Thoughts on Thoughts on NMS Poll Results

[smac97]

So the Huffington Post published an article today by Benjamin Knoll, PhD:  How many Mormons “just believe” in their church’s teachings?

Some thoughts:

Quote

One of the most significant trends in American religion today is the growth of the “Nones” and the slow but steady secularization of American society. This puts the topic of religious belief on the agenda in most religious organizations.

This is quite true.  Our ward's bishop was in a meeting yesterday during which poll results were discussed showing a nearly 20% drop in core religiosity questions (belief in God, belief in Jesus Christ, belief in the Resurrection, that sort of thing) as between Baby Boomers / Generation X and Generation Y / Millennials.

Quote

While adherents of all religions vary in the extent of their orthodoxy and orthopraxy, small religions like Mormonism especially depend on the firmness of belief of their members to maintain social cohesion and vitality. Mormons in particular have a reputation for their conviction. On the first Sunday of every month members of Mormon congregations are invited to share with each other a brief statement of their commitment and assurance of the truthfulness of their faith. It is easy to assume that, as a popular Broadway musical claims, “Mormons just believe!”

I'm not sure what "just believe" means.  If it's a "at the end of it all, when all is said and done, Mormons 'just believe' in God as a fundamental basis for their worldview" kind of thing, then I can go along with that.  If it's a "Mormons are ignorant rubes and rely on blind faith to 'just believe' in their church's teachings," then I don't.

Quote

But how many Mormons don’t “just believe?” The 2016 Next Mormons Survey (NMS) canvassed American Mormons with a variety of questions about their degree of belief in Mormon doctrines and practices. For the first time, we are able to quantitatively and systematically assess the degree of belief and doubt in American Mormonism.

I am interested in the results of this survey (conducted by Dr. Knoll and Jana Riess), but I will be closely examining their polling methods (it's available now, so I need to purchase it and dig in).  To be frank, I do not repose much trust in Jana Riess.

Quote

The NMS asked each self-identified Mormon respondent to answer the following question:

Which statement comes closest to your own views—even if none is exactly right?

• 49.1% “I believe wholeheartedly in all of the teachings of the LDS Church.”
• 33.9% “I believe many or most of the teachings of the LDS Church.”
• 12.2% “Some of the teachings of the LDS Church are hard for me to believe.”
• 3.1% “Many or most of the teachings of the LDS Church are hard for me to believe.”
• 1.8% “I do not believe in the teachings of the LDS Church.”

Here we see that roughly half of American Mormons are strong believers in the doctrines of their religion. Another third are generally consistent believers. The remaining 17% express at least a moderate degree of doubt about their church’s teachings. This is about one in every six of all American Mormons.

The poll results show nearly three out of four self-identified Mormons have pretty strong beliefs in the teachings of the Church.  And another 12+% seem to have faith in the bulk of the teachings of the Church (expressing reservations about "some" of the teachings of the Church).  As I see it, these three categories - comprising results from 95.2% of respondents, are generally compatible with not only active participation in the Church, but in full participation, including being able to hold most callings in the Church, holding a temple recommend, etc.  And even limiting things to the first two sets (comprising 83% of respondents), that figure still seems like . . . a lot.  I mean, a lot.  I would be interested in seeing corollary poll results of this question as presented to, say, self-identified Catholics.  Baptists.  Methodist.  A frame of reference would be nice.

Regarding the 34% who believe "many or most of the teachings of the LDS Church," I very much respect that perspective.  I think there are parts of the doctrines of the Restored Gospel that are difficult to understand.  I suspect that the bulk of the concerns held by this 34%, and much (most) of the next grouping of 12% ("Some of the teachings of the LDS Church are hard for me to believe") stem from three issues: 1) polygamy, 2) the Priesthood Ban,  and 3) the Law of Chastity as pertaining to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  If we were closer in time and culture to the practice of animal sacrifice, I think that would be a significant point of concern for Mormons living in 2017, as well.  The issue of female ordination might be also a factor for some.  Same goes with the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Polygamy is a difficult and thorny topic, and understanding it takes more time and study and effort than I think most of us give to it.

The Priesthood Ban is likewise and difficult and thorny topic, all the more so since it appears to lack any revelatory provenance (unlike polygamy, which unequivocally does).  This gives rise to an interesting question: What is likely to be more troubling, as a question of faith, for an observant Latter-day Saint: the practice of polygamy (which was authorized by God, but is still sociologically "icky" to many of us), or the existence of the Priesthood Ban (which lacks any known/quantified/recorded revelatory origin, and so may be construed as an incorrect tradition that existed in the Church for 125 or so years)?

Quote

Might this 17% simply be inactive members who have distanced themselves to some degree from their faith community? Not entirely. Among Mormons who say they attend church at least once a week (74% of all Mormons in our survey), 9% expressed some degree of doubt. Among those who say they are “very active” (55% of all Mormons), 6% expressed a degree of doubt. Even among those who are current “temple recommend” holders (a subgroup of active Mormons who pass an interview with an ecclesiastical leader in which the individual is required to affirm belief in core Mormon doctrines, about 52% of all Mormons), 4% expressed at least a degree of doubt in LDS church teachings.

