Helping others with doubts


laronius
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not personally dealing with this issue with anyone I know but it is increasingly becoming a problem and I think will continue to be so and many of us will likely encounter those who do face this challenge. As such I've been taking a closer look at some "anti-Mormon" material to see how easy it might be to refute. Mostly I've looked at the Church history stuff that ex-members like to use to plant seeds of doubts in member's minds. But here is the problem I see. It's extremely easy to cause doubt and often very difficult to refute it, not that it's irrefutable but because the answer is often complex or not yet completely known. And even if the Church was able to provide a good and reasonable response to everything these people say, at the end of the day it doesn't actually prove anything. 

So while I commend the Church for trying to make as much material accessible as possible and while I appreciate the work of organizations such as FAIR and others, I don't think it's in the Lord's plan to provide sufficient proof as to eliminate all doubt. So what is the proper approach to helping honest seekers of truth who have such doubts? Does providing reasonable explanations to people really accomplish anything? 

Edited by laronius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, laronius said:

I'm not personally dealing with this issue with anyone I know but it is increasingly becoming a problem and I think will continue to be so and many of us will likely encounter those who do face this challenge. As such I've been taking a closer look at some "anti-Mormon" material to see how easy it might be to refute. Mostly I've looked at the Church history stuff that ex-members like to use to plant seeds of doubts in member's minds. But here is the problem I see. It's extremely easy to cause doubt and often very difficult to refute it, not that it's irrefutable but because the answer is often complex or not yet completely known. And even if the Church was able to provide a good and reasonable response to everything these people say, at the end of the day it doesn't actually prove anything. 

So while I commend the Church for trying to make as much material accessible as possible and while I appreciate the work of organizations such as FAIR and others, I don't think it's in the Lord's plan to provide sufficient proof as to eliminate all doubt. So what is the proper approach to helping honest seekers of truth who have such doubts? Does providing reasonable explanations to people really accomplish anything? 

Nope, not a bit. Scripture is filled with examples of weak persons who were beneficiaries of miracles, ministered to by angels, and who even saw the Savior Himself...and later fell away for petty reasons.

Too many church members (and Christians in general) only attend church for the social aspect, or because it's a tradition. A firm witness from the Holy Ghost is needed to gain a testimony, and is also needed to further nurture it. There are lots of things I don't understand, and frankly I could care less about them. The Holy Ghost has let me know what is true...so none of the outside noise really matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scottyg said:

Too many church members (and Christians in general) only attend church for the social aspect, or because it's a traditio

That might have been true 75 years ago when your entire community was Catholic/LDS/Jewish but even churches admit that it’s no longer the case now.

There are other opportunities for communities if you don’t want to go to church. There is far less social pressure to attend church. 100 years ago I couldn’t operate a bakery in a heavily religious community if I wasn’t a member of their church/synagogue. Now, those communities might exist but there aren’t many of them.

Because community and social pressure have faded away, churches are stuck wondering how to draw people in. It’s a major issue for the Southern Baptists down here. Same with the Catholics up north. 
 

 this guy explains what I’m saying, or trying to say, from a Catholic perspective. Worth a watch, nothing anti-LDS in there. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, laronius said:

So while I commend the Church for trying to make as much material accessible as possible and while I appreciate the work of organizations such as FAIR and others, I don't think it's in the Lord's plan to provide sufficient proof as to eliminate all doubt. So what is the proper approach to helping honest seekers of truth who have such doubts? Does providing reasonable explanations to people really accomplish anything? 

"Sufficient proof" in some ways within the Church is a conundrum. Overtime, the Lord can -- and has -- provided sufficient proof that has eliminated doubt to some. On the other hand, "proof" (caveat: a sign) is not the way a testimony is received, and it is not the way the Lord eliminates doubt. Those who act in faith, in time, will eliminate all doubt as they continue to trust in God. At the same time, those who think they are entitled to a "sign" or "proof" in order to eliminate doubt will only increase in their doubt.

The key phrase here is "honest seekers of truth." The Church's attempt will decrease doubt if the individual is truly a "honest seeker of truth." If not, then the articles and other sources provided by the Church will only induce more questions and thus induce more doubt. This is the irony of some ex-members who are now anti. They are self-proclaimed truth seekers all the while denying the truth God has already showed them.

