This past Sunday Elder and Sister Renlund participated in a devotional for young single adults (ages 18-30) discussing faith and doubt. Social media and Reddit are alight with the flames of controversy due to some of the language used by the Renlunds to differentiate between questions and doubts; that they suggest doubters seek information only from approved sources; and their equating the LDS Church with a boat into which a drowning man finds help and sustenance, only to see imperfections in the boat, jump out, and probably die from sharks.
This stuff is old hat at this point, isn’t it? I’m not at all surprised that yet another LDS leader suggested those experiencing a changing faith are somehow deficient, insincere, “snake-oil salesmen”, or duped. These are the expected behaviors of an organization which lacks the humility, honesty, and vulnerability to provide adequate pastoral care to those experiencing something critical to the development of a mature faith firmly rooted in God: doubt.
St. John of the Cross, a 16th century Spanish mystic, wrote at length about the “dark night of the soul”, the spiritual crisis one experiences as a key component of one’s journey toward union with God. This dark night spoken of by St. John of the Cross is the death of certainty, self, and all of creation. The loss of certainty can be excruciating; however, it is critical in the journey to union with God, for we naturally come before God carrying biases and certainties about how things should function. These preconceived notions frequently blind us to how God may be speaking to us. They hem God in, so to speak, and must be wiped away in order for us to experience the unmediated love God has for us. It is through this “dark night of the soul” that our biases are stripped away; we no longer rely upon flawed men to mediate our interaction with the Divine. We no longer rely upon an institution, with all of the warts that come of human interaction, and learn to stand on the solid ground of God’s love for us. We learn to stand before God, naked and as a child, stripped of our certainties and hubris, simply open to receiving God’s love. And we learn to let that love shape us.
The problem here isn’t the crisis of faith many members experience, but rather a loss of institutional credibility, and it won’t be regained by telling people to “stay in the boat”, or by demonizing doubt. Doubt isn’t a sign of weakness, but of courage. Those willing to leave the comfort of their bed and step into the dark night, “with no other light or guide than the one that burned in [their] heart”, are brave. It takes faith and courage to take steps when one cannot fully see the path ahead, and faith, in the true sense of the word (i.e., trust), can only be forged alongside doubt.
Helping those who walk in this dark night is the very purpose of Christ’s church – not to provide a set of dogmas to cling to, but rather the spiritual formation and tools to aid in one’s journey to union with God. The sacraments of baptism and Eucharist, along with prayer and communal support, become vehicles for God’s grace to help those in the dark night. The church is a hospital for sinners and those struggling, not a museum of saints. When the church is made into an idol and weaponized against those struggling in doubt, the church has failed in its mission. The way a church responds to doubters is a telltale sign of whether a church is spiritually mature enough to offer tools and help along the journey to union with God.
In short, doubt is a necessary signpost along one’s spiritual journey. It is a “dark night of the soul” because one is letting go of all certainty, which can be terrifying. All must go: ego, bias – all truth claims must be examined. This process can be short or long – we don’t get to control it – and frequently produces fear, doubt, the pain of lost certainty, and even anger; however, with the help of pastoral care geared toward spiritual formation, it can produce humility, love, and a more empathetic disciple at one with God. LDS leaders should embrace the journey and support those walking in the dark night, offering pastoral care commensurate with the struggle. That they consistently fail to do so says more about them than it does those walking in that dark night of the soul.
Wheat & Tares 
Amen!
Elder Renlund,
What if the “doubter” was a young boy named Joseph Smith who decided to listen to his church leaders and stay in the “boat” instead of looking elsewhere for answers to his questions?
The more I hear this type of response, the more it propels me away from the church. It sounds like an institution trying to save itself rather than a “hospital for sinners”. We need to be real, admit we don’t have all the answers and we don’t always get it right. Heck, we don’t even know all the questions yet.
There was my faith crisis, beginning on a specific night when I was 20. That was pretty much the most awful and traumatized I’d ever felt in my life. But then, a few months later there was this experience. With tears in my eyes, I allowed myself to admit the firm belief was gone. But in its place was this sense of possibility, almost limitless, which I had never felt before. Life did not become carefree. However, a new sense of internal honesty, a healthy respect for my well-founded worries, and that sense of possibility for new truth came as real and profound as any spiritual experience I’d ever had.
What I would say, not by way of disagreement, is that anecdotally I am aware of many within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are making strides in cultivating the healthy and purposeful doubt you describe. They tend to be local leaders, men and women. Some would suggest Elder Uchtdorf makes real efforts to cultivate a more grounded, practical approach to spiritual formation. Though, I’m not aware of the term “spiritual formation” being common among devout members of the restored Church. To them, it may even sound foreign and lack an obvious meaning. It did to me when I first started hearing it.
Imagine people living in mixed faith marriages listening to Elder Renlund. Did Renlund’s talk help strengthen their marriages or instead put a wedge between them? One can extrapolate that answer to determine what effect his sentiments, if taken seriously, will have on body of the church.
Yes, thank you for that corrective comment, Jake. There are many within the LDS Church who are doing this well, including many here, and in various places within the LDS Church. No organization has a monopoly on good pastoral care and spiritual development. However, the LDS Church institutionally does a poor job generally creating an environment conducive to the “second half of life”. The formal processes for spiritual formation are poor indeed at developing people whose authority and world view are shaped by the love of God rather than the dogmas of the institution. And it is talks like that of the Renlunds which do so much damage.