Again, this seems to me to be quite encouraging.  I am happy to hear that many people express a very strong faith in the Church.  I am not concerned that some members, including a very small percentage (4%) of TR holders, express "a degree of doubt."  Having faith is not a static thing.  It ebbs and flows.  It grows and retracts.  Doubts are part of that process.  I am not suggesting that doubt is preferable to faith.  Rather, I am suggesting that it is not axiomatically opposed to faith.  It is, for many (most?) of us, part of the package.  Part of the process.  Hence the need for persisting in faith, prayer, study and obedience.

Quote

While these numbers may be small, it is significant that one out of every ten Mormons sitting in the pews each week expresses skepticism in their church’s teachings. In absolute numbers, this represents somewhere in the ballpark of a quarter of a million active, practicing Mormons in the United States who are uncertain of their beliefs in LDS Church teachings.

"Skepticism in their church's teachings" and "uncertain of their beliefs" exemplify the sort of negative slant that I have come to expect from Jane Riess.

Quote

Our survey revealed many other interesting patterns in Mormon belief:

• Mormon “Doubters” are not characterized so much by their demographic status, but rather the composition of their social networks. Those with more childhood friends or close friends who left the Mormon Church are more likely to express doubt than those with friendship circles who remained “in the fold.”

Hmm.  This could end up becoming one of more important findings of the survey.  Social pressures/influences affect one's perception of the Church and its teachings.  

Quote

• Attending seminary for Mormon youth is correlated with a significant decrease in expressing doubts later in life, even after statistically controlling for a host of other important factors.

I am glad to hear this.  For myself, I did not have a particularly noteworthy or positive experience with the seminary program.  That is my general sentiment and recollection.  And yet here I am, many years later, strongly attached to the Church.

Quote

• A majority of Mormon Doubters express belief in God, the afterlife, Jesus Christ, and a literal resurrection but are far less certain about the nature of God, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and contemporary Mormon leaders, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and the exclusivity of Mormon priesthood authority to dispense salvific ordinances.

Interesting.  This may also be an important result of the survey.  We'll have to look at the methodology.

Quote

• Mormon Doubters tend to appreciate the community aspect of the LDS Church more than “Believers.” They also appreciate the Church’s focus on children and youth more than Believers. Despite this, they are much less confident about their long-term prospects of remaining affiliated with the Mormon Church than are Believers.

This is interesting as well.  I think "believers" take the community of faith as a given, as a natural extension and expression of the collective faith of those involved. 

"Mormon Doubters," on the other hand, may tend to view the Church as merely a social construct, like a social club.  One that has some beneficial effects, but which may be to costly in proverbial "membership dues" (weekly attendance at Church, holding a calling, paying tithing, identifying as 'Mormon' when we are at odds with prevailing social trends, etc.).

This would explain why "doubters" express more appreciation for the "community aspect" of the Church than "believers."

Quote

There is much more that the NMS revealed about patterns of belief and doubt in contemporary American Mormonism. A comprehensive analysis entitled “’Infected With Doubt’: An Empirical Overview of Belief and Non-Belief in Contemporary American Mormonism,” coauthored by me and Jana Riess, is featured in this fall’s issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and can be purchased here.

So a huge majority of Mormons have a strong or very strong relationship with and belief in the teachings of their Church (83% or 95.2%), and yet Dr. Knoll and Jana Riess title their article "Infected With Doubt."

"Infected."

"Doubt."

This is the sort of thing that makes me place little trust in Jana Riess.  I don't trust her to be dispassionate.  I don't trust her to be fair toward the Church.  Instead, I expect her to find fault, not nitpick, to harangue, to place and characterize her personal sociopolitical beliefs in conflict with, and superior to, the doctrines of the Church.

So yes, I will digest the results of the survey, but no, I will not repose much trust in the authors' takeaways about it.

Anyhoo, any thoughts on the poss results?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So the Huffington Post published an article today by Benjamin Knoll, PhD:  How many Mormons “just believe” in their church’s teachings?

Some thoughts:

This is quite true.  Our ward's bishop was in a meeting yesterday during which poll results were discussed showing a nearly 20% drop in core religiosity questions (belief in God, belief in Jesus Christ, belief in the Resurrection, that sort of thing) as between Baby Boomers / Generation X and Generation Y / Millennials.

I'm not sure what "just believe" means.  If it's a "at the end of it all, when all is said and done, Mormons 'just believe' in God as a fundamental basis for their worldview" kind of thing, then I can go along with that.  If it's a "Mormons are ignorant rubes and rely on blind faith to 'just believe' in their church's teachings," then I don't.

I am interested in the results of this survey (conducted by Dr. Knoll and Jana Riess), but I will be closely examining their polling methods (it's available now, so I need to purchase it and dig in).  To be frank, I do not repose much trust in Jana Riess.

The poll results show nearly three out of four self-identified Mormons have pretty strong beliefs in the teachings of the Church.  And another 12+% seem to have faith in the bulk of the teachings of the Church (expressing reservations about "some" of the teachings of the Church).  As I see it, these three categories - comprising results from 95.2% of respondents, are generally compatible with not only active participation in the Church, but in full participation, including being able to hold most callings in the Church, holding a temple recommend, etc.  And even limiting things to the first two sets (comprising 83% of respondents), that figure still seems like . . . a lot.  I mean, a lot.  I would be interested in seeing corollary poll results of this question as presented to, say, self-identified Catholics.  Baptists.  Methodist.  A frame of reference would be nice.

