
E. Bednar’s recent comments disparaging doubt (in an innovative youth meeting with a Q&A) seem to imply a different definition of the word than most who experience doubt would use, as evidenced by some of the chatter about it. Why is that? Let’s explore what he and other church leaders might mean when they talk about doubt.
When Pres. Uchtdorf said “Before you doubt your faith, doubt your doubts,” he was clearly equating doubts with questions. He wasn’t saying questioning is bad, just that sometimes we make an assumption when we ask a question that the thing we are questioning is wrong. Just the presence of uncertainty makes you waver. It’s like someone being accused of a crime. If you watch Law & Order, a “person of interest” is immediately under suspicion, practically a perpetrator already. Did they do it? What was their motive? Sometimes just the idea that someone is being questioned is enough to make us think they are guilty. Likewise, some equate having a doubt with a thing being dubious or untrustworthy, regardless of the process doubt should entail: investigation, research, study, and in the case of faith, prayer. So his warning not to leap to assumptions when you have questions is a valid caution. What’s interesting about his admonition is that he is advocating going slowly, taking the time to question even your questions, not avoiding questions altogether. This is one way to view doubt.

Conversely, E. Bednar’s address implied that questions (theoretical and conceptual) are okay but doubts (that cause inaction or lack of confidence) are not. In other words, his message is in favor of action and trust, not necessarily the process of questioning assumptions. We should take action despite doubts and not let questions slow us in our purpose or cause us to stray from the path. E. Bednar would place obedience as a higher virtue than understanding. It’s similar to the rules given to soldiers in wartime. If you hesitate, you die. Follow orders or lives will be lost, your life or others’.
And maybe wartime vs. peacetime orders are the core distinction here. Some leaders (and scriptures) take a siege mentality. Our faith is under attack. Sometimes this attack is couched in literal terms: unseen forces or Satan or his minions are literally surrounding us trying to lead us astray, rejoicing in our failures. Others take a peacetime approach, referring to an individual spiritual quest of enlightenment, one of study, prayer, learning, and seeking; these are not things you can readily do when you are at war or under seige. While both of these perspectives have scriptural support, the framing of wartime or peacetime makes a big difference in how we live our lives and how we interpret gospel messages.

So how do we understand what various leaders mean when they say “doubt”? Here are some possible meanings based on how the term “doubt” has been used in General Conference talks over recent years:
- Doubt = disbelief / disagreement. Sometimes doubters on the down low call the things they don’t accept “doubts,” when this word is not an accurate reflection of their views. I don’t have doubts about polygamy being divine; I don’t believe it. I am not questioning it; I don’t accept it.
- Doubt = pessimism / cynicism. Some see doubters as the skeptics of the group, those who cynically criticize or who wallow in negativity. They see doubters as those with a half empty glass, focusing on loss rather than what they have.
- Doubt = lack of commitment / fortitude. This perspective sees doubters as armchair quarterbacks, too lazy to play the game, but instead content to call out criticisms from the sidelines. These folks are seen to be doubters of convenience, using doubt as justification to do whatever they want to do anyway (e.g. sin).
- Doubt = inaction / analysis paralysis. These are individuals who get stuck in their doubts. They can’t quit thinking about them, but they can’t decide what to do. They won’t tinkle or get off the potty.
- Doubt = distrust / paranoia. These are the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists, the crackpot doubters who chalk up to deception what could really be the fruit of incompetence.
- Doubt = questioning. Some, like Pres. Uchtdorf above, would characterize doubt as questioning things, wondering and exploring whether one’s assumptions are correct or not, and even being willing to question the assumption that assumptions are flawed. Most doubters would accept this definition also.

To avoid being pigeonholed, doubters can do the following:
- Don’t say “doubt” when it’s a disagreement. Overusing the word “doubt” is probably part of the problem.
- Embrace what faith you have or what you do know. Bear testimony of the things you do believe. Say “believe” instead of “know,” and say “hope” if you don’t feel comfortable with “believe.” Your sincerity and focus on what you have will help others see you as a seeker of truth, looking for value in your church experience.
- Participate freely in your congregation. Assist how you can. Demonstrate your commitment to the group and to living like a Mormon if you want to be counted as a Mormon.
- This one’s a tough one. Some leaders seem impatient for people to quit doubting, but others are more patient for the journey people travel. Go at the pace you need to go.
- Be skeptical of conspiracy theories or using terms like betrayal and deception unless you have more than a feeling of confusion due to faulty assumptions or discovering new information. Assume people, like you, have positive intent. If you discover otherwise, at least you will have been charitable.
- Questioning has been declared acceptable, so feel free to question. Which brings us to my next point.

Is church for answers or for questions? This depends on whom you ask. Many people join the church as converts because they feel like they got answers to life’s difficult questions. Many within the church embrace the message of the spooky “Follow the Prophet” song [1], interpreting it as doing what the prophet says (he has the answers) rather than doing what he does (he seeks revelation, setting the example for us, showing us the process). Working out your salvation with fear and trembling means that it is a process of becoming, not a set of answers to learn. And yet, it can be difficult to remember that week in and week out, hearing talks about obedience and following leaders or talks emphasizing that our answers are better than those offered in other religions. Wouldn’t it be great if we had better questions? [2]
Some of the negative connotations of the word “doubt” revolve around the question of authority. Doubt can also imply mistrust of leaders. And yet, relying on the authority of the church is a poor substitute for one’s personal quest for insight.
