Not A Crisis Of Faith

[Ahab]

Those who have not experienced a crisis of faith will scoff and mock those who have because they simply can't understand the turmoil. Instead of trying to understand they offer shallow platitudes or mockery which harm the people in crisis and mislead the people who are trying to understand.

If you haven't experienced a crisis of faith it's difficult to recognize the absolute chaos it creates in life. When your entire life and identity are centered on a religious dogma you discover you no longer believe it can destroy relationships, both community and family. Wives and husbands leave spouses who suddenly question beliefs. Children abandon parents and vice versa. Obviously this doesn't always happen, but it happens more than you might imagine. It's not simply a transition of faith (though it often evolves into that at some point) but a full blown crisis threatening to rip apart everything the person has known and has worked for throughout their entire lives. It's a crisis.

On another board a question was once asked... "How many have developed suicidal ideation in consequence of their faith crisis?"

The responses were heartbreaking. Overwhelmingly people were reporting thoughts of suicide when they considered losing their families, respect and friendship of peers, jobs, and the peace and certitude that came with a firm testimony. When suicide becomes a real consideration because of a change in beliefs, it is a crisis.

I appreciate the post bluebell because I can recognize the good you're trying to do. I just think we have to be careful not to diminish the real experience of those who have experienced a crisis. And think of how those people in crisis may feel coming to this board and being mocked by the true believing mormons. Hardly a Christian response to those who are fighting to hang on and rebuild faith.

I was in a full blown crisis of faith until I came across some ideas that helped me reframe my belief and start rebuilding my faith. That faith now looks vastly different than it used to but once I realized that faith transitions (think Fowlers stages of faith) are normal and natural it helped me realize I'm not broken and that a reconstruction of faith is possible.

Try to see things from my perspective now.

When a person has faith they are sure about something, whatever it is that they say they have faith in. They feel sure that something is true, or real, or good, or even bad. That's just what it means to have faith in sonething, or someone.

And then what happens, which you refer to as a "crisis" of faith? What is it exactly that causes or caused that so-called 'crisis"?

You find out that what you felt sure about before was wrong? Is that what you are calling a crisis? But what happened that caused you to feel sure that what you felt sure about before was wrong? Didn't learning what was wrong come with an assurance that something else was right instead? You wouldn't just toss out your former assurance without something else that is better to feel sure about, would you? So you gained greater knowledge to replace an assurance in something that was not right, or good. You learned better. You grew. You should now feel good that you gained an assurance in something that is better than the assurance you had before, assuming you didn't just throw out your former assurance for no good reason. And yet you still want to refer to your growth, your enlightenment, your perception of what is correct a crisis? Why use the word "crisis" for something that is essentially a good thing?

I grew up in another religious environment than the one I'm in now and I can tell you that I do not consider my growth in perception, from that religion to this one, as a crisis. And I don't consider the fact that my family that raised me didn't and still doesn't accept my additional beliefs, either. I simply grew in some ways that they haven't accepted, and maybe never will want to accept.

[The Nehor]

I think people who have faith crises should save it for screaming at God in the comfort of their own home. Worked for me.

[Ahab]

I think people who have faith crises should save it for screaming at God in the comfort of their own home. Worked for me.

But isn't God the one they would attribute their "new" faith to? Or are you thinking they should be screaming out a truly heartfelt THANK YOU!!! ???

[HappyJackWagon]

Try to see things from my perspective now.

When a person has faith they are sure about something, whatever it is that they say they have faith in. They feel sure that something is true, or real, or good, or even bad. That's just what it means to have faith in sonething, or someone.

And then what happens, which you refer to as a "crisis" of faith? What is it exactly that causes or caused that so-called 'crisis"?

Maybe it would be more accurate to call it a LIFE CRISIS. Because when you build a life on a certain set of beliefs, such as being a member of the 1 true church, temple marriage, eternal families etc, and then realize the foundation of all peace you've felt in your life is gone, it causes a crisis of identity. It causes a crisis of relationship when the spouse suddenly  views you differently, perhaps as an unrighteous heathen who is unworthy to raise your kids. The source you turned to throughout your entire life, faith in the church and an eternal reckoning that would make everything ok, is gone and you are left alone. You wonder if you are at fault, if you're being deceived, or if you are really discovering a new truth. It creates turmoil that can upturn every aspect of life. That is a crisis. I'm not sure why you're adamant about saying it isn't.

