No one should be accused of lacking faith because they have questions

[bluebell]

We had a regional conference this morning and Pres. Ballard was the last speaker.  At one point he stated that he hated to hear of members with honest and sincere questions who are made to feel as if they are lacking faith for asking them. He said that that is not appropriate and that there is nothing wrong with asking questions.  In fact, he said that asking questions is good (and inferred to JS asking his question in the grove).

He did end that portion of his talk by reminding everyone that while it is good to seek for knowledge and learning, we can never forget that we are a religion of faith and sometimes we will be required have faith and hope rather than receive actual knowledge of something gospel related.

I just wanted to share that because I think it's important for us to remember that having sincere questions and asking them is not bad.  Nor is it a sign that someone needs to repent or 'have more faith'. 

 

[Garden Girl]

Sheri Dew's newest book. "Worth the Wrestle"  (I think that's the title)... speaks to this topic quite clearly, i.e., that asking questions in a sincere effort to study and learn the gospel is a good thing...

GG

Edited October 28, 2018 by Garden Girl

[JAHS]

This is true generally speaking. Sometimes critics ask questions just to trap someone or to ridicule the religion.
And some members might ask unanswerable questions to give them reasons and excuses to leave the faith.
But for the most part asking questions is one of the main ways to learn the gospel and should not be discouraged.

 

Edited October 28, 2018 by JAHS

[JLHPROF]

It's about where the line falls.  Having question led Joseph into the grove.  Having doubts led to Thomas receiving a second witness.  

But embracing a path of skepticism or allowing one minor doubt to overcome all testimony after having received answers previously is a problem.  God has made that clear on numerous occasions.

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, JAHS said:

This is true generally speaking. Sometimes crirics ask questions just to trap someone or to ridicule the religion.
And some members might ask unanswerable questions to give them reasons and excuses to leave the faith.
But for the most part asking questions is one of the main ways to learn the gospel and should not be discouraged.

 

We need to know the difference between a sincere question and an insincere one. Insincere questions are rarely helpful.

[Tacenda]

Thanks for the topic Bluebell, I missed the Regional Conference today, I believe it would have been the same as yours anyway. I was curious what they talked about. 

I'm glad Elder Ballard mentioned this, really I am. But it's frustrating that we can have questions now, but we're asked to only get one answer, the faithful one. So therefore it isn't a fix really, but atleast it's not shutting people down, like a former Stake Presidency member did to me, when I had questions about Joseph Smith. He told me that it was okay to wonder but not to question. 

[cinepro]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's about where the line falls.  Having question led Joseph into the grove.  Having doubts led to Thomas receiving a second witness.  

But embracing a path of skepticism or allowing one minor doubt to overcome all testimony after having received answers previously is a problem.  God has made that clear on numerous occasions.

I know I'm fighting 2,000 years of tradition on this but it just grates my ears whenever people talk about "Doubting Thomas."  I prefer to call him "Rational Thomas."

It's also weird how people fixate on the Thomas story in John, but totally ignore the story as told in Mark, which presents the Apostles a little differently:

Quote

9 ¶ Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 ¶ After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 ¶ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/mark/16?lang=eng

So let's just call them the "Doubting Apostles" and be done with it.

 

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But it's frustrating that we can have questions now, but we're asked to only get one answer, the faithful one. So therefore it isn't a fix really, but atleast it's not shutting people down, like a former Stake Presidency member did to me, when I had questions about Joseph Smith. He told me that it was okay to wonder but not to question. 

Not all answers are equally valid, no matter how much we want to respect those who differ.

And your SP member had a point, even if expressed poorly.

[SeekerB]

How can it not be ok to  have  questions?  All the answers are deliberately not given.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

  In fact, he said that asking questions is good (and inferred to JS asking his question in the grove).

 

I'm not sure that's the best inference to make.

It sounds good on the surface, but we should remember that when Joseph left the grove, he wasn't inspired to continue in the faith and belief of his family and forefathers.

No, instead he came with new knowledge, and he was carrying a firm conviction that the dominant religious narratives of his day were false.  If Jesus had appeared to him and said "Joseph, trust in the testimony you have of the Bible, and the faith of your family.  Stay in the boat", then it would be a great analogy.