Does a reason explanation really accomplish anything? Yes, yes it does to those who are honestly seeking truth. There have been explanations I have read that have surely increased my faith, thus decreasing my doubt. When I first learned about some of the history of the Church I was honestly shocked. I then looked for explanations, alternative thoughts, theories, and actual evidence. This is when I discovered the difference between a Church history fact, and the assumption encompassing the fact being promulgated as fact, rather than the fact itself. This is a common thread among ex-members and anti's. They want you to believe their "assumption" is the fact, while ignoring the actual fact.

For that, I'm grateful to the men and women who searched and shared the facts. I am pleased with the Church's attempts to truly help the "honest seeker of truth," and not the ones who want to feign "betrayal" and all other sorts of emotions. I just hope one day, that he who is the way, the truth, and the life will see me as an honest seeker of truth, as I seek to become more like him.

As to helping, we can simply do what the Lord has done -- invite. As to whether or not they are truly honest seekers of truth will be made aware in their decisions.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone's faith journey (or crisis or whatever you want to call it) is unique. For me, it seems that all of the issues that I encounter (historical or otherwise) come down to questions around prophetic fallibility and/or scriptural errancy. We claim that the church is built on the "rock of revelation," with a "foundation of apostles and prophets." What does this really mean, when we also acknowledge that prophets can make mistakes? In many ways, I think Ben Spackman has captured the heart and soul of the issue best while addressing the issue of slavery in the Bible (https://benspackman.com/2019/11/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/

Quote

The problem, then, neatly encapsulated in Philemon, is that scripture fails to live up to a standard we see as ethically and morally cut-and-dried, and presumably eternal. [quote from Ken Sparks] What model of scripture, revelation, and prophets allows “God’s word,” God’s prophets, and Jesus himself to do or allow something so… inhuman?

Obviously, there's a lot more that is said to build up to this point, and then some ideas for consideration (Spackman tends to favor an "accommodationist" model of scripture, prophets, and revelation where God gives revelation according to our understanding, in which He sometimes does not counter people's or prophet's strongly held but incorrect beliefs). I recommend the entire essay to see how he gets to this question using the example of slavery in the Bible.

In the end, I have not found a good answer to this question. "Accommodationism" or Givens's "Viceroy model" (see chapter 6 of Crucible of Doubt) or Leo Winegar's "Restorative Light model" seem to describe what happens, but they leave open questions around whether there really are eternal moral truths that God cannot violate, or maybe God really doesn't care about truth, whether loyalty to the church/prophets is more important than loyalty to truth, and so on. In my experience, this has been the central issue as I try to figure out what I believe and where my faith journey will go.

One additional principle that I think feeds into the problem of prophetic errancy is an all or nothing attitude that is common in our teaching. Some variation of what Pres. Hinckley said about "it's either all true or the greatest fraud" makes the slippery slope even more slippery. Once one finds that prophets/scripture may have made a mistake about [blank], this all or nothing belief then accelerates us down the slippery slope because we believe that it's either all true or all false (One thing I have seen others say, and one of my own pet peeves from ex-Mormon and anti-Mormon commentators is how they seem to believe the same kind of all or nothingness about the church). I know that there is a solid discomfort with "cafeteria Mormons," but I find that it is a very useful concept for staying in the church. I sometimes wonder if finding examples of other cafeteria Mormons is a useful tool for this sort of thing. For example, I recently read Carol Lynn Pearson's Ghost of Eternal Polygamy. I know that some people don't like her book, one thing I found quite compelling in her writing was her strongly held belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet, while also holding the belief that God did not ever (in the OT or in 19th century Mormonism) command or condone polygamy. For another example, I have seen a few interviews with Patrick Mason where he come right out and says that he does not believe that the priesthood and temple ban was ever commanded or otherwise put in place by God. As you indicate in the OP, many of this issues are difficult, often nuanced, and maybe don't even have satisfactory answers. Finding examples of people who have figured out how to be cafeteria Mormons and stay actively engaged with the church in spite of the things they don't believe seems useful to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

It’s my prayer that there as many ways to Christ as there are people. 

