I wanted to dig a bit deeper into the concept of simple faith by providing examples of 
what I perceive it is in reference to the Gospel. As we discussed this over the past week, several people made statements such as: “well, it’s just not that simple” or “even simple faith is complex: or simple faith is equal to “blind faith.”
So, I decided a bit more elaboration was in order. And I wanted to use some examples to illustrate. So the following is my own interpretation of what “simple faith” is and “what not so simple faith” is. And to ensure I am understood, here are brief definitions of each. Probably not perfect by any means, but a starting point for my thought process.
Simple Faith – Good understanding and belief in basic Gospel principles. Does not often delve into great depth on a topic but is content with a simple testimony. This might be likened to the faith of a child, in the gospel sense. Not childish, but childlike. Tends to stay away from controversial issues.
Not So Simple Faith – Seeks to understand and learn what is behind the basic Gospel Principle. Seeks “Further Light and Knowledge.” Willing to explore controversial issues. Builds testimony based on further understanding. Cope with doubts effectively.
Here are some examples: (there are many, many more.)
| Simple Faith | Not So Simple Faith |
| WE believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. (Articles of Faith 1:1) | And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3) |
| Jesus Died for our Sins, if I repent, He will forgive me. | The Atonement |
| If I obey all the commandments, receive all the ordnances of the Gospel, I can return to live with my family, Heavenly Father and Jesus for eternity | What it means to become “like God.” |
| We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. (Articles of Faith 1:8) | How did we get the Bible? Which stories are really true? Why were those books chosen? The historicity of the Book of Mormon, an actual history or a collection of parables? |
| Follow the Prophet | “…But I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such. (HC 5:265.)” |
| The Church practiced Polygamy, but that ended in 1890. | Joseph Smith’s plural wives, post-manifesto polygamy, Polygamy’s place in our doctrine today. |
I do not equate “simple faith” with “blind faith.” Unless of course, you want to assume that everything, even the most complex science, starts with blind faith in a single principle.
Thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
Jeff, glad you kept this topic going…it is one of great interest to me, and I like your perspective, because I think there are a few different ways to view it, and based on where we are coming from in life and our experiences, our perspectives are greatly influential on how we conceptualize this.
I think FAITH requires actions, or it is just belief. Therefore, the principles taught to me may be very simple and basic. However, how I apply it to my life, and what I do with those principles, can be very difficult and often complex. And when it becomes difficult, I dig deeper because the simple principle does not sustain me while struggling to apply something in my life that is difficult or complex.
If I have no personal struggle, I am content with the simple faith, until at some point I feel the need to dig into it for some reason.
Simplicity is beautiful from a distance. But there was a reason Joseph Smith started the school of prophets…as a progression, we need to dig deeper, and then…the simplicity become insufficient.
I do not believe the items you listed in the “Simple Faith” column are all we need, or else the church could save a lot of money on reducing the size of the publications it puts out. But they are not sufficient, as we see with our volumes of church publications. No, those are starting points. It is where we go from those starting points that becomes widely varied and often complex.
I’m not sure it is “not so simple” as “continuing.”
Heber13: “I do not believe the items you listed in the “Simple Faith” column are all we need, or else the church could save a lot of money on reducing the size of the publications it puts out. But they are not sufficient, as we see with our volumes of church publications. No, those are starting points. It is where we go from those starting points that becomes widely varied and often complex.”
That may be true for you. But it may not be true for everyone. I have known long time faithful members of the church who operate in the first column for the bulk of their lives. They contribute. They honor their covenants. They are happy.
I read your earlier piece and this one, and I’m still not sure what your definition of faith is. We discussed this recently on MSP — could you swing by and give your input on what faith is?
Heber13,
I do not disagree with you at all. I am more in line with Paul on this topic because I too know people who are content with the simple ideas and have a strong testimony but very simply based on the first column. And it’s OK.
But I am like you and I see my faith as a constantly evolving thing as I try to learn more about specific Gospel Principles. I have been struggling with the concept of the Atonement for the better part of 30 years now. And while I think I understand more now than 29 years ago, I realize I am far from understanding it in its totality and may never understand it in this life.
Some aspect of Church history are also a mystery to me because I can’t get into the head of a dead person and fully understadn their motives. We only have their writings, speeches and recorded conversations with others to go by.
Paul/Jeff, I can see where you are coming from.
I stumbled across this in my reading recently, which seems to make your point and accommodates my point as well:
Michael Ash “Shaken Faith Syndrome” p.78:
Dr. Daniel Peterson, referring to a writing in a public forum, recalled hearing a lecture by the late Stanley Kimball regarding the complexity of LDS history.
“Stanley Kimball spoke of three levels of Mormon history. Level A, he said, is the Sunday School version.
Everything on Level A is obviously good and true and harmonious. Level B, however, is the anti-Mormon version of the same story. …On this level, everything that you thought was good and true and harmonious actually turns out to be evil and false and chaotic.
He noted that the Church typically seeks to keep its members on Level A or, at least, feels no institutional obligation to bring them to a deeper level. Why? Because souls are lost on Level B. And, though Level C might be academically more desirable, it cannot be accessed without at least some exposure to Level B. Were he in a leadership position, he said, he would probably make the same decision.
Once members of the Church have been exposed to Level B, though, he said, their only hope is to press on to the richer, more complicated version of history that is to be found on Level C – which, he contended and I agree, turns out to be essentially, and profoundly, like Level A. The only cure for bad historiography is better historiography. The only remedy for bad anti-Mormon arguments is better counterarguments….