A few questions to consider:
- Which definition of doubt do you think is most common when church leaders discuss doubt?
- Is doubt really acceptable at church? Opinions seem to be divided.
- How would you recommend doubters avoid negative labeling?
- Which kinds of doubt do you experience? Do you doubt your doubts?
Discuss.
[1] Spooky = Fox News lyrics sung by children ending in a minor chord.
[2] Truth be told, we have a few better questions, but most of our questions are exactly the same as all religions, and so are a lot of our answers, more than we like to admit.
I like your advice for avoiding being pigeonholed.
I don’t know if I have ever said I have doubts. I have unanswered questions (and I try to show I have some faith in that I am trying to find the answers for me).
I have given a testimony that only said what I believe and invited others that only believed.
I try hard to be one of the people that always volunteers for things. I love giving service, so any service project I am there.
I don’t discuss my issues/questions with my leaders, so they don’t know how many years I have been having unanswered questions. My bishops (and my ward) knows that I have struggled with questions.
I do feel free to question in my mind. I know there is social pressure not to express some questions widely, but I know God knows my heart – so I question.
Thanks for another great blog post with some good insight and good advice. I am always excited when I see a hawkgrrrl post.
Hawkgrrrl, I think you are right in thinking the term “doubt” is all of a sudden too broad. Add to that the LDS habit of using terms differently than everyone else and, yes, it can be a real problem. I am guessing there are local leaders who equate “I am having a few doubts” to “I have become a servant of Satan” or perhaps “I am wallowing in sin.” How else to explain the knee-jerk reaction of some local leaders to a person who admits to doubts of promptly revoking their TR and releasing them from their calling?
When I was on my mission nearly 20 years ago, I read a few paragraphs in a book by Jehovah’s Witnesses about how their missionaries should work with Mormons. They said to be strong and forceful because Mormons succumb to authority. I think there’s a small lesson there for unorthodox Mormons in difficult conversions with fellow Mormons: be confident! As you say, don’t dwell on doubts, say what you know. Bear a strong testimony about tolerance or something like that.
Also, “liberal” Mormons are often too willing to cede some gospel principles to the other side, especially obedience. Liberals should emphasize strict obedience to the most important commandments: love God and love your neighbor, everything else is secondary.
I think the most common usage of “doubt” in Mormonism is that doubt = disbelief. Doubt is the opposite of faith. Here is President Monson: “Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other. Cast out doubt. Cultivate faith.” Doubt is defined not as an intellectual activity but rather as a spiritual one: focusing on darkness rather than light. Doubts are not questions to be worked through and explored but rather temptations to be overcome and prayed away.
Pres. Monson also said, “Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: ‘I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it’.”
It would be great if there was more room for un-answered questions, for spiritual journeys where the destination is less important than the journey itself, for expressing doubt and faith at the same time. I think your suggestions are good ones and probably about the best you can do in the current climate.
“So-called science”?? Oy vey! That’s a regrettable comment.
May Lord Vader forgive me for plugging a STAR TREK work, and the one movie that was universally derided as a flop, thanks to Bill Shatner’s Galaxy-Class sized ego. But it raised some very pertinent points, namely, wherein Bill’s most infamous alter ego, James Tiberius Kirk, inquires of “God” why he “needs” with a starship (USS Enterprise, NCC-1701A) at all. After “God” zaps the good captain, Spock stands up to “Him”, declaring that the question was legitimate and why wasn’t it answered. “God’s” response? “He DOUBTS me!”
I’m sure that the Lord has no problem with answering LEGTIMATE inquires: He gave us our brains so He ought not to get upset when we employ them. The converse is that He stands by what He’s already said and feels no need to justify himself (D&C 1:38).
I think Joel’s Monson quotes bring up a great point. In those quotes, doubt is “skeptical, disturbing, rebellious.” If someone equates doubt with that sort of negativity, there is no possible way it can be acceptable. For someone to say they are having doubts, then, they are tacitly admitting to falling prey to Satan’s influence. Entertaining the doubt itself becomes a sin.
I think this is why the idiotic distinction lately between a “doubter” and a “questioner.” A doubter is a sinner, expressing a confidence (pride) that their thinking is superior to authorities. A questioner is a sincere seeker of truth, willing to obey leadership even in the face of unanswered questions. So doubts and questions are no longer the issues – whether you *appear* loyal (submissive) or rebellious (prideful) when having concerns is the issue. But remember, expressing concerns is imlying a lack of trust in authority, so make sure you keep your thoughts to yourself….
I don’t think we can have faith without also having doubt. Doubt is not only acceptable, it is an absolutely critical component to exercising faith. Fear of doubt is unhealthy and unwarranted in my judgment.