I find myself hoping and praying the same thing. It might be leading to be more universalistic than we are typically comfortable with (we have a long history of discomfort with universalism), but there it is anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I find myself hoping and praying the same thing. It might be leading to be more universalistic than we are typically comfortable with (we have a long history of discomfort with universalism), but there it is anyway.

Same. I’ve always struggled with the thought of adults who died in the holocaust not earning salvation strictly because they didn’t accept Christ in this life. It was/is a major issue to me. 
 

I freely admit I’m not special here. I’m sure that many, many, many people struggle with the same thing. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really depends on what kind of individual we're talking about.  Think of the parables of the seeds.  This can apply to Saints who wax and wane in their testimonies just as much as it will to proselytes.

1. Very often the decision is made before any arguments are made.  For such individuals, no amount of evidence will sway them.  Just be polite and pray for them.  Not much else we can do.

2. Some have doubts because of ignorance.  For such, discussions can be had and education given.  This will often help.  But sometimes not.  At this point, it is about humility.  Very often, the most ignorant people are the ones who are most resistant to accepting new information.  That's part of what makes them ignorant.  Until they humble themselves, there is really nothing we can do but love them.  Arguing won't change anything.

3. Some have doubts because of incomprehensible reasons.  I've heard some questions in my day where people say that they're having a crisis of faith over issues that have nothing to do with faith.  Some logic trains about why X would mean that Y is incorrect doctrine are prevalent.  I honestly don't know why some people have problems with various facts.  But they do.  And we need to be somewhat empathetic while understanding that they may not be thinking clearly.  Again, we need to love them and pray for them.

4. Others don't have doubts.  They just want an excuse to leave.  They know what's right. But they want to appear like they're giving it a chance.  In the end, they fit in the first category above.  They've already made their decision.  But they want to justify themselves.

5. OKAY.   But what about the ones we can save?  That is the $100k question.  How do we know?  Maybe we don't.  But by knowing people before a crisis even comes up, by really being their friends, etc. we can know them well enough to know what's going on.  If we were never their friends, I don't know if they would accept a new "friend of crisis" (think of what a "friend of convenience" is) to help them back.

This is why ministering is so important.  We always want to be friends with all we meet.  And we need to know people when things are good, so we can be there for them when things are bad.  And the bad includes when they have a crisis of faith.

This is not meant to be a comprehensive list.  But the most common that come to mind.

For all of these, love is the first thing.  Then understand that arguing in the traditional sense doesn't work at all with anyone.  But can you ask thought provoking questions?  Can you bear testimony?  Can you share faith-building stories?  Can you share when the Spirit spoke to you and gave you knowledge and answers to your prayers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Same. I’ve always struggled with the thought of adults who died in the holocaust not earning salvation strictly because they didn’t accept Christ in this life. It was/is a major issue to me. 
 

I freely admit I’m not special here. I’m sure that many, many, many people struggle with the same thing. 

Uhh....that is not what LDS believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Uhh....that is not what LDS believe.

Uh…never said LDS did, but it's what, oh, 97% of other Christian churches believe. 
 

In fact, LDS are the one of the few Christian churches that actually treat Jews with respect instead of just lip service. 
 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mormons-apology-wiesenthal/mormon-church-apologizes-for-posthumous-baptism-of-jews-idUSTRE81E03S20120215

 

The Church not only apologized, they actually meant it. Also, casual anti semitism would be called out in an LDS ward. No so with other churches. 
 

Same with casual racism too. If I walked into my local ward and started making racist jokes, most members would correctly call me out for it. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, laronius said:

I'm not personally dealing with this issue with anyone I know but it is increasingly becoming a problem and I think will continue to be so and many of us will likely encounter those who do face this challenge. As such I've been taking a closer look at some "anti-Mormon" material to see how easy it might be to refute. Mostly I've looked at the Church history stuff that ex-members like to use to plant seeds of doubts in member's minds. But here is the problem I see. It's extremely easy to cause doubt and often very difficult to refute it, not that it's irrefutable but because the answer is often complex or not yet completely known. And even if the Church was able to provide a good and reasonable response to everything these people say, at the end of the day it doesn't actually prove anything. 

So while I commend the Church for trying to make as much material accessible as possible and while I appreciate the work of organizations such as FAIR and others, I don't think it's in the Lord's plan to provide sufficient proof as to eliminate all doubt. So what is the proper approach to helping honest seekers of truth who have such doubts? Does providing reasonable explanations to people really accomplish anything? 