You find out that what you felt sure about before was wrong? Is that what you are calling a crisis? But what happened that caused you to feel sure that what you felt sure about before was wrong? Didn't learning what was wrong come with an assurance that something else was right instead?

Eventually that came, but not initially. Once the elements of crisis calm and a person is able to gain some perspective they move into a faith transition. The transition was  an after effect of the crisis.

 

 

You wouldn't just toss out your former assurance without something else that is better to feel sure about, would you? So you gained greater knowledge to replace an assurance in something that was not right, or good. You learned better. You grew. You should now feel good that you gained an assurance in something that is better than the assurance you had before, assuming you didn't just throw out your former assurance for no good reason. And yet you still want to refer to your growth, your enlightenment, your perception of what is correct a crisis? Why use the word "crisis" for something that is essentially a good thing?

Because we don't exist in a bubble. We have families. We have spouses, kids, parents, siblings who suddenly look at us as apostates. We are told as much in person or on boards like this. If others don't transition in the same way and at the same time it creates serious strife and stresses relationships. Until a person learns how to navigate the change in these relationships in a positive way (if they ever do) they are at risk of losing those they love most. Sounds like a crisis to me.

I grew up in another religious environment than the one I'm in now and I can tell you that I do not consider my growth in perception, from that religion to this one, as a crisis. And I don't consider the fact that my family that raised me didn't and still doesn't accept my additional beliefs, either. I simply grew in some ways that they haven't accepted, and maybe never will want to accept.

Did your family disown you? Did your wife and children leave you? Would fear of such cause you consternation? This kind of thing happens often and the fear that it could happen to the person in crisis causes that person extreme stress.

 

It's not the same for everyone, clearly. In my experience, going from a dogmatic, very literalistic world view in which I was raised and felt comfortable to a paradigm that is not literal or clear causes stress.

[The Nehor]

But isn't God the one they would attribute their "new" faith to? Or are you thinking they should be screaming out a truly heartfelt THANK YOU!!! ???

The important thing is that they are screaming something. Content varies.

[Ahab]

Try to see things from my perspective now.

When a person has faith they are sure about something, whatever it is that they say they have faith in. They feel sure that something is true, or real, or good, or even bad. That's just what it means to have faith in sonething, or someone.

And then what happens, which you refer to as a "crisis" of faith? What is it exactly that causes or caused that so-called 'crisis"?

Maybe it would be more accurate to call it a LIFE CRISIS. Because when you build a life on a certain set of beliefs, such as being a member of the 1 true church, temple marriage, eternal families etc, and then realize the foundation of all peace you've felt in your life is gone, it causes a crisis of identity. It causes a crisis of relationship when the spouse suddenly views you differently, perhaps as an unrighteous heathen who is unworthy to raise your kids. The source you turned to throughout your entire life, faith in the church and an eternal reckoning that would make everything ok, is gone and you are left alone. You wonder if you are at fault, if you're being deceived, or if you are really discovering a new truth. It creates turmoil that can upturn every aspect of life. That is a crisis. I'm not sure why you're adamant about saying it isn't.

How about if we just call it a new perspective without attributing any negative connotations to the new perspective you supposedly gained.

Using the word crisis in connection with the word faith just doesn't make any good sense to me, but maybe you just have a different and contrary idea about what the word faith refers to. To receive faith in anything should be seen as a good thing because it is helping you (or whoever receives it) to learn something. Even when you receive faith that something is bad. So why call it a crisis when you are learning something? Just be thankful you learned something about it, through faith, and move on.

You find out that what you felt sure about before was wrong? Is that what you are calling a crisis? But what happened that caused you to feel sure that what you felt sure about before was wrong? Didn't learning what was wrong come with an assurance that something else was right instead?

Eventually that came, but not initially. Once the elements of crisis calm and a person is able to gain some perspective they move into a faith transition. The transition was an after effect of the crisis.

So what are you calling a crisis? The consequences of receiving the new faith? But the faith itself is not what you would call a crisis, is it? I experienced some negative consequences when I received the faith I was given but I didn't and wouldn't think of the faith itself as a crisis. Learning is good, even when others don't agree with or like what has been learned and you get some kind of persecution from their opposition to it.

