Doubt

[Suzie]

Doubt is when we let other sources creep in. Doubt by definition is assumption that something is likely incorrect. When I tell my kids that I doubt something they're telling me, I'm saying that they are likely bending the truth. So doubt is a different animal. Doubt puts the philosophies of men mingled with scripture above faith and understanding. 

 

In summary, questioning is good, and necessary for spiritual growth. Doubt is subject to bad influences and the beginning of abandonment of our faith.

 

I am not sure if I agree with that Eowyn. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with doubt neither necessarily the beginning of abandonment of our faith. I think doubt helps us grow.

[iguy2314]

I think God can handle our doubt.

 

Reason is a gift from God, and we should use it to our utmost ability, not to tear down our faith but to build it, so that the two of them can worship the Creator hand in hand.

 

"Doubt puts the philosophies of men mingled with scripture above faith and understanding."

 

If Men are made in God's image, their philosophies should strive to use all knowledge, all reason, all truth to lead to the Divine Knowledge, the Divine Reason, the Divine Truth, which is God.

 

But MAN individually is limited. I do not know all things. I must use my God-given reason to investigate, discover and yes DOUBT all things and discover who God truly is (which has been revealed to us in Christ perfectly)

[Suzie]

So perhaps the issue is not with the doubt itself but how we handle such doubts.

[Suzie]

Where doubt is, there faith has no power.

 

It is interesting to note that Smith himself had doubts about the things he heard and learned with regards to other religions when he was just a young boy and that culminated with the Restoration of Christ's Church.

 

There are dozens of examples in the Bible and the BOM about great Prophets and people who had doubts. We have Nephi, Thomas, Moses, Abraham, Peter and the list goes on.  How can anyone test their faith without a grain of doubt? How can anyone make the right choice if there is not a grain of doubt to begin with? Doubt isn't the opposite of Faith but part of it.

[SpiritDragon]

My perspective is this:

 

Doubt is to disbelief what faith is to belief; doubt without works is dead. If I truly doubt xyz is going to lead to something I hope for, then I will actively choose not to worry about doing xyz.

 

I should add that it is important to understand both of these terms are dependent upon the source they are placed in. Faith alone is not a principle of the gospel, but faith in Christ is. Misplacing our faith in the arm of flesh is condemned as an example. Therefore with doubt in Christ being the antithesis of faith in Christ it is bad, but doubting man or the devil is our prerogative.

 

Also to clarify about having questions versus doubts (keep in mind doubt without works is dead) I would suggest that studying scriptures, praying and attending church are all acts of faith (in Christ) and not acts of doubt so long as the intent is sincerely to find answers and not to sow confusion. Acts of doubt would be to give up on such things because it is presumed not to exist anyway or the doubter does not expect Christ to make good on His promises anyway. 

[The Folk Prophet]

doubt without works is dead 

 

I don't remember that scripture. 

[The Folk Prophet]

3) Doubt is a good thing if we are "doubting" a falsehood. In spite of his claims in the premortal councils, I doubt that Satan really has the power to get me to heaven. It seems to me that some of this question around doubt is centered in the process of discernment. It might be all about the process of trying to find out what is truth and what is error.

 

I believe Spirit Dragon addressed this. It is implicit (or, rather, should be) that in discussing whether doubt is good or bad that we're talking about doubting the gospel. Of course doubting false things is acceptable.

[The Folk Prophet]

I am very careful about labeling anyone and bothers me when others who did not go through the same challenges these people faced see them and they sit down and point fingers labeling them as weak and lacking faith. I see them as brothers and sisters who couldn't bear the pain any longer.

 

It's a nice sentiment. I can't see it (pain) as a universal reason why doubt leads to apostasy though. Sometimes, sure. In every case though?

 

I also don't understand where it's problematic to "label" someone as lacking faith but it's okay to label them as unable to bear the pain. Why is one bothersome but the other not?

[The Folk Prophet]

I am not sure if I agree with that Eowyn. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with doubt neither necessarily the beginning of abandonment of our faith. I think doubt helps us grow.

 

It is interesting to note that Smith himself had doubts about the things he heard and learned with regards to other religions when he was just a young boy and that culminated with the Restoration of Christ's Church.

 

There are dozens of examples in the Bible and the BOM about great Prophets and people who had doubts. We have Nephi, Thomas, Moses, Abraham, Peter and the list goes on.  How can anyone test their faith without a grain of doubt? How can anyone make the right choice if there is not a grain of doubt to begin with? Doubt isn't the opposite of Faith but part of it.

