Shaken Faith Syndrome - What brings it on

[Jane_Doe]

Things which are unavoidable (non-exclusive list):

 

Death

Taxes

Sorrow

Pain

Grief

Trials

Questions

Questions about faith

Challenges to one's faith

 

I think it's fair to say that challenges to one's faith are inevitable: even Jesus was tempted and wished not to drink of the bitter cup.  I also think that it's prideful folly to say "oh, I couldn't possibly have my faith challenged or have doubts".   

[estradling75]

I think it's fair to say that challenges to one's faith are inevitable: even Jesus was tempted and wished not to drink of the bitter cup.  I also think that it's prideful folly to say "oh, I couldn't possibly have my faith challenged or have doubts".   

 

True...  But being challenged or having doubts is a far cry from what most people think of when we use the term shaken faith.  Most people (or maybe its just me?!?) when they hear or talk about shaken faith think the "Oh no! Everything I know/believe is wrong/false" 

 

For example if I gain a witness from God that the Book of Mormon is true.  That should remain true even if at a later date I find out that the Church lied/deceived/mislead me causing me to doubt the Church.  

[The Folk Prophet]

Questions about faith

Challenges to one's faith

 

Challenges and questions are not the same thing as having one's faith shaken to my thinking. We will all have our faith tried. That is part of the test of life. We receive not the witness until after the trial of our faith.

 

Ether 12:6 "And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith."

 

But we may all remain absolutely steadfast and immovable (as compared to "shaken") through these trials. Here's Neil L. Andersen on the matter:

 

"These fiery trials are designed to make you stronger, but they have the potential to diminish or even destroy your trust in the Son of God and to weaken your resolve to keep your promises to Him. These trials are often camouflaged, making them difficult to identify. They take root in our weaknesses, our vulnerabilities, our sensitivities, or in those things that matter most to us. A real but manageable test for one can be a fiery trial for another.

 

"How do you remain “steadfast and immovable” during a trial of faith? You immerse yourself in the very things that helped build your core of faith: you exercise faith in Christ, you pray, you ponder the scriptures, you repent, you keep the commandments, and you serve others."

...

"By definition, trials will be trying. There may be anguish, confusion, sleepless nights, and pillows wet with tears. But our trials need not be spiritually fatal. They need not take us from our covenants or from the household of God.

...

"Like the intense fire that transforms iron into steel, as we remain faithful during the fiery trial of our faith, we are spiritually refined and strengthened."

[The Folk Prophet]

For example if I gain a witness from God that the Book of Mormon is true.  That should remain true even if at a later date I find out that the Church lied/deceived/mislead me causing me to doubt the Church.  

 

More directly, one might also put it: If I have a witness that the church is true, that should remain true even at a later date if I find out that the church supposedly lied/deceived/misled me, and that discovery does not cause me to doubt the church in spite of what I have learned.

[estradling75]

More directly, one might also put it: If I have a witness that the church is true, that should remain true even at a later date if I find out that the church supposedly lied/deceived/misled me, and that discovery does not cause me to doubt the church in spite of what I have learned.

 

True...  I didn't go that way because it wasn't a clean as I wanted it to be.  Because it might and probably should cause one to re-evaluate what the Lord meant when he confirmed it was true, vs what that person thought it meant.

[The Folk Prophet]

True...  I didn't go that way because it wasn't a clean as I wanted it to be.  Because it might and probably should cause one to re-evaluate what the Lord meant when he confirmed it was true, vs what that person thought it meant.

 

I'm not sure how "it's true" can mean something different than what it means. Many things are not black-and-white, of course. But the church being true or not pretty much means what it means to my thinking. It is or it is not. If the Spirit has witnessed to me that it is true (which it has), then prove anything to me about it -- Joseph was a con man, the Book of Mormon is proven false by archaeology, the Book of Abraham has no correlation to the Egyptian scrolls, etc., etc. -- and it makes no difference to me. The church is still true. The Book of Mormon is still true. The Book of Abraham is still scripture.

 

Maybe it would have been a cleaner example to put it in terms of the Book of Mormon.

