Boanerges2

The Giver. Great movie.

If President Uchtdorf (or anyone else) had stood up and said "My dear brothers and sisters, doubt your doubts. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen" it would be just fine all on its own. No context. But that's not what he said - there is much more context than even the preceding paragraph, and there is more in the same sentence ("before you doubt your faith"). Alas, as usual Folk Prophet your mind is made up and your understanding surpasses anyone else's. I suppose that's what makes you a prophet. There is no point in me engaging in a conversation with someone who uses circular logic and refuses to look at anything from any other perspective and whose objective is to make himself appear more knowledable and spiritual than anyone else. Have a great day.

The quote doesn't stand on its own because it's only part of the complete sentence. Definition of therefore: in consequence of that; as a result; consequently Pres. Uchtdorf's quote: Some might ask, “But what about my doubts?” It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith—even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty. Faith is to hope for things which are not seen but which are true. Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters—my dear friends—please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The line obviously needs context since it starts with "therefore." We can't have a therefore without something for it to refer to (as a consequence of, as a result). Logic would dictate that since he started a new paragraph with therefore it must be referring to the previous paragraph or perhaps paragraphs. Looking at the prior paragraph (which I so conveniently included), Pres. Uchtdorf points out several things: 1. It's natural to have questions 2. Honest inquiry sprouts into mature understanding 3. Few members have not questioned 4. A purpose of the church is to cultivate faith (even questioning faith) 5. Faith is hope for things not seen but true Therefore my dear brothers and sisters—my dear friends—please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. And there you go - context! (I obviously think the word before is important, too.)

I was a bit surprised that no one brought up Pres. Uchtdorf's talk, also. It is one of my top ten favorites of all time. On the other hand, I was gald no one quoted "doubt yout doubts" out of context. He clearly did set up a conext for that specific wording, which actuall starts with the word "therefore." There fore is a summarizing or conclusinary word, so he was summarizing/concluding about something he had already said. Just saying.

This is an interesting thread. I am in the camp where I believe my questions have made my faith stronger than ever. I will submit that without doubt there would be no need for faith - there must needs be opposition in all things.

I agree. Whether I consider all or parts of the creation story or all or parts of the story of the Garden of Eden to be literal or figurative doesn't really matter - in the end I come up with the same message everyone else does. Likewise with many of the other stories of the Old Testament. It's the message that's important.

Why does there have to be a literal Adam? Hopefully without saying too much here, certain ceremonies make it clear that Adam and Eve are repesentative of us all (at least in some parts). Things don't need to be "either-or," and most aren't. In the New Testament Jesus taught mostly in parables. He may well have done the same in the Old Testament.

Overstepped their bounds the Deseret News may have. Approved by the Firsy Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve the essay is - and it is the official stance of the church. Take away what you will, the essay is factual (along with those to which it is similar in that they have been researched and then apporved by the highest levels of church leadership and released over a period of about the last six months).

I've never been a fan of calling former bishops Bishop, but people do it all the time. As far as I'm concerned when they're realeased they just go back to being Brother so-and-so, likewise with stake presidents or anyone else. I don't actually recall ever having any counsel about this, but I do recall once many years ago a stake president counselling our ward to use titles when the person was in office - specifically he told us to call our bishop "bishop" instead of using his first name. We were a very small and close ward.

Deseret News published an excellent article today on the Race and the Priesthood essay released a few months ago by the church. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865604750/LDS-blacks-scholars-cheer-churchs-essay-on-priesthood.html I have liked these essays, and appreciate this publicity given by Deseret News. I am often amazed at who doesn't know about these essays and how many don't know about them. I think they're important for us to know about, particularly because they take so much wind out of the sails of the antis.

Have you read Pres. Uchtdorf's talk from October 2013 General Conference? https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng There is room for everyone in the church, and I think he has some wisdom for you.

I'm new here, although I did lurk for a while and I don't usually sign in when I come and look. I agree with Pam, but will add that you are not the only one who seems a bit judgemental at times.

And better yet, Dr. Pepper.

I just want to point out that our General Authorities, particularly those we sustain as prophets, rarely use the word know in that context. I'm a user of believe myself, although I often just do statements as if it's fact as well (like the General Authorities do).