 

I'm not saying I disagree with you, per se. But I don't think it addresses how to reconcile what Joseph Smith said and how to reconcile doubt being against the myriad of scriptures (I only quoted a portion) that consistently tell us to doubt not.

[SpiritDragon]

I don't remember that scripture. 

 

What translation of the bible are you using? 

[The Folk Prophet]

I can't speak for MoE, but I agree with the gist of what I think he's saying. What I've seen of the "doubting" trend has, so far, been mostly about doubting the Church as an institution. Different "camps" would like to see different results from that doubting.

 

The Third Lecture on Faith deals entirely with the "correct nature" of God, and continually stresses the importance of exercising "perfect faith" (LoF 3, Q. 20) unto "life and salvation" (LoF 4:1) to be able to actually achieve said salvation. To attain salvation you have to have perfect faith in God. In fact, the only being or concept you can ever have perfect faith in is God, and the result of that perfect faith is the receipt of life and salvation.

 

It's impossible to have perfect faith in men or men's organizations, and if anyone were to attempt it they would be damming themselves by setting up a barrier between them and the author of their salvation, Christ. Unfortunately, in the modern Church there's been a trend among the members to try to view the Church, or the line of priestly/prophetic succession from Joseph Smith, or a specific Church President with perfect faith and depend on the keys the leaders hold for their salvation.

 

That is an attempt at idolatry which Joseph warned against when he preached Ezekiel 14 to the Relief Society a few years before his death, and that the Lord described in D&C 76:100 as belonging to those who inherit Telestial glory ("These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias..."). Therefore, inasmuch as the recent trend of doubting shakes faith in the Church (without attempting to destroy it) and re-centers it in God, it's good. However, inasmuch as it shakes faith in God and tries to center one's faith in man or the philosophies of men, it's bad.

 

It's all about what you're doubting or having faith in.

 

We've been through this before...but...  

 

You simply cannot separate God's church from God. It's either His church and He leads it or it is not.

 

From my perspective, doubt that the church is led by God is a serious problem. Doubting that God has control over His church, belief that the institution is running amok -- it just does not jibe. It's God's church but man's institution?

[The Folk Prophet]

I consider doubt to be the coexisting condition of faith.  That is, I consider doubt to be a necessary condition of faith.  I do not consider the two to be opposites or enemies, but colleagues and collaborators.

 

I've enjoyed and encouraged this "trend" toward expressing doubts because I feel like the past few decades of church culture has held that doubt is bad and should never be expressed.  And that those who have doubts are on some spiritually inferior level.  What I've enjoyed about this doubt trend is seeing people who have both serious reservations and doubts while simultaneously having profound spiritual insights.  

 

The purpose of the doubting trend has been to illustrate that doubt and faith can coexist and that the liberty to express one's doubts without fear of ostracism or marginalization can bring one to greater faith and understanding.  

 

I've been thinking about this. The idea that doubt is a necessary condition of faith is interesting and makes sense. I had a thought however, that helps reconcile things a bit in my mind.

 

I see it comparable to sin being a necessary condition for repentance. In both cases, the one is necessary for the other because of the polarity. They are opposites, and they cannot exist together, but the one cannot exist without the reality of the other.

 

Therefore, in the same way that sin is not good, neither is doubt. But through both we can make our weaknesses strong if we turn to the Lord.

 

Which, of course, makes me mindful of Ether 12:27-28:

"And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

 

Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness."

 

I also thought this was an interesting quote by Richard C. Edgley, (First Counselor in the Presiding Bishopric - Oct 2010)

 

"Alma’s classic discussion on faith, as recorded in the 32nd chapter of Alma in the Book of Mormon, is a series of choices to ensure the development and the preservation of our faith. Alma gave us a directive to choose. His were words of action initiated by choosing. He used the words awake, arouse, experiment, exercise, desire, work, and plant. Then Alma explained that if we make these choices and do not cast the seed out by unbelief, then “it will begin to swell within [our] breasts” (Alma 32:28).

 

Yes, faith is a choice, and it must be sought after and developed. Thus, we are responsible for our own faith. We are also responsible for our lack of faith. The choice is yours.

 

<snip>

 

"And so, following Alma’s formula, let us choose. Let us choose faith.

• If confusion and hopelessness weigh on your mind, choose to “awake and arouse your faculties” (Alma 32:27). Humbly approaching the Lord with a broken heart and contrite spirit is the pathway to truth and the Lord’s way of light, knowledge, and peace.

• If your testimony is immature, untested, and insecure, choose to “exercise [even] a particle of faith”; choose to “experiment upon [His] words” (Alma 32:27). The Savior explained, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17).

