"Infected With Doubt" - Jana Reiss Poll (part 2)

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wasn’t aware that temple recommend requirements were comprehensive. 

We all have a ways to grow beyond the basics, in following the spirit and not being commanded in all things.  

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We all have a ways to grow beyond the basics, in following the spirit and not being commanded in all things.  

Of course. But endeavoring to do so does not confer on us license to ignore the basics. 

Instruction that encourages us not to get caught up in lists of do’s and don’ts, as I see it, is meant to convey the understanding that there is more to Sabbath observance than mere avoidance of certain activities. It seems to imply that we are to follow traditional exhortations to avoid pursuing our own pleasure on the Lord’s day — as the scripture puts it. But we are to do more. We are to go to the house of prayer and render our devotion to the most high. In that way we call the Sabbath a delight and remain “more perfectly unspotted from the world.”

Edited December 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

It's amazing to me that folks on the internet think they know what is better for my Stake than several past Stake presidents actually ordained by the Lord to know what we in our Stake actually need.

Pretty amazingly prideful in my opinion.

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course. But endeavoring to do so does not confer on us license to ignore the basics. 

Instruction that encourage us not to get caught up in lists of do’s and don’t s 

Not getting involved in lists of dos and don't is precisely what has been taught recently in General Conference and in church training videos.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not getting involved in lists of dos and don't is precisely what has been taught recently in General Conference and in church training videos.

Here you responded to my post before I had finished it. I accidentally hit the “submit” button before I was done. 

Please return to my post for the complete thought. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's amazing to me that folks on the internet think they know what is better for my Stake than several past Stake presidents actually ordained by the Lord to know what we in our Stake actually need.

Pretty amazingly prideful in my opinion.

I don’t know if you are referring to me with this, but I have said nothing about your past stake presidents. I have, however, alluded to Church scripture and doctrine as I understand it with respect to Sabbath observance. 

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Thinking said:

Years ago when I was reading the Old Testament I was bothered by the fact that Abraham was less than completely honest about Sarai being his wife. According to Genesis 12:11-13, Abraham asked Sarai to say that she was his sister.

I decided to read what was in the Book of Abraham.

According to this passage it was God's idea to be less than completely honest about Abraham's relationship to Sarai.

Joseph's translation changes the story from a fallible man who might need to repent to a God who commands that man to lie to avoid potential danger.

Red Flag

Here's another one.

The LDS Church interprets Isaiah 29:4 as a prophecy about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. "And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust."

LeGrand Richards said, "Then he goes on in this same chapter, after saying that the vision of all—that is the vision of all that he saw about this people and its destruction and the coming forth of their record, speaking out of the dust—would have a familiar spirit. I gave a copy of the Book of Mormon to the treasurer in the Presbyterian Church back in New Bedford, Massachusetts, when I was doing missionary work there. When he had about finished reading it, I said, ‘As you read that book, did it occur to you that anyone could have written the contents of that book to deceive people?’
‘Oh,’ he said, ‘Mr. Richards, when I read that book, I get the same spiritual uplift that I get when I read the New Testament.’
Isn’t that what Isaiah meant when he said that it should have a familiar spirit?" (LeGrand Richards, Value of the Holy Scriptures, Ensign May 1976)

The idea that Isaiah was talking about something "recognizable" when he uses the term "familiar spirit" is very common in the LDS community. I remember learning about this "recognizable" spirit in early morning seminary and Sunday School classes. However, prior to Isaiah using "familiar spirit" in that verse, it is used twelve times in the Old Testament. In every case, the term is associated with magic. A familiar spirit is a ghost which is summoned by wizards and witches.

Leviticus 19:31 Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 20:6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

Leviticus 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

1 Samuel 28:3 Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land.

1 Samuel 28:7-9 Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Enñdor. And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?

2 Kings. 21:6 And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

2 Kings. 23:24 Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD.

1 Chronicles 10:13 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;

2 Chronicles 33:6 And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

Isaiah 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

Isaiah 19:3 And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.

Actually, in the 4th verse of chapter 29, Isaiah was prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem. His comparison to a familiar spirit was not meant to be positive, nor was it meant to be a prophecy about a future book of scripture.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Each of us has to judge whether those who claim to be prophets actually are prophets.

 

Hmm.  I wrote a fairly extensive response to the above, only to have the board glitch eat it.  It's gone now.

Frustrating.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know if you are referring to me with this, but I have said nothing about your past stake presidents. I have, however, alluded to Church scripture and doctrine as I understand it with respect to Sabbath observance. 

No that was not intended for you! 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I wrote a fairly extensive response to the above, only to have the board glitch eat it.  It's gone now.