We can stay close to the Spirit so that we know what to say to the honest seeker of truth who has some doubts, and when and how to say it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Everyone's faith journey (or crisis or whatever you want to call it) is unique. For me, it seems that all of the issues that I encounter (historical or otherwise) come down to questions around prophetic fallibility and/or scriptural errancy. We claim that the church is built on the "rock of revelation," with a "foundation of apostles and prophets." What does this really mean, when we also acknowledge that prophets can make mistakes? In many ways, I think Ben Spackman has captured the heart and soul of the issue best while addressing the issue of slavery in the Bible (https://benspackman.com/2019/11/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/

Obviously, there's a lot more that is said to build up to this point, and then some ideas for consideration (Spackman tends to favor an "accommodationist" model of scripture, prophets, and revelation where God gives revelation according to our understanding, in which He sometimes does not counter people's or prophet's strongly held but incorrect beliefs). I recommend the entire essay to see how he gets to this question using the example of slavery in the Bible.

In the end, I have not found a good answer to this question. "Accommodationism" or Givens's "Viceroy model" (see chapter 6 of Crucible of Doubt) or Leo Winegar's "Restorative Light model" seem to describe what happens, but they leave open questions around whether there really are eternal moral truths that God cannot violate, or maybe God really doesn't care about truth, whether loyalty to the church/prophets is more important than loyalty to truth, and so on. In my experience, this has been the central issue as I try to figure out what I believe and where my faith journey will go.

One additional principle that I think feeds into the problem of prophetic errancy is an all or nothing attitude that is common in our teaching. Some variation of what Pres. Hinckley said about "it's either all true or the greatest fraud" makes the slippery slope even more slippery. Once one finds that prophets/scripture may have made a mistake about [blank], this all or nothing belief then accelerates us down the slippery slope because we believe that it's either all true or all false (One thing I have seen others say, and one of my own pet peeves from ex-Mormon and anti-Mormon commentators is how they seem to believe the same kind of all or nothingness about the church). I know that there is a solid discomfort with "cafeteria Mormons," but I find that it is a very useful concept for staying in the church. I sometimes wonder if finding examples of other cafeteria Mormons is a useful tool for this sort of thing. For example, I recently read Carol Lynn Pearson's Ghost of Eternal Polygamy. I know that some people don't like her book, one thing I found quite compelling in her writing was her strongly held belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet, while also holding the belief that God did not ever (in the OT or in 19th century Mormonism) command or condone polygamy. For another example, I have seen a few interviews with Patrick Mason where he come right out and says that he does not believe that the priesthood and temple ban was ever commanded or otherwise put in place by God. As you indicate in the OP, many of this issues are difficult, often nuanced, and maybe don't even have satisfactory answers. Finding examples of people who have figured out how to be cafeteria Mormons and stay actively engaged with the church in spite of the things they don't believe seems useful to me.

I see you reacted to my post, and so I will go out on a limb here and hopefully offer something useful!

I see the “rock of revelation” as internal and personal, and the “foundation of apostles and prophets” as external and organizational. Fallibility is a given for each except from the One giving both the personal and organizational revelation. The idea is that God’s work, individually and collectively, progresses from the worst and lowest beginning(s) imaginable to the highest fulfillment. I see it being accomplished as follows:

2 Nephi 9 discusses the atonement of God, mercy (love) and justice (law) at great length. Mercy comes first, in that God’s fondest desire is that we become like Him, and so His atonement was established first, before the foundation of the world. Within that overarching structure, He places progressive laws which we choose to obey or not.

This allows Him to be patient with our fallibility while things get better over time and justifies His expectation that we adhere to the two great commandments as He does. I think this helps keep our fallible moral, ethical and semantic expectations and priorities in perspective, secondary to the still, small voice and His patience with our attending to it in keeping the two simple commandments as He does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, laronius said:

So what is the proper approach to helping honest seekers of truth who have such doubts?