Thank you for writing this! You are so right. When I encountered questions a few years ago — when I was in the throes of a feminist crisis — I would have LOVED to have found “approved” sources that answered my questions about the role of women in God’s kingdom. But, all I got was this “keep reading your scriptures” (which I HAD been reading and knew didn’t have the answers I needed) and “maybe we don’t need to know that right now.” That was not enough. My crisis was such that I could not move forward without answers. So I went directly to the source, and I was helped (by “god”) to find outside sources that answered my questions. They weren’t anti-Mormon sources, but they did lead me away from a literal belief in the Mormon narrative. What else could I do? “Approved” sources had nothing for me. I would have been stuck/stagnant — maybe “damned” — without answers.
The thing that frustrates me about this is that many members who encounter such questions are now being inoculated against seeking, and consequently they will suffer longer.
Cody, I’d agree that what’s going on is a crisis of institutional credibility more than an epidemic of individual doubt. I suspect at least some in the senior leadership sense this, with the Essays and the Joseph Smith Papers Project and even attempts to address faith and doubt issues over the pulpit being attempts to bolster that waning credibility. But re-establishing credibility once it is compromised is a real challenge.
Example: Elder Renlund gave the reasonable counsel to seek information about issues from reliable and trustworthy sources (something like that). He assumes in the talk that approved LDS sources are the same as the reliable and trustworthy sources he is recommending, but many people have learned from experience that LDS sources omit relevant information, misrepresent some of what is provided, and continue to present as factual or reliable material that is often dated or has been superceded by better scholarship. Too often, scholarly and non-LDS sources are more reliable and trustworthy than LDS sources. Motes and beams. They need to work on their own institutional beam problem before lecturing doubters on their mote problem.
At the same time, it’s not like an apostle is ever going to give a talk singing the praises of doubt over faith or hold forth doubters as examples to be followed rather than the faithful in-church-every-Sunday believers who make the Church run at the local level. Pastoral support for questioners and doubters within the LDS Church will come (if at all) through pastoral channels, not in public talks to the general membership.
The way I see it is it’s the conflict between what hawkgrrrl yesterday called Purity of Purpose and Diversity of Thought played out at the highest level.. And the Renlunds having gotten caught on the fault line pushing down on the Diversity of Thought faction when it’s no longer so marginal that it’s subject to intimidation or bromides.
I think what this also illustrates the big mistake Nelson made in choosing his First Presidency. From my perspective among The Fifteen, as previously constituted, it was the hard liners — the Purity of Purpose contingent — against the Diversity of Thought contingent (of one) with moderates in the middle. Nelson observed that — from the isolated vantage point the Brethren retreated to long ago — and thought he would silence dissent by banishing Uchtdorf to the margins unaware that his moderating influence gave hope and comfort to the Diversity of Thought folks among the faithful. …who were not nearly as vulnerable.
With Uchtdorf chastened, the whole governing body of the church must have thought or hoped their way had been cleared, everyone in the wards had taken their vitamins — as ordered — the bone had been tossed in the re-design of the temple ceremonies, and it was time to tidy up. I think that’s what the Renlunds where sent out to do and what they thought they’d be able to do pretty neatly.
Thank you for this. Having experienced that dark night of the soul I eventually came to realize that despite the pain that comes with it there is also such a profound growth that the institutional church is ill-equipped to support. In talking about the ‘second half of life’ Richard Rohr stated that “If you try to assert wisdom before people have themselves walked it, be prepared for much resistance, denial, push-back, and verbal debate.”
I believe Elder Uchtdorf’s ‘demotion’ puts this into light on a big stage. Here we have someone who is clearly more ‘mature’ in his spirituality under the direction of a man who is more of a black and white thinker. And when I see everyone get so excited about policy changes, while the actual spiritual message is so lacking, it’s hard not to get irritated.
But ultimately our spiritual growth is our own to cultivate. The church can be a tool to help with that, but when someone hands you a spoon when you need a rake, it’s time to check out the tool shed yourself.
Dave B: Can you imagine the good that would come from an apostle, in a devotional like this, saying something like, “Yes, there are quite a few difficult issues. I’d like to discuss some of them and the faith journey generally. Here are some of the issues that have caused me personal doubt over the years and how I have wrestled with them…”? Imagine the pastoral tone set by such a humble and empathetic type of approach.
Cody, I think that talk would come from a Seventy, not an Apostle. In particular, a Seventy who had no interest whatsoever in ever being considered for an apostle’s seat.
Another lesson to be learned from a faith journey is there is no set destination. For some, as faith changes, a belief in God and the supernatural persists even as that view looks very different. For others, that belief may wane and disappear and perhaps later return, or even never return at all.
There is no “right” place to be. For all, the goal should be personal and spiritual growth and development, even for those who resist the idea of a spirit, there can still be a unifying idea of spirituality that encompasses interpersonal connection, unity, and recognizes and embracing beauty where it is found. That beauty can be found in uniting with other believers to partake of communion and sing hymns of praise, to enjoy the wonders of nature, moving art, meaningful service, or a host of other encounters.
The end goal is not to believe in anything specific but to find oneself and to find meaning and joy in that journey. For some that path can continue within the LDS tradition. For others, they feel pulled to leave for a time or maybe forever. Walking with integrity and honesty is the most important thing. At least that has been my experience.
“Ubi dubium ibi libertas” – Latin Proverb (Where there is doubt, there is freedom.)
Hi Cody, Thanks for the telling us of St. John of the Cross and his words.