Regarding the 34% who believe "many or most of the teachings of the LDS Church," I very much respect that perspective.  I think there are parts of the doctrines of the Restored Gospel that are difficult to understand.  I suspect that the bulk of the concerns held by this 34%, and much (most) of the next grouping of 12% ("Some of the teachings of the LDS Church are hard for me to believe") stem from three issues: 1) polygamy, 2) the Priesthood Ban,  and 3) the Law of Chastity as pertaining to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  If we were closer in time and culture to the practice of animal sacrifice, I think that would be a significant point of concern for Mormons living in 2017, as well.  The issue of female ordination might be also a factor for some.  Same goes with the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Polygamy is a difficult and thorny topic, and understanding it takes more time and study and effort than I think most of us give to it.

The Priesthood Ban is likewise and difficult and thorny topic, all the more so since it appears to lack any revelatory provenance (unlike polygamy, which unequivocally does).  This gives rise to an interesting question: What is likely to be more troubling, as a question of faith, for an observant Latter-day Saint: the practice of polygamy (which was authorized by God, but is still sociologically "icky" to many of us), or the existence of the Priesthood Ban (which lacks any known/quantified/recorded revelatory origin, and so may be construed as an incorrect tradition that existed in the Church for 125 or so years)?

Again, this seems to me to be quite encouraging.  I am happy to hear that many people express a very strong faith in the Church.  I am not concerned that some members, including a very small percentage (4%) of TR holders, express "a degree of doubt."  Having faith is not a static thing.  It ebbs and flows.  It grows and retracts.  Doubts are part of that process.  I am not suggesting that doubt is preferable to faith.  Rather, I am suggesting that it is not axiomatically opposed to faith.  It is, for many (most?) of us, part of the package.  Part of the process.  Hence the need for persisting in faith, prayer, study and obedience.

"Skepticism in their church's teachings" and "uncertain of their beliefs" exemplify the sort of negative slant that I have come to expect from Jane Riess.

Hmm.  This could end up becoming one of more important findings of the survey.  Social pressures/influences affect one's perception of the Church and its teachings.  

I am glad to hear this.  For myself, I did not have a particularly noteworthy or positive experience with the seminary program.  That is my general sentiment and recollection.  And yet here I am, many years later, strongly attached to the Church.

Interesting.  This may also be an important result of the survey.  We'll have to look at the methodology.

This is interesting as well.  I think "believers" take the community of faith as a given, as a natural extension and expression of the collective faith of those involved. 

"Mormon Doubters," on the other hand, may tend to view the Church as merely a social construct, like a social club.  One that has some beneficial effects, but which may be to costly in proverbial "membership dues" (weekly attendance at Church, holding a calling, paying tithing, identifying as 'Mormon' when we are at odds with prevailing social trends, etc.).

This would explain why "doubters" express more appreciation for the "community aspect" of the Church than "believers."

So a huge majority of Mormons have a strong or very strong relationship with and belief in the teachings of their Church (83% or 95.2%), and yet Dr. Knoll and Jana Riess title their article "Infected With Doubt."

"Infected."

"Doubt."

This is the sort of thing that makes me place little trust in Jana Riess.  I don't trust her to be dispassionate.  I don't trust her to be fair toward the Church.  Instead, I expect her to find fault, not nitpick, to harangue, to place and characterize her personal sociopolitical beliefs in conflict with, and superior to, the doctrines of the Church.

So yes, I will digest the results of the survey, but no, I will not repose much trust in the authors' takeaways about it.

Anyhoo, any thoughts on the poss results?

Thanks,

-Smac

This is a good preliminary analysis. I look forward to your digging deeper into it and reporting your conclusions.

And I share your mistrust of Jana Riess, by the way.

Regarding doubt, I would reiterate what Elder Oaks said the other night (and which I highlighted in a thread on this board) in differentiating between doubts and questions. Too often people (perhaps including some of the respondents to this poll) blend their comprehension of  the meaning of these terms when there really is a distinction. Doubt, unlike mere questioning, implies a degree of resistance and distrust. I think we all have questions at some time or another. That does not necessarily equate to doubt.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So the Huffington Post published an article today by Benjamin Knoll, PhD:  How many Mormons “just believe” in their church’s teachings?

Some thoughts:

This is quite true.  Our ward's bishop was in a meeting yesterday during which poll results were discussed showing a nearly 20% drop in core religiosity questions (belief in God, belief in Jesus Christ, belief in the Resurrection, that sort of thing) as between Baby Boomers / Generation X and Generation Y / Millennials.

I'm not sure what "just believe" means.  If it's a "at the end of it all, when all is said and done, Mormons 'just believe' in God as a fundamental basis for their worldview" kind of thing, then I can go along with that.  If it's a "Mormons are ignorant rubes and rely on blind faith to 'just believe' in their church's teachings," then I don't.

I am interested in the results of this survey (conducted by Dr. Knoll and Jana Riess), but I will be closely examining their polling methods (it's available now, so I need to purchase it and dig in).  To be frank, I do not repose much trust in Jana Riess.

