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

[Scott Lloyd]

I think Nephi sets a good example for us. In the vision he experienced, an angel asked him if he understood the meaning of what was being shown to him. 

He replied that he knew that God loves his children, but that he did not know the meaning of all things. 

And there we have it: a firm affirmation of what he had been given through the Spirit of truth and, in the same breath, an honest assessment of his own lack of understanding. No attitude of cynicism or skepticism, no determination to harm or destroy the faith of others by sowing seeds of doubt in their hearts, no unseemly faultfinding or ark steadying or evil speaking of anointed leaders. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

9 hours 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...)

 

I disagree.  Insincere questions definitely do exist, and refusing to answer them is not a cop out, doesn't mean 'I don't have an answer,' and isn't a sign that cognitive dissonance is setting in.  Any question where the person doesn't care about the answer but is using it as a way to make a point or insult someone or something is, by definition, insincere.  And we get questions like that all the time.  

If someone isn't interested in the answer to their question, and engaging them is just going to cause contention and use up energy that could be better spent elsewhere, then often the mature and smart thing to do is to refrain from engaging in a discussion with them.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I mentioned freedom of speech as an exception because I think it is a prime example.  Freedom of speech in the US constitution is the corollary example of where freedom is respected, but only up to certain limits where that freedom starts to threaten or infringe on the freedom of others.  Its also part of the social contract and I don't think we need to rehash these age old arguments.  

As for legitimate, I already explained that I think its legitimate in the eyes of the individual making the choice, in a subjective sense, and that we as outside observers should honor their identity and their religious preferences.  I'm starting to wonder if you perhaps come from a different country than myself, and maybe weren't raised with the American values that I thought were pretty ubiquitous in western culture.  Is this the case?  

I am simply addressing this idea of legitimacy.  To me, what is legitimate in the eyes of man, may not be legitimate in the eyes of God.  So, to honor someones choices as "legitimate" simply because they believe they are, doesn't really speak to the big picture.  You seem to suggest that there is a line however, in terms of infringing upon the rights of others.  I am just curious as to how you justify that line.  Why should other's who believe differently respect that line and perspective as legitimate?

In other words, why do you think our rights (which our country recognizes as "God given" and country protected) should be universally recognized, even if another person's perspective and religious (or non-religious) beliefs doesn't recognize God, or these rights.  It seems that you draw limits about what should be honored in terms of other peoples religious preferences. I was just curious as to why you believe your perspective is justified in this regard, while their's isn't.   

 

[JAHS]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I disagree.  Insincere questions definitely do exist, and refusing to answer them is not a cop out, doesn't mean 'I don't have an answer,' and isn't a sign that cognitive dissonance is setting in.  Any question where the person doesn't care about the answer but is using it as a way to make a point or insult someone or something is, by definition, insincere.  And we get questions like that all the time.  

If someone isn't interested in the answer to their question, and engaging them is just going to cause contention and use up energy that could be better spent elsewhere, then often the mature and smart thing to do is to refrain from engaging in a discussion with them.

Refusing to answer a question might sometimes fall under the  directions given by Jesus:
"for it is not meet to give that which is holy unto the dogs; neither cast ye your pearls unto swine, lest they trample them under their feet."  (Matt 7: 10)

 

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am simply addressing this idea of legitimacy.  To me, what is legitimate in the eyes of man, may not be legitimate in the eyes of God.  So, to honor someones choices as "legitimate" simply because they believe they are, doesn't really speak to the big picture.  You seem to suggest that there is a line however, in terms of infringing upon the rights of others.  I am just curious as to how you justify that line.  Why should other's who believe differently respect that line and perspective as legitimate?

In other words, why do you think our rights (which our country recognizes as "God given" and country protected) should be universally recognized, even if another person's perspective and religious (or non-religious) beliefs doesn't recognize God, or these rights.  It seems that you draw limits about what should be honored in terms of other peoples religious preferences. I was just curious as to why you believe your perspective is justified in this regard, while their's isn't.   

 

I recognize differences of opinion exist on these topics.  If God has a different perspective on what is considered legitimate, I'm not aware of any way to objectively measure that perspective, so in practice it varies just as much as each individual's opinion, which makes the whole argument from authority really just another way of saying that people have differences of opinion.  