“Why is so-called science” a “regrettable comment?” I’m a science geek, but I also recognize it as a process that will produce successes and errors, sometimes errors which are not discovered for quite some time. Not every scientific venture results in a cure for polio or a successful trip to the moon. Scientific consensus was achieved for many notions and concepts with which we no longer agree with. Phlogiston, Emission theory of vision, Aristotelian physics, Ptolemy’s law of refraction, Caloric theory, Ptolemaic system, geocentrism, heliocentrism, Copernican system, Newtonian gravity, flat Earth, hollow Earth, expanding Earth theory, Lamarckism, inheritance of acquired characteristics, maternal impression, miasma, out of Asia theory, physiognomy, phrenology, alchemy, numerology . . . Sometimes yesterday’s scientific darling (e.g., asbestos) can become today’s carcinogen. Science has a great deal to figure out and will get a great many things right and a great many things wrong. The latest, greatest scientific discoveries will inevitably be refined and maybe even rejected. And let’s face it: there is a lot of fringe science, junk science, and bought and paid for science that is intended to mislead.
Science isn’t perfect, but it’s not so-called either! I object on grammatical grounds as well as it being a curmudgeonly thing to say. http://www.wheatandtares.org/16745/my-so-called-post/
Wah – this helps me clarify a way forward. I’ve been using the same word for many different things:
-not believing phood ban came from God
– not willing to believe polygamy was god’s will but pretty open to being wrong on that one and humans mucked it up
-my disbelief in: then the GA speaks the thinking has been done & we can never lead you astray
-my newfound understanding of infallibilty
-my testing and retesting all of my previously held views and assumptions
– my belief that the rest of my faith journey should follow the same pattern: act in faith, be open to know that I have bias, be open to new/old ways of seeing things, continual round of questions against which I feel my foundation being strengthened against
And I describe all of the above as having questions and doubts. No wonder people freaked out after my testimony in my ward. 🙂
I have a very positive, faith affirming, upbeat talk on Mother’s Day–so whatever I was pigeonholed as before..hopefully that talk helped. (Shrug).
Thx hawk
I think E. Bednar is saying (between the lines) “ignore your doubts”.
Calling President Monson “curmudgeonly” (a gender specific insult) seems indistinguishable from calling your sneering use of “regrettable” as “b)tchy.” Moreover, it doesn’t fit his thought or his character.
Nevertheless, I really liked much of the OP. It helps separate a number of issues that deserve to be separated and provides some solid advice. Well done.
Sam, you really should read hawk’s link in 10. When people refer to your “so-called faith”, it is a slam.
MH, I did read it first, which is not to say that I was entirely persuaded. I agree, however, that “so called” is a slighting adjective. My question is why that slighting adjective was a regrettable comment. I suspected that the author found it objectionable because it might cause a distrust of science, especially since the Church has a regrettable history of blindly distrusting science. She articulated two other reasons: The adjective was lazy and curmudgeonly.
Hawk wasn’t referring to Monson as curmudgeonly, she was referring to “so-called science” as a curmudgeonly thing to say. You obviously missed her intent entirely.
Look, “religious” folks refer to “so called science” as a way to slam things in which they don’t believe (evolution, for example.) while I agree that scientists aren’t always right (smoking is GOOD for you!), far too many people slight science when science is right (age of the earth, sun is center of universe, earth is not flat, etc.)
MoHeretic, the quote seems to distinguish that not all science is created equal. “My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it’.” He advises us not to permit questionable science to destroy faith. His use of both “science” and “so-called” science does not trash all science. It merely states that science should not be the source of our faith and questionable science should not destroy our faith. I appreciate that it doesn’t sound like good advice to you. That is fair, but the advice seems good to me and probably doesn’t merit Hawk’s derision.
#16 – Heretic, there’s a huge difference between using methodologies for investigation inherent in most science and engineering disciplines versus elevating current popular ‘scientific’ dogma to virtually the status of a religion (or more precisely, irreligion) itself.
We need look no further for how to wed scientific though and religious faith better than the example shown by James E. Talmage. His best known works, Jesus the Christ and the Articles of Faith, speak best on his behalf.
The trouble with ‘science’ is actually much the same as with ‘religion’. Men misuse either or both in often comical efforts to have THE answer(s) without true intellectual effort or simply just the PATIENCE to wait for the answer(s).
If I believed that I could ever ‘prove’ the existence or lack of same for God, then that’d be proof positive that I don’t know who (S)HE is. Some matters just have to be left to faith and not rely on what that pile of scrambled eggs between my ears can comprehend.
One thing that really gets my goat in when doubters play the helpless victim in their faith-crises. They remind me all too much of the girl (or guy) who’s leaving their spouse because they fell in love with another man (or woman) and they can’t help how they feel. I might very well be the case that they can’t at this moment simply will their feelings away, but I have yet to meet such a person who did not make dozens of decisions, decisions that they could have easily willed differently, that put them in their current situation.
The same goes for doubting the gospel. The lengthiness of the process gives the illusion that a person simply had no say in how they feel, when such is simply not the case. Doubt is not something that passively happens to us; it is a active process in which we leverages different beliefs and values against whatever it is that we are doubting. While we may not at this moment be able to will ourselves to believe or not, there are dozens of decisions that we makes on a regular basis that reinforce that feeling.