Frustrating.

Thanks,

-Smac

I wish you could reconstruct it. I’d like to see it. Write it in Word this time and save a copy. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

No that was not intended for you! 

That’s a relief!

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course. But endeavoring to do so does not confer on us license to ignore the basics. 

Instruction that encourages us not to get caught up in lists of do’s and don’t, as I see it, is meant to convey the understanding that there is more to Sabbath observance than mere avoidance of certain activities. It seems to imply that we are to follow traditional exhortations to avoid pursuing our own pleasure on the Lord’s day — as the scripture puts it. But we are to do more. We are to go to the house of prayer and render our devotion to the most high. In that way we call the Sabbath a delight and remain “more perfectly unspotted from the world.”

Which makes it complicated if we find that to be the highest pleasure anyway. 

Sorry I responded so quickly- I know how that is.  For me it is edits- I tend to edit comments again and again- the first shot is usually somewhat acerbic and then I clean it up to make myself sound more wise. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Which makes it complicated if we find that to be the highest pleasure anyway. 

Sorry I responded so quickly- I know how that is.  For me it is edits- I tend to edit comments again and again- the first shot is usually somewhat acerbic and then I clean it up to make myself sound more wise. 

 

The operative phrase (and I think it is in Isaiah) is “thine own pleasure.” To me, that implies entertainment and recreation, the pursuit of worldly pleasure, as opposed to the joy of communion with God. 

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The operative phrase (and I think it is in Isaiah) is “thine own pleasure.” To me, that implies entertainment and recreation, the pursuit of worldly pleasure, as opposed to the joy of communion with God. 

It's an important distinction.  I often speak of pragmatism defining true belief in terms of what "works"- but that is always meant in an Alma 32 sense, which would be the latter of the two alternatives above.  And invariably I am accused of being an epicurean. 

Actually even the Epicureans meant it in the latter sense.

Contrast these two definitions: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

Quote

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention. Following Aristippus—about whom very little is known—Epicurus believed that what he called "pleasure" was the greatest good, but that the way to attain such pleasure was to live modestly, to gain knowledge of the workings of the world, and to limit one's desires. This would lead one to attain a state of tranquility (ataraxia) and freedom from fear as well as an absence of bodily pain (aponia). The combination of these two states constitutes happiness in its highest form. 

VS an online dictionary:

 

Quote

 

Ep·i·cu·re·an

ˌepəkyəˈrēən,ˌepəˈkyo͝orēən/

noun

plural noun: Epicureans

1. a disciple or student of the Greek philosopher Epicurus.

   • a person devoted to sensual enjoyment, especially that derived from fine food and drink.

     noun: epicurean; plural noun: epicureans

     synonyms:

     hedonist, sensualist, pleasure-seeker, sybarite, voluptuary, bon vivant, bon viveur; More

 

1. •  

[jkwilliams]

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 2:27 PM, juliann said:

Blast from the past. Back when we didn't have block meetings it was customary to keep your church clothes on. For one thing, back when women had to wear all of the dress-up underpinnings, it was a pain in the neck to have to take it all off and put it all back on again. That was then turned into a respect the Sabbath kind of thing by being uncomfortable for the day. Now I can't imagine anyone keeping church clothes on all day unless they had to go out to meetings or something. And who wants their kids messing up church clothes, if they happen to have special outfits? 

I'm old enough to remember when church was pretty much an all-day affair. We changed clothes after sacrament meeting, which in our suburban Los Angeles ward was in the afternoon (I think it started at 3:30, but I could be wrong). Priesthood meeting was from 7:30-8:30, with a 30-minute break before Sunday School, after which we had a long mid-day break. I'm pretty sure the reason the schedule was so weird was that 3 wards used our building. As much as people complain about the 3-hour block, it's easy compared to the old system. Still, every LDS parent knows how hectic it can be getting kids ready for church on Sunday morning. "I don't know where my church shoes are. I haven't seen them since last Sunday." About the only "taboo" behavior in our family was that, after Sunday School, we would always stop at the Jewish bakery near the church to get bagels and cream cheese. My dad would wink and say, "It's not breaking the Sabbath, because it's not their Sabbath."

The survey information is fascinating. I'm not surprised that higher levels of education correlate to greater belief in the church, as my experience has been that church members, as a whole, are more educated than the general population (of the US, anyway). And the issues causing doubt are also unsurprising, though it is interesting to me that issues that really upset some people are trivial to others.  