You wouldn't just toss out your former assurance without something else that is better to feel sure about, would you? So you gained greater knowledge to replace an assurance in something that was not right, or good. You learned better. You grew. You should now feel good that you gained an assurance in something that is better than the assurance you had before, assuming you didn't just throw out your former assurance for no good reason. And yet you still want to refer to your growth, your enlightenment, your perception of what is correct a crisis? Why use the word "crisis" for something that is essentially a good thing?

Because we don't exist in a bubble. We have families. We have spouses, kids, parents, siblings who suddenly look at us as apostates. We are told as much in person or on boards like this. If others don't transition in the same way and at the same time it creates serious strife and stresses relationships. Until a person learns how to navigate the change in these relationships in a positive way (if they ever do) they are at risk of losing those they love most. Sounds like a crisis to me.

Sounds like persecution to me, from people who don't like or appreciate what you gained faith in. You do think you gained faith when you let go of your former faith, didn't you? From your perspective you went from 1) having faith in something to 2) feeling like that faith was misplaced, based on what someone told you which was wrong WHILE AT THE SAME TIME receiving new faith from another source who was essentially correcting your false perception and replacing it with what you now have faith in. So the faith itself is not a crisis and should not be thought of as a faith crisis or a crisis of faith. Your crisis, if you want to think of anything as a crisis, came from other things outside or external to your faith/assurance/certainty.

I grew up in another religious environment than the one I'm in now and I can tell you that I do not consider my growth in perception, from that religion to this one, as a crisis. And I don't consider the fact that my family that raised me didn't and still doesn't accept my additional beliefs, either. I simply grew in some ways that they haven't accepted, and maybe never will want to accept.

Did your family disown you? Did your wife and children leave you? Would fear of such cause you consternation? This kind of thing happens often and the fear that it could happen to the person in crisis causes that person extreme stress.

I was single when I received my new faith regarding the Church so I didn't have to worry about what any wife or children would think of my new faith. My Dad did disown me though and my Grandmother asked me to move out of her house which I was planning to stay in while going through college. I had just moved in from another state and she had invited me to live with her while going through school, and my Dad was going to pay for it. But all of that changed when I received faith from God regarding the Church and joined it soon after I had moved in. I had found out about the Church just 2 weeks before moving and continued the discussions after I had moved in.

It's not the same for everyone, clearly. In my experience, going from a dogmatic, very literalistic world view in which I was raised and felt comfortable to a paradigm that is not literal or clear causes stress.

In a sense I suppose I could say I went through a crisis soon after I received some faith in God, but I would still not refer to it as a faith crisis. Anytime anyone receives faith from God, or they think is from God, it isn't what I would call a crisis. Edited August 12, 2015 by Ahab

[HappyJackWagon]

 

You do think you gained faith when you let go of your former faith, didn't you?

No. Faith/belief as I knew it was destroyed. The only thing I could say I had faith in was faith that I didn't have faith. It was more of an agnostic position.

Only after the crisis did the reconstruction begin.

[bluebell]

 

It's not the same for everyone, clearly. In my experience, going from a dogmatic, very literalistic world view in which I was raised and felt comfortable to a paradigm that is not literal or clear causes stress.

 

Do you think that if the church (and parents) taught a different paradigm that faith crisis, as you experienced it, would cease to exist?  If your parents had had a different approach to the gospel would have you never had the issue do you think?

[rockpond]

I thought this blog post was really interested.

 

http://www.birdsofashmae.com/2015/08/not-crisis-of-faith.html

 

Basically the point is that a lot of times what we may perceive or label as a 'crisis of faith' isn't that at all.  It's a change in our faith or religious beliefs and it can be uncomfortable, etc. but that doesn't mean that it is a crisis.  I've highlighted some of the phrases that she says are more beneficial to use than 'crisis of faith' below.

 

"I've done some experimenting with alternative phrases to 'crisis of faith', just to see how it does change our experience.  In an art show, I asked people to come up with their own alternative phrase and write them on the wall next to a big banner that said, 'crisis of faith'.  I also provided a list of words from the New Testament that they could use as prompts, because, as it turns out, Christ, even in scenarios that legitimately could be classified as crises, never used the term.  Here are some of the phrases people came up with: Wonderful wilderness; questioning to gain knowledge; hidden growth; look for better feelings; seeking more light; rest heart be full; finding new shores; journey for truth; standing in motion; looking higher; learning who we really are; opportunity to build a more genuine relationship with God; teaching out of love.  These are valuable phrases to me because they set me up to be a seeker, a searcher, a climber. They are phrases that dictate to me change without fear, searching without guilt and genuine love between myself and deity."