First and foremost, your odds of being helpful go way up if you love them.  And if you have to make some sort of unrighteous judgment about their motivations, you might be having a difficult time loving them.  To be clear - you can't tell whether they're being honest or dishonest.  Maybe they're looking for a way out, and hiding behind a false face of being an "honest seeker of truth".  Maybe they're even lying to themselves about how honest their intentions are.  If you only want to help the ones you see as "honest", I'd suggest you work on your ability to follow the 2nd great commandment first, before trying to help anyone with doubts.  Another way to put it - can you still love them, even after a period of earnest truth seeking and prayer, they decide to publicly have their name removed from the church, and start cutting ties with all the saints in their life?  If you can't, I'd suggest you need to work on you first, before any approach/tactic/strategy.  If you're not doing it out of love, what's the difference between "an approach" and "a manipulative tactic"?

Love, love, love.  No matter what approach you take, it has to start there.

 

Quote

Does providing reasonable explanations to people really accomplish anything? 

Oh, absolutely.  "Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."

But before you try to provide reasonable explanations, you have to make sure you have some to provide in the first place.  Do you know what you believe, and why you believe it? Or will your testimony that you thought was strong, crumble as this or that historical tidbit or argument blindsides you because you discover that some things you thought were true, actually aren't?

I think you nail a crucial point when you say "It's extremely easy to cause doubt and often very difficult to refute it, not that it's irrefutable but because the answer is often complex or not yet completely known."  If they've done hundreds of hours of reading and talking to critics, and you're coming into the conversation with your testimony,  a decent command of the scriptures, and a plucky attitude, you're not going to be of much use. 

Your mileage may vary, but here's what I did that worked for me:  I came to my testimony in 1996.  Around 1998, I began going online to watch LDS apologists interact with critics.  I started a file of criticisms, with the responses that made sense to me.  After a year or two, I began participating.  By the mid 2000's, I would go a year before encountering a new criticism I hadn't previously seen, and was holding my own in online debates.  I'd suggest a similar path for you - start studying the criticisms and responses, and work at it for 6-8 years.  Then you'll have a command of some pretty hefty complex doubts, and reasonably great answers to them.  (Pretty much every new criticism since 2010 has involved progressive stuff that boils down to "but I want things to be this way instead".)

Great place to start is with the old FARMS publications: https://www.jstor.org/journal/revibookbookmorm  Go start reading the book reviews that were being published twice yearly from 1989-2010.  

Happy reading!

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Anddenex said:

"Sufficient proof" in some ways within the Church is a conundrum. Overtime, the Lord can -- and has -- provided sufficient proof that has eliminated doubt to some. On the other hand, "proof" (caveat: a sign) is not the way a testimony is received, and it is not the way the Lord eliminates doubt. Those who act in faith, in time, will eliminate all doubt as they continue to trust in God. At the same time, those who think they are entitled to a "sign" or "proof" in order to eliminate doubt will only increase in their doubt.

The key phrase here is "honest seekers of truth." The Church's attempt will decrease doubt if the individual is truly a "honest seeker of truth." If not, then the articles and other sources provided by the Church will only induce more questions and thus induce more doubt. This is the irony of some ex-members who are now anti. They are self-proclaimed truth seekers all the while denying the truth God has already showed them.

Does a reason explanation really accomplish anything? Yes, yes it does to those who are honestly seeking truth. There have been explanations I have read that have surely increased my faith, thus decreasing my doubt. When I first learned about some of the history of the Church I was honestly shocked. I then looked for explanations, alternative thoughts, theories, and actual evidence. This is when I discovered the difference between a Church history fact, and the assumption encompassing the fact being promulgated as fact, rather than the fact itself. This is a common thread among ex-members and anti's. They want you to believe their "assumption" is the fact, while ignoring the actual fact.

For that, I'm grateful to the men and women who searched and shared the facts. I am pleased with the Church's attempts to truly help the "honest seeker of truth," and not the ones who want to feign "betrayal" and all other sorts of emotions. I just hope one day, that he who is the way, the truth, and the life will see me as an honest seeker of truth, as I seek to become more like him.

As to helping, we can simply do what the Lord has done -- invite. As to whether or not they are truly honest seekers of truth will be made aware in their decisions.