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

You think you are in trouble for running to the market to get a forgotten ingredient.  I was the Teachers Quorum adviser for a number of years.  We were responsible for making sure the sacrament bread was there each Sunday.  Occasionally the person who was assigned to bring it forgot.  Sometimes I could run home and get a loaf.  But occasionally we didn't have a loaf of bread at home and I would have to go to the store to get it.  I always felt guilty that I was responsible for serving tainted "bought on Sunday" bread to the whole ward.  But then I also felt guilty providing wheat bread occasionally when that is all we had.  There was some unwritten law that sacrament bread representing the body of Christ should be as white as possible.  Wonderbread was the go to choice.  You can't get much whiter than that.

Back in the day when I was a kid I had to run to the store a few times to get bread. Although we usually went for whole wheat on the theory that it's healthier and therefore more godly than that nasty white stuff with bleached flour. LOL.

17 hours ago, juliann said:

Prohibitions on doing ordinary things with family only work well with all Mormon families. Sunday was always the day that my father-in-law gathered the family and took them out to dinner on occasion. I went without guilt.  My mother spent hours cooking on Sundays. It was the best meal of the week. How in the world that is more Sabbath approved than giving the meal maker a rest is beyond me. Unless you are in Utah, the numbers of Mormons isn't going to tip the scale of "making others work."

I think one should always keep in mind "sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath." That said, while I've not been perfect in it I do think there are benefits to keeping the sabbath holy by avoiding shopping. That's something I think the brethren are right about. However by the same token we have to use wisdom. Jesus healed on the sabbath and we shouldn't become Pharisees over the sabbath. It's ultimately something the Lord gave to us to bless us. When dealing with building our family connections, the sabbath is an excellent day to do it for most people. Many people also have family home evening on Sunday with the associated games and activities. You're also right to point out that there's a bit of a double standard about working on Sunday and expecting women to cook large meals on Sunday. (Not that men don't do this also - but there's an unfair cultural expectation among many that women should be doing this) Which unarguably is a lot of work. I'd argue that perhaps we should tone down the huge Sunday meals, but I recognize they also can have a beneficial role in strengthening families. So following the spirit is always the best guide. 

[Daniel2]

Hm.  My only comment is a response to the title of the article.

Interesting how some see "doubt" as "an infection," whereas others are comfortable with "doubt" as "the attendant of truth" which preserves and protects against false beliefs.

One approach is built on shifting sand, while the other is built on the rock of assurance that truth can be tested and if it is truly truth, need not be feared.

One is built on fear that one's beliefs may not be true, while the other demonstrates an unflinching openness to pursue truth, wherever it may lead.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Daniel2

[cinepro]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Hm.  My only comment is a response to the title of the article.

Interesting how some see "doubt" as "an infection," whereas others are comfortable with "doubt" as "the attendant of truth" which preserves and protects against false beliefs.

One approach is built on shifting sand, while the other is built on the rock of assurance that truth can be tested and if it is truly truth, need not be feared.

One is built on fear that one's beliefs may not be true, while the other demonstrates an unflinching openness to pursue truth, wherever it may lead.

They explain in the article that the phrase comes from a talk by President Eyring:

Quote

It is not only the words from the Book of Mormon. It is a feeling of assurance of truth that comes whenever I read even a few lines from the Book of Mormon. I cannot promise that it will come to every person infected with doubt about the Prophet Joseph or the Book of Mormon. But I know Joseph Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration. I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God because I have treasured it.

Bind up Their Wounds, 2013

(Emphasis added)

And they felt the phrase was apt because their research shows that doubt can spread like an "infection", because people with friends who doubt and leave the Church are much more likely themselves to doubt and leave.

Quote

[The] metaphor was appropriate at least in one way: doubting is statistically more likely to be associated with the Mormon composition of one's social networks than it is one's demographic characteristics or how engaged someone was in Mormon programs and activities growing up (though, as stated above, seminary is a bit of an exception).  Those who have friends and family who are Mormon and stay Mormon tend to be Belieivers, while those who have friends and family who are not Mormon or stop identifying as Mormon are more likely to be Doubters.  We can infer, then, that doubting may indeed spread like an "infection."

(p.17)

 

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

They explain in the article that the phrase comes from a talk by President Eyring:

And they felt the phrase was apt because their research shows that doubt can spread like an "infection", because people with friends who doubt and leave the Church are much more likely themselves to doubt and leave.

 

I don't think it remarkable at all that President Eyring, the PhD in organizational psychology, would be the one who would coin the phrase "infected with doubt."  I'm sure he is keenly aware of how humans sometimes act like a herd of animals do.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

I don't think it remarkable at all that President Eyring, the PhD in organizational psychology, would be the one who would coin the phrase "infected with doubt."  I'm sure he is keenly aware of how humans sometimes act like a herd of animals do.