 

If I have a witness that the Book of Mormon is true and then I find out that it was supposedly all based on another manuscript, and concrete archaeology proves it false, it will not cause me to doubt it's truthfulness, for God has witnessed this to me, and there is no witness that can be more sure.

 

So I have to ask, what you mean by, "...probably should cause one to re-evaluate what the Lord meant when he confirmed it was true..." ??

Edited December 1, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[estradling75]

 

So I have to ask, what you mean by, "...probably should cause one to re-evaluate what the Lord meant when he confirmed it was true..." ??

 

I explained that with the Vs (or thought I did)

 

We have a disconnect between what God said and Means... and what we think/presume/add to what he says and means.

Its the second bit that causes the shaking.  In the case of the Church being true... People presume/add to it the idea that because it true then the flawed mortals running it will run it perfectly to their expectations.  When that fails they get shaken.

[theSQUIDSTER]

I'm not sure how "it's true" can mean something different than what it means. Many things are not black-and-white, of course. But the church being true or not pretty much means what it means to my thinking. It is or it is not. If the Spirit has witnessed to me that it is true (which it has), then prove anything to me about it -- Joseph was a con man, the Book of Mormon is proven false by archaeology, the Book of Abraham has no correlation to the Egyptian scrolls, etc., etc. -- and it makes no difference to me. The church is still true. The Book of Mormon is still true. The Book of Abraham is still scripture.

 

Maybe it would have been a cleaner example to put it in terms of the Book of Mormon.

 

If I have a witness that the Book of Mormon is true and then I find out that it was supposedly all based on another manuscript, and concrete archaeology proves it false, it will not cause me to doubt it's truthfulness, for God has witnessed this to me, and there is no witness that can be more sure.

 

So I have to ask, what you mean by, "...probably should cause one to re-evaluate what the Lord meant when he confirmed it was true..." ??

There is great wisdom in trusting in The Lord *first and foremost* and withholding judgement and resisting the temptation to feel we're duty-bound to reach the same conclusion that somebody else reached. We may greatly respect them, love them, trust them, find their reasoning highly compelling, logical, believable, etc. But despite all of that, we need to receive our own witness. And we need to hold to the witnesses that we've already received.

As TFP points out, what about archeological evidence or lack of "sufficient" evidence, what about "proof" ..? How often do we hear somebody saying they've proven a point and so the only intelligent, logical, reasonable thing for us to do is to accept their argument.. and their conclusion.. As though a cunning and/or a well-crafted argument is enough to establish truth.

Truth is independent of arguments and logic. Truth is not established by our limited understanding of it. If we truly believe that our Father is the embodiment and source of all truth then it is essential that we learn to completely trust Him and believe that he has the ability to help us reach the *right* conclusions .. despite our weakness, limited understanding, and impatience.

It's ok to admit, as Nephi, that you don't "know the meaning of all things." All things will be revealed in time. Hold fast to the good and take Pres. Uchtdorf's advice to first "doubt your doubts."

[SpiritDragon]

 

As a broader discussion, I'd like to discuss the causes of shaken faith syndrome and what we can do to avoid or overcome it.

 

 

A very fascinating discussion indeed. For me my faith is constantly shaken due to issues that I've shelved time and again. My testimony of the Book of Mormon is based on an answer to my prayer of faith where I felt a great peace come over me that I believe to be a witness of the spirit.

 

If I am stubborn in my contention that this feeling was from God than I have my answer and there can be no higher appeal to be made. This is great except that I have have felt the same feeling on numerous other occasions that seemingly led me astray (not into sin, but the answers that came didn't turn out the way I interpreted the feeling to indicate).

 

This leads to a conundrum that is at least two-fold. On the one hand I can't trust the feeling that I perceive to be the spirit guiding me to be constant and true, on the other hand I can trust the feeling... but not my interpretation of its meaning. Either way the result is the same. If I can be wrong about interpreting it now or in the past, how do I trust that my witness of the Book of Mormon or anything else is true. How do I trust spiritual witnesses in the future?

 

So if I take the spiritual witness off the table for what I can rely on to build my testimony and faith, I feel left with reconciling my faith doctrinally by digging into the scriptures. This works to a point as I feel confident that the scriptures make a very compelling case for "mormonism" as it were, but obviously proof is elusive - hence the faith thing.