Sadly a faith crisis is like miles 18-20 in a marathon where after your whole run was done perfectly, everything falls apart and can leave you crawling on the ground as you’ve hit the wall.
There’s a perfectly good reason for it and it’s to be expected. To bypass it, you have to talk to people that have been through it and experts they’ll explain proper nutrition steps to take.
But even with proper nutrition, at some point in the run, you hit super lows and that’s also to be expected.
We need to be teaching that at some point you will run into your doubts, you will feel derailed, and your faith will be tested (more than just quoting Ether’s “after the trial of your faith”. We need to teach that it’s a normal part of the race and not a sign of weakness.
Here is what I don’t understand. Elder Renlund was a distinguished physician, specializing in organ transplants. I was under the impression that such a vocation required a considerable amount of critical thinking skill and ability to innovate beyond convention, and willingness to occasionally challenge the status quo. Sister Renlund is likewise accomplished, with a successful law career under her belt–what’s more, when she embarked on that career path, she had to defy the prevailing counsel of Church leaders at the time (regarding women working outside the home and pursuing professional education/careers) and probably had to endure a lot of judgement from pious members and leaders. As a couple, they struggled with infertility. They spent some years living in Africa, regularly interacting with some of the most impoverished Church members in the world. So, with that background, why do they project a very non-progressive worldview? Why is their advice to doubters consist of vapid platitudes that amount to “just shut up, don’t ask questions and do what you’re told”? Why does he continue to cling to this flawed analogy of a boat? The Renlunds are better than this, and their audience deserves better from them.
When I read these comments and don’t mistake me they make sense to me, but what I see missing here is an empathy and realization that this is a growing church with people in all stages of growth in the gospel. What I am saying is it seems that too often the thoughts on this website seem to be trying to make us doubt our leaders, those apostles that are called of God. They have to determine the audience they are speaking to and seek those things that will be useful to the majority of the crowd they are speaking too. Just because some of us seek more and think we are beyond what they are doing does not give us licences to set ourselves up to be Judge of how things are handled by our leaders. that shows that you do doubt the Lord. You say there is no right place to be. Well trying to tell the Lord how to run his church instead of asking him to fill your heart with love definitely is not the right place to be. The right place to be is showing love to all people and accepting what the apostles and prophets do for the church. For me I prefer to always be seeking more but not be criticizing the leaders and what they do. I feel very sure that our leaders are doing what the Lord feels is best for all people. That is the right place to be.
A couple of things on doubt.
It can mean two things:
1) Doubt in one’s ability to overcome adversity, as in saying, “I doubt I will be able to find a job” after losing one’s job. This is the bad kind of doubt. We should have courage and believe in ourselves.
2) Doubt about the truthfulness of a particular truth claim, as in, “I doubt that we reincarnate after we die.” This kind of doubt is not linked to self-esteem or one’s ability to overcome adversity.
What I often hear church leaders and members doing is conflate the two meanings of doubt. They often claim that because you doubt the truthfulness of a particular teaching such as the veracity of the Book of Abraham that you could find yourself in the depths of despair. Even Terryl Givens’s book The Crucible of Doubt conflates meanings 1 and 2. Doubt in a particular truth claim about history or nature shouldn’t directly cause low self-esteem. What can cause this is the reaction of other believers to you because of this.
Also it should be noted that we all doubt some religious truth claim or another. By accepting Mormonism you implicitly doubt Trinitarianism and Muhammad being God’s final prophet.
Amazing to me that, even though it was addressed, so many critics of this devotional simply ignore the difference between inquiry and doubt. It makes sense given the imprecision of language: a quick jaunt over to dictionary.com gives me the following two definitions for doubt as a noun:
1. a feeling of uncertainty about the truth, reality, or nature of something.
2. distrust
I feel like critics of the Renlunds are using doubt(1), while the Renlunds were discussing doubt(2)..
John W,
I wish I had refreshed before I posted. To me, from a perspective of truths, rather than ability, the “bad” doubt is a thing that causes you to go looking for the negative. It’s a kind of pessimism about what you see and hear. This is a desirable trait in a lawyer, but perhaps not one that should be cultivated in one’s personal life. The “good” or “neutral” doubt is confusion or a noting of things that don’t seem to fit. Meeting that kind of doubt with optimism and sincere inquiry leads to a strengthening of faith.
How can there be doubt without inquiry? That’s the problem. People have questions. They investigate. Their doubts are often complicated or confirmed. Then they arrive at doubt and sometimes distrust also results. Not insignificantly in many cases because of how they’re treated and mischaracterized by their genuine and sincere concerns.
Meanwhile, if the church isn’t going to grapple with the source of this doubt — this large Whack-a-Mole field — and come up with convincing and compelling wisdom that resolves them, then what are thinking people left to do but doubt.
Renlund and the church have chosen the path of blaming the victims.
Dsc, there are beliefs and ideas, both religious and areligious, that we should be rightly pessimistic about. For many beliefs have real-world consequences and we find ourselves in environments where the relevance of one religious belief or another is pushed on us and upon which we are forced to take a position on that belief and either shape our lives around it or not.
As an example suppose you were born a female into the Kingston Clan, a polygamous cult in northern Utah and because of a teaching that the Kingston family contained the pure blood of Christ that must not be tainted by outside blood, you must marry your uncle or half-brother at the age of 17 and then have one child per year until you could no longer naturally reproduce (this is truly what they do in the clan, by the way). Might you think expressing full-on doubt about the legitimacy and health of that practice might be reasonable?