I had the same thought in regards to denying the witness they have already received. One video I watched was of a younger woman, returned missionary who states "I had a testimony of..." but now these questions have totally invalidated every witness she has ever received. If no greater witness can be had than of the Spirit then what any person ever say to convince them? An honest seeker would not throw out evidences for faith just because they have unanswered questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Everyone's faith journey (or crisis or whatever you want to call it) is unique. For me, it seems that all of the issues that I encounter (historical or otherwise) come down to questions around prophetic fallibility and/or scriptural errancy. We claim that the church is built on the "rock of revelation," with a "foundation of apostles and prophets." What does this really mean, when we also acknowledge that prophets can make mistakes? In many ways, I think Ben Spackman has captured the heart and soul of the issue best while addressing the issue of slavery in the Bible (https://benspackman.com/2019/11/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/

Obviously, there's a lot more that is said to build up to this point, and then some ideas for consideration (Spackman tends to favor an "accommodationist" model of scripture, prophets, and revelation where God gives revelation according to our understanding, in which He sometimes does not counter people's or prophet's strongly held but incorrect beliefs). I recommend the entire essay to see how he gets to this question using the example of slavery in the Bible.

In the end, I have not found a good answer to this question. "Accommodationism" or Givens's "Viceroy model" (see chapter 6 of Crucible of Doubt) or Leo Winegar's "Restorative Light model" seem to describe what happens, but they leave open questions around whether there really are eternal moral truths that God cannot violate, or maybe God really doesn't care about truth, whether loyalty to the church/prophets is more important than loyalty to truth, and so on. In my experience, this has been the central issue as I try to figure out what I believe and where my faith journey will go.

One additional principle that I think feeds into the problem of prophetic errancy is an all or nothing attitude that is common in our teaching. Some variation of what Pres. Hinckley said about "it's either all true or the greatest fraud" makes the slippery slope even more slippery. Once one finds that prophets/scripture may have made a mistake about [blank], this all or nothing belief then accelerates us down the slippery slope because we believe that it's either all true or all false (One thing I have seen others say, and one of my own pet peeves from ex-Mormon and anti-Mormon commentators is how they seem to believe the same kind of all or nothingness about the church). I know that there is a solid discomfort with "cafeteria Mormons," but I find that it is a very useful concept for staying in the church. I sometimes wonder if finding examples of other cafeteria Mormons is a useful tool for this sort of thing. For example, I recently read Carol Lynn Pearson's Ghost of Eternal Polygamy. I know that some people don't like her book, one thing I found quite compelling in her writing was her strongly held belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet, while also holding the belief that God did not ever (in the OT or in 19th century Mormonism) command or condone polygamy. For another example, I have seen a few interviews with Patrick Mason where he come right out and says that he does not believe that the priesthood and temple ban was ever commanded or otherwise put in place by God. As you indicate in the OP, many of this issues are difficult, often nuanced, and maybe don't even have satisfactory answers. Finding examples of people who have figured out how to be cafeteria Mormons and stay actively engaged with the church in spite of the things they don't believe seems useful to me.

I appreciate your real life perspective in this matter as one I feel is an honest seeker. So let me ask you this, because it's the one thing that perplexes me the most in this issue, how much weight does a purely spiritual witness carry in determining your belief system? Though I should probably clarify "purely spiritual." What I mean by that is that my testimony consists entirely of the many, many witnesses of the Spirit I have received. Though those witnesses have been heavily fortified by experiencing the fruits of the gospel by living those truths. Meanwhile answers to Church history stuff don't really matter in that regard. So I have a hard time seeing where others, such as yourself, are coming from because of my dissimilar outlook on things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

We can stay close to the Spirit so that we know what to say to the honest seeker of truth who has some doubts, and when and how to say it.

I agree but I'm trying to follow Pres Nelson's prophetic council that good information helps to bring good revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

First and foremost, your odds of being helpful go way up if you love them.  And if you have to make some sort of unrighteous judgment about their motivations, you might be having a difficult time loving them.  To be clear - you can't tell whether they're being honest or dishonest.  Maybe they're looking for a way out, and hiding behind a false face of being an "honest seeker of truth".  Maybe they're even lying to themselves about how honest their intentions are.  If you only want to help the ones you see as "honest", I'd suggest you work on your ability to follow the 2nd great commandment first, before trying to help anyone with doubts.  Another way to put it - can you still love them, even after a period of earnest truth seeking and prayer, they decide to publicly have their name removed from the church, and start cutting ties with all the saints in their life?  If you can't, I'd suggest you need to work on you first, before any approach/tactic/strategy.  If you're not doing it out of love, what's the difference between "an approach" and "a manipulative tactic"?