Instead, Jesus said "Joseph, there aren't any good boats left, so jump out of the one you're in and I'll show you how to make a new one."  And Joseph claims the preachers of his day reacted negatively to that.  In the Joseph Smith analogy, the Church is the traditional religion whose claims are challenged by the answer to the question, and Church leaders are the local preachers who get mad at Joseph for telling his story.

 

Edited October 28, 2018 by cinepro

[Duncan]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure that's the best inference to make.

It sounds good on the surface, but we should remember that when Joseph left the grove, he wasn't inspired to continue in the faith and belief of his family and forefathers.

No, instead he came with new knowledge, and he was carrying a firm conviction that the dominant religious narratives of his day were false.  If Jesus had appeared to him and said "Joseph, trust in the testimony you have of the Bible, and the faith of your family.  Stay in the boat", then it would be a great analogy.

Instead, Jesus said "Joseph, there aren't any good boats left, so jump out of the one you're in and I'll show you how to make a new one."  And Joseph claims the preachers of his day reacted negatively to that.  In the Joseph Smith analogy, the Church is the traditional religion whose claims are challenged by the answer to the question, and Church leaders are the local preachers who get mad at Joseph for telling his story.

 

What do you think of Joseph going to his Minister or a Minister and asking about his experience? and the Minister saying it's stupidity!

Edited October 28, 2018 by Duncan

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure that's the best inference to make.

It sounds good on the surface, but we should remember that when Joseph left the grove, he wasn't inspired to continue in the faith and belief of his family and forefathers.

No, instead he came with new knowledge, and he was carrying a firm conviction that the dominant religious narratives of his day were false.  If Jesus had appeared to him and said "Joseph, trust in the testimony you have of the Bible, and the faith of your family.  Stay in the boat", then it would be a great analogy.

Instead, Jesus said "Joseph, there aren't any good boats left, so jump out of the one you're in and I'll show you how to make a new one."  And Joseph claims the preachers of his day reacted negatively to that.  In the Joseph Smith analogy, the Church is the traditional religion whose claims are challenged by the answer to the question, and Church leaders are the local preachers who get mad at Joseph for telling his story.

 

It doesn't make sense to me to suggest that Pres. Ballard was using the analogy to highlight anything about the specific answer that JS got.  He seemed to be using it to highlight the process:  that gospel knowledge comes from asking questions.

[Ouagadougou]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

We had a regional conference this morning and Pres. Ballard was the last speaker.  At one point he stated that he hated to hear of members with honest and sincere questions who are made to feel as if they are lacking faith for asking them. He said that that is not appropriate and that there is nothing wrong with asking questions.  In fact, he said that asking questions is good (and inferred to JS asking his question in the grove).

He did end that portion of his talk by reminding everyone that while it is good to seek for knowledge and learning, we can never forget that we are a religion of faith and sometimes we will be required have faith and hope rather than receive actual knowledge of something gospel related.

I just wanted to share that because I think it's important for us to remember that having sincere questions and asking them is not bad.  Nor is it a sign that someone needs to repent or 'have more faith'. 

 

I think this a good start to developing an atmosphere of acceptance in order to help those who question certain church claims, events, and doctrine feel comfortable. Moreover, I think that some with questions might also have doubts as well, so it's important that they are not ostracized for any honest concerns and/or doubts they might have about the church.

As it relates to honest questions about the church, I think the dialogue that stems from asking certain questions can still be problematic and recursive. For example, certain answers to church-related questions (especially from apologists), IMO, do not actually fully answer or legitimately address the question, or some of the answers (for me personally) are difficult/impossible to accept.

Conversely, and as you mentioned in your post, it might be required to have "faith and hope rather than receive actual knowledge of something gospel related." So, regardless of the questions that are asked, IMO, both sides (believers and non-believers/doubters) will continue to be in disagreement: one side will claim that it is a matter of faith, while the other side might claim it is a matter of physical evidence/actual knowledge. I guess this is ultimately inevitable; however, I am interested to see how the church will continue to address the subject of doubts in the years to follow. I also hope that church leadership can recognize why certain members/investigators might have legitimate questions, concerns, doubts about some of the church's truth claims; for some, faith alone might not be enough in addressing their questions.  