What company do we keep? What groups do we attend? What blogs and literature do we read? What social media do we follow? These are all decisions that we are completely free to make and they very much determine the beliefs and values that we will eventually feel like we simply can’t help.
Jeff G,
I don’t think doubting the gospel is nearly as frequent or as large a problem as doubting the church and/or it’s leaders. I do agree that doubt is not something that passively happens to us, thinking is required.
the issue for a lot of doubters, Jeff G, is that you can’t really “control” the sorts of things you find on the internets, and you can’t control what people actually did in history.. The church and apologists may try to control the message or spin things around, but it just doesn’t work.
So unless we are to try to stop engaging online, etc., then the decisions that we are “completely free to make” are going to lead to some surprises.
As we have discussed as well, even on questions of differing values, since people live *in society*, we live with the values of the dominant society every day (in such a way that it’s difficult to say where dominant society values end and peculiar Mormon values begin…I mean, even to say, “Mormonism is conservative, authoritarian, etc., and outside society is liberal, critical, etc.,” misses the possibility that part of the conservatism or authority-driven focus of Mormonism could just be a grafting of secular political conservatism into Mormonism that misses the mark). So, the problem is not just about the internet — unless Mormons want to cloister themselves away from the communities in which they live, work, go to school, then we will inevitably be exposed to other value systems.
Jeff G,
I think there is some truth in what you are saying, but it comes at the question from what many would see as a TBM way.
Example, what if someone reads the essays the church as put out and this puts their faith in a tailspin.
And this begs the question if some non-church sources are actually are truths covered up (i.e. reading Rough Stone Rolling).
JeffG, from the perspective of the person in a faith crisis, they did not fall in love with someone else. They discovered that the person they are in love with lied to them, or isn’t who he said he was. Sure, if they had never checked their spouse’s text messages, or tried to call them at the office when they said they were staying late, or hired a detective to follow them, they might still be in love. So in a sense they did make decisions to follow the signs that led to them falling out of love.
Jeff G,
I appreciate your comment no. 19.
Interesting post. I was thinking just yesterday that my problem with having a robust testimony isn’t because I’m not sure about things, but because I am pretty sure about some things. I wonder how many people who we label as doubters are really people who just disbelieve enough to put them in a tough position.
Jeff G, I agree that often people can become dissatisfied with the church because they choose to be involved in communities that constantly criticize the church. However, there are plenty of items in church history that can be disturbing to someone who cares about history. You don’t need to go outside church approved resources to find information that can strike you as “not quite right.” Leaders are human, and they were figuring out stuff line upon line like the rest of us. Sometimes when you ask strong, faithful members to help you understand, *their* responses can be even more disturbing than the original issue.
Hawk (ALC)–
Thank you for a lucid and dispassionate post that encourages us to be precise in how we discuss and describe questions/issues/ contradictions. “Doubt” is a loaded term within this subculture (apparently as is “so-called”). Those of us who express misgivings, questions (not to mention disbelief) are regarded as Lot’s wife. I chose to avoid being a stumbling-block (per Paul’s advice) and secretly play on the safe side of Pascal’s wager.
BTW, I’ve been inactive so long I had never heard the song, “Follow the Prophet” until listening to it a few moments ago on YouTube. “Spooky” was a generous-spirited description.
Once again, I cannot abide this nonsense.
SCIENCE RULES!!!!!!!!!
Jeff G
I couldn’t disagree more. You sound like you are promoting the idea that people should jut stubbornly refuse to think outside of their current belief system. If Joseph Smith had done that, where would we be?
If everyone in the world followed your advice, where would we be?
Stuck in the stone ages, that’s where, because questioning the status quo would be wrong, following your advice just leads to believing whatever your parents believe and never changing.
Doubts lead to questions which lead to improvements.
In other words, doubt leads to progress.
If doubts lead you to find something that resonates better with you, that is a positive.
If doubts lead you to question your beliefs, which leads you to digging deeper or praying hard and getting answers, then you will more firmly believe the thing you were doubting in the first place. That is also a positive.
If someone truly had no doubts, then they firmly believe. But how do you get there without doubting first? Why would anyone struggle to attain a testimony if they don’t have doubts motivating them to get the answers?
Doubting and questioning lead to progress. Inside and outside of the church.
Does a child learning to walk and talk struggle with doubt because they fall or are not able to talk like their mother or dad?
I don’t think little children doubt. They are acting on an inner drive.
Adults who have an abundance of faith may have something in common with little children. The faithful are acting on an inner drive that motivates them.
Others who don’t have an abundance of faith observe them and may conclude they are irrational. Some times the faithful suspend “rational thought” because it is natural and therefore more comfortable for them to rely on their faith.
Some who read this will immediately twist the meaning an apply it in a negative way. Others will understand what I’ve written and will recognize my meaning.
Faith enables miracles, whereas doubt hinders miracles.
Those who have faith experience a flow of Spiritual manifestations that increase faith, while those who doubt have a trickle or no manifestations of Spirit.
Do you try and sound super self-righteous, or is it just a natural gift?