• When logic, reason, or personal intellect come into conflict with sacred teachings and doctrine, or conflicting messages assault your beliefs as the fiery darts described by the Apostle Paul (see Ephesians 6:16), choose to not cast the seed out of your heart by unbelief. Remember, we receive not a witness until after the trial of our faith (see Ether 12:6).

• If your faith is proven and mature, choose to nurture it “with great care” (Alma 32:37). As strong as our faith is, with all the mixed messages attacking it, it can also become very fragile. It needs constant nourishment through continued scripture study, prayer, and the application of His word."

Doubt is a mortal weakness. Not all will doubt the same, but all must react to doubt the same -- by casting it out with faith -- or it will lead to destruction.

 

I do not believe the "trend" of doubt is healthy in the slightest regard. We should be encouraging faith, not doubt.

[Suzie]

I also don't understand where it's problematic to "label" someone as lacking faith but it's okay to label them as unable to bear the pain. Why is one bothersome but the other not?

 

When you state that someone is unable to bear the pain, you are not labeling them, you are describing how they feel (they are hurt). When you state that someone lacks faith, you are making an indirect or direct accusation towards that person's spiritual journey which in the end, it is frankly not helpful and a silly thing to do because you do not know all the details about that person's spiritual life. I do not understand the need we have as Latter-Day Saints to be labeling those who doubt or go less active as "lacking faith". What is the purpose of that? There is so much more in the picture. We should listen more and talk less.

 

In the end, as a disciple of Christ your job is to reach out to that individual, be there, help and overall, listen. And frankly, I am quite sure those who have these doubts will open up more to someone who can understand them and empathize with their feelings rather than opening up with someone who believes their faith is weak or that they don't have any at all.

[The Folk Prophet]

When you state that someone is unable to bear the pain, you are not labeling them, you are describing how they feel (they are hurt). When you state that someone lacks faith, you are making an indirect or direct accusation towards that person's spiritual journey which in the end, it is frankly not helpful and a silly thing to do because you do not know all the details about that person's spiritual life. I do not understand the need we have as Latter-Day Saints to be labeling those who doubt or go less active as "lacking faith". There is so much more in the picture.

 

In the end, as a disciple of Christ your job is to reach out to that individual, be there, help and overall, listen. And frankly, I am quite sure those who have these doubts will open up more to someone who can understand them and empathize with their feelings rather than opening up with someone who believes their faith is weak or that they don't have any at all.

 

*shrug* I still don't see the difference. Maybe it's a guy thing. If someone said I was unable to bear the pain it would be offensive. It would be labeling me as weak. You can't take it, you big wuss!

[Jenamarie]

We've been through this before...but...

You simply cannot separate God's church from God. It's either His church and He leads it or it is not.

From my perspective, doubt that the church is led by God is a serious problem. Doubting that God has control over His church, belief that the institution is running amok -- it just does not jibe. It's God's church but man's institution?

It was God's church in ancient times too, but the errors of men creeped in. I know the gospel will not be removed again from the earth, but I still think mankind us capable of mucking it up a bit, if only temporarily. Church leaders and teachers dont forfeit their agency when they take on their callings. I believe those errors won't be allowed to take too deep a root in the church as they did in the past, but they can still be introduced.

[Dodie]

When I think of doubt, I imagine that a decision has been made in the mind of the person but perhaps not completely.  However, their mind is closing.  It's possible for them to find the truth, reverse the doubt, and open their mind, but it isn't easy.

 

Questioning, to me, is seeking answers with an open mind.  It hasn't reached the doubt stage.  Truth can be found and accepted more easily.

[The Folk Prophet]

It was God's church in ancient times too, but the errors of men creeped in. I know the gospel will not be removed again from the earth, but I still think mankind us capable of mucking it up a bit, if only temporarily. Church leaders and teachers dont forfeit their agency when they take on their callings. I believe those errors won't be allowed to take too deep a root in the church as they did in the past, but they can still be introduced.

 

The errors of men creeped in because they slew the apostles. We're not exactly doing that. (Though it seems some would try). The ancient church didn't go astray because the prophets and apostles used their agency to do things against the will of God. There is simply no support for that. Even when mistakes were made, God set them right, and pretty quick.

 

It is not a like to like comparison. We can trust that this is God's church and if there are mistakes made, that God will set it right. We do not need to doubt this, as promises have been given by the Lord.

[Jenamarie]

I don't doubt things will be set right, it's just that I sometimes think the things I have doubts about, that scripture reading and conference talk studying hasn't help me receive a testimony, where church history is either silent or confusing, is perhaps something that the Lord will be "setting right" in the future. (I think of people in my family who once struggled with the priesthood ban before it was abolished. They never gained testimonies of it, and it was a relief when they no longer had to).