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure that's the best inference to make.

It sounds good on the surface, but we should remember that when Joseph left the grove, he wasn't inspired to continue in the faith and belief of his family and forefathers.

No, instead he came with new knowledge, and he was carrying a firm conviction that the dominant religious narratives of his day were false.  If Jesus had appeared to him and said "Joseph, trust in the testimony you have of the Bible, and the faith of your family.  Stay in the boat", then it would be a great analogy.

Instead, Jesus said "Joseph, there aren't any good boats left, so jump out of the one you're in and I'll show you how to make a new one."  And Joseph claims the preachers of his day reacted negatively to that.  In the Joseph Smith analogy, the Church is the traditional religion whose claims are challenged by the answer to the question, and Church leaders are the local preachers who get mad at Joseph for telling his story.

 

Maybe it is a goof inference to make because it also details to whom Joseph Smith went to get his answers.

Glenn

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

We had a regional conference this morning and Pres. Ballard was the last speaker.  At one point he stated that he hated to hear of members with honest and sincere questions who are made to feel as if they are lacking faith for asking them. He said that that is not appropriate and that there is nothing wrong with asking questions.  In fact, he said that asking questions is good (and inferred to JS asking his question in the grove).

He did end that portion of his talk by reminding everyone that while it is good to seek for knowledge and learning, we can never forget that we are a religion of faith and sometimes we will be required have faith and hope rather than receive actual knowledge of something gospel related.

I just wanted to share that because I think it's important for us to remember that having sincere questions and asking them is not bad.  Nor is it a sign that someone needs to repent or 'have more faith'. 

 

Asking questions is good.  Its when people who ask the questions refuse or casually dismiss answers where it can be a problem.

[Kenngo1969]

I think, to quote the great Orson Scott Card, that it can be a good thing to question one's questions, and to doubt one's doubts. While my own questions and doubts are not necessarily related to the foundational events and claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have my own share of questions and doubts. 

My questions and doubts don't necessarily relate to The Plan (Big T and Big P) as much as they relate to the plan (little t and little p): I know what The Plan for humankind is, and I understand it and don't necessarily doubt it; I don't really know what the plan is for Kenngo1969 (if there is one; if so, how to know whether (a) I've irredeemably screwed up plan A [as seems to be the case] and (b) whether there's a plan B [which, frankly, I doubt]). 

Forrest Gump said that he didn't know if Lieutenant Dan was right and if we all have a destiny we should strive to find and to fulfill, or if his mama was right that "Lahf is lahk a box a chocolates: Ya never know what yer gonna git."  He said he didn't know if we all have a destiny or if we're simply floating around "accidental-like," as a feather floats on a breeze.  He said he thought maybe both things are happening at the same time.  But for me, life feels a lot less like destiny fulfillment and a lot more like the wind is carrying me "where it listeth."

If the latter is the case, that's fine, but I'm not exactly sure how to deal with it.  I've written of my occupational struggles ad nauseam here.  While, largely, I realized this only in retrospect, as unsure as I was about law school (throughout nearly the entirety of the process), I was absolutely sure I didn't want to answer phones for the rest of my life.  Which, from a certain perspective, means that the fact that I'll have spent another 3 1/2 years answering phones by the time this job ends makes this someone's idea of a sick joke (though my current-and-soon-to-be-former employer has treated me very well within its constraints to do so).

And I have absolutely no idea what to do next: I've told more than a few lawyers, in essence, "Look, if you need someone to take out your trash, mop your floors, and clean your toilets, as ill-suited as I might be to that job, I'll take out your trash, mop your floors, and clean your toilets, as long as my resume says 'XYZ Law Firm,'" but even that hasn't worked.   Ah, well!  There's always Walmart or Mickey D's (and as unlikely as it sounds, I would be far from the best-credentialed law graduate who, having failed to land employment as an attorney [or even law-related employment, for that matter] is working at Walmart or Mickey D's, instead).