The poll results show nearly three out of four self-identified Mormons have pretty strong beliefs in the teachings of the Church.  And another 12+% seem to have faith in the bulk of the teachings of the Church (expressing reservations about "some" of the teachings of the Church).  As I see it, these three categories - comprising results from 95.2% of respondents, are generally compatible with not only active participation in the Church, but in full participation, including being able to hold most callings in the Church, holding a temple recommend, etc.  And even limiting things to the first two sets (comprising 83% of respondents), that figure still seems like . . . a lot.  I mean, a lot.  I would be interested in seeing corollary poll results of this question as presented to, say, self-identified Catholics.  Baptists.  Methodist.  A frame of reference would be nice.

Regarding the 34% who believe "many or most of the teachings of the LDS Church," I very much respect that perspective.  I think there are parts of the doctrines of the Restored Gospel that are difficult to understand.  I suspect that the bulk of the concerns held by this 34%, and much (most) of the next grouping of 12% ("Some of the teachings of the LDS Church are hard for me to believe") stem from three issues: 1) polygamy, 2) the Priesthood Ban,  and 3) the Law of Chastity as pertaining to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  If we were closer in time and culture to the practice of animal sacrifice, I think that would be a significant point of concern for Mormons living in 2017, as well.  The issue of female ordination might be also a factor for some.  Same goes with the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Polygamy is a difficult and thorny topic, and understanding it takes more time and study and effort than I think most of us give to it.

The Priesthood Ban is likewise and difficult and thorny topic, all the more so since it appears to lack any revelatory provenance (unlike polygamy, which unequivocally does).  This gives rise to an interesting question: What is likely to be more troubling, as a question of faith, for an observant Latter-day Saint: the practice of polygamy (which was authorized by God, but is still sociologically "icky" to many of us), or the existence of the Priesthood Ban (which lacks any known/quantified/recorded revelatory origin, and so may be construed as an incorrect tradition that existed in the Church for 125 or so years)?

Again, this seems to me to be quite encouraging.  I am happy to hear that many people express a very strong faith in the Church.  I am not concerned that some members, including a very small percentage (4%) of TR holders, express "a degree of doubt."  Having faith is not a static thing.  It ebbs and flows.  It grows and retracts.  Doubts are part of that process.  I am not suggesting that doubt is preferable to faith.  Rather, I am suggesting that it is not axiomatically opposed to faith.  It is, for many (most?) of us, part of the package.  Part of the process.  Hence the need for persisting in faith, prayer, study and obedience.

"Skepticism in their church's teachings" and "uncertain of their beliefs" exemplify the sort of negative slant that I have come to expect from Jane Riess.

Hmm.  This could end up becoming one of more important findings of the survey.  Social pressures/influences affect one's perception of the Church and its teachings.  

I am glad to hear this.  For myself, I did not have a particularly noteworthy or positive experience with the seminary program.  That is my general sentiment and recollection.  And yet here I am, many years later, strongly attached to the Church.

Interesting.  This may also be an important result of the survey.  We'll have to look at the methodology.

This is interesting as well.  I think "believers" take the community of faith as a given, as a natural extension and expression of the collective faith of those involved. 

"Mormon Doubters," on the other hand, may tend to view the Church as merely a social construct, like a social club.  One that has some beneficial effects, but which may be to costly in proverbial "membership dues" (weekly attendance at Church, holding a calling, paying tithing, identifying as 'Mormon' when we are at odds with prevailing social trends, etc.).

This would explain why "doubters" express more appreciation for the "community aspect" of the Church than "believers."

So a huge majority of Mormons have a strong or very strong relationship with and belief in the teachings of their Church (83% or 95.2%), and yet Dr. Knoll and Jana Riess title their article "Infected With Doubt."

"Infected."

"Doubt."

This is the sort of thing that makes me place little trust in Jana Riess.  I don't trust her to be dispassionate.  I don't trust her to be fair toward the Church.  Instead, I expect her to find fault, not nitpick, to harangue, to place and characterize her personal sociopolitical beliefs in conflict with, and superior to, the doctrines of the Church.

So yes, I will digest the results of the survey, but no, I will not repose much trust in the authors' takeaways about it.

Anyhoo, any thoughts on the poss results?

Thanks,

-Smac

just a note I did 4 years of early morning seminary, like it started at 645am and we lived like 20 minutes from the church........there were some days that I would drag myself to school and be asleep all day. I had two teachers who are, simply put, nuts. They taught just bizarre stuff that I had to unlearn in the coming years, in hindsight I probably would have just stayed home!!! I think it helped in the very short run but in the long run, I am not sure. My sister got hit by a car on the way to seminary one time in the winter, she was allright though!

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is a good preliminary analysis. I look forward to your digging deeper into it and reporting your conclusions.

And I share your mistrust of Jana Riess, by the way.

Regarding doubt, I would reiterate what Elder Oaks said the other night (and which I highlighted in a thread on this board) in differentiating between doubts and questions. Too often people (perhaps including the respondents to this poll) blend their comprehension of  the meaning of these terms when there really is a distinction. Doubt, unlike mere questioning, implies a degree of resistance and distrust. I think we all have questions at some time or another. That does not necessarily equate to doubt.