(And please don't assume I'm taking about Ordain Women here. There are still several things about the gospel and the church that are works in progress for me, as far as a testimony goes. I'm choosing to follow Elder Holland's excellent advice to hang on to what I *do* know)

[Suzie]

. Even when mistakes were made, God set them right, and pretty quick.

 

 

The Church believes the Great Apostasy started right after all the Apostles died and until the 1800's when Smith restored it, is that quick for you? lol You might say, perhaps it is for God  and if that's the case, then what Jennamarie is saying is spot on.

[The Folk Prophet]

The Church believes the Great Apostasy started right after all the Apostles died and until the 1800's when Smith restored it, is that quick for you? lol You might say, perhaps it is for God  and if that's the case, then what Jennamarie is saying is spot on.

 

Missing the point. I did not say God will always set apostasy right. And the great apostasy was foretold. But we have promises that the latter-day, restored church will be led correctly, not that everyone who is apostate will be corrected. We have promises that our leaders will not lead us astray, in spite of their imperfections, which means to me that God will correct them if and when they are in error, just as he did with prophets of old.

 

The bottom line is that we have been repeatedly promised that if we will cling to the guidance of our leaders that we will be safe. This is not a replacement for testimony and spiritual guidance, but neither is spiritual guidance and testimony a replacement for living prophets and apostles. They are both necessary, both part of God's means, both part of the living church, and both requisite.

 

Doubting one is just as problematic as doubting the other.

[Suzie]

One of my favorite quotes of Brigham Young:

 

 

 

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful that they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give their leaders did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

 

I always like to emphasize this:  Pray, pray, pray...ask and receive confirmation from the Holy Spirit.

[faith4]

Missing the point. I did not say God will always set apostasy right. And the great apostasy was foretold. But we have promises that the latter-day, restored church will be led correctly, not that everyone who is apostate will be corrected. We have promises that our leaders will not lead us astray, in spite of their imperfections, which means to me that God will correct them if and when they are in error, just as he did with prophets of old.

 

 

Hmmmm...interesting discussion you got goin' on here... 

[bytor2112]

Doubt often proceeds faith and if truth is sought in non cynical way it can flourish into faith. I certainly had my share of doubts over the years and thankfully the doubts have been replaced with faith and hope.

 

I am always intrigued with the question the church as an institution crowd. Surely it is a great joy to the adversary of our souls when we begin to find the "splinter in the churches eye..." 

 

As for Latter Day apostasy, the Church is the stone that was cut without hands and man can in no wise frustrate the works of God. 

 

When I think of doubt...I think of the song, My Soul Hungered:

 

Oh my soul hungered the moment I knelt down to pray,

And felt all my doubts wash away.

Oh my soul hungered, He heard my cry.

The voice of the Lord spoke peace to my mind.

Oh my soul hungered Things that were old became new

When I learned to feel what I already knew.

With all my heart, With all my soul,

I wrestled before the Lord to make my life whole.

He filled my hunger, He fed my soul.

He fed my soul.

The truth that belonged to everyone else

 Is now a sacred part of myself.

Oh, I found out what I could not find,

When I heard with my heart

What I knew in my mind.

Oh, my soul hungered.

[Dr T]

I agree and I came on to say that same thing.  Doubt and Questioning are not the same thing.  Skepticism does not seem like sin to me but it can only go so far.  If we do not come to a conclusion then we will continue to be skeptical ad infinitum.    

[SpiritDragon]

 

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful that they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give their leaders did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

 

I see this quote as not saying his concern was that the people would follow the leaders of the church, but that they would do so without gaining a testimony for themselves through the spirit. We are always to pray for confirmation of any principle that the brethren teach us. Once we have received revelation/confirmation then we are to move forward in faith. 

 

The crux of the matter again is the concern being putting our faith in the wrong place. Brigham seemed to be worried that the people may wrongly put their faith in men (church leaders) and NOT God. This is the problem, if our faith is in Christ and we trust that he will make good on His promise that this church and kingdom have been restored for the last time, that the keys of the kingdom have been restored and will not be removed. Thus we put our faith in Christ and we use the reminders and cautions given by the church leaders to draw nearer to Christ, and we get the added benefit of knowing that they will not lead us astray... but we still need to do our part to always get a witness from the spirit to build our testimony, not to simply base it on words spoken. So to be clear I feel that the issue is not in following the prophet and apostles, but doing so without also getting confirmation from God. God will ratify what he has told His servants to teach, but we still need to draw unto him and thus not make idols of His servants.