And yeah, the Lord has told me, in essence, "Yes, Ken, if you choose, you can discount, downplay, or ignore the 'Did-I-not-speak-peace-to-your-mind-concerning-the-matter' moments we've had together and to put all of your stock, instead, in the 'Brass Heavens' experiences you've had, or you can do the opposite.  That's your choice."  Fine, but I still need a job.  So, yeah, few doubts about The Plan, huge doubts about the plan.  What's a guy to do?  

Edited October 29, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[changed]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

We need to know the difference between a sincere question and an insincere one. Insincere questions are rarely helpful.

 

I think all questions are sincere.  Sometimes a question is emotionally charged or accusatory - that does not mean it is not sincere.  

"I am not going to answer that because it is not a sincere question" - great cop-out answer...  

translation "I am not going to listen to or answer that question because I do not have an answer..." (cognitive dissonance sets in...)

15 hours ago, JAHS said:

This is true generally speaking. Sometimes critics ask questions just to trap someone or to ridicule the religion.
And some members might ask unanswerable questions to give them reasons and excuses to leave the faith.
But for the most part asking questions is one of the main ways to learn the gospel and should not be discouraged.

 

ridicule - like "why did JS marry a 14yo? why did he lie to Emma?  it is not meant to ridicule, it is a legitimate concern.  

it is not an "excuse" to leave the faith, it is a legit reason to leave it.  

If you happened to have born into some polygamous sect, did not appreciate it, would you leave?  what questions would you ask?  I suppose Warren Jeffs would say you were just trying to "ridicule"... how was JS and BY different from Warren Jeffs again?... or is that an unanswerable question?

Edited October 29, 2018 by changed

[changed]

7 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Asking questions is good.  Its when people who ask the questions refuse or casually dismiss answers where it can be a problem.

 

Perhaps it is the "answer" which is at fault.  

Good answers are not casually dismissed.

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, changed said:

ridicule - like "why did JS marry a 14yo? why did he lie to Emma?  it is not meant to ridicule, it is a legitimate concern.  

it is not an "excuse" to leave the faith, it is a legit reason to leave it.   

No, it's not in any way a legit reason to leave.

Making the assumption that because Joseph did something we either don't like or don't fully understand the whole restore gospel is false is not remotely legit.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

I think all questions are sincere.  Sometimes a question is emotionally charged or accusatory - that does not mean it is not sincere.  

"I am not going to answer that because it is not a sincere question" - great cop-out answer...  

translation "I am not going to listen to or answer that question because I do not have an answer..." (cognitive dissonance sets in...)

 

ridicule - like "why did JS marry a 14yo? why did he lie to Emma?  it is not meant to ridicule, it is a legitimate concern.  

it is not an "excuse" to leave the faith, it is a legit reason to leave it.  

If you happened to have born into some polygamous sect, did not appreciate it, would you leave?  what questions would you ask?  I suppose Warren Jeffs would say you were just trying to "ridicule"... how was JS and BY different from Warren Jeffs again?... or is that an unanswerable question?

Just because there is no answer yet to a question does not mean the entire gospel as we know it is false. God gives us his truth  line upon line as we are ready to receive it. A member with a testimony of the gospel as we know it so far is going to have enough patience to wait for the answer.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm not sure that's the best inference to make.

It sounds good on the surface, but we should remember that when Joseph left the grove, he wasn't inspired to continue in the faith and belief of his family and forefathers.

Depending on which story you believe, but it also could be true that he wasn't inspired to continue in the faith and belief of his family before he went into the grove.  This also breaks down if you rely on the earliest version of the first vision, as it was there was no question posed by Joseph in that version.  That only came later, after it appears, Joseph had decided on his story, fleshed it out a little more and worked it with others to present it in the best of light.  The Church may be wise to embrace the earlier account of his vision on this point alone.  

14 hours ago, cinepro said:

No, instead he came with new knowledge, and he was carrying a firm conviction that the dominant religious narratives of his day were false.  If Jesus had appeared to him and said "Joseph, trust in the testimony you have of the Bible, and the faith of your family.  Stay in the boat", then it would be a great analogy.

Or if Joseph went into the event or dream or whatever it turned out to be, with the conviction that one of the religious narratives of his day were true.  But if we are to believe him, he was already convicted they were false before he ever entered into his prayer.  Then again his 1832 account doesn't have him going into the sacred grove in the first place.  And then again it has the Lord speaking in one large run-on sentence.    