It is irresponsible to take the stance that religion is off limits for criticism and doubt and that we must always be willing to suspend judgment and draw tentative conclusions about different religions’ truth claims that might be unfavorable to that religion. Of course you may not have ever thought about the religious truth claim that the Kingston Clan contains the pure blood of Christ simply because you are not surrounded by a community of Kingston Clan members and they are not part of your family and friends network. But you are surrounded by believers in the LDS Church who have and are routinely forcing LDS Chruch truth claims into relevance and asking you to shape your life around these, and give thousands of dollars a year to the cause, and hundreds of hours of your time. And what you wrote suggests that it is wrong to voice open doubt and concern about numerous truth claims even on the grounds of them being unlikely, improbable, or implausible.
Doubting truth claims is a natural part of life that has nothing to do with doubting one’s own ability. By being a believing LDS person it is likely that if your friends and family starting pushing the relevance of the doctrine of the Trinity upon you, that you would express open doubt.
@Dsc: Your comment about the two types of doubt got me thinking…even if the Renlunds were speaking only about doubt as a synonym for distrust, their talk was problematic, especially their whack-a-mole analogy. Many who go through a faith crisis have at some point lost trust in the LDS Church leaders and/or organization due to a past of obfuscation, denial, cover-ups, whitewashing, etc. That’s why this is primarily a credibility problem.
Consider if you were an investor in Bernie Madoff’s scheme. You trusted him and entrusted a large amount of your retirement to him. At some point you learn a couple of concerning things so you ask Bernie about them. He assures you those things are lies invented to deceive you from your riches, which will take trust to achieve. So you write them off. However, some time later you are given a financial report from someone – the real one, and it is materially different from the one Bernie had provided to you. You decide to dive into the numbers and uncover problem after problem. You take each of those problems to Bernie and he says your playing whack-a-mole. Quit worrying about all of these issues. Have you seen your returns? Quit having doubts. Be quiet about them. Don’t listen to the naysayers and focus only on the financial statements he provides you. This is how trust and credibility are eroded. It would cause any right-thinking person to dive into the problems, take them seriously, and to doubt not only the truth of Bernie’s claims, but also Bernie himself. One could point to specific issues and have Bernie apologists wave them away, but the sum total of the problems causes distrust.
John W
“And what you wrote suggests that it is wrong to voice open doubt and concern about numerous truth claims even on the grounds of them being unlikely, improbable, or implausible.” I don’t think that’s what I said. What I said was that the “bad” kind of doubt comes from a place of distrust, while the “good” kind of doubt comes from a place of inquiry.
I don’t think the examples of the Kingston Clan and Bernie Madoff hit the point, at least not without starting with the presumption that doubters’ doubts are well-founded. But, again, I don’t think reasonable inquiry and following the facts where they lead is what Elder Renlund is talking about. To provide a counter-example, suppose a mother is considering whether to vaccinate her children. She is surrounded by people who respect science and modern medicine and who have and are routinely forcing scientific claims into relevance and asking you to shape your life around these. However, she read somewhere that vaccines can cause autism, so she isn’t sure whether she should do it. She talks to a doctor, who points out that the one published study that made that claim was retracted. After getting that doubt resolved, she reads that vaccines contain mercury, and she knows that mercury can lead to serious illness. Again, her doctor informs her that it is true that vaccines used to contain mercury, they no longer do, and even when they did, mercury in a vaccine reacts differently in the body than mercury in, say, fish. And so on the mother and her doctor go, back and forth: “Doesn’t the federal government have a program to pay out claims for people hurt by vaccines?” “Yes, but such claims are rare, and while unfortunate, the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.” “But you said vaccines were safe!” “They are, but safe does not mean free of all remote risks.” “Well, I have friends whose kid was vaccinated, and he ended up autistic. I thought you said vaccines don’t cause autism.” “Look, I can’t speak to what your friend went through, but the studies show…”
That’s different than a person, upon seeing a claim that vaccines cause autism, and who is genuinely concerned about doing what is best for her children, gathers the relevant research and asks informed questions of her doctor. Two people can have the same questions and honestly seek answers, but ultimately have very different experiences.
The “whack-a-mole” analogy is not, in my opinion, intended to discourage having many questions, but in treating each question as a single item, superficially addressing one before moving on to superficially address another, and never stopping to take a look at the whole. The “whack-a-mole” doubter is the one who, upon learning for the first time that Joseph Smith had a gun with him when he was killed, questions both the incident and why he did not know that before. Someone helps resolve the issues by explaining that a prophet is no less entitled to self defense and that this has been written about in multiple articles in church newspapers, in History of the Church, missionary film strips, manuals, etc., and so, while it is unfortunate that learning this is a shock, it’s not been hidden. After getting that doubt resolved, the same person reads somewhere that the Book of Mormon mentioned honeybees, and honeybees were not in the New World before Columbus, and so complains about this new doubt. All of that despite the fact that the Book of Mormon contains no mention of New-World honeybees, a fact that could be uncovered by reading the Book of Mormon. It’s not asking the question that’s the problem, it’s the attitude and the method of going about getting answers.
I think DSC is correct in principle. He picks a great example- vaccines.The problem is that the LDS church DOES have an enormous truth problem. It is not a weak people problem. This discussion is flawed because it is trying to stay above the nasty but worn-out reality of the false truth claims.