Isn't doubt introduced by a failure to provide good answers to the questioner's questions?  It seems that the onus should lie with the one providing the answers and not with the questioner solely, or perhaps each should be on an equal footing to say the least.  Along those lines, I think the church has a duty to be worthy of faith too.  In any event, the poll/study seems to be good news for the church given all the apparent upheaval.  I would have thought the percentage of doubt would have been higher.  However, this assumes those being polled were honest with themselves too.  Nevertheless, one shouldn't doubt the poll results but be believing?

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Isn't doubt introduced by a failure to provide good answers to the questioner's questions? 

Perhaps.  It can also be introduced by insufficient study and prayer.  I have had personal experience with this quite a bit.

It can also be introduced through failure to obey and live according to the precepts being taught.  Hence King Benjamin's exhortation that "if you believe all these things see that ye do them."  A person who refuses to develop moderate and healthy eating and exercise and sleeping and hydration habits may "doubt" the wisdom of medical advice regarding those things.  But that doubt is not really the doctor's fault, is it?

It can also be introduced by subordinating revealed teachings to popular worldly notions and opinions and pressures.  For example, people of religious people are regularly hectored and pilloried and bullied by so-called "LGBT advocates" because they (religious people) have reasonable and sincere and good faith objections to same-sex marriage.  

It can also be introduced by inattentive parents and church leaders, who fail to provide sufficient and informed input to youth as they grow up.

Doubt can come through many vectors.

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It seems that the onus should lie with the one providing the answers and not with the questioner solely,

I would suggest that the onus should lie primarily (but not exclusively) with the individual who has questions.  Expecting to be spoon-fed information that is available to you is not the best way to go.

I am reminded here of D&C 58:26-27:

Quote

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.

That seems right to me.

The Church is doing an excellent job of providing information to the Saints.  Weekly church attendance.  Seminaries and institutes (and BYU).  Emphasis on personal study.  The Joseph Smith Papers.  The Gospel Topics Essays.  And on and one and on.

If a person has doubt borne of ignorance, that is unfortunate.  But I think it's hard to lay the blame for that ignorance at the feet of the institutional Church.

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

or perhaps each should be on an equal footing to say the least. 

With respect, I disagree.  The individual is primarily responsible for seeking out answers to his questions.  Nobody else has an "equal" obligation on that score.

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Along those lines, I think the church has a duty to be worthy of faith too. 

I think the Church is more of a custodian of the things about which we should have faith.  When a Latter-day Saints says "I have faith in the Church," he is generally referring to the things housed within it, the foremost being the news of Jesus Christ.  With that news comes resources housed in the Church to effectuate the Atonement and the Plan of Salvation, such as priesthood authority, saving truths, saving ordinances, prophets and apostles.

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

In any event, the poll/study seems to be good news for the church given all the apparent upheaval.  I would have thought the percentage of doubt would have been higher.  However, this assumes those being polled were honest with themselves too.  Nevertheless, one shouldn't doubt the poll results but be believing?

I remain optimistic and pleased with the aggregate efforts of the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, Duncan said:

just a note I did 4 years of early morning seminary, like it started at 645am and we lived like 20 minutes from the church........there were some days that I would drag myself to school and be asleep all day. I had two teachers who are, simply put, nuts. They taught just bizarre stuff that I had to unlearn in the coming years, in hindsight I probably would have just stayed home!!! I think it helped in the very short run but in the long run, I am not sure. My sister got hit by a car on the way to seminary one time in the winter, she was allright though!

Hmm.  I grew up in Utah County, so I had "Release Time" seminary during the school day.  Part of the problem, I think, was that I (and many other students) took it for granted.  We did not need to work for it, so we did not appreciate it.

In contrast, my wife grew up in Washington State, and reports that early morning Seminary was difficult, but ultimately very rewarding to her spiritually.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Isn't doubt introduced by a failure to provide good answers to the questioner's questions? 

Not necessarily. Many times, I have seen people provided with what I thought were very good answers, yet they continued to doubt.

We cannot disregard the influence of attitude in one's receptiveness. In fact, I dare say attitude is the crucial difference between whether one is doubting or merely questioning.

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Regarding doubt, I would reiterate what Elder Oaks said the other night (and which I highlighted in a thread on this board) in differentiating between doubts and questions. Too often people (perhaps including some of the respondents to this poll) blend their comprehension of  the meaning of these terms when there really is a distinction. Doubt, unlike mere questioning, implies a degree of resistance and distrust. I think we all have questions at some time or another. That does not necessarily equate to doubt.

I'll need to re-visit Elder Oaks' remarks.

I was thinking of doubt in terms of it not being an antonym to "faith," but rather meaning "to be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps.  It can also be introduced by insufficient study and prayer.  I have had personal experience with this quite a bit.

It can also be introduced through failure to obey and live according to the precepts being taught.  Hence King Benjamin's exhortation that "if you believe all these things see that ye do them."  A person who refuses to develop moderate and healthy eating and exercise and sleeping and hydration habits may "doubt" the wisdom of medical advice regarding those things.  But that doubt is not really the doctor's fault, is it?

It can also be introduced by subordinating revealed teachings to popular worldly notions and opinions and pressures.  For example, people of religious people are regularly hectored and pilloried and bullied by so-called "LGBT advocates" because they (religious people) have reasonable and sincere and good faith objections to same-sex marriage.  

