Doubt

[HiJolly]

Hugh B. Brown said that if there is no doubt, then there is no thought. Which I agree with. I put together this set of quotes many years ago.

 

The downside:  
Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might
win by fearing to attempt.
-- William Shakespeare,
Measure for Measure, Act 1

The upside:
"To refuse to doubt, think about or question what you are told
is to miss an opportunity to talk to God"
-- Father Leo Booth

The annoying truth:
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and
the intelligent are full of doubt."
-- Bertrand Russell

The uplifting truth:
"Living with ambiguity is a form of intellectual honesty, of
humility. It is only when we admit that we don't know that we
are receptive to what lessons may be taught. In some strange
way, it also brings an inner peace since we are no longer
fighting reality to maintain our inner fantasies on how things
should be. While I am characterizing it as an intellectual
process, it also has spiritual implications, since only an open
mind is capable of hearing God."
-- Andy Piereder (on Eyring-L)
 

 

[Backroads]

We are a church with notoriety of having a prophet. I dare say that if one is a member of the church, one ought to be seeking to develop a testimony of the prophet and his authority to speak.

If one must ask God for confirmation on every single thing a prophet says, that belief in a prophet is still weak, logic would suggest. If that is where a person happens to currently be in his faith, so be it--but it's hardly an ideal stopping point.

There is a difference in asking for spiritual confirmation on some, many, and heck, even everything and generally assuming the prophet is wrong.

[Guest]

We are a church with notoriety of having a prophet.

 

I don't like this sentence.    Notoriety is not a word I would associate with the Church having a Prophet... nor with the Catholic Church having a Pope for that matter...

 

But I agree with the rest of what you said.

[Guest Godless]

I believe that people of faith tend to nurture their faith in different ways. For some (like Folk Prophet), it is enough to have faith in the prophet. Anything he says comes from god. Period. Others (especially converts, I would think) like to have spiritual confirmation, maybe not for all points of doctrine, but for many of them. For someone who converted from mainstream Christianity, that would be their norm since they had faith in god for years without having a prophet to put faith into. It doesn't mean that they don't trust the prophet, just that they need additional confirmation before they get that warm and fuzzy feeling. I wouldn't necessarily call that doubt, just a different method of understanding the teachings of the church. You could reasonably call it questioning, but I think we've established that questioning isn't the same as doubt. A person with a strong testimony can still feel the need for spiritual confirmation of doctrines.

 

Doubt comes into play when a person's testimony is crumbling, or just weak to begin with. It may manifest itself as questioning at first as they challenge specific doctrines, but ultimately it boils down to a lack of faith in the entire system.

 

The thing that makes this issue complicated is that people who have doubts don't always recognize how impoverished their faith is. I reached a point (while I was taking missionary prep classes, ironically) where I asked myself for the first time whether or not I believed that then-prophet Gordon B. Hinkley was a prophet of god, and whether Joseph Smith was as well. When I realized the answer was no, my apostasy was complete. In the years leading up to that, I never pieced together the fact that my shortcoming in faith on some doctrines and teachings were stemming from a lack of testimony in the church. I truly believed that I had a testimony. The church was all I knew, so I had to believe it was true, right? Looking back, I'm not so sure that I ever truly had a testimony of anything.

 

This isn't to say that people who doubt never had faith at all. It's possible to lose faith over time for various reasons. But I can say with quite a bit of certainty that doubt is the biggest symptom of disbelief, regardless of whether or not the individual realizes it.

[The Folk Prophet]

For some (like Folk Prophet), it is enough to have faith in the prophet. Anything he says comes from god. Period.

 

To be clear, I do not believe this. President Monson's views on breakfast cereal are probably not from God.  Nor could any current faithful Latter-day Saint accept that everything Brigham Young said was from God. It really comes down to more how estradling75 put it. Approaching it from a benefit of the doubt until there's reason to see it differently.

 

I suspect the difference of opinions come down to what qualifies as a reason to see it differently.