As for universally recognized, I didn't say that at all.  The history of how our constitution was formed shows a very contentious process where it was difficult to get a majority of persons to agree on these principles.  But eventually we came up with a social contract that was good enough and broad enough from which the foundation of our country was formed.  Its odd that you're now saying that I'm "drawing limits" on people asserting that my perspective is justified and that others aren't.  Seems to me that you're trying to twist my words and perhaps not engaging in this exchange in good faith.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It wasn't clear to me what you were asking for, I thought you wanted evidence for my claim that apologists are frequently denying the teaching of blind obedience.  

As for examples, I do have personal ones.  Like the time that I told my bishop that I felt inspired to take a sabbatical from church and he told me that I shouldn't because I would risk losing the spirit and falling away from church.   Or there's the time that I felt inspired to tell the bishop that he needed to implement a two deep policy for all the primary classes even the ones taught by women, for the protection of the leaders and the children and he told me it wasn't required in the handbook and that he was going to stick to the handbook requirements. 

Lastly on a more positive note, there's the time when I first started along my path of faith journey study of church history and I asked a counselor in the stake presidency about attending Sunstone and whether that would put me in trouble with the church and that counselor said it would be no problem and that he encouraged me to study and seek answers to questions, as long as I considered honestly both sides of an issue.  This was a really good counselor.  

As for blind obedience and agreement, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, you said I was advocating that position earlier, but I don't recall where I've said that exactly.  

Those seem to be more relevant examples, but you don't seem to have any regrets, and there don’t seem to be negative consequences to your having expressed them.

I took your comment about apologists telling us that blind obedience (in connection with the example of a woman who doesn't agree with Church policy) isn't taught in our church to imply that you think that it is taught, and I asked for examples.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

The harm that was done by sharing was that she was denied a recommend.

No.

I am suggesting that what he's not saying is that if you ask an honest and sincere question and your study and prayer leads you to an answer that doesn't align with the Brethren, you need to keep it to yourself.  Sharing it is not advisable.

All true.

OK so you see having her recommend denied as a negative consequence for expressing her views, but she hasn't expressed any regrets to you on that and you describe her as continuing as an active member of your ward.

I see; while Elder Ballard wasn’t saying it (and I don’t see this as general counsel either), your advice is to not share conclusions that don’t align with the Brethren or you might lose your recommend. Is that the only negative consequence you envision, and no positive consequences?

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

OK so you see having her recommend denied as a negative consequence for expressing her views, but she hasn't expressed any regrets to you on that and you describe her as continuing as an active member of your ward.

I see; while Elder Ballard wasn’t saying it (and I don’t see this as general counsel either), your advice is to not share conclusions that don’t align with the Brethren or you might lose your recommend. Is that the only negative consequence you envision, and no positive consequences?

Oh, she is definitely heartbroken over not being able to renew her recommend.  It's devastating to her.  I guess I didn't understand what you were asking... regret might not be the right word because she doesn't feel that she was in the wrong for sharing what she shared.  And, I thought it was obvious that she didn't want to lose her temple recommend.

There may be positive consequences in helping the church by sharing one's beliefs, even when they don't align with the Brethren.

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Oh, she is definitely heartbroken over not being able to renew her recommend.  It's devastating to her.  I guess I didn't understand what you were asking... regret might not be the right word because she doesn't feel that she was in the wrong for sharing what she shared.  And, I thought it was obvious that she didn't want to lose her temple recommend.

There may be positive consequences in helping the church by sharing one's beliefs, even when they don't align with the Brethren.

I feel bad for this woman. How would she regret what she feells in her heart...or how she feels about the covenants she has made.  Truth is still truth to an individual.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Jeanne

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Refusing to answer a question might sometimes fall under the  directions given by Jesus:
"for it is not meet to give that which is holy unto the dogs; neither cast ye your pearls unto swine, lest they trample them under their feet."  (Matt 7: 10)

 

Perhaps. I don’t claim to know what Christ meant by stating this (if he did in fact).  But, to someone who has questions, and has gotten this response, it makes me wonder why Christ would call me a dog or a pig?

I also get the impression that some people have used this response to deflect a difficult question to which they have no answer.

I’d be careful about using this response when addressing people who express doubts.  Even if you think the person is insincere, what good will you do by indirectly calling them a dog and a pig?

[JAHS]

34 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Perhaps. I don’t claim to know what Christ meant by stating this (if he did in fact).  But, to someone who has questions, and has gotten this response, it makes me wonder why Christ would call me a dog or a pig?

I also get the impression that some people have used this response to deflect a difficult question to which they have no answer.

I’d be careful about using this response when addressing people who express doubts.  Even if you think the person is insincere, what good will you do by indirectly calling them a dog and a pig?