Sam: “the Church has a regrettable history of blindly distrusting science” That, and honestly, when I’ve been curmudgeonly, particularly in public speaking, I often regret it later. I assume Pres. Monson’s no different. Plus, he’s speaking to a worldwide church, many of whom will misinterpret his words not as contra-pseudo-science, but contra any science they don’t understand (and really either interpretation is supported by the text). Depending on the individual, that’s a lot of baby in the bathwater.
Jared is right. Children don’t doubt. They belief what their parents tell them. That is why there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, 1.2 billion Catholics and 1 billion Hindus in the world. Oh, yeah, and 15 million Mormons. They believe what their parents tell them. Truth is irrelevant. What mommy and daddy believe matters. That changes more and more as we grow up and realize they were wrong about a lot of things, only people doing their best.
Brian-
Each person has the option of seeing the world around us as we choose. Your point of view is your choice. I hope it is working out for you.
hawkgrrrl-
“Regrettable history”, please be more specific.
Jared: First of all, if you read through the threads, that phrase was Sam’s, not mine. I was just responding to him. But I obviously agree that instances where we have been vocally on the wrong side of science make us look bad. Anti-science comments make us look very silly, and of course scientific speculation doesn’t do us any favors either (BY’s missionaries on the moon).
For a few examples:
– anti-evolution comments (JFS, Pres Packer, lds.org – despite the fact that BYU teaches evolution)
– young earth creationism, speculation that dinosaur bones were not indigenous to this planet (BRM, Skousen, some CES manuals)
– a joke mocking and mischaracterizing the Big Bang theory (E. Nelson in 2012 GC getting a big laugh from the audience, and pushing my science-loving son further out of the church)
– E. Packer’s little factories talk that contradicts science in its explanation of physical side effects of male masturbation
– Several church leaders are on record that being gay is a choice (as well as implying it is somehow contagious through social contact), also not supported by scientific research
It’s regrettable when we make ill-informed comments that make us look foolish and ignorant, but given the stance of the 14 Fundamentals, apparently you don’t have to know what you are talking about to opine on any subject and you have to be believed once you sit in one of the big chairs. That’s what I would call a regrettable history of blindly distrusting science.
Not to mention almost every church president until McKay is on record insisting that man has been on earth 6,000 years. Since McKay they just don’t talk about it. Who knows what they believe.
#39 – Cite references, else be quiet. If they believed Archbishop’s Ussher’s chronology which suggested an Earth, and therefore human history, limited to 6000 years, it’s b/c they’d been brought up with that dogma, and our Dear Lord saw fit to not give them a history lesson at the time. And even if the Earth is considerably older than that (which I’m sure it is), if what they said was that man has been on the Earth for 6000 years, they are telling the truth…from a certain point of view.
“Cite references, else be quiet.”
Trust me. Go with the force on this one.
#40 – But the “light” or the “dark” side? I’ll go with the one that offers cookies!
The trouble with citing what (very)past presidents or other GAs believed is that we have but snippets and hearsay of most of their ‘off-hand’ remarks. Even BY’s ‘discourses’ were compiled years after the old boy had passed on, most transcriptions of what his sons (several served at various times as his secretary, this at a time when secretarial work was predominantly male as women were rarely afforded the necessary education) had taken down. I’d daresay that the recording and editing of, say, Gordon B. Hinckley’s talks is far better than his 19th-century predecessors. However, as much as I revered in the day Pres. Hinckley, as gentle, kindliest, and God-fearing a man as ever served at the helm of the LDS Church, at some point we’ll be a few Presidents down the line and will not get particularly worked up over what dear Gordon said as we’ll have a LIVING prophet to guide us in THOSE latter days. And Gordon will have had his own ideas to which he was perfectly entitled; some of which we may smile and remark inwardly, “how quaint”.
SO WHAT if Joseph Smith believed that there was intelligent life on the moon? Though a prophet, he was a man, and could have opinions based on what he THOUGHT he knew. Many suppose that he had all manners of knowledge just thrust upon him. This is likely not so, as since he started out his prophetic career as a young man, there was a great deal for him to learn on the way. Imagine what he’d might have known and been able to reveal had he lived a normal life span.
#37 Hawkgrrrl-
Thanks for your response to my question.
That’s a pretty short list. And that is my point. If someone were to take all the comments made by GA that you would consider regrettable from Joseph Smith on, I think the list would be short. In other words, I think the GA as a whole have been well educated and in touch with the scientific thinking of their day.
Joseph Smith and those of his day reported finding records that apparently were with the Chandler mommies that referred to some interesting information on the age of the earth and the concept of an eternity–from eternity to eternity is a very astounding concept for their day. They used a number, 2,555,000,000 years to describe the eternity that Christ is Savior of.
Then the teaching about worlds without number was well ahead of their time.
Just saying, if anyone has something to contradict what I provided here, I’d appreciate it.
I think LDS have a good record when it comes to science. I suggest that whoever used the term regrettable needs to rethink their assertion.