 

Edit: Also...I think I've been clear. I do not think it is "enough". I very, very clearly and plainly believe that one needs spiritual confirmation that the prophet is a prophet and that the church is led by God.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm a bit surprised no one has brought up Elder Uchtdorf's talk in Oct 2013 Come Join With Us. In many ways it was the catalyst for my starting of this thread. He talks therein about doubt. I have found (from my perspective) that those who encourage the doubt culture use what he said to support their ideas, and those who discourage it use it to support their end, and both kind of ignore the full picture. I'm posting the relative part here:

 

______________________

 

"One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?”

 

"Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.

 

"Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church.

 

"In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.5

"Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past. We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history—along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events—there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.

 

"Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience. When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.

 

"Sometimes there is a difference of opinion as to what the “facts” really mean. A question that creates doubt in some can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.

"And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

 

"I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

 

"In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”6

 

"This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth.

 

"It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not tarnished, diminished, or destroyed.

 

"As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.

"To those who have separated themselves from the Church, I say, my dear friends, there is yet a place for you here.

 

"Come and add your talents, gifts, and energies to ours. We will all become better as a result.

 

"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."

[Boanerges2]

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.

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

 

Just curious, but how does, "first, doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith" require context? What is it, exactly, that he is supposedly concluding that would be misunderstood if the quote stood on its own?

 

It seems pretty straightforward to me. If you have some doubts and you have some faith, focus on the faith. Is there another way to understand it?

[Suzie]

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.

 

I was thinking in that wonderful talk by Elder Uchtdorf, he is one of my favorite speakers. :) One of the things I recall in that talk was first of all, the acknowledgment he gave with regards to mistakes that were not in harmony with LDS values, principles or doctrine from members and church leaders:

 

And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

 

The other part I recall is:

 

A question that creates doubt in some can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.

 

The whole talk is amazing :)

[Anddenex]

I enjoy these conversations, as I contemplate my own doubts.  I wouldn't agree one needs to experience doubt to know they have faith, but I would agree that individuals need to be tempted with doubt to know their faith.   Our examplar is Christ, and did Christ ever doubt -- No, but was he tempted with doubt -- Yes.  Scripture specifies he grew grace for grace.

 

Doubt is an opposite of faith.  Where I have faith, I don't doubt, where I lack faith I doubt.  If we assume doubt is necessary for knowledge, then we assume incorrectly, otherwise our exemplar would have never learned.  If we want knowledge, we only need to desire the knowledge, and we must love truth, and then we must be patient to learn line upon line, precept upon precept (anybody have any good suggestions with patience on this one :) ). 

 

If tempted with doubt, we have the opportunity, the opposition to overcome it with faith.  Or we have the opposition to succumb to the temptation.  In the beginning, doubt lead to knowledge for me, but doubt was a result of my spiritual immaturity.  As I learned, gained testimony, and my faith lead to knowledge I no longer sought knowledge because of doubts, I sought knowledge so that it may be for my profit and learning, more so for my children's profit and learning. If I knew more, then I could bless them and their lives and hopefully they would not experience the same doubt in my youth, which I personally created being halt between two opinions.  At the same time, I now recognize, I am not to impart all my knowledge so that they may learn to become themselves.  That is difficult.

 

I think this has been one of the better threads I have read regarding doubt, and have enjoyed reading through the responses.  Thank you for the comments.

[Boanerges2]

Just curious, but how does, "first, doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith" require context? What is it, exactly, that he is supposedly concluding that would be misunderstood if the quote stood on its own?

 

It seems pretty straightforward to me. If you have some doubts and you have some faith, focus on the faith. Is there another way to understand it?

 

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.)

[The Folk Prophet]

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.)

 

 

Essentially then we have. A. Doubt exists. B. Faith exists. C. The church's purpose is to cultivate faith. D. Therefore...

 

With the exception of C these things are implicit in the statement "First, doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith." And C is even moderately implicit if you know it's a church leader saying it. How can we doubt our doubts if no one had doubts? How can we doubt our faith if no one has faith? And why would it matter if one were not more important (from a gospel view point) than the other?