 

The idea is that words matter-matter way more than we really understand most of the time-and that rather than be a victim of a 'crisis' and 'against' God (because so often people blame the crisis on Him) people need to be partners with Him in the exploration of their faith.

 

"There is something about a crisis that puts one in a rather helpless place.  A crisis might be an earthquake or disaster, in which the one experiencing the crisis is also, by default, the victim of circumstances beyond their control.  A crisis puts one into fight or flight mode because survival is the main objective.  In a crisis there is little time, or even reason to stop and meditate, be thoughtful or even pray.  For me, when I think of my questions in the gospel as a 'crisis of faith', I am set at odds with God, almost as if He is the one who created the disaster that I am fighting to get free from. There were times when I became the victim of my spirituality, rather than the explorer. When I feel at most in the midst of a spiritual crisis, when I am tired of wrestling my thoughts, I become quiet.   When I allow myself the liberty to think beyond the phrase crisis, I realize that I am not at odds with God, but rather, my searching can be cause for beautiful communion.  When I am in crisis mode, I am stuck in a valley scrambling for understanding, but what I would rather be is an explorer setting out for greater heights and views and I’ve realized that often I am the only one that can choose which place I will be in." 

She makes some other points as well so please read the whole post if you can, but i thought this was a really interesting way to look at the idea of a 'faith crisis' and from one who come empathize and not from someone who is just trying to change terminology as a way to more comfortably define something that is happening to someone else.

 

Is the author right?  Is the catch-all phrase of 'crisis of faith' neither an accurate nor healthy way to engage changes in our testimony and spiritual growth?

 

I think the author makes a good point.

 

Terryl Givens prefers the term "faith challenge" rather than faith crisis.

 

I think that challenge is probably a better word much of the time.

 

But, sometimes given our culture, crisis is the right word.  For some in our community, losing (or even changing) faith has some tragic effects on marriage, employment, familial relationships, social relationships, etc.

[Ahab]

No. Faith/belief as I knew it was destroyed. The only thing I could say I had faith in was faith that I didn't have faith. It was more of an agnostic position.

Only after the crisis did the reconstruction begin.

I have faith that what you just said is not true, and if you don't mind getting into specifics we can settle this issue right now.

First you had faith in something, right? What did you have faith in, for example? Whatever it was it was something you were sure about. And then later what happened? You were sure about something for a while? Why did you later change your mind about whatever it was you were once sure about? Or maybe we can just skip over the Why. The fact that you later changed your mind is evidence that you gained something else. Instead of being sure about whatever it was that you once had faith in you were then sure about something else. You were sure that you had been wrong, otherwise you would still have had the faith you once had. It's still faith, just different than the faith you once had, and probably the exact opposite of the faith you once had. Basically you just switched sides with the opposition, like going from a Yes to a No, but with the No side still having their own set of Yeses.

Right? Look back on it now and tell me if that is not true. Your new faith is now in alignment with what was once the contrary view and you have gained that contrary view which you are no longer against.

[HappyJackWagon]

I have faith that what you just said is not true, and if you don't mind getting into specifics we can settle this issue right now.

First you had faith in something, right? What did you have faith in, for example? Whatever it was it was something you were sure about. And then later what happened? You were sure about something for a while? Why did you later change your mind about whatever it was you were once sure about? Or maybe we can just skip over the Why. The fact that you later changed your mind is evidence that you gained something else. Instead of being sure about whatever it was that you once had faith in you were then sure about something else. You were sure that you had been wrong, otherwise you would still have had the faith you once had. It's still faith, just different than the faith you once had, and probably the exact opposite of the faith you once had. Basically you just switched sides with the opposition, like going from a Yes to a No, but with the No side still having their own set of Yeses.

Right? Look back on it now and tell me if that is not true. Your new faith is now in alignment with what was once the contrary view and you have gained that contrary view which you are no longer against.

No, Ahab. I'm sorry but you don't get it and I'm not describing it well, apparently. I went from a stage of certainty in most things related to faith to uncertainty in any truth. I didn't trade one set of beliefs for another, I simply realized I was uncertain about every foundational truth claim I'd grown up on. I had a firm belief that I exist, and that was about it.