 

I've fought with this for over a decade, but I have never felt as sure about the gospel truth as I did when I received my testimony of the Book of Mormon which seems forever tainted by the possibility that I set myself up to have a feeling that I convinced myself was an answer when neither are true. The other struggle is that I have never enjoyed attending church services, so part of me would love to prove the church wrong so I could stop going, while on the other hand I would be devastated if the organization I have dedicated so much of my life to - paying tithing, going on a mission, home teaching monthly, etc. is a fraud.

 

Are unresolved cyclical doubts the same as shaken faith syndrome? 

[The Folk Prophet]

Great post SD. Highly appreciated.

 

However, I think that this idea...

 

So if I take the spiritual witness off the table 

 

...is pretty much asking for trouble when it comes to conviction concerning things of faith.

 

I submit that your challenge centers around spiritual witness, and fully around spiritual witness, and that the only way that you or any of us will ever find complete peace in these things is by completely embracing the Spirit as your guide.

 

Keep in mind...I'm talking of myself as well, as I have also struggled to define what is and is not of the Spirit.

 

In the end, I'm stubborn. I will hold to my spiritual witness beyond all reason.

[onethatislazy]

Simple. Do what Joseph did. 

 

Have a connection with God

James 1:5

His first vision story should be YOUR STORY!

That is pure religion. Unadulterated.

Obedience only to the Holy Ghost for that is the doctrine of Christ.

 

Lehi rises up, Nephi, enos, jacob, this is the message of the book of mormon. To come up into the presence of God, while in the flesh, and learn all things. But first you must desire it, ask, and than in patience wait for the Lord to do what is required for YOU to receive it. It may be your death bed when you receive those things but you first must ask/desire it for the Lord to set things up.

" 1 For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly highmountain, which I never had before seen, and upon which I never had before set my foot." (1 Nephi 11)

The reason the creeds of other religions were corrupted was because they prevented this.

“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes [limits], and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’ [Job 38:11]; which I cannot subscribe to.”^{7(https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22?lang=eng)}

Etrading nailed it with this "We have a disconnect between what God said and Means... and what we think/presume/add to what he says and means."... I will say with certainty I asked for something from God and asked for it as a sign that 3 things were true. Turns out 2 years later I found out that 2 of those 3 things were false. I didn't get it as a sign the 3 things were true but instead because I asked for something and it was given. We do this when we say If A Is true than B-Z is true. When it may only be B & X and Z the rest being false.Maybe a better way to say it is We think B = A when really B = C. So we get a witness B is true thinking it equals A when really God only gave us the witness because we asked if B was true though in Gods understanding B equaled C. And He will allow us to follow false precepts. 

 

Those who come up into the presence of God, to commune with an inumerable company of angels, to have ascended to mount zion (See D&C 76) or as Nephi put it to be caught away into "an exceedingly high mountain" are those who are connected to the "true and living vine"... Baptism only opens the gate, you must climb the ladder.

[Seminarysnoozer]

A very fascinating discussion indeed. For me my faith is constantly shaken due to issues that I've shelved time and again. My testimony of the Book of Mormon is based on an answer to my prayer of faith where I felt a great peace come over me that I believe to be a witness of the spirit.

 

If I am stubborn in my contention that this feeling was from God than I have my answer and there can be no higher appeal to be made. This is great except that I have have felt the same feeling on numerous other occasions that seemingly led me astray (not into sin, but the answers that came didn't turn out the way I interpreted the feeling to indicate).

 

This leads to a conundrum that is at least two-fold. On the one hand I can't trust the feeling that I perceive to be the spirit guiding me to be constant and true, on the other hand I can trust the feeling... but not my interpretation of its meaning. Either way the result is the same. If I can be wrong about interpreting it now or in the past, how do I trust that my witness of the Book of Mormon or anything else is true. How do I trust spiritual witnesses in the future?

 

So if I take the spiritual witness off the table for what I can rely on to build my testimony and faith, I feel left with reconciling my faith doctrinally by digging into the scriptures. This works to a point as I feel confident that the scriptures make a very compelling case for "mormonism" as it were, but obviously proof is elusive - hence the faith thing.