“Out of thee [Bethlehem Ephratah] shall come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” the Lord said through that ancient prophet. (Micah 5:2.) Then, in an interpolative explanation of what is meant by “from eternity.” or “from everlasting.” Brother Phelps says. “And that eternity [the one during which Christ’s doings have been known], agreeable to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system [not this world], almost two thousand five hundred and fifty-five millions of years.” (Times and Seasons 5:758.) That is to say, the papyrus from which the Prophet Joseph translated the Book of Abraham, to whom the Lord gave a knowledge of his infinite creations, also contained this expression relative to what apparently is the universe in which we live, which universe has been created by the Father through the instrumentality of the Son. The time mentioned has no reference, as some have falsely supposed, to the period of this earth’s existence.
Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, FOOTNOTES, p.32-33
Douglas, your response is exactly why I don’t bother to spend the time to cite references. It’s not going to convince anyone either way. I know the research I’ve done. I almost always post from my phone so I rarely post long, involved thoughts. I do this for fun. I’m not doing a term paper and I’m just chiming in tidbits, not fully footnoted thoughts, although I appreciate those who do.
For believers, there is an explanation (no matter how flimsy 🙂 ) for everything. I get that. And I am totally in favor of believers!! I admire their actions for their beliefs. It’s the “knowers” who insist they really know and cite the weaknesses or failings of others as to why they don’t know as well that get under my skin.
Jared,
I don’t think the church could have a WORSE record when it comes to science. Hawk just gave a few examples, not a comprehensive list. But just one, evolution, is BIG ENOUGH to say the church certainly does not have a good record when it comes to science.
The church is DEAD WRONG about evolution, and always has been.
Eventually, the church will say, oh, isn’t god clever, yes, he is even cleverer than we thought, he USED natural selection to create all these wonderful diverse species. Isn’t god great?!?!? I will laugh, and you will think, isn’t it wonderful to have prophets who can reveal to us things that Charles Darwin taught in the 1850s.
The church loves to shout about science when they think science has confirmed something the church teaches, but when science contradicts the gospel, then science is a joke. You can’t have it both ways.
Great example: The church was DEAD WRONG about the origin of Native Americans, so they stopped talking about how the gospel was blooming like the rose in all the lands once inhabited by the lamanites. This was extremely common in every Ensign an din every General Conference. Now, they never say that anymore. Why? Because science proved it not to be true. There are countless examples. When science proves the church wrong, the church eventually concedes and congratulates god on being so clever.
Same as the Catholic Church with whether the earth was the center of the universe. At first, the church punished those who believed it, and then, eventually, accepted the scientific TRUTH and claimed that’s how god wanted it. LDS church does the same thing, and will continue to do the same thing. Fight it until you can’t win, then concede that’s how god wanted it. Predictable. Obvious.
***the scientific truth being the sun is at the center, of course.
By the way, I love animals, I love biology, I love learning about evolution. I didn’t, though, when I was in high school, because I thought evolution was bunk, like the church taught.
This saddens me greatly, and I’ve seen this loss of enthusiasm towards science happen to young people I know in the church. It is a big deal that the church has issued many statements saying evolution is not only false, but a pernicious teaching. I wish I had been encouraged to pursue biology when I was a teenager, instead of being told that evolution was not true.
Hawkgrrl, you just rock! Love this post and discussion of the definition of doubt.
Since there MUST NEEDS BE opposition in all things, I am unfettered by my doubts. They actually augment my faith—some things I trust and believe in quite strongly, and some things give me pause. There is light in truth–literally. And doubt means you haven’t found light regarding something. It’s darkness because you don’t know if an idea, teaching, principle, or doctrine is truth AND light.
The journey for a truth ends in the light, unless one chooses to refuse to go there. It’s rather easy to let doubt be the destination instead of the journey. All truths need their own journey. Doubt is that journey. Some get stuck and don’t move toward the light at all…..or for long periods of time on a particular journey…..some move
slowly and steadily forward……some trot right along. But doubt’s journey toward light is the marvelous work and wonder of life!
I’ve loved learning that some things I once thought were rock solid truths are not, after all. Though painful for a time, it brought me to greater light.
So I appreciate my doubts because they give me pause to study, seek, ask, and knock. Their journeys are rigorous adventures. And the more truths I find, the more questions I have, and those questions come in all forms—curiosity, skepticism, misunderstanding, and lack of knowledge and comprehension.
Thus, I doubt onward and forth. My doubts are honest and my journeys to light sincere and flexible. As I’ve grown I’ve gained much light. And I’m not afraid of doubt’s darkness because I know the light is at the end of each journey.
It’s all good……
#44 Dexter-
We’ll have to disagree on the, “worst record” point of view you hold.
Church leaders, like scientist, express the best view they have at a given time, but when better information comes along they evolve.
How many times has science while evolving been DEAD WRONG about something?
Just look at one of the preeminent scientist of our day, Stephen Hawking. How many times has he advanced theories they were backed by “proof” and then had to admit he was wrong when better theories were advanced?
It doesn’t appear you have a problem with science evolving, why not allow the same for GA?
It may be that you hold to the view that GA have to be perfect in every way. When they fail your standard of perfection then you lose faith in them. A basic doctrine of the church is fallibility of leaders. Why is that so difficult to believe and understand?