[Deborah]

I had my "crisis" of faith very early on, soon after I joined the church at a very young age. It was when I came across Fawn Brodie's book and heard about the Priesthood ban. I really questioned if I had joined the right church after all. But then I remembered the very strong spiritual experience which told me this was the right church. I tabled my concerns with the determination to learn all I could. So yes my crisis resulted in a resolution to look at my faith realistically and with the idea that God calls imperfect people to run his church from the highest to the lowest office and that I needed to learn more and not just stop with what first shocked me.

 

Hence, when other "new" information hit me it didn't disturb me but made me want to find out more. I think so many when they hear these things for the first time stop in their tracks and stop learning to see everything in context and to look at the whole picture.

[Ahab]

No, Ahab. I'm sorry but you don't get it and I'm not describing it well, apparently. I went from a stage of certainty in most things related to faith to uncertainty in any truth. I didn't trade one set of beliefs for another, I simply realized I was uncertain about every foundational truth claim I'd grown up on. I had a firm belief that I exist, and that was about it.

Are you sure that you were uncertain? That's still faith even if you were still trying to give your faith additional context. You went from being certain about some things to being certain that you were uncertain about some of those things and then you grew to be certain in some of those things that you were once certain that you were uncertain about but which you had earlier been certain about.

We're always certain about some things, even when we are certain that we are uncertain, so we always have some form of faith.

And of course you are free to be certain about whatever you want to be certain about.

[Storm Rider]

I had my "crisis" of faith very early on, soon after I joined the church at a very young age. It was when I came across Fawn Brodie's book and heard about the Priesthood ban. I really questioned if I had joined the right church after all. But then I remembered the very strong spiritual experience which told me this was the right church. I tabled my concerns with the determination to learn all I could. So yes my crisis resulted in a resolution to look at my faith realistically and with the idea that God calls imperfect people to run his church from the highest to the lowest office and that I needed to learn more and not just stop with what first shocked me.

 

Hence, when other "new" information hit me it didn't disturb me but made me want to find out more. I think so many when they hear these things for the first time stop in their tracks and stop learning to see everything in context and to look at the whole picture.

 

Thank you for sharing this.  There are things that continue to pose problems for me; things I do not understand.  What has worked for me is trying to remember that this world is one of opposition.  Such terrible things happen in this life and yet our Father in Heaven is able to heal even the most horrible wounds if we allow him into our lives.  

 

I try to focus on being a disciple of Christ.  I try not to complain about life, heartaches, bad things, because I know what little things I am given to overcome is as nothing compared to what our Savior went through or countless other individuals that have suffered far worse than me.  Yes, I have wished that things could be different and there was an answer for every question, but there is not and there is not supposed to be.  This life is a test for a reason.

[mfbukowski]

Also, the LDS Church does not agree with you at all, Ahab.  As bluebell was saying, members don't just fear that what they thought was right was wrong, but that they might still be wrong in their doubts and be turning from what is actually right after all. The LDS Church teaches, trains, and could be said to condition its members to fear anything that even resembles disbelief.  That being taught, trained, and conditioned into them from birth(!), how can any significant experience of significant doubt NOT be considered a CRISIS of faith?  The LDS Church works against your optimism, Ahab, and the optimism of the blog writer.

 

From "faith promoting" renditions of history to this fear-mongering of doubt, the LDS Church sets its members up for crises of faith.

I have to say something on this one.

 

You cite at least two examples to the contrary of your position- Ahab and the "blog writer" - with no reference to who or what blog that is, and then assert the opposite of your evidence- that indeed the church "fear-mongers" doubt with no evidence or that shown.

 

That's certainly an interesting point.  Quote two points in opposition to the point you are trying to make, and then offer no evidence in favor of your own point.

 

An interesting strategy indeed.

[mfbukowski]

When I had my "crisis," my wife wisely said that I had an opportunity to start fresh and really explore what I believed. I think the crisis is more once you figure out that your beliefs were mistaken, but the act of re-evaluating need not be a crisis at all.

This is getting absolutely scary.

 

Once again, I agree with John.   Two in one week.  The sky must be falling or something.

 

Growth is not crisis.

[Joshua Valentine]

I have faith that what you just said is not true, and if you don't mind getting into specifics we can settle this issue right now.