 

I've fought with this for over a decade, but I have never felt as sure about the gospel truth as I did when I received my testimony of the Book of Mormon which seems forever tainted by the possibility that I set myself up to have a feeling that I convinced myself was an answer when neither are true. The other struggle is that I have never enjoyed attending church services, so part of me would love to prove the church wrong so I could stop going, while on the other hand I would be devastated if the organization I have dedicated so much of my life to - paying tithing, going on a mission, home teaching monthly, etc. is a fraud.

 

Are unresolved cyclical doubts the same as shaken faith syndrome? 

Great post!

 

What you are talking about is one's ability to spiritual discern.  This dilemma is spoken of many times in the scriptures.  I like Zechariah's words about it, chapter 11; " 17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened."  The "right eye" is symbolic of one's ability to discern spiritual things.  The "right arm" is symbolic of one's ability to carry out spiritual things.  Just like we have a right eye and a left eye and a right arm and left arm we are dual beings.  It is said more clearly from modern day prophets and apostles like David O Mckay and Elder Bednar that we are both physical and spirit beings.  Elder Holland made it clear that the "mind" can have ailments as in depression etc. that are physical in nature, the physical mind or in other words the brain.  Those being different from the thoughts that are generated by the "mind" of the spirit.

 

Our ability to differentiate the source of those thoughts, passions, feelings etc is called spiritual discernment or metaphorically represented by the "right" side of the body, on the right hand or the right eye, etc.  We want to find ourselves on the right side of Christ in the end.  That is the test of this life - do we pay attention to the right side or the left side or like Zechariah so poetically said when one's faith is "shaken" what happens is the right eye becomes darkened.  In other words, spiritual discernment is more difficult.

 

The whole focus then is to keep our "right eye" clear.  That is the purpose and effect of the gospel, to enhance our spiritual discernment.  Without it, the natural man takes over, the "left" side of the body, or the physical or carnal man takes over and then we don't see things spiritually as well.  

 

Maybe this is why I spend so much time talking about what is physical vs what is spiritual, to discern the two can be difficult but that is the test.  Elder Bednar; "The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies. And yet we are dual beings, for our spirit that is the eternal part of us is tabernacled in a physical body that is subject to the Fall. As Jesus emphasized to the Apostle Peter, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41). The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following question: Will I respond to the inclinations of the natural man, or will I yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord (see Mosiah 3:19)? That is the test. Every appetite, desire, propensity, and impulse of the natural man may be overcome by and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ."

 

Like you stated, the conundrum exists because we are dual beings, everything has to be processed through the natural man brain.   Even if the spirit is the source of the message it still has to be processed through the brain.  So, the best way to help (but not totally do away with the conundrum) is to do everything we can to distinguish what is from "natural man" the physical brain vs what is from the spirit (the way the Holy Spirit communicates is directly to our spirit).  We "put off" the natural man to tune into the spirit or to improve our spiritual discernment.  You are describing THE test as Elder Bednar says - which inclination do we respond to - natural man vs spirit, right eye vs left eye.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm pretty sure Seminarysnoozer is going to start a new religion based on that Bednar quote.

 

[SpiritDragon]

Great post SD. Highly appreciated.

 

However, I think that this idea...

 

 

...is pretty much asking for trouble when it comes to conviction concerning things of faith.

 

I submit that your challenge centers around spiritual witness, and fully around spiritual witness, and that the only way that you or any of us will ever find complete peace in these things is by completely embracing the Spirit as your guide.

 

Keep in mind...I'm talking of myself as well, as I have also struggled to define what is and is not of the Spirit.

 

In the end, I'm stubborn. I will hold to my spiritual witness beyond all reason.

 

Thanks, It's good to know my thoughts are a worthwhile contribution and not a senseless spilling of my guts. I completely agree that the idea of basing the core of one's faith outside of a spiritual witness is dangerous, especially to the latter-day-saint since it is a key difference over many other belief systems that we can actually get answers from God, or rather that a spiritual witness is ultimately the foundation by which faith is established and not great lawyer-ing of doctrinal points and well selected scriptures.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I'm pretty sure Seminarysnoozer is going to start a new religion based on that Bednar quote.