Anymore I check out completely when they start talking about doubts because they never use specific “working examples.” Doubts about what? The existence of God? The existence of Nephites? The existence of angels threatening monogamists with death?
My comments on the criticism post from a few weeks ago answer your question, Jared.
In short, what is the point of having leaders who claim to speak with god (and who teach they shouldn’t be criticized), if they are WRONG just as often, if not more often, than billy bob down the street?
If I can figure out evolution is true, but the church can’t, why should I listen to anything the church has to say?
If I can figure out blacks should be treated as equals before the church can, why should I listen to what the church has to say?
Further, I’ll remove myself from this explanation, if today’s prophet teaches that yesterday’s prophet was wrong, why should I put stock in today’s?
I get that everything and everyone evolves, but don’t you think people who speak with god should be right a little more often than other groups?
That’s a good point, Ellen. It’s a slippery slope. My sister, a very active member and mother of five, just disagrees with some of the things in the Strength of Youth pamphlet. She “doubts” some of the advice there. Is that a big deal? Well, on the one hand, no, it’s just one particular piece of advice. But, if you believe it is inspired, and you doubt that it is good advice, then what will stop you from doubting more major things? I can see it being a big deal, as well, when you look at it that way.
Dexter-
One thing I have learned in the ‘nacle over the years is that those who have a foundation of faith derived from Spiritual experiences are not overwhelmed with the things you’ve mentioned.
For example, evolution. We have many church members who are scientist. A member of the first presidency, Elder Eyring for example. His father, and many others. How is it that they don’t lose their faith?
Another example, the priesthood ban. How is it that any black person would join the church before 1978 or after? What is their reason, how do they stay? The answer is more often than not, Spiritual reasons of one variety or another.
The list can go one. There is obviously something else at work that causes some to lose faith while others maintain faith.
I speak from the position of faith. My faith is a gift and it has expanded to the point now that doubt about the truthfulness of the calling of Joseph Smith and all that follows doesn’t exist for me. Any doubt I deal with is of the kind about being faithful to what I know is true. I hope to endure to the end.
Faith is believing without seeing, right?
I think it’s a huge myth that believing something without evidence is a good thing. I think it’s a bad thing.
If the leaders of the Church had a need for knowledge on nuclear propulsion, they’d likely consider my views well before all save for Elder Richard G. Scott. Now true, I might know more about an eighth-generation GE PWR for an Ohio-Class Submarine than even Elder Scott. However, a great deal of the work he did is WHY the reactor I’m most familiar with exists in the first place. I’d be quite honored if he had the time and inclination to ‘talk shop’ with yours truly. But if he was mistaken, or had simply gotten out of touch, or even a bit ‘forgetful’, that wouldn’t diminish his accomplishments in the nuclear propulsion field, and certainly NOT in any way diminish my estimation of him as a fellow Priesthood holder, or as an Apostle of the Lord. Ergo, Apostle or not, I’d allow that he’s 86 and a ‘hew-mon’ being.
Outstanding post, Hawkgrrrl. Thanks for trying to tease out some of the different things GAs mean when they’re talking about doubts. I hadn’t considered it at all before, but I think you’re spot on in pointing out that they’re often talking about different things.
I doubt the wisdom of including the following quote in the 2015 course of study for RS and PH:
“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home. … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)20
Rigel-
Do you think President Grant believed he was infallible?
#56 – no, Pres. Grant said that the Lord wouldn’t ALLOW the Prophet to lead the Church ‘astray’. Again, hence why the principle of common consent, for the Church collectively can receive revelation, as well as the other members of the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve on down. The counter-measures have long been in place that the salvation of (wo)men is not dependent upon the free agency and/or health of one man.
However, there are many things for which the Lord, in His wisdom, will not impart to even His mouthpiece on Earth. I can only speculate as to why, and mine musings have no greater value than those of others. Common sense would dictate that the Lord wants an advocate, but not a puppet, whom himself must continue to exercise faith and free agency as long as his mortal tenure endures.
Common sense would dictate? LOL
Your description of how god runs the church has nothing to do with common sense. If common sense were involved, there wouldn’t be the need for so many mental gymnastics.
The idea that one should not have faith in church leaders because they are not perfect is wrong headed.
Those who use the imperfections of church leaders to criticize Mormonism need to look at the success the church and church members experience.
By most measures church members enjoy a quality of life that stands out. Utah, especially in past years, when Mormons represented a greater percentage of the states population, impressed those who gather statistics.
Utah stands out in crime, health, education, business, and a myriad of other statistics that measure the well being of a populace. How can this be the case if church leaders can’t be relied on to the extent that the naysayers would have you believe.
The well known phrase, “you shall know them by their fruits” speaks very well for the Mormon church and its members.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Look around world. Consider the fruits of the various countries. Then consider the predominant faith (if faith is allowed by the government).
How does Christianity fair? How do Mormons fair among Christians?
Just few thoughts to consider.
“Do you think President Grant believed he was infallible?”
Actually, no, I do not believe that he did. I believe that the quote came from a casual conversation that involved some light humor and tongue in cheek philosophy for one person to hear for a lesson he, perhaps, needed to hear.