You don't call them that, or even give this response to them, you just be careful on who you have discussions with about the gospel.  

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I mentioned freedom of speech as an exception because I think it is a prime example.  Freedom of speech in the US constitution is the corollary example of where freedom is respected, but only up to certain limits where that freedom starts to threaten or infringe on the freedom of others.  Its also part of the social contract and I don't think we need to rehash these age old arguments.  

As for legitimate, I already explained that I think its legitimate in the eyes of the individual making the choice, in a subjective sense, and that we as outside observers should honor their identity and their religious preferences.  I'm starting to wonder if you perhaps come from a different country than myself, and maybe weren't raised with the American values that I thought were pretty ubiquitous in western culture.  Is this the case?  

It strikes me that you and pogi are talking past each other here.  The theory is all well and good, but actual cases tell us far more about what the core principles mean.  That meaning and the limits to it are tested every day in our society.  It is dynamic, not static, and not everyone is satisfied with the interim results.  Human society will always be like that.

[SouthernMo]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

You don't call them that, or even give this response to them, you just be careful on who you have discussions with about the gospel.  

That’s true, one does not need to be explicit about one’s reasons for not opening up.

I’m still troubled about that scripture; I struggle to see love in that characterization of any of God’s children.

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

No, it's not.  All that matters is whether it's true.  I don't care for the term "faith tradition".  It reduces the gospel to mere culture.  And that would be something you could legitimately reject.

But to reject something true because you don't like it or like the speaker of the truth is not legitimate at all.  Nor is the truthfulness of something remotely related to the speaker or how much we like it.

The one and only legitimate reason to leave the gospel is because it isn't true.  There is no other legitimate reason.

[JAHS]

17 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

That’s true, one does not need to be explicit about one’s reasons for not opening up.

I’m still troubled about that scripture; I struggle to see love in that characterization of any of God’s children.

If you don't like dog and pig you probably don't like theses either then?
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Jesus is just telling it like it is so his children can be warned and be careful

[Tacenda]

Thought I'd share these links, haven't read all of them yet, but found them fitting for this topic. My faith crisis has lasted for so many years, I'm amazed how I just continue on and don't jump to either side yet. Maybe after reading these reports, I'll find others like me. I never thought I'd be in this place. But all it took was one thing in history that I was never told about to lead me onto many more things that were kept under wraps. Now the church has come to home to roost. I have a few situations in the coming months when I'm going to have to tell my in laws. I'm so tired of finding excuse after excuse as to why my husband and I can't make it to the temple with all of them. Now they all want to go to the temple while on a vacation coming up next fall, and for my MIL's birthday coming in the spring. 

It's no fun, hiding this. But more and more with things being said over the pulpit about people with questions, it won't be the shock it would have been 10 years ago. 

Below are cut/paste of reports.

 

"Report prepared for Dieter Uchtdorf in 2013, presented to him by Marlin Jensen. The report includes a recap of their 2011 research and was meant to inform him and other general authorities so they could better understand what is happening (and take appropriate measures to compassionately address it)."

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/faith_crisis_study/Faith_Crisis_Report_R24B.pdf

 

"Includes a number of qualitative narratives collected in 2013 as part of a separate survey (some of these inputs were included in the Uchtdorf report). Dieter later indicated that he read each of these narratives."

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/faith_crisis_study/Faith_Crisis_Accounts_R3.pdf

 

"Part of this presentation focused on “user generated content” in the post-Mormon community and included a site-traffic analysis and growth projection for the r/exmormon subreddit. Back in Oct 2016, there were 34K registered members of that community. Today there are almost 97K registered members, which is more or less on target per the projection to reach 200K in 2020. And while the number of registered users is impressive, the number of “lurkers” and level of engagement per user is especially fascinating. See Slides 17–31 for more info."

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/faith_crisis_study/BYU_H_Social+Faith_R5.pdf

Edited October 30, 2018 by Tacenda

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

This all depends on what the motive and intent of the person doing it is. When I say "leave it alone" I mean to not bash and ridicule the faith of those who still believe in it. 
Faithful members who proselyte are doing it out of love for others and don't bash and demean another's religion.

Oh my, you have obviously never been proselytized by an overly-enthusiastic and under-trained LDS missionary. Or by an 82 year-old ward mission leader!

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Navidad

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it's not.  All that matters is whether it's true.  I don't care for the term "faith tradition".  It reduces the gospel to mere culture.  And that would be something you could legitimately reject.