There is a reason why we have lied about our past. It stinks to high heaven. The problem is not so much about complex doctrines like trinity and the pre-existence. It is not trivial problems about guns and bees, don’t insult me. And it was hidden from 99% of us. It is about sexual predation, counterfeiting money, making up fake revelations, telling millions they are special chosen people (Lamanites) when they are not, unwillingness to correct racism until very late, treating women like children, dividing families during weddings. It is about being the most expensive and at the same time the most crappy church on the field, Like paying for a Mercedes and getting a Skoda. The beat goes on and on. HMS Renlund doesn’t just have a few leaks in the bottom. It is full of poisonous vipers and rats infected with with the plague. The engine never really worked and the sails are in tatters. People don’t drown when they jump ship, most find they can swim and the water is nice. Or they find something better. Ask them.
I will offer for consideration two examples involving vaccines. In the 1950’s polio ran rampant every summer killing thousands of children and crippling even more. Two vaccines were developed but were not tested thoroughly yet . One was administered by eating a sugar cube and was a live but weakened virus. The other was administrated with a needle and was a killed virus. At first it was thought the sugar cube was more effective and would save more lives sooner. But further study showed the needle was just as effective and safer.
But I got the sugar cube and the virus was not weakened enough. I got a mild case of polio. It spared my limbs but it weakened my back and it became crooked to a severe degree. I wore a brace and suffered enormous physical and social pan. Ten years of strenuous physical therapy built my back up to a marginal level so I could live a normal life. For perspective of the price I paid just in exercising alone, my healthy little brother did push-ups and pull-ups with me to help encourage me. He could do over 500 push-ups and over 100 pull-ups by the time he was in high school. I was lucky. I saw the kids a primary children’s hospital who were severely crippled for life or who would soon died,
When I went into the military (they didn’t look at my back very closely), I was required to be vaccinated against Hepatitis B. The vaccine was made from pooled serum of hundreds of homosexual men from San Francisco, many of whom in retrospect had undiagnosed HIV or AIDS. A new DNA vaccine made with harmless pieces of synthetic proteins similar to the virus coat was available. The military commanders forced us to take the old vaccine because they knew it works. Lucky for most (I think almost all) of us, the HIV is fragile and did not survive the vaccine preparation process.But they did not know that.
So what Elder Renlund is asking us in the analogy of these real vaccination events,is to not scrutinize the vaccines and to just accept them with only superficial investigation. After all the sugar cube prevented polio in I guess 99% of the children and only screwed up maybe 1 to 5% of us.. That is far better than our convert retention rate. And the old Hepatits B vaccine never gave anyone AIDS, I think/believe/hope.
What I would like is for Renlund to get up in General Conference and start his talk by saying, “My wife and I gave a devotional in January. I would like to apologize for any remarks that came off as trivializing the struggles of those who doubt.” But I know better. I know the Church doesn’t apologize.
Also, there have been several comments talking about Uchtdorf’s “demotion”. As an alternate theory, can I point out that perhaps Uchtdorf mentioned that he wouldnt mind being released. Perhaps serving with Nelson in the FP was not as appealing as serving with past prophets.
Mike,
Starting with your conclusion sure does ease the burden of making an argument.
The Renlund’s parable of the rescued boater is a dishonest portrayal of an LDS doubter. It’s hard to give the Renlunds the benefit of the doubt that they don’t know this. They invented a straw-man to trivialize concerns and render doubters as superficial. This is simply bearing false witness.
Dsc, your vaccine analogy is really good at pointing out an example of what appears to be a combination of denialism and paranoia, not just simple distrust. You’re trying to make the case that doubters of Mormon truth claims exhibit traits of denialism and cannot be convinced of the truthfulness of the Mormonism no matter how good the responses that the apologists and leaders give appear to be.
The biggest problem with the analogy is that the effectiveness of vaccines at preventing diseases such as polio and smallpox is established overwhelmingly by science and there is no concrete evidence of a link between autism and vaccination. By contrast, the truthfulness of Mormon truth claims has not been established at all by science. Quite the opposite actually. No academics and experts who were not brought up in the Mormon church validates Mormon truth claims as likely or plausible. In fact, it almost appears that whack-a-molism is a trait exhibited more so by proponents of Mormonism than doubters of it. In response to the claim that three Book of Mormon is more likely a fake than a product of ancient Americans, I hear members engage in whack-a-molism on a regular basis. “A farm boy couldn’t possibly have written a text so complex, it contains chiasmus and Hebraisms, Joseph Smith couldn’t habe known about this or that phenomenon.” The couldn’t-have-know-aboutisms can be quite absurd as well. Just the other day I watched a YouTube video of some claiming that Joseph Smith couldn’t have known about guerrilla warfare, when early Americans constantly talked about the guerrilla tactics of Native Americans, not to mention the fact that the early American revolutionaries practiced guerrilla tactics against the British. Routinely, apologists seem to miss the fact that the burden of proof is far greater upon the shoulders of believers making such bold assertions far more than it is the skeptic of such extraordinary claims.
John W,
I see that you have entirely missed the point. Again, your argument rests on the assumption that Mormonism is false. Since that question is far too complex to address in its entirety in the comments section of a niche blog, I won’t even try.
Dsc:.
Rude and insensitive and unoriginal to the end. I gotta love it.
I am not proving or disproving anything. That has already been done. None of the principles I have written about are new and have not been discussed extensively in the last 20 years since the internet has been available. Most have been admitted on official church sources. Do your own homework and have your own faith crisis (or really truth crisis).
I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I have spent over 50 years struggling with these problems. I began as a very zealous and orthodox 7th generation Mormon. You discount a half a century of struggle with a single sentence.keep feeding the rats the ship and see where it leads. If major changes are not made, it will go to hell.