I do not believe in 2015 it is necessary to teach the members of the church to commit wrongful acts because the prophet instructs and God blesses. I don’t believe that conversation was ever really intended to become a teaching pearl for the church as a whole. It makes me wonder what the compilers of the manual were thinking when the nation was recovering from the Boston bombing attack that including such a comment would serve a spiritually meaning purpose to the target audience.
Doubts are a normal part of human life. It is ok to have doubts.Joseph Smith had plenty of them.
Those who say that we can’t have them or attempt to say that we are somehow being disobedient because we have them should stop… President Monson and other GA’s included.
Kristine A., thank you for your comments. Those are the same sort of doubts, disbeliefs that I have as well.
Thanks, Hawkgirl, for the post.
However, I have to say that I personally tried your advice on bearing testimony using the honest terms such as I believe, I hope, etc before, and I had several people come up to me afterwards and actually say to me that “I hope that you will get a testimony soon”, or “I am sorry that you don’t understand the gospel”. So, I feel as if I can no longer say anything! I will no longer bear a testimony publicly.
I will continue to have doubts about some of the teachings of the GA’s.
and I will know that it’s ok!
Sorry about the absense…
Andrew:
“the issue for a lot of doubters, Jeff G, is that you can’t really “control” the sorts of things you find on the internets, and you can’t control what people actually did in history..”
This is exactly what the cheating spouse would say. “I could ‘control’ what coworkers I had, etc.”
Joel:
“JeffG, from the perspective of the person in a faith crisis, they did not fall in love with someone else. They discovered that the person they are in love with lied to them, or isn’t who he said he was.”
This is a very unreflexive way of framing things in which – again – the person who is experiencing the crisis does not own up to their own decisions and actions. The point I was making is that it is never a choice between church and no-church, but rather a question of whether they will choose to leverage the church against the world or the world against the church. These two groups define what counts as a proper question and a justified answer to any such question in very different ways. What you’re trying to do is equate the questions and answers of the world with being “natural” or in some sense “inevitable” such that the person in crisis must either choose truth (according to the ‘natural’ standards of the world) vs lies (again, according to the ‘natural’ standards of the world). The whole point of the relationship analogy is that the process by which we choose one set of standards over the other involves so many freely made choices that we are fully responsible for.
Mary Ann:
“However, there are plenty of items in church history that can be disturbing to someone who cares about history. ”
I absolutely agree. The point is, however, that they are disturbing when measured against some standard, and the groups that we actively choose to associate and identify with reinforce that standard. So many people – even in this thread – pretend that the standards we are taught by the world (in a history department, for example) just are the real and/or natural ones against which the church ought to be judged and interpreted. The very act of interpreting that standard as “natural” does two things: first, it blurs if not erases the difference between our thoughts/ways and God’s ways, and second, it totally frees each person from the sense of responsibility that they ought to feel when it comes to their own beliefs and convictions.
Dexter:
“You sound like you are promoting the idea that people should jut stubbornly refuse to think outside of their current belief system. If Joseph Smith had done that, where would we be?”
That’s a joke, right? Why is taking responsibility for the choices we make in our own beliefs, convictions and associations amount to anything like this?
“doubt leads to progress”
I must have missed that scripture – although I’ve heard it claimed many, many times by philosophers. All the one’s I’ve read condemn doubts as being a sin for which we are accountable. But if you choose to judge and correct prophets according to the words of philosophers rather than the other way around , then that is your choice to make. Let’s just not pretend that this isn’t precisely the choice that is being actively made.
Jared,
Utah also leads in many statistics that provide evidence against your conclusions.
Also, no one said church leaders have to be perfect. Take your straw man arguments elsewhere. Church leaders are wrong often enough that doubting they speak for god is a perfectly logical position to have.
Jeff G,
What is with the obsession to comparing everything to a cheating spouse?
I’m sure you did miss that scripture, because it is NOT a scripture. I would never quote a scripture to make a logical point.
You act like we have to choose everything. Why? How is that beneficial? How can someone come to the truth if they follow your advice? You suggest people choose what to believe, then find the evidence they need to support that choice. (I sure hope you’re not a cop, choosing who is guilty and then making everything fit into that theory). That is disgusting and repulsive. The truth should be sought with an OPEN MIND. That means doubts will be everywhere.
What happened to the guy that was singing so loudly the praises of science?
Science doesn’t progress by misrepresentation (I act *as if* I were saying such and such), moral indignation (disgusting and repulsive), rhetorical questions (the benefits of advice that I never actually gave) or moral cliches (OPEN MIND). And how in the world is “doubt leads to progress” a logical point which the scriptures have no bearing on whatsoever? I’m all for science and clear reasoning so long as it doesn’t contradict the gospel, but your comment doesn’t seem to be science, clear reasoning, or gospel. I’m thus left to wonder why anybody should believe any of it?
Jeff, what are you talking about?
I never stopped praising science.
Science contradicts the gospel all the time. So to say you are for science as long as it doesn’t contradict the gospel just means you love the gospel. Good for you. Congratulations. You can have it.