 

Very funny!     It has already been done, Born Again Christians - leaving the fleshy things behind to be born of the spirit.

 

Jesus began the discussion with Nicodemus, He explained the difference between thinking with the carnal mind the brain that we are born with vs thinking and "seeing" with the spiritual mind; "

 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

 

I only use the Elder Bednar quote because it is the most recent quote on the topic but it all started with Jesus and then Paul took it further in many of his writings.  Paul was concerned about the church in Corinth being too 'intellectual' and relying on the wisdom of men.  So, he wrote a lot about the contrast between the wisdom of men and the wisdom of God and its associated internal conflict between carnality and spirituality.  Knowing about his writings concerning the duality of men it is interesting to relook at the question he poses to the church of Corinth "Is Christ divided?"   He was not divided by His duality.  We are, though and struggle with it.  He goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 1: " 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence."

 

He explains very clearly this test that Elder Bednar summarized by saying in 1 Corinthians 2; "

 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

 

And the next chapter goes directly into explaining the source of the natural man, flesh and carnality ...

 

The whole milk before meat discussion is the same issue, that we have to subdue the flesh, we have to break through the flesh before the spirit is touched, before the spirit is in control.  1 Corinthians 3: "1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"

This relates to the lesser and the greater laws and priesthood. The lesser law dealt with things of the flesh whereas the greater law Christ introduces has to do with things of the spirit.  We are baptized of the water (takes care of the flesh first) and then baptized by fire (takes care of the spirit).  We partake of the sacrament (flesh) and then the water (spirit).

 

The whole discussion regarding being born again is this very issue, overcoming the flesh to be born of the spirit. It is not enough to just be of the literal seed of Abraham but to be of the spiritual seed of Abraham, as Jesus explained to Nicodemus.  It is the same as talking about the natural man, carnality vs spirituality and spiritual discernment.

 

It is throughout our gospel if one looks at it carefully. 

[Pa Pa]

Like other similar statements, this seems too all encompassing and black-and-white, imo. Should we really believe that because some experience shaken faith that all must?

This was the point of the original post in this thread too. I can understand that many do have experiences with faith faltering, and that we are all at risk if we do not remain vigilant. What I'm not so sure about is the idea that it is unavoidable.

I am not trying to be "black and white"...but for faith to grow it must be tested. I have been an active member since I joined 36 years ago. My faith has been tested many times, sometimes shaken to it's core, it has grown stronger with each test. Although each one was difficult, even painful, I would not wish them away. Mike Ash wrote a book about this...not sure if the term comes from his book, or his book from the term?

[onethatislazy]

Faith can not be based on anything but truth. When its based on lies it will invariably be shaken eventually. Than all it will take is the truth to shake ones foundation when its preached unto them or it will cause one to anger after those who preach it.

Truth can be things uncomfortable. Things that don't make one "feel good". I remember a time when someone didn't want to share something with a new member because it was "uncomfortable" or didn't want to push them away. You don't increase faith when you do that you hinder it. You don't increase faith by "hiding" or "leaving out" correct things. As one said it must be tested.

[The Folk Prophet]

Faith can not be based on anything but truth. When its based on lies it will invariably be shaken eventually. Than all it will take is the truth to shake ones foundation when its preached unto them or it will cause one to anger after those who preach it.

Truth can be things uncomfortable. Things that don't make one "feel good". I remember a time when someone didn't want to share something with a new member because it was "uncomfortable" or didn't want to push them away. You don't increase faith when you do that you hinder it. You don't increase faith by "hiding" or "leaving out" correct things. As one said it must be tested.

 

Of course then there's the whole, "what is truth" wrench to throw into everything. Like all the stuff we supposedly think we know for a fact about Joseph Smith now-a-days -- we don't "know" any of it. We presume based on evidence. But historical evidence is prone to constant changes.

 

Therefore, I think it could be just as harmful to speak some of these so-called uncomfortable truths as if they're factual as it could be to stay away from uncomfortable truth.

 

And...the only source we have of ultimate truth is revelation from the Holy Spirit. 