More than half and maybe more than 3/4 of the members of the LDS church do not believe anymore. The reasons are variable but not a few are due to these problems. None of them began with the conclusions. That would be the 99% of people in American and the 99.9% of the rest of the people in the rest of the world who began and ended with the conclusion. You have done nothing to convince them otherwise. The burden of proof is on the orthodox Mormon because the claims are on the surface outrageous. When I was young we Mormons accepted that challenge. Today we circle the wagons and tell stories about leaky boats to keep our few remaining people in them.
This discussion is about Elder Renlund’s unhelpful comments- it is not about the truth claims of the church. Don’t confuse the subject.
“This discussion is about Elder Renlund’s unhelpful comments- it is not about the truth claims of the church. Don’t confuse the subject.”
That is precisely my point, Mike. Your point about Elder Renlund’s talk rests on the Church having a truth problem. “The problem is that the LDS Church does have an enormous truth problem.” You then proceeded to make a bunch of (mostly spurious) references to supposed truth problems.
Dsc, I am not arguing from the assumption that Mormonism is false. I am arguing on the position of what both believers and non-believers seem to be in agreement on: that the truthfulness of the Mormon church can’t be established on modern reason. The typical believer standpoint is that the Mormon church can be known to be true because of feeling the spirit and revelation, which are not considered valid methods of inquiry in modern intellectual circles.
The problem is that you and Renlund are forcing the burden of proof onto the skeptic. The Mormon church’s truth claims are extraordinary. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which unlike for vaccines the Mormon leaders and apologists have yet to provide.
It’s funny that the benefit of vaccines were introduced into this discussion to SUPPORT adherence to church dogma given some of the dubious opposition to vaccines by prominent church leaders in the 19th century.
Brigham Young Jr, who was the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, wrote against vaccinations stating:
“Gentile doctors trying to force Babylon into the people and some of them are willing to disease the blood of our children if they can do so, and they think they are doing God’s service.”
In just the last conference, the current President of the Quorum of the Twelve (and First Counselor in the first Presidency) also diminished the importance of science:
“The methods of science lead us to what we call scientific truth. But “scientific truth” is not the whole of life. Those who do not learn “by study and also by faith” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118) limit their understanding of truth to what they can verify by scientific means. That puts artificial limits on their pursuit of truth.”
He didn’t explicitly cite any particular conflict between science and spiritual truths but he went on to discuss the church’s concept of gender in the eternities which happens to conflict with scientific understanding in the here and now. But we know the church’s eternal concept is correct because… faith on a leader’s inspiration?
About two years ago, I concluded I couldn’t automatically assume statements from church leaders were inspired. There were too many examples, like Brigham Young Jr. above, where their pronouncements had been wrong. I realized that if leaders were wrong in the past that meant they can be wrong going forward. This virtually eliminated my cognizant dissonance with LDS teachings. While I continued to highlight scriptures and talks, I added a new color to highlight items I didn’t believe or considered incorrect. The downside, from the Renlund’s perspective, is I’ve lost my way when I choose not to believe an “ordained seer” like Elder Renlund. So be it. I agree with this portion of the statement they quoted from President Russell M. Nelson “You don’t have to wonder about what is true, you do not have to wonder who you can safely trust, through personal revelation you can receive your own witness…”
John W,
” I am arguing on the position of what both believers and non-believers seem to be in agreement on: that the truthfulness of the Mormon church can’t be established on modern reason.” Then why are you introducing formal rules of reasoning like the burden of proof into the discussion? Elder Renlund was not engaging in an exercise of apologetics. His audience was people who presumably accept the notion that some truths are discovered through personal experience, interaction with the divine, and other vehicles outside the scope of science and reasoning. For me, the spiritual experiences that I’ve had certainly constitute “extraordinary evidence”, although I would never cite that as proof in a formal debate on the veracity of the Church’s truth claims.
Accepting vaccine science requires accepting a host of premises and trusting people. Habitually distrusting people doesn’t get one closer to the truth on that matter. If your only means of accepting truth is through formal reasoning, then I suspect you’re not in Elder Renlund’s target audience.
Dave C,
Why are we citing Brigham Young Jr.? 19th Century vaccines were in fact dangerous. Prior to modern sterilization practices, vaccination routinely caused other diseases, and the administration was compulsory and painful, with lower rates of actual immunization and much higher rates of complications than we see today. More to the point, the Church admonished Latter-day Saints to get their children vaccinated in 1978, again in 1985, and today runs a vaccination program as part of its welfare efforts. So, again, I’m not sure what your point is.
“He didn’t explicitly cite any particular conflict between science and spiritual truths.” So why are you pretending that he did?
Dsc, you seem to be engaging in a bit of whack-a-molism yourself and going off on tangents and responding with non-sequiturs. You haven’t been able to address my central points.
If the truth of Mormonism can be established on reason, as is implicit in your and Renlund’s thinking, then make the case based on evidence, not by placing the burden of disproving Mormonism on the skeptic. If Mormonism can’t be argued on the basis of modern reason, then saying, “I have faith that Mormonism is true in spite of all seeming counterevidence against it” is enough. Why try to engage skepics by employing arguments of modern reason, which you and Renlund are doing? Why bother accusing them of playing whack-a-mole by expressing doubts about the truth claims deemed perfectly reasonable by standards of modern reason and just leave the doubters and skeptics alone?