It can also be introduced by inattentive parents and church leaders, who fail to provide sufficient and informed input to youth as they grow up.

Doubt can come through many vectors.

I would suggest that the onus should lie primarily (but not exclusively) with the individual who has questions.  Expecting to be spoon-fed information that is available to you is not the best way to go.

I am reminded here of D&C 58:26-27:

That seems right to me.

The Church is doing an excellent job of providing information to the Saints.  Weekly church attendance.  Seminaries and institutes (and BYU).  Emphasis on personal study.  The Joseph Smith Papers.  The Gospel Topics Essays.  And on and one and on.

If a person has doubt borne of ignorance, that is unfortunate.  But I think it's hard to lay the blame for that ignorance at the feet of the institutional Church.

With respect, I disagree.  The individual is primarily responsible for seeking out answers to his questions.  Nobody else has an "equal" obligation on that score.

I think the Church is more of a custodian of the things about which we should have faith.  When a Latter-day Saints says "I have faith in the Church," he is generally referring to the things housed within it, the foremost being the news of Jesus Christ.  With that news comes resources housed in the Church to effectuate the Atonement and the Plan of Salvation, such as priesthood authority, saving truths, saving ordinances, prophets and apostles.

I remain optimistic and pleased with the aggregate efforts of the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I have to push back a little on this.  The church's main introductory scripture is James 1:5 which posits that a questioner should ask God and God will give liberally and not upbraid for asking the question (reprove sharply).  Your response seems contrary to this when concerning the church, God's representative here on earth.  If one has questions regarding polygamy and doesn't like how the church found it necessary to say a few months shy of 15 instead of just saying 14 or if one questions why the church continues to portray Joseph Smith as actually looking at the plates instead of his seer stone, should that person be blamed for not giving the church a pass?  Surely, you would agree that if another church, say Jehovah's Witnesses, gave a poor answer to a questioner as to why the prophecy of Jesus' return didn't materialize, you would blame the JW's, right?  You would gladly welcome them over here wouldn't you and you would probably reinforce their blaming their former church for the lack of good answers.  However, the questioning member of our church is the one to blame here.  Don't you think our church should have good answers to questions, and shoulder the blame if it doesn't?  Maybe you don't think there are any bad answers the church gives and therefore always the member should be blamed if they don't see things as you do?

What do you think of the doubting percentage in the above polling/study?  How would you bring them back to non-doubting?  Should one just blame them and move on because whatever the church says is always correct even when it appears not to be the case?

[Exiled]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not necessarily. Many times, I have seen people provided with what I thought were very good answers, yet they continued to doubt.

We cannot disregard the influence of attitude in one's receptiveness. In fact, I dare say attitude is the crucial difference between whether one is doubting or merely questioning.

 

With all due respect, you are a religion writer for the Church's newspaper.  I think that may affect the above answer.  Nevertheless, there are a lot of people who continue to doubt.  Of course, one may blame them for the misunderstanding, but one may blame the church for not having any good answers other than "we will know the answer to that sometime in the future, so just keep the faith in the meantime."

[Jeanne]

Doubts...you know...if Joseph hadn't doubted which church to join...where would you all be?

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll need to re-visit Elder Oaks' remarks.

I was thinking of doubt in terms of it not being an antonym to "faith," but rather meaning "to be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe."

Thanks,

-Smac

Apparently, Elder Oaks found a somewhat different definition. As quoted in my Church News report of the "Face to Face" broadcast:
 

Quote

 

What advice/guidance would you give for answering tough questions about Church history when we are asked about them by someone who is struggling with their faith?

“I think the first thing is to distinguish between questions and doubts,” Elder Oaks said. “Some people merge those as if they were the same.”

Questions are a way to increase knowledge and understanding and are to be encouraged, while doubt, according to a dictionary definition, is accompanied by distrust, a rejection of something, he explained. “That’s the kind of thing that the scriptures have condemned” as pertaining to gospel truths, he added.

 

He then cited a string of scriptural passages. I don't recall all of them at the moment, but one was "be not faithless, but be believing."

The recording of the broadcast is still up at lds.org.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Doubts...you know...if Joseph hadn't doubted which church to join...where would you all be?

That's an example of questioning, not doubting. I don't recall any indication of him doubting the existence of God, or of God's willingness to answer his prayer. I recall just the opposite in fact.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

I wonder if the above results would change in the face of an Asch-like conformity experiment?  This type of experiment would test how strong those who claimed to be strong actually are strong.  The experiment could be designed to have the member answer a belief quiz like in the study above and then have the members shuttled into a room for a group discussion with a bunch of non-believing confederates.  All the thorny issues could be discussed and then polling about belief could take place with the confederates always choosing doubt.  Would some strong believers change their mind in the face of peer pressure?

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Exiled said:

With all due respect, you are a religion writer for the Church's newspaper.  I think that may affect the above answer. 

As I said, attitude affects one's receptiveness. If my background has influenced my attitude in a positive way, well, I'm not ashamed of that.

Quote

Nevertheless, there are a lot of people who continue to doubt.  Of course, one may blame them for the misunderstanding, but one may blame the church for not having any good answers other than "we will know the answer to that sometime in the future, so just keep the faith in the meantime."