First you had faith in something, right? What did you have faith in, for example? Whatever it was it was something you were sure about. And then later what happened? You were sure about something for a while? Why did you later change your mind about whatever it was you were once sure about? Or maybe we can just skip over the Why. The fact that you later changed your mind is evidence that you gained something else. Instead of being sure about whatever it was that you once had faith in you were then sure about something else. You were sure that you had been wrong, otherwise you would still have had the faith you once had. It's still faith, just different than the faith you once had, and probably the exact opposite of the faith you once had. Basically you just switched sides with the opposition, like going from a Yes to a No, but with the No side still having their own set of Yeses.

Right? Look back on it now and tell me if that is not true. Your new faith is now in alignment with what was once the contrary view and you have gained that contrary view which you are no longer against.

 

 

I think it is obvious that many of us are talking about two different things and would, at least to some extent, agree with each other if we aligned our points.  Ahab, up until this point you seemed to be obviously only entertaining the latter part of the faith change process - the transition. Yes, I think most people who have transitioned, and thus by definition come to an understanding, peace, and embrace of their current position/view/faith/worldview, do consider it to have been a challenge that they have grown from and through, and even, hopefully, a net positive. So I, and I think others, agree with you about the transition period after the initial shock.

 

But, in the very beginning, when there is shock, feelings of betrayal, embarrassment, anger, fear of loss, and confusion, uncertainty, instability, then it is perfectly fine to describe this as a "crisis". Now is it a crisis of faith or certainty or worldview? Semantics for the most part.

 

I think it would be helpful for people to consider a wider view of their spirituality. Considering it a worldview, a crisis of worldview that transitions to a new, hopefully more accurate worldview, would allow more room than "am I in the right church?", and thus more easily allow for bouleversements. Shock and uncertainty can be a more natural part of this wider perspective. This may be what you have been trying to advocate Ahab. But in the specific moment of initial doubt, uncertainty, and fear it is fair to describe it as a crisis, too. You just don't want to stay in that initial state forever.

 

People who are going through this initial shock and fear need to be accompanied and encouraged that transition, challenge, and growth, and peace and fulfillment are available with time. There is no need to deny the crisis in order to encourage people about the challenge and positive, eventual, upside.

 

No, Ahab. I'm sorry but you don't get it and I'm not describing it well, apparently. I went from a stage of certainty in most things related to faith to uncertainty in any truth. I didn't trade one set of beliefs for another, I simply realized I was uncertain about every foundational truth claim I'd grown up on. I had a firm belief that I exist, and that was about it.

 

HappyJackWagon is describing this initial state of crisis and evidences how you (Ahab) are dealing with the later situation of a new faith, belief, etc.

 

Are you sure that you were uncertain? That's still faith even if you were still trying to give your faith additional context. You went from being certain about some things to being certain that you were uncertain about some of those things and then you grew to be certain in some of those things that you were once certain that you were uncertain about but which you had earlier been certain about.

We're always certain about some things, even when we are certain that we are uncertain, so we always have some form of faith.

And of course you are free to be certain about whatever you want to be certain about.

 

But, here! Here you really take a turn. I don't know how to account for what you are saying here. "Certainty of being uncertain" - that is supposed to be comforting? "Well, I am certain that I have no clue what is going on, if I am doing right or wrong, correct or mistaken, losing error or gaining it, losing God or getting closer to Him, losing friends and family, respect, job, and..." and that is supposed to be a good thing? Huh? Certainty of uncertainty is simply saying that you have a clear, direct knowledge of a horrible initial situation. It is only once time, effort, and tears are spent that chaos starts to become ordered again and new perspective of "challenge" and "growth" and "good" can be really said to be present for the person going through it.

 

So, except for that last comment, I think we all can agree that crisis and challenge can be used for this process. If we deny the first, crisis, then we are kidding ourselves, disrespecting those who have gone through it, and strangely denying the human condition. If we deny the latter, we may never transition, and may God help that one.

[Joshua Valentine]

I have to say something on this one.

 

You cite at least two examples to the contrary of your position- Ahab and the "blog writer" - with no reference to who or what blog that is, and then assert the opposite of your evidence- that indeed the church "fear-mongers" doubt with no evidence or that shown.

 

That's certainly an interesting point.  Quote two points in opposition to the point you are trying to make, and then offer no evidence in favor of your own point.

 

An interesting strategy indeed.

 

I feel like your not knowing what blog writer I am referring to indicates that you have not read the thread carefully enough. Also, unless you can honestly tell me that you believe there is nothing in the LDS Culture (or the LDS Church that heads that culture) that encourages its members to fear doubt, then I sense an inordinate amount of uncharitableness on your part. The previous seems to heighten the latter.