Also, I have personally heard members of the FLDS church claim that they have had extraordinary spiritual experiences that testified to them that Warren Jeffs, a convicted pedophile, is a true prophet of God. Should I accept that Jeffs is a trustworthy prophet of God with a true message?
Stop trying to say that believing in vaccines and Mormonism are their same thing. Such an argument is obtuse and intellectually dishonest. I accept vaccines because hundreds of thousands of specially trained doctors attest to the effectiveness of vaccines based on empirical research and give vaccines to children every day who don’t contract polio and hepatitis and aren’t developing autism as a result. I don’t accept the validity of vaccines because of some guy claiming to be a prophet who received revelation said so and created a religious tradition around such claims. I don’t accept the validity of vaccines because I grew up in that religious tradition that dictates the validity of vaccines based on tradition. I don’t accept the validity of vaccines because I prayed about it and had some experience that is too sacred to share verifying their validity.
“I’m not sure what your point is.”
I’m sorry. I’m pretty sure most everyone else did.
Dave C,
Since I’m slow, why don’t you explain it for me. Or have “everyone else” (the four people, possibly three other than yourself, who upvoted) explain it for me.
John W,
If I haven’t addressed your central point, it’s because it’s unclear what your central point is. If your point is that it’s impossible to establish the truth of “Mormonism” and/or the truth claims of the Church using reason alone, then I would agree with you. Contrary to your statement that such a claim “is implicit in your and Renlund’s thinking”, I explicitly stated that I believe due to spiritual experiences, and would never cite that in a scientific context, and I would point to Elder Oaks’ statement quoted by Dave C as evidence that Church leaders do not make that claim.
Elder Renlund was addressing Latter-day Saints, who believe in seeking knowledge “by study and also by faith”, so reasoning is a part of knowing truth, but He wasn’t engaging in a Ken Ham/Bill Nye style debate.
“Why bother accusing them of playing whack-a-mole by expressing doubts about the truth claims deemed perfectly reasonable by standards of modern reason and just leave the doubters and skeptics alone?” Again, Elder Renlund was addressing Latter-day Saints, some of which have questions and/or doubts, but have not jettisoned the notion that some truth is not available through reasoning alone. As the vaccine analogy is intended to address, I think Elder Renlund was addressing a certain attitude of doubt that, as the vaccine analogy illustrates, can actually get in the way of knowing truth.
“Should I accept that Jeffs is a trustworthy prophet of God with a true message?” Not if you haven’t received a spiritual witness that he is a true messenger.
“Stop trying to say that believing in vaccines and Mormonism are their same thing.” I never said that any more than you said that being a Latter-day Saint is the same as being in the Kingston clan. To suggest that is what I’m saying ” is obtuse and intellectually dishonest.” I drew an analogy that illustrates that at least a certain brand of doubt can actually get in the way of knowing the truth. I intentionally selected vaccines because (a) people regularly doubt what they are being told about vaccines and (b) we can remove the question of spiritual witness or other forms of learning truth because I think everyone here can agree that vaccines are both safe and beneficial. By drawing an analogy, I’m illustrating a concept, I’m not equating the two things on every facet. This is how analogies work.
Dsc,
It all comes down to the fact that trust is hard-earned and lost much easier. And when the church makes the claims it does, and requires the sacrifices it does, then the need for trust is exponentially raised. And, sadly, there have been active cover-ups over and over again by some of the men we’ve sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, then that trust can be heavily damaged. No amount of explanations or justifications are going to recover it. Just as in any other relationship it needs to be earned.
I, and I would imagine most ‘doubters’, don’t expect perfection, or near-perfection, even from a prophet of God in order to earn that trust. But I do expect integrity.
Whether or not the Renlunds meant to do it, the message came across as trivializing what is in many cases the most painful experience someone in the church will face. And I fear, judging by your comments, that you are dismissing the years and decades that some members have spent in the wrestle of sincere prayer, fasting, and study before they ever gave thought to the idea that they might not believe it.
Dsc,
If you didn’t understand my central points, then let’s recap. My main point that I led with my original comment was that leaders and members often conflate doubt in one’s own ability with doubt in a truth claim about nature or history. Renlund did in his recent talk by comparing someone doubting LDS church truth claims with someone lost at sea. The two have nothing to do with each other. I, like most LDS people I know, doubt that people reincarnate after they die. I don’t feel self-doubt and despair because of it.
Your response: Doubt in the sense of going and looking for the negative is bad.
My response: There many reasons to strongly doubt truth claims, such as the claim that the Kingston blood line is of Christ and must be preserved through incest.
Your response: (Tangential) “Bad” doubt is distrust and “good” doubt is honest inquiry. Vaccine analogy, which is apt and relevant to what I wrote.
My response: Vaccine analogy isn’t quite apt, since doubters of vaccines exhibit paranoia and science denial. Doubting religious claims are quite different since religious truth claims aren’t established on the basis of science. If doubting religious truth claims is paranoid and denialist, that means that we’re all that way, since all of us doubt one religious truth claim or another.
Your response: (Tangential) You’re assuming Mormonism is false.
My response: I reiterate that Mormon truth claims can’t be established on science.
Your response: You continue to try to force the bad analogy of doubting Mormon truth claims and doubting vaccines. You claim that Mormonism can be established on the basis of reason since you had an “extraordinary spiritual experience” that confirmed its truthfulness.
My response: The vaccine analogy doesn’t fly because scientists aren’t claiming that vaccines work on personal revelation, but rigorous study and testing. FLDS people believe Warren Jeffs is true prophet because of claimed extraordinary experiences. You couldn’t possibly accept those claims as true. “Extraordinary spiritual experience” that something is true is not admissible evidence of truth in modern reason circles.