 

Thus, it seems wise, that we keep our general communications about what we know is and is not "true" to the witness we have by the Spirit concerning spiritual things. Joseph Smith was a Prophet. The Book of Mormon is true. The church is true. Etc.

[Blackmarch]

I would like to add to my first post that also participating in any activity which removes the spirit will help accelerate the process in which gets into a situation or state of being that can have their faith be shaken.

[Misshalfway]

Woah.  It's a "syndome" now.  Scary!

 

 

Maybe I'm starting my post with this little bit of sarcasm because I think "shaken faith" SHOULD come to all of us if we are ever going to grow.  And I kinda wish we wouldn't be so afraid of it and thus so judgmentally about it.  I mean we are judgmental because of fear, I get it,  but it doesn't really help.

 

Sometimes I think people end up leaving the church because they don't get supported through this necessary struggling.  They think something is wrong with them.  They are TOLD something is wrong with them. You know?  They get judged instead of loved.  And that hurts. Who of any of us wants to stay and hang out with a bunch who treats us like an apostate? Who tolerates that very well, you know?

 

My personal feeling is that the church needs a rebirth of sorts.  And because I'm seeing a lot of this "syndome" these days, I'm wondering if the Lord is preparing the church for the second coming and that maybe we don't know it yet.  I think this partially because of my conversations with others, but mostly because of my own experiences with doubt.  I don't know exactly how to explain it but it was like God deconstructed my entire belief system and then helped me, with my agency as a key piece (as others have highlighted so well), he helped reconstruct it.  And wow!  It's different than before.  All the same "stuff" but in a much stronger/better/broader sort of way.  During this, God helped me reconstruct my understanding and belief in the church specifically.  And i must share that much of what He taught me was seeing differences between the wheat and the tares inside the church.  Like I needed to learn where the lies were.  Cuz before,  I think I just took for granted that it was all truth.

 

I've thought long on these experiences trying to make sense of all of it with a very human and limited brain.  And what I think I understand is that the church itself can be something of a crutch if one isn't careful.  It gives structure and rules and safety, if you will.  I think God wants a little more walking on water, if you get my meaning.  I sometimes think the church listens more to the church than to God maybe.  Or rely's on blind adherence to the church more than a true and living, daily conversation with God.  Maybe he has to shake us a bit to help us let go of trusting the arm of the flesh and learn to trust His arm more. 

 

Is there a chance that this is happening?  Is there a chance that this is part of some important proving of the Lord's children?  Is it possible that letter of the law adherence just isn't enough anymore?  Is it possible that all of this "syndrome" is actually a huge opportunity?

 

I don't know anything really.  I only know what I think I know. And I think I know that there's something more going on here than just weakness.

[spamlds]

When I was running the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism, I was particularly interested in documenting the process by which a faithful member of the Church turns into an anti-Mormon apostate.  There are people who drift away from the Church because of depression, unworthiness, discouragement, worldliness, or because life's trials overwhelm them, just as Jesus described in the Parable of the Sower.

 

However, there is a peculiar process that I documented whereby many exMormons fall away and try to take others with them.  Like Prisonchaplain said, it begins in college for many of them.  A very typical case was a guy who joined the S.P.A.M. social network back around 2009 who went by the screen name "Ishmael."  Ishmael wrote on our site:

 

"Fast forward a few years. I'm home from my mission, I've graduated from BYU, I'm married with a couple of kids. I'm a little battle-worn, some of my illusions about the mission, BYU, and the Church itself have been shattered, but that's all part of growing up. My testimony is still strong. I probably don't need to tell you that it wasn't long before I was delving in the world of online Mormonism and anti-Mormonism."

 

Ishmael became a sort of case study because he evinced a pattern that showed up over and over.  He had some illusions about his faith that were challenged and didn't hold up.  Instead of praying and studying for further understanding and truth to correct his errors, he begins to let go of the iron rod.  He allows men to instruct him instead of the Holy Spirit.

 

You have to realize that, when S.P.A.M. was functioning, it became a target of anti-Mormons.  Many former members joined us with the intent of either trying to shake us in our faith or justifying their own apostasy.  Ishmael was one of them.  When you give these guys a chance to tell their story, they start "monologuing" and it always falls into this pattern.

