited April 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

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?

What if I called personal revelation a strong "Aha!" moment where a question suddenly clicks into an insight?

Does that help?

As may be becoming clear, I don't have a clue how to help someone with this.

I think if it was known how to turn weak members into strong members, we would teach it, and have nothing but strong members.

[mfbukowski]

"Desire to believe" is not the same as experimenting. Desiring to believe would taint your experimentation with pervasive bias. If I want to believe the BOM is true I am more likely to accept confirming evidence and ignore or rationalize away evidence that contradicts, rendering my experiment worthless.

In addition, the warnings against doubt seem to ignore the limitations on the acquisition of knowledge. I will always have some degree of doubt because I have no way to justify certainty. I may feel good when reading the BOM, but I have no way of verifying whether those feelings came from satan or God or some other source.

The problem is what you call "evidence".

Religion is like ethics, in that you cannot provide evidence for why it is "wrong" to kill people. Either you have that in your gut or you don't.

Facts have nothing to do with what gives your life meaning.

Facts have nothing to do with what makes something right or wrong.

Yet you CAN experiment with what beliefs bear fruit in your life.

That's straight Alma 32

Edited April 30, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If you steal something and feel bad afterward, you know it was "wrong"

Same for religion.

That's the best we have.

Edited April 30, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I have believed for a long time this is why God doesn't use the "thus sayeth the Lord" route of leadership very often...so that we are more likely to seek him out through the Spirit than take the easier, more comfortable road of just asking our leaders to tell us what to do.

If their direction was always spot on, why would we need to put any effort into listening to the Spirit or for those who don't register that presence for whatever reason (medication for me for three years) trying to find God's voice in the actions of others and other things. No need for any meetings really save meeting up with the bishop once a week or month with a list of questions for him to answer and off we go until the next time we accumulate enough to merit an appointment.

For me, I would NEVER believe anyone that told me "thus sayeth the Lord"

If God doesn't confirm it to me, the guy might as well be Jim Jones offering me some kool aid.

If I don't know it for myself, fergitaboutit.

Maybe that's why I don't know how to help others, because I don't trust anyone to help me.

Edited April 30, 2015 by mfbukowski