Your response: My central point wasn’t clear (it was). You personally believe Mormonism because of personal experiences (irrelevant). Renlund addressing believing LDS (irrelevant). Then you denied the clear implications of your bad vaccine analogy, and still ignored the fact that vaccines are established on science (not revelatory claims) unlike Mormonism, which isn’t.
My response: People who doubt the truth claims of Mormonism aren’t paranoiacs who deny science, like vaccine deniers. In fact, it is because of science and the scientific method that many are motivated to doubt Mormonism. Renlund’s claim that we shouldn’t doubt doesn’t make any sense since Mormons doubt the truth claims of other religions, such as reincarnation and Warren Jeffs’ prophethood.
John W,
Perhaps I can clear something up for you. You posted your original thought while I was in the midst of posting my first thought on this thread. So my first thought was not a response to yours. After seeing yours, I noted a similarity in our comments, in that they noted different definitions of “doubt”. I expressed more detail regarding my two definitions of doubt. And then you went off on a tangent about religion being off limits for inquiry (which I never said).
At any rate, even your imprecise and slanted summary of our conversation demonstrates that you veered far off what you were responding to. You criticized the vaccine analogy on grounds that had nothing to do with the point of the analogy. I’m not trying to establish that Mormonism is based on science. That’s clearly not the point of the analogy. You want to argue that it isn’t when I’m not claiming that it is.
“People who doubt the truth claims of Mormonism aren’t paranoiacs who deny science, like vaccine deniers.” Again, not the point I was driving at, and not even remotely implied by what I said.
“‘Extraordinary spiritual experience; that something is true is not admissible evidence of truth in modern reason circles.” Cool story, bro. But, like I said, reason alone doesn’t reveal all truth (this statement is irrefutable), and there are even some truths that can be reached but only by methods other than reason (debateable, obviously, but an idea espoused by the vast majority of people).
So, to sum up, you’ve spent an awful lot of time arguing that Mormonism can’t be proved by reason and science, which is a claim I agreed with. You then criticized my vaccine analogy because it doesn’t prove the negative of that argument, which, and I can’t stress this enough, was not even remotely the purpose or plain implication of that analogy, and in no way affects the point that I was making, which was that two people can have the same questions and concerns, and the act of “doubting” can, if done in a way that emphasizes more distrust than truth-seeking, actually drive one further from the truth.
Another irony, eh, eh.
The term inoculation has been tossed around in the context of doubting truth claims. The idea is that horrible things we know from childhood don’t bother us as much as when we find out about them as adults. Another version is that slowly learning disturbing history from sources who also love and support us is less disturbing. I read of a survey many years ago that children of subscribers to Sunstone magazine had higher activity rates in the church than children of subscribers to the Ensign, on average. . Might be other factors in play on this but it illustrates the point..Somehow vaccinations have been twisted into this discussion. (I plead guilty as charged.)
Does this sort of inoculation actually work on a large scale? Apparently not- judging by Elder Renlund’s remarks.
Elder Renlund is hardly one generation removed from Sweden. Anybody remember Hans Mattss0n, the mass apostasy there and the failed Swedish rescue? In this contest his remarks feel like gaslighting to me. Did they learn anything from this disaster in Sweden?
Dsc,
“then you went off on a tangent about religion being off limits for inquiry (which I never said)”
This is implicit in your reasoning. You wrote that it is bad to go searching for the negative in Mormonism. What about the FLDS Church? Can we not go looking for and emphasizing the negative there? Is it wrong to emphasize the fact that their leader is a convicted pedophile and that they keep their members ignorant and force them into underage marriages? You don’t like it when people express doubt and negativity about Mormonism, but Mormonism has a long history of casting doubt and negativity on all sorts of other religious truth claims, and I have every reason to believe that you do too. Which is fine. Just don’t tell me that doubt and negativity are inherently wrong. They are a fact of life that are sometimes necessary.
Here was your point with vaccines. Vaccine deniers are to vaccines what ex-Mormons are to Mormonism in that they keep coming up with reasons to doubt no matter what evidence is presented to them. I will point out how this is a false analogy yet again:
Evidence for the effectiveness of vaccines is overwhelming.
There is no evidence that would be considered valid in modern intellectual circles that Mormonism’s main truth claims are true.
“’ve spent an awful lot of time arguing that Mormonism can’t be proved by reason and science, which is a claim I agreed with. ”
The vaccine analogy implies that you think that Mormonism CAN be defended on grounds of modern reason.
Your thinking has been routinely incoherent on the matter of doubt.
Dsc: I think both you and I used bad analogies (you: vaccine deniers; me: Bernie Madoff scheme) because, as John W points out, conclusions drawn within the analogies are dependent upon empirical evidence. LDS truth claims, as you agree, are not. We both conflated falsifiable claims with unfalsifiable ones in our analogies. Whoops.
I think John W’s Kingston Clan analogy is superior to ours. Would you say the things Renlund said about doubters if they were doubting their place in the Kingston Clan? What about Scientology?
John W,
Congratulations on misrepresenting literally everything I said. No, I did not imply that religion is off limits for inquiry. In fact, what I said was “so many critics of this devotional simply ignore the difference between inquiry and doubt”, and then I proceeded to explain that I don’t think the Renlunds were criticizing inquiry, but “doubt” under a specific definition of doubt. Your FLDS example is way off because whether you engage in sincere inquiry or negative doubt, you