My observation is that this is not the only answer that the Church or that faithful members of the Church -- such as those associated with FairMormon -- have given.

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's an example questioning, not doubting. I don't recall any indication of him doubting the existence of God, or of God's willingness to answer his prayer. I recall just hte opposite in fact.

Well, it depends on which account one believes: 1832 (already knew all churches were false) or 1838 (which one to join?)

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's an example of questioning, not doubting. I don't recall any indication of him doubting the existence of God, or of God's willingness to answer his prayer. I recall just hte opposite in fact.

I agree with you here.  Joseph believed in God.  He was questioning/doubting churches...I was just in a mood...tired...just got home from work.  I agree with you.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I grew up in Utah County, so I had "Release Time" seminary during the school day.  Part of the problem, I think, was that I (and many other students) took it for granted.  We did not need to work for it, so we did not appreciate it.

In contrast, my wife grew up in Washington State, and reports that early morning Seminary was difficult, but ultimately very rewarding to her spiritually.

Thanks,

-Smac

Utah is a different world. I remember one Priesthood Conference where President Monson praised a group of YM/YW in Utah for getting up early one Saturday for Temple baptisms (iirc). The general response with those I talked with was good-natured ribbing that our local youth were doing that five days a week and not once or twice a year.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I have to push back a little on this.  The church's main introductory scripture is James 1:5 which posits that a questioner should ask God and God will give liberally and not upbraid for asking the question (reprove sharply).  Your response seems contrary to this when concerning the church, God's representative here on earth.  If one has questions regarding polygamy and doesn't like how the church found it necessary to say a few months shy of 15 instead of just saying 14 or if one questions why the church continues to portray Joseph Smith as actually looking at the plates instead of his seer stone, should that person be blamed for not giving the church a pass? 

I'm not sure what you are asking here.  We were discussing "doubt," I think as pertaining to the doctrines of the Church.

You are apparently unhappy at a single reference in a single essay published by the Church which characterized one of Joseph Smith's wives as "a few months shy of 15" instead of 14.  What does that have to do with "doubt?"  What "pass" is there to give to the Church?

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Surely, you would agree that if another church, say Jehovah's Witnesses, gave a poor answer to a questioner as to why the prophecy of Jesus' return didn't materialize, you would blame the JW's, right? 

I don't know what you mean here.  What "poor answer" has the Church given?

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

You would gladly welcome them over here wouldn't you and you would probably reinforce their blaming their former church for the lack of good answers. 

I don't know what you are talking about.  Sorry.

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

However, the questioning member of our church is the one to blame here. 

Again, I don't know what you are talking about.

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Don't you think our church should have good answers to questions, and shoulder the blame if it doesn't? 

I don't know what "shoulder the blame" means.

There are huge amounts of information about the Church which are readily available from the Church.  There are also many other good resources.  There is no shortage of information for study and analysis and for answering questions.  The Church is doing a very good job on this front, in my view.  

You seem to have a grievance about the wording of a single sentence in a single Gospel Topics Essay.  I recommend maintaining a sense of proportion.  Take a look at the entire forest, rather than griping about the foliage on one particular tree within it.

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Maybe you don't think there are any bad answers the church gives

How about you present some of "answers" the Church has given which you think are "bad," and we can go from there.  Otherwise, we're just chasing ghosts.

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

and therefore always the member should be blamed if they don't see things as you do?

Wow.  Your are really fixated on "blame."  I'm not sure why.

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

What do you think of the doubting percentage in the above polling/study?  How would you bring them back to non-doubting? 

I would hope they study and pray and seek revelatory guidance about the Gospel more, and live it more.  My sense is that doing these things will do more to address "doubts" than pretty much anything else.

I would also extend to them the hand of friendship and fellowship, regardless of their stance.  And I would hope the Spirit would kick in.  

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Should one just blame them and move on because whatever the church says is always correct even when it appears not to be the case?

Again, you are really fixated on "blame."  And now you're adding sneering sarcasm. 

I am trying to be cordial and respectful.  Perhaps we could step back and start over?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is a good preliminary analysis. I look forward to your digging deeper into it and reporting your conclusions.

And I share your mistrust of Jana Riess, by the way.

Regarding doubt, I would reiterate what Elder Oaks said the other night (and which I highlighted in a thread on this board) in differentiating between doubts and questions. Too often people (perhaps including some of the respondents to this poll) blend their comprehension of  the meaning of these terms when there really is a distinction. Doubt, unlike mere questioning, implies a degree of resistance and distrust. I think we all have questions at some time or another. That does not necessarily equate to doubt.

I think that we ought not to get exercised over doubt, but rather to respect it and deal with it forthrightly -- whether  in ourselves or in others.  When doubt is clearly stated and understood, it can be the precursor to careful investigation/research on the topic of concern.  Once the matter has been thoroughly examined, it may turn out to be unworthy of further doubt.  But we will not know that until the proper vetting has taken place.

On this board, for example, we have more than once dealt with people who had serious, honest doubts.  Not anti-Mormon attacks, but doubts about the plausibility or credibility of some LDS doctrine or practice.  Once a full discussion has taken place, and the actual nature of that Mormon belief or practice is better understood, it is often the case that it was really more a matter of confusion and misinformation than legitimate doubt.  We ought to be careful about too quickly getting our backs up in response to such doubts, lest our interlocutors esteem us to be their enemy.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

................................................there are a lot of people who continue to doubt. 