Love, love, love.  No matter what approach you take, it has to start there.

 

Oh, absolutely.  "Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."

But before you try to provide reasonable explanations, you have to make sure you have some to provide in the first place.  Do you know what you believe, and why you believe it? Or will your testimony that you thought was strong, crumble as this or that historical tidbit or argument blindsides you because you discover that some things you thought were true, actually aren't?

I think you nail a crucial point when you say "It's extremely easy to cause doubt and often very difficult to refute it, not that it's irrefutable but because the answer is often complex or not yet completely known."  If they've done hundreds of hours of reading and talking to critics, and you're coming into the conversation with your testimony,  a decent command of the scriptures, and a plucky attitude, you're not going to be of much use. 

Your mileage may vary, but here's what I did that worked for me:  I came to my testimony in 1996.  Around 1998, I began going online to watch LDS apologists interact with critics.  I started a file of criticisms, with the responses that made sense to me.  After a year or two, I began participating.  By the mid 2000's, I would go a year before encountering a new criticism I hadn't previously seen, and was holding my own in online debates.  I'd suggest a similar path for you - start studying the criticisms and responses, and work at it for 6-8 years.  Then you'll have a command of some pretty hefty complex doubts, and reasonably great answers to them.  (Pretty much every new criticism since 2010 has involved progressive stuff that boils down to "but I want things to be this way instead".)

Great place to start is with the old FARMS publications: https://www.jstor.org/journal/revibookbookmorm  Go start reading the book reviews that were being published twice yearly from 1989-2010.  

Happy reading!

I appreciate the very practical advice. Especially the part about having reasonable expectations of what we are accomplishing in these situations. It's not a matter of proving the Church or any aspect of it is true but rather creating a climate where belief is still possible. I think this is especially true in the online world where that interaction is often viewed by others who may not yet have lost their testimony but struggle nonetheless and could benefit from seeing someone sticking up for things they still hope to be true.

I also agree that being a sixty minute expert in subjects probably does more harm than good. With all of the available information out there I would hope it doesn't take a full 6-8 years but I get your point about being well researched and understanding all sides of the argument. It has to be a labor of love, both the people and the subjects involved. Great points. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, laronius said:

I agree but I'm trying to follow Pres Nelson's prophetic council that good information helps to bring good revelation.

I think that what I posted is also President Nelson's counsel. This can be useful in discerning what constitutes "good information", how to handle and interpret it, and seek, obtain and keep personal revelation. "Come Follow Me" for example schools us in this approach.

Typically, it is not the bad information per se, but an undisciplined reaction to it that throws people off. For example, do you want to believe that Joseph Smith lied to Emma, or do you want to believe that thirty-somethings can have complicated pressures and relationships we are not privy to, and that the historical record is not complete enough to prove malfeasance? People have to know their limitations, that they are no more equipped to evaluate private histories than Joseph was in handling new doctrines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

This allows Him to be patient with our fallibility while things get better over time...

I frequently see this in some of these "accommodationist" approaches, and, in many ways I think it makes sense. However, I also think it sets up a tension between "conservative" religion (what we have been teaching and doing is correct) and "progressive" religion (God is trying to show us where we need to change). Which is fine if that's really what we believe is happening in how God interacts with His people through His prophets. It suggests to me that one aspect of helping some who doubt could involve helping them understand and accept this conservative vs. progressive tension and how we think God wants us to understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, laronius said:

So let me ask you this, because it's the one thing that perplexes me the most in this issue, how much weight does a purely spiritual witness carry in determining your belief system?

I'm not sure it is very satisfying, but it seems to me to be something very similar to the question of how prophets and scripture communicate revelation -- my own spiritual experiences are subject to my own failures to receive them properly and interpret them properly.