14 hours ago, cinepro said:

Instead, Jesus said "Joseph, there aren't any good boats left, so jump out of the one you're in and I'll show you how to make a new one."  And Joseph claims the preachers of his day reacted negatively to that.  In the Joseph Smith analogy, the Church is the traditional religion whose claims are challenged by the answer to the question, and Church leaders are the local preachers who get mad at Joseph for telling his story.

 

That works really well, as it were.  I don't know the extent of any persecution he received by preachers of his day, but he claimed it happened.  We just don't know who or how much, or what kind of persecution it was.  But perhaps it is akin to leaders of the Church chiding members for their questions and unbelief and nothing more.  Perhaps.  Then again, to even question the notion that Joseph went into it with a question in his mind seems anathema.  To question Joseph's dream ("I have dreamed a dreamed or in other words I have seen a vision") as anything but some personal dream, perhaps multiple dreams dreamed over and over a couple of times is also anathema.  I realize once you ask questions of this sort in a church setting you get someone chiming in with a quivering voice denouncing the spirit of the devil that had crept in unawares and quickly alerting local leaders of such unfaithfulness.  

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

Perhaps it is the "answer" which is at fault.  

Good answers are not casually dismissed.

I'd guess the answer is almost always at fault--short-sighted, and dogmatic rather than thoughtful and studied.  Years back I was asked to teach EQ regularly--a once a month calling.  They tried to be patient with me as I posed, at least to me, tough questions.  My EQP told me separately after the local leaders got involved with my lessons and questioning my faithfulness that his job was to answer the questions which nearly always amounted to dismissals.  If I asked he almost always was the first to chime in and his answers were for the most part, short-sighted, and dogmatic as I saw it.  I didn't mind too much because it usually brought out good challenging discussion.  

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it's not in any way a legit reason to leave.

Making the assumption that because Joseph did something we either don't like or don't fully understand the whole restore gospel is false is not remotely legit.

Surely one or two sounding indiscretions make leaving sound illegit.  But the truth is there are thousands of sketchy and questionable events--to say the least.  Depending on what one individual concludes about some of them, what those conclusions mean, there is every legitimate reason to leave.  

 

Ok.  I might have just reached my daily posting limit on this board before the mods step in and take away my posting rights again.  So, unless I am able to post again, I'll see you all tomorrow and see if anything develops here in the meantime.  

Edited October 29, 2018 by stemelbow

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it's not in any way a legit reason to leave.

Making the assumption that because Joseph did something we either don't like or don't fully understand the whole restore gospel is false is not remotely legit.

If someone thinks Joseph Smith was a bad person, that's a very legitimate reason to leave the religious tradition that he founded. It's also legitimate to stay on under those circumstances as well. It really depends on how you view the world.

[hope_for_things]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

We had a regional conference this morning and Pres. Ballard was the last speaker.  At one point he stated that he hated to hear of members with honest and sincere questions who are made to feel as if they are lacking faith for asking them. He said that that is not appropriate and that there is nothing wrong with asking questions.  In fact, he said that asking questions is good (and inferred to JS asking his question in the grove).

He did end that portion of his talk by reminding everyone that while it is good to seek for knowledge and learning, we can never forget that we are a religion of faith and sometimes we will be required have faith and hope rather than receive actual knowledge of something gospel related.

I just wanted to share that because I think it's important for us to remember that having sincere questions and asking them is not bad.  Nor is it a sign that someone needs to repent or 'have more faith'. 

 

Thanks, its nice to see this being discussed more frequently at the top levels of leadership.  Its going to take repeating this over and over before we see significant change in the culture because the easier thing to do is to just paint those with questions as doubters and dangerous.  

From my perspective this is just the first step in a necessary journey towards vulnerability and cultural humility.  The next step is recognizing that the answers that the church thinks it has, aren't really set in stone, and that we don't really have solid answers in the way that the tradition claims.  And that this is actually a good thing as we recognize that this life is a process of discovery, and that what we discover is always rooted in context and relative circumstances.