 

I have come across enough statements in (IIRC) LDS song, teaching, and culture that I assumed people would know the evidence in favor of my point. Certainly, they may not agree that it is significant or sufficient for my position, but at least know to what I was referring.

 

P.S. - mfbukowski, This is what you have to say something on? I was looking forward to your skills rectifying the disorder of miscommunication that seems rampant on this thread. But, instead, this?

Edited August 13, 2015 by Joshua Valentine

[mfbukowski]

I feel like your not knowing what blog writer I am referring to indicates that you have not read the thread carefully enough. Also, unless you can honestly tell me that you believe there is nothing in the LDS Culture (or the LDS Church that heads that culture) that encourages its members to fear doubt, then I sense an inordinate amount of uncharitableness on your part. The previous seems to heighten the latter.

I have come across enough statements in (IIRC) LDS song, teaching, and culture that I assumed people would know the evidence in favor of my point. Certainly, they may not agree that it is significant or sufficient for my position, but at least know to what I was referring.

P.S. - mfbukowski, This is what you have to say something on? I was looking forward to your skills rectifying the disorder of miscommunication that seems rampant on this thread. But, instead, this?

Go for it. I would like to see anything in the last 10 years at a conference address saying it we should fear doubt. I know the doubt your doubts talk but that does not say we should fear doubt. So please show me some references.

[Joshua Valentine]

Go for it. I would like to see anything in the last 10 years at a conference address saying it we should fear doubt. I know the doubt your doubts talk but that does not say we should fear doubt. So please show me some references.

 

Oh, you can disagree with the "significance or sufficiency" of the evidence. But you want GC quotes, not only that, but in the last ten years?! Not even presidential actions change the course of the US economy in that time, in general. Why would a few GC talks do the same with LDS Culture in the same time?

 

Anyway, I made no promise of GC talks. I didn't even claim that they explicitly teach "fear doubts". One can instill fear of something without explicitly stating fear or the thing.  Nonetheless, I'll see if I can find you some examples from culture or teaching that strongly indicate doubt, perhaps among other related things, is to be avoided, even feared, actively.

 

Perhaps others here can give examples they remember. But just a quick few. We don't want to stray too far or too long from the OP. 

[mfbukowski]

Oh, you can disagree with the "significance or sufficiency" of the evidence. But you want GC quotes, not only that, but in the last ten years?! Not even presidential actions change the course of the US economy in that time, in general. Why would a few GC talks do the same with LDS Culture in the same time?

 

Anyway, I made no promise of GC talks. I didn't even claim that they explicitly teach "fear doubts". One can instill fear of something without explicitly stating fear or the thing.  Nonetheless, I'll see if I can find you some examples from culture or teaching that strongly indicate doubt, perhaps among other related things, is to be avoided, even feared, actively.

 

Perhaps others here can give examples they remember. But just a quick few. We don't want to stray too far or too long from the OP. 

LOL!!!!!!

 

Weasel words.  Put up or retract your statement. Those are board rules- this is an official CFR and I will pursue it til doomsday.

[mfbukowski]

 Also, unless you can honestly tell me that you believe there is nothing in the LDS Culture (or the LDS Church that heads that culture) that encourages its members to fear doubt, then I sense an inordinate amount of uncharitableness on your part. The previous seems to heighten the latter.

 

Yes I am honestly telling you that I believe there is nothing in the LDS Culture (whatever that is supposed to mean) that encourages its members to fear doubt.  I have no clue what the rest of that statement also is supposed to mean, about uncharitableness- but that is irrelevant.

 

Put up or shut up.

[mfbukowski]

The LDS Church teaches, trains, and could be said to condition its members to fear anything that even resembles disbelief.  That being taught, trained, and conditioned into them from birth(!), how can any significant experience of significant doubt NOT be considered a CRISIS of faith? 

CFR.  That's another one.  Prove it.

 

To the contrary it encourages its members to gain their own testimonies of each principle.

[mfbukowski]

I especially had a huge crisis in faith when I started believing in God again.  Horrible feeling.  All the artificial certainty of atheism was gone.  Suddenly I actually had to think about what reality and truth were.   I thought that it was easy to prove that God does not exist and then I realized it was impossible.

 

Worst of all I found out there really was someone who loved me unconditionally and someone I could take all my worst feelings and fears and feel love anyway.  A real person who could communicate with me.