That is true in other churches, especially in Europe, but is surprisingly small among the LDS.  How do you explain that?

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Of course, one may blame them for the misunderstanding, but one may blame the church for not having any good answers other than "we will know the answer to that sometime in the future, so just keep the faith in the meantime."

I would appreciate a source for your quotation.

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is true in other churches, especially in Europe, but is surprisingly small among the LDS.  How do you explain that?

I would appreciate a source for your quotation.

The source is friends and family pirating what they interpret leaders as saying.  How do you respond to the allegations that there isn't any evidence of nephites or lamanites in the americas?  Isn't the common response that we will find it in the future sometime or to go into questions about what even constitutes "evidence"?  Their DNA seems to have disappeared.  Isn't the response to that question that dna science will vindicate joseph smith someday in the future? 

[Exiled]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you are asking here.  We were discussing "doubt," I think as pertaining to the doctrines of the Church.

You are apparently unhappy at a single reference in a single essay published by the Church which characterized one of Joseph Smith's wives as "a few months shy of 15" instead of 14.  What does that have to do with "doubt?"  What "pass" is there to give to the Church?

I don't know what you mean here.  What "poor answer" has the Church given?

I don't know what you are talking about.  Sorry.

Again, I don't know what you are talking about.

I don't know what "shoulder the blame" means.

There are huge amounts of information about the Church which are readily available from the Church.  There are also many other good resources.  There is no shortage of information for study and analysis and for answering questions.  The Church is doing a very good job on this front, in my view.  

You seem to have a grievance about the wording of a single sentence in a single Gospel Topics Essay.  I recommend maintaining a sense of proportion.  Take a look at the entire forest, rather than griping about the foliage on one particular tree within it.

How about you present some of "answers" the Church has given which you think are "bad," and we can go from there.  Otherwise, we're just chasing ghosts.

Wow.  Your are really fixated on "blame."  I'm not sure why.

I would hope they study and pray and seek revelatory guidance about the Gospel more, and live it more.  My sense is that doing these things will do more to address "doubts" than pretty much anything else.

I would also extend to them the hand of friendship and fellowship, regardless of their stance.  And I would hope the Spirit would kick in.  

Again, you are really fixated on "blame."  And now you're adding sneering sarcasm. 

I am trying to be cordial and respectful.  Perhaps we could step back and start over?

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not trying to pick a fight here.  My point with the JW's is along the lines of what John Loftus, a former pastor turned atheist, who put forth what he called an outsider test of faith where one goes outside and tries to look at religion as one looks at other religions other than their own. 

As far as the one single sentence in an essay, I have problems with almost all of the essays and how they attempt to explain the issues.  Maybe saying that the church doesn't provide answers is the wrong way to explain how I feel?  Maybe the better way is to say that I don't agree with the answers given and these answers do not satisfy my questions, only generate more.

As far as blame goes, if the questioner is being held responsible for study and isn't satisfied with what the questioner finds, is the questioner blamed for not reaching your point of view?  Could the church ever be blamed in this exercise? Or is it something else other than blame entirely?  Is it fair to assign fault in this exercise or is no one at fault?

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

just a note I did 4 years of early morning seminary, like it started at 645am and we lived like 20 minutes from the church........there were some days that I would drag myself to school and be asleep all day. I had two teachers who are, simply put, nuts. They taught just bizarre stuff that I had to unlearn in the coming years, in hindsight I probably would have just stayed home!!! I think it helped in the very short run but in the long run, I am not sure. My sister got hit by a car on the way to seminary one time in the winter, she was allright though!

I was not impressed by the seminary teachers I remember.  They were there filling the slot out of love and duty, but one did not have a strong foundation of her own in knowledge or teaching youth ability and we just filled out the manual and another was good at creating discussion, but didnt dig into it.

It did lead me to personal study out of boredom and dissatisfaction with what I was getting.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

The source is friends and family pirating what they interpret leaders as saying. 

I thought as much, since that "quote" was as phony as a three-dollar bill.  People often hear what they want/expect to hear.  Sometimes it helps to listen more carefully.

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

How do you respond to the allegations that there isn't any evidence of nephites or lamanites in the americas?  Isn't the common response that we will find it in the future sometime or to go into questions about what even constitutes "evidence"?  Their DNA seems to have disappeared.  Isn't the response to that question that dna science will vindicate joseph smith someday in the future? 

Such scatter-gun claims (and goal post changing) demand another thread, although we have had many of those on this board in the past.  Instead of deflecting (as you do here), however, I always recommend that people first inform themselves, and then comment.  There is, for example, plenty of evidence for Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites in Mesoamerica.  You might want to consult Brant Gardner, The Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Kofford, 2015).  Gardner is a professional anthropologist specializing in ethnohistory, and does a pretty good job covering the main issues.

As to DNA,. a succinct and accurate scientific statement is available at https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng (2014 LDS Gospel Topics Essay on DNA).  Gardner also deals with the DNA issue on pp. 170-175 of his book.  I would simply add that, although those summaries of the evidence are correct, I would like to see a comparison made with ancient DNA (aDNA from skeletal remains from appropriate periods in Mesoamerica).