But to reject something true because you don't like it or like the speaker of the truth is not legitimate at all.  Nor is the truthfulness of something remotely related to the speaker or how much we like it.

The one and only legitimate reason to leave the gospel is because it isn't true.  There is no other legitimate reason.

People differ in how they determine how the gospel is true.  Some may look at what type of people living the gospel or at least having knowledge of it produces.

[changed]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

I know that leaders have abused children, but I have a different perspective to what you frame as an irreconcilable problem.  From God's perspective, are you confident that your reason for leaving was legitimate in His eyes?  Isn't that what really matters?  Maybe it was, I don't know.  I think he is compassionate and understanding of our lack of perspective.  Having said that, while accept that you had a legitimate reason to leave from your perspective, I think you have a legitimate reason to return from my perspective, but ultimately all that matters is God's perspective. 

I have asked what the point of this trial was - "what does God want me to learn from this?", and the only thing I could come up with is  - God wants want you to learn not to trust in the arms of flesh.  God wants you to learn to go directly to Him with no middle-men.  I've become more of a Unitarian through this, now see the spiritual journey as taking place partially within a community, and partially as an individual - think all religious communities are imperfect by design to encourage individual inquiry and expression.  I am ashamed to admit how dependent I was on the church prior to this trial - that something this drastic was needed to push me away and onto my own two feet.  Culturally - women are brought up to live a dependent life. We are supposed to depend on priesthood holders, depend on our husbands, the curse of Eve going on I guess.  Perhaps that curse is being lifted in these latter days as women are pushed to be the providers, are pushed to be the protectors, are pushed to be - not just independent, not just taking care of themselves, but taking care of their children and families as well.  I was willing to be a good TBM wife, was willing to be dependent, was willing to fill the "feminine" roll - but that is no longer my lot in life.  I am a provider, I am a protector, I am a nurturer, I have been forced to shoulder all the roles as have many other women living during this time period.

Edited October 30, 2018 by changed

[Gray]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it's not.  All that matters is whether it's true.  I don't care for the term "faith tradition".  It reduces the gospel to mere culture.  And that would be something you could legitimately reject.

Do you disagree with the passage in the D&C that says priesthood authority is only valid when exercised by the righteous? If Joseph Smith was a bad person, his priesthood authority would have been invalid anyway, right? That would mean the church itself has no valid authority. Just one of many ways to look at it.

 

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But to reject something true because you don't like it or like the speaker of the truth is not legitimate at all.  Nor is the truthfulness of something remotely related to the speaker or how much we like it.

The one and only legitimate reason to leave the gospel is because it isn't true.  There is no other legitimate reason.

The truth of the gospel is entirely subjective, so that's really just another way of saying the only legitimate reason to leave the gospel is because you don't like it.

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, JAHS said:

If you don't like dog and pig you probably don't like theses either then?
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Jesus is just telling it like it is so his children can be warned and be careful

calling people different animals is not telling it like it is.  Its the opposite of telling it like it is.  

[CV75]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

Oh, she is definitely heartbroken over not being able to renew her recommend.  It's devastating to her.  I guess I didn't understand what you were asking... regret might not be the right word because she doesn't feel that she was in the wrong for sharing what she shared.  And, I thought it was obvious that she didn't want to lose her temple recommend.

There may be positive consequences in helping the church by sharing one's beliefs, even when they don't align with the Brethren. 

This kind of what I was trying to get at. She is heartbroken but doesn’t feel compromised for sharing her views, so I would guess she still feels she did the right thing by not keeping them to herself. Maybe she’ll change her views someday; maybe she’ll find joy in sharing them with others as time goes on. I’ve known people who had greater joy (or simply slept better) in their personal integrity than in having a recommend they suspect they would not otherwise have. Often they are motivated to genuinely qualify for that recommend, depending on their personal priorities, and I suppose there are some that rationalize their opposition as a form of sustaining their leaders' greater potential, or not qualifying as that big a problem, and can answer the questions so as to keep a recommend.

[Coop]

On ‎10‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 5:20 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

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?  

I hear your pain.  If you were to ask me I would say that you need to find a good career coach.  And besides having a good understanding of the job market, I would look for one that is trained and experienced in administering personality tests as well.

All the best,

Bob

[Avatar4321]

On 10/29/2018 at 6:44 AM, changed said:

 

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

Good answers are not casually dismissed.

Sure they are

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

calling people different animals is not telling it like it is.  Its the opposite of telling it like it is.  

The gospel according to stemelbow. Just because he is comparing them to animals because of their behavior does not mean that he does not still love them.