 

It was absolutely horrifying. 

[mfbukowski]

In defense of Ahab

John Dewey (1859-1952) was an American philosopher who taught at many universities, including Michigan, Minnesota, Chicago, and Columbia. He wrote extensively on the philosophy of education and on epistemology. He also wrote on logic, ethics, and aesthetics, and he was recognized as a founder (with C.S. Peirce and William James) of the philosophy of pragmatism. His books included The School and Society (1899), Democracy and Education (1916), Human Nature and Conduct (1922), The Public and its Problems (1927), Experience and NatureThe Quest for Certainty (1929), Ethics (1932), Art as Experience (1934), Logic: The Theory of Inquiry (1938), Freedom and Culture (1939), and Knowing and the Known (1949, with Arthur F. Bentley).

The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action (1929) is based on the Gifford Lectures (1929) that Dewey delivered at the University of Edinburgh. The lectures are concerned with the difference between knowledge and belief, and they consider the question of how knowledge and belief can contribute to practical action.

The text is divided into eleven chapters: 1) ”Escape from Peril,” 2) “Philosophy’s Search for the Immutable,” 3) “Conflict of Authorities,” 4) “The Art of Acceptance and the Art of Control,” 5) “Ideas at Work,” 6) “The Play of Ideas,” 7) “The Seat of Intellectual Authority,” “The Naturalization of Intelligence,” 9) “The Supremacy of Method,” 10) “The Construction of Good,” and 11) “The Copernican Revolution.”

Philosophers have frequently been misled, says Dewey, by the assumption that the difference between knowledge and belief is the same as the difference between certainty and uncertainty. Knowledge has often been assumed to be a state of certainty, while belief has been assumed to be a state of uncertainty. Permanent and logically necessary truths have been assumed to be possible objects of knowledge, while conditional or empirical truths have been assumed to be objects of belief.

Certainty is more easily attainable in theory than in practice, and the truth of some judgments about what actions should be performed in a given situation may appear to be certain in theory but may only be probable in actual practice. The quest for certainty may thus be an attempt to separate theory from practice, and it may be an attempt to separate knowledge from action.

The quest for certainty may also be a quest for knowledge, and theoretical knowledge may often be assumed to be knowledge of a realm of ultimate reality. Belief, on the other hand, may often be assumed to be a mode of thinking about a realm of uncertainty or probability.

An important question that has been considered by many philosophers is whether knowledge can be attained only of things that are unchanging or whether it can also be attained of things that are changing. If knowledge can be attained only of things that are unchanging, then our actions in a changing world must be guided by our beliefs about the nature of that world.

The quest for certainty may be an attempt to transcend belief, but beliefs are important for any mode of empirical inquiry because they may be plans for practical action. Thus, the quest for certainty arises from a need for perfecting the methods and results of practical action.

Theoretical knowledge has often been regarded as a "higher" knowledge of ultimate reality, while practical knowledge has often been regarded as a "lower" knowledge of the empirical world. However, the procedures of knowledge do not justify the separation of theory from practice or of knowledge from action. Knowledge of ultimate reality cannot be separated from knowledge of the empirical world. According to Dewey, knowledge is how we act on, and how we interact with, the empirical world. Knowledge is defined by practical action.

Instead of trying to discover what is permanent and unchanging in the realm of ultimate reality, experimental inquiry may try to discover how change occurs in the empirical world. The quest for certainty may thus seek methods for regulating the conditions of change that affect the outcome of events. If experimental inquiry does not find that the universe consists of unchangeable substances which have fixed or mmutable properties, however, then certainty about empirical phenomena cannot be attained by knowledge of a supposedly permanent and unchanging realm of ultimate reality. Theoretical certainty must then be assimilated by practical certainty, which can only be attained if we learn how to engage in prctical modes of thinking.

Knowledge may not be attained merely by trying to escape from conditions of doubt or uncertainty. Knowledge may depend on uncertainty, however, in order to discover the possible outcomes of empirical phenomena. It may thus be attained by a mode of active inquiry and may be instrumental for practical actionsevents in the empirical world. Knowledge is thus instrumental for practical action.

Thought is not merely a property of intellect, says Dewey. It is an activity leading to practical action.¹ Practical action depends on belief, because beliefs are rules for action. The validity of beliefs depends on their consequences for action.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/dewey.html