 

1. Establish rapport
2. Establish credibility
3. Build sympathy
4. Tell of an "awakening"
5. Rationalize the loss of commitment, disobedience, etc.
6. Reveal the deception that snared them
7. Issue either a disclaimer that excuses them or a hateful rant that vindicates their choice to leave, blaming others.

 

Very often, these former members seek out those who are struggling and try to take them down with them.  You have to understand that there are people who are active "wolves" who are seeking to prey on the flock.  When an innocent person who might be struggling with some doubts encounters one of these apostates, they are unaware that there is a careful, manipulative process being worked against them.  

 

What amazed me is how consistent this pattern was.  I had to wonder if the consistency of it was because of the adversary's influence over them or whether it was rehearsed.  

 

If you want to read the whole article called, Ishmael's Monologue, check it out on the S.P.A.M. archives at:

 

http://spamldsarchive.blogspot.com/2010/05/ishmael-monologue.html

 

It's not my intent to "pimp" my old blog, but I think it's an important aspect of understanding "shaken faith syndrome."  There are over 800 anti-Mormon parachurches and ministries out there.  They publish web sites, videos, and distribute their products (often for a profit) through Christian bookstores and pastors of other denominations.  There are also atheists who are dedicated to undermining all faith and they seem to take a special interest in destroying the faith of people who claim belief in modern revelation.  When you realize that the opposition is active, it takes on a whole new dimension.

[prisonchaplain]

I wonder how different the pattern SPAMLDS lays out was from the pattern of the earliest Christians.  After all, they were still Jews.  Yet, they were encouraging their fellow Jews to follow The Way.  It was not until about 70 AD that the Christians were formally put out of the synagogues.  Likewise, are there not many stories--some recorded--of those who had dramatic conversions to LDS faith?  I'm sure some of of those stories come from former Protestant clergy.  Would they not want to help their former traditionalist friends into the restored gospel?  Likewise, there is a Catholic program that highlights people who either convert to or return to Catholicism.  Their most popular programs are of former clergy (including LDS bishops) who do so.

 

Some "apostates" may be bitter, and just want to drive people out of the LDS faith.  Others might truly believe that they are helping their former LDS brothers/sisters into a better faith.  One person's traitor is another's hero/missionary.

 

An answer that I heard to all this:  Know what you believe and why you believe it.  Be ready with a Spirit-anointed answer for those who are sincere, and with silence to those who are obvious mockers.  We can know when someone is bringing apostasy only if we are familiar with orthodoxy.

[mordorbund]

 

You have to realize that, when S.P.A.M. was functioning, it became a target of anti-Mormons.  Many former members joined us with the intent of either trying to shake us in our faith or justifying their own apostasy.  Ishmael was one of them.  When you give these guys a chance to tell their story, they start "monologuing" and it always falls into this pattern.

 

1. Establish rapport

2. Establish credibility

3. Build sympathy

4. Tell of an "awakening"

5. Rationalize the loss of commitment, disobedience, etc.

6. Reveal the deception that snared them

7. Issue either a disclaimer that excuses them or a hateful rant that vindicates their choice to leave, blaming others.

 

Very often, these former members seek out those who are struggling and try to take them down with them.  You have to understand that there are people who are active "wolves" who are seeking to prey on the flock.  When an innocent person who might be struggling with some doubts encounters one of these apostates, they are unaware that there is a careful, manipulative process being worked against them.  

 

What amazed me is how consistent this pattern was.  I had to wonder if the consistency of it was because of the adversary's influence over them or whether it was rehearsed.  

 

 

It reminds me of the old Commitment Pattern for missionary proselyting. I don't mean that in a negative way either. It reminds me of the Watchers from the Book of Enoch who are initiated in arts and tradecraft (a secret knowledge) who come down and share it with those who would abuse that knowledge.

[JimmiGerman]

Blackmarch wrote:

I would like to add to my first post that also participating in any activity which removes the spirit will help accelerate the process in which gets into a situation or state of being that can have their faith be shaken.

 

It's important to realize or to be aware of those activities, but I'm afraid it's not easy and quite often it might be too late.

Edited December 19, 2014 by JimmiGerman