It's probably a lot easier to leave if you have friends who support you. When it's just you, it can be really difficult and destructive to important relationships.

[smac97]

You'd t

Edited December 13, 2017 by smac97

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

It's probably a lot easier to leave if you have friends who support you. When it's just you, it can be really difficult and destructive to important relationships.

I agree with you that it can be very difficult being on an island, if that is the case after leaving. I found the same with new members when I was a missionary. New members stayed if they assimilated well and that meant finding new member friends.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Hm.  My only comment is a response to the title of the article.

Interesting how some see "doubt" as "an infection," whereas others are comfortable with "doubt" as "the attendant of truth" which preserves and protects against false beliefs.

One approach is built on shifting sand, while the other is built on the rock of assurance that truth can be tested and if it is truly truth, need not be feared.

One is built on fear that one's beliefs may not be true, while the other demonstrates an unflinching openness to pursue truth, wherever it may lead.

Unfortunately of course you forgot to define the "truth" which we are to pursue.

It is kind of surprising that you would see "truth" as the same for everyone.  Clearly you disagree with those whose "truth" is different than yours, regardless of how unflinchingly they have pursued it.

I am just in pursuit of consistency here.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Interesting how some see "doubt" as "an infection," whereas others are comfortable with "doubt" as "the attendant of truth" which preserves and protects against false beliefs.

One approach is built on shifting sand, while the other is built on the rock of assurance that truth can be tested and if it is truly truth, need not be feared.

One is built on fear that one's beliefs may not be true, while the other demonstrates an unflinching openness to pursue truth, wherever it may lead.

I think this is a definite  problem with the semantics of the word. I think the second sense you bring up is more about skepticism than what I'd call doubt. But definitely one of the senses of doubt in its wide semantic range is to take a skeptical stance. It goes back to Descartes and his whole approach to knowledge where you had to actively doubt everything you could. That which survived this act of doubting was knowledge. The problem of course is that saying one doubts and doubting aren't the same thing. Thus people engaging in Descartes' methodology were often accused of using paper doubt. There's also a fairly strong argument that doubt and belief are not volitional. That is we can choose to ask hard questions or inquire yet doubt or belief as consequences aren't in our power. I can't go outside and doubt the sky is blue for instance. Given that usage, one can then ask what it means to doubt beliefs we may have less positive evidence for.

To the infection rhetoric, I actually think it fits. There's fairly abundant evidence in both sociology and psychology that social networks have a huge effects on ones beliefs. The reality is that people tend to believe what their peers believe. Jana's polling seemed to support this relative to religious doubts about Mormonism - at least in the summary in the Huffington Post. In other words if your friends are saying they don't believe Joseph is a prophet or find something troubling there's a fairly strong correlation with your doing the same. Now part of that might just be information transfer - someone who doesn't know about polandry isn't going to be troubled by polandry obviously. However I think the doubt goes farther than that. You can see the same effect in politics with social networks. What people choose to be distrustful of typically is tied more to these social networks than it is the actual evidentiary strength for particular conclusions. In other words, the infection analogy is actually quite strong.

I'm not convinced fear has much to do with this. That's not to deny in the least that our emotions are themselves cognitive shortcuts for reasoning about various states. Especially in terms of fears, hopes, and desires. We project expectations onto things. People very rarely conduct a series of ethical arguments to decide what is troubling. Instead they rely on emotions which are themselves tied to expectations and particularly ones peers. Adam Smith, in explaining this talked of using imagination to create an "impartial spectator" from our parents, peers, and social acquaintances who judge what is right or wrong. While I doubt it works quite exactly as Smith imagined the impartial spectator functioning, I think it clear that the brain does something quite similar. So if ones peers would fear something, we imagine things as being worthy of being feared based upon this reconstruction. 

[mnn727]

Quote

 

 1,156 self-identified Mormons were included in the poll, as well as 540 former Mormons.

- Statistical weighting was applied, and they are confident enough to say "The survey results reported here can thus be considered representative of the United States Mormon population as a whole." 

 

I would doubt that the above sample  of 1696 people could "be considered representative of the United States Mormon population as a whole." 

[clarkgoble]

50 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

I would doubt that the above sample  of 1696 people could "be considered representative of the United States Mormon population as a whole." 

If they did the appropriate corrections it should be. We can of course debate that, but it'd depend upon statistical arguments and the methodology used. So the problem of cell phones is a classic one for pollsters. The bigger issue is less whether it's representative than whether the questions are well framed and whether priming is going on of various sorts.