As an example, I thought of the many times we as LDS have "rationalized away" other people's spiritual experiences in relation to their churches/faiths (I don't know if it is the best example, but one thread on this board:

Sometimes we talk about how people in other churches might have spiritual experiences around truths that they encounter, but these spiritual experiences should not be interpreted as evidence that their church is as true as the LDS church is. If someone has a spiritual experience with the Bible, does that mean the Book of Mormon cannot be scripture? If someone has a spiritual experience with the Book of Mormon, does that mean that the Book of Mormon must be 100% historical? If someone has a spiritual experience in the temple, does that mean that the creation account in the temple is scientifically accurate? Speaking only for myself, I have had spiritual experiences in relation to the reality of God, but does that mean that everything I believe about God's nature is 100% true? I have had experiences around the reality of Christ and His atonement, but does that necessarily mean that every thing attributed to Christ by the Evangelists in the NT is exactly the way it all happened?. I have also had spiritual experiences with the Book of Mormon and other scripture and experiences related to the restoration, but does that mean that everything that has happened under the banner of the restoration is exactly what God wanted?  Spiritual experiences are certainly a key part of our testimony, but are we always certain of our interpretation of those spiritual experiences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I frequently see this in some of these "accommodationist" approaches, and, in many ways I think it makes sense. However, I also think it sets up a tension between "conservative" religion (what we have been teaching and doing is correct) and "progressive" religion (God is trying to show us where we need to change). Which is fine if that's really what we believe is happening in how God interacts with His people through His prophets. It suggests to me that one aspect of helping some who doubt could involve helping them understand and accept this conservative vs. progressive tension and how we think God wants us to understand it.

Yes, if that is the nature of their tension as they perceive and feel it. I think tension is a built-in necessity for a probationary state, and is inherent with all forms of opposition, both adversarial and complementary. Sometimes the tension is between logic and spiritual feelings, maturity and inexperience, bias and openess, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure it is very satisfying, but it seems to me to be something very similar to the question of how prophets and scripture communicate revelation -- my own spiritual experiences are subject to my own failures to receive them properly and interpret them properly.

As an example, I thought of the many times we as LDS have "rationalized away" other people's spiritual experiences in relation to their churches/faiths (I don't know if it is the best example, but one thread on this board:

Sometimes we talk about how people in other churches might have spiritual experiences around truths that they encounter, but these spiritual experiences should not be interpreted as evidence that their church is as true as the LDS church is. If someone has a spiritual experience with the Bible, does that mean the Book of Mormon cannot be scripture? If someone has a spiritual experience with the Book of Mormon, does that mean that the Book of Mormon must be 100% historical? If someone has a spiritual experience in the temple, does that mean that the creation account in the temple is scientifically accurate? Speaking only for myself, I have had spiritual experiences in relation to the reality of God, but does that mean that everything I believe about God's nature is 100% true? I have had experiences around the reality of Christ and His atonement, but does that necessarily mean that every thing attributed to Christ by the Evangelists in the NT is exactly the way it all happened?. I have also had spiritual experiences with the Book of Mormon and other scripture and experiences related to the restoration, but does that mean that everything that has happened under the banner of the restoration is exactly what God wanted?  Spiritual experiences are certainly a key part of our testimony, but are we always certain of our interpretation of those spiritual experiences?

Regarding others' spiritual experiences, I think we can only do our best and trust that God continues to reach out to them just as He has to us, whatever conclusions and applications they have drawn that differ from ours. God does not leave anyone exclusively to their own devices after one single spiritual experience.

The spiritual witness that something is true isn't the same as the spiritual experience of who and what we are becoming. This is why regular/routine self -examination is so vital (as when we partake of the sacrament). Are we blessed, and a blessing to others? What kinds of people oppose us?

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2023 at 8:34 AM, laronius said:

Does providing reasonable explanations to people really accomplish anything?

It can...but it's not key. And, frankly, it runs the risk of the whole meat before milk thing. The milk is testimony. Explanations are useless without that testimony.

At the risk of sounding patronizing, I have to refer to the process whereby we have been taught to know of the truth of the gospel. Read the Book of Mormon, ponder it, and get on one's knees, seeking the truth from God with humility and faith. None of the other stuff, ultimately, really matters. I mean it can help for certain people in certain situations. But it will never actually be key to knowing God. There is only one key to knowing God. That is the witness of the Holy Spirit. That is the means we are to find and know God and His truth on this earth. Therefore, the best we can do is what guides others to follow that path. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share