Not everybody needs Level C. But some do, whether because they are troubled by Level B or because they find Level A insufficiently nourishing in some way. Many good saints will live their entire lives on Level A, and they will be saved.
To reach Level C we must be willing to become more mature in our beliefs, attitudes, and perspectives; we must be willing to let go of idealistic fantasies, myths, and folklore; we must be willing to add cognitions (or beliefs) to our worldviews; and we must be open-minded enough to synthesize competing cognitions. Fortunately for those who are struggling with challenging questions, we have the benefit of living in a day when LDS and non-LDS scholars have made substantial contributions to our understanding of scriptural histories as well as LDS history. We live in a day when additional insights can ameliorate concerns over challenging issues-which, in turn can soften our hearts to the whisperings of the Spirit allowing us to receive a spiritual witness.
Heber13,
I like that passage quite a bit. I did go through my “B” in the mid 80s and came out the other end stronger for it. My wife, on the other hand, is very much in the “A” and has no desire to see anything on “B.”
Not sure I would call the Level B an Anti-Mormon level as much as a more complex/complete view of A, or as I stated the “not so simple” view.
I agree with Jeff. Level B doesn’t have to be anti-Mormon.
In the last column, you need to also include Joseph Smith’s polyandry. He was having marrying and having sex with women who were also married. This seems fundamentally wrong on every level.
Jan,
The item on JS’s plural wives was meant to cover that topic as well. However, there’s no real proof he had sex with them.
Like the spaghetti sauce, “it’s in there.”
Jeff, I discussed the latest polygamy controversy a few weeks ago. There’s some new stuff coming out, and it’s not always faith promoting to Joseph Smith, though FAIR and the Neal A Maxwell Institute do their best to put a positive spin on things.
Jeff:
I like this series.
Maybe it’s a flaw – maybe it’s just me – but I relate to every single example of the “Not So Simple Faith” column you mention.
And it really is complex. There are some areas where my “Not So Simple Faith” have brought me to a deeper and more profound understanding of things and perhaps even closer to Mormon beliefs than the “simple” things taught. But there are other areas where there is a tremendous disconnect. So it’s kind of a “hybrid” level A,B & C.
For me, however, I don’t mind the “messiness”. I can accept the idea that Joseph Smith touched the Divine, yet be repulsed by my 21th century interpretation of his polygamy. I can accept the truths that resonate with me from the Book of Mormon, yet be bothered by the Church’s teaching that he “translated” something that he wasn’t even looking at the majority of the time. So, I have faith in yet also don’t have faith in some things simultaneously.
At the end of the day, however, I feel that the path I’m on is still right for me. I don’t think it’s necessarily right for everyone. I don’t know where I’ll be in five years or ten – if I’ll have more faith or less faith or both.
But it’s still an interesting journey.
Mike,
Very nice thoughts. I agree with you mostly. I find it pretty easy to accept most truth claims of the Church because I tend to look at it as a whole package. And yet, I am so curious about certain things that i spend quite a bit of study and pondering about them.
I accept the Divinity of the Savior and the humanness of the Prophets.
I see the distinction between Simple Faith and Not So Simple Faith, as outlined in your examples, as a position of inquisitiveness vs. a position of general acceptance. I don’t mean to come across adversarial, but I don’t see how Simple Faith, illustrated in your table, could be more than blind faith. The person seems to lack any kind religious analysis, and would rather just be “content”, as you put it.
As for the Michael Ash reference, the last paragraph is typical Ash rhetoric. Simple Class A faith is perfectly acceptable, but if you venture beyond A you lack maturity unless you reach C. Of course Ash does not believe that a “spiritually mature” person could have a reasonable objection to Mormonism. Instead, he sees “Shaken Faith” as an inidication of naievety and immaturity. He contrives a world-view on how to interpret Mormonism in the context of at least B-level awareness, that is wholly his own, and then faults the “anti’s” for not reaching his personal idiosyncratic conclusion.
Stating the condition as a linear progression where some people get hung up on B and never progress to C, is convenient for the self-congratulatory folks of Farms and FAIR, but fails demonstrate awareness of the complexity surrounding personal spirituality. To illustrate the model more objectively, B is not a qualitative state (such as Anti), but rather a quantitative state of awareness. From there, a person can gravitate to at least two resolves (with some grey area in between). C1 – in light of the facts and history, I no longer believe. C2 – In spite of a less spit polished view of things, I am still willing to persist in faith – taking the bad with the good, or by justifying the bad.
Cowboy,
“but I don’t see how Simple Faith, illustrated in your table, could be more than blind faith.”
Well, it might be, but you are dismissing or ignoring the “Witness of the Spirit” which would give a reason for that faith, simple as it is.
“Instead, he sees “Shaken Faith” as an indication of naivety and immaturity. He contrives a world-view on how to interpret Mormonism in the context of at least B-level awareness, that is wholly his own, and then faults the “anti’s” for not reaching his personal idiosyncratic conclusion.”
So-called “shaken faith” has a variety of causes. I do not proscribe to Ash’s “B-level” as being Anti-Mormon per se. It could be, but it could also be becoming acquainted with facts not previously known. Not so sure about qualitative versus quantitative though. Doesn’t much matter to me.
You assume that anyone moving on in the faith just vows to take the “bad” with the good. It may be a case where the new information is reconciled and is no longer “bad.” Or never was bad just unknown.