 

Regardless, that doesn't really answer the question I have, which is: What could one possibly take the statement to mean out of context?

[Boanerges2]

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 Folk Prophet]

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.

 

What the...?

 

I'm honestly asking questions to try and gain insight into this and I'm using circular logic and trying to make myself appear more spiritual than anyone else?

 

O.....k......

 

Seriously. Perhaps the strangest, most defensive accusation I've ever had. Hmm. I'd have my feelings hurt, but in this case, it's a bit out there, which makes it rather more amusing. Seriously, seriously. What did I do? I didn't even say you were wrong.

 

And, of course, you still didn't bother to answer my question, which I am legitimately curious about. I'm really interested to know how you or others would find this quote, if out of context, to have a negative effect or have harmful connotation. You started out by saying that you were glad no one quoted it out of context. I'm asking why? How about you answer, if I disagree I can debate it, and then you can say all those nasty things about me again?

[Guest]

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.

 

It would be fine on its own.  Because... the context is A Talk By President Uchtdorf given on General Conference.

 

But, of course, Pres. Uchtdorf is not going to give a 2 sentence talk.

 

 

 

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.

 

Boanerges, sorry but you're the one out of line here.  If you're going to get upset when somebody questions your statements, then you shouldn't make a statement or read anything past your post... especially if you're responding to somebody else's statements... because you know, they're not just going to say, oh, okay, Boanerges said it, so that must be the end of it.

 

Now this goes double if you engage TFP or Vort (where is that guy???) or Anatess...

 

And triple if you interject in a discussion between Traveler and SeminarySnoozer...

[Blackmarch]

it can be useful in small amounts in moving a person... but too much is debilitating and harmful.

[Traveler]

I think there are two kinds of doubt.

 

1. When we run across something that does not conform with our proven paradigm of reality.

 

2. When we run across something that does not conform to what we want to be reality.

 

Obviously one kind of doubt leads to better understanding of reality and the other leads to deliberate misunderstandings of reality.

[Connie]

Read this talk in my study today and thought of this thread.  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1985/10/the-abundant-life?lang=eng

[Pa Pa]

Let's discuss doubt.

It seems quite trendy, in some circles, to embrace doubt as some sort of virtue. What are your thoughts on doubt?

All have doubts, it is the human nature. Also I fear anyone who never doubts.

[The Folk Prophet]

All have doubts, it is the human nature.

 

Could not the same be said of sin? That doesn't make sin good though, right?

[Pa Pa]

Could not the same be said of sin? That doesn't make sin good though, right?

sure it could.

[Anddenex]

I rather much like this quote from Joseph smith, Lectures on Faith,

 

"But those who have not made this sacrifice to God do not know that the course which they pursue is well pleasing in his sight; for ...where doubt and uncertainty are there faith is not, nor can it be. For doubt and faith do not exist in the same person at the same time; so that persons whose minds are under doubts and fears cannot have unshaken confidence; ...and where faith is weak the persons will not be able to contend against all the opposition, tribulations, and afflictions which they will have to encounter in order to be heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ Jesus; and they will grow weary in their minds, and the adversary will have power over them and destroy them."

 

[Urstadt]

Let's discuss doubt

I don't know if anyone has said this yet or not, but I think there is a difference between doubt and critical thinking. To me, doubt is when you are skeptical about something and choose to do nothing about it whereas critical thinking to me is when 1) you constructively think about the implications and limitations about something and then 2) try to come up with plausible alternatives.

I also think there is a difference between doubt and relating to something authentically (in continetal philosophy's sense of the word, not webster's). When I doubt that cognitive-behavioral therapy is a good therapy, I reject it outright. When I relate to it authentically, I still doubt many of its basic tenets, but I allow those tenets to challenge my own viewpoints/philosophy/horizon. I allow some of the tenets of CBT to fuse with my viewpoints to increase understanding. I still doubt that CBT is a good therapy, but I have allowed some of the good aspects of it to resonate with me, and I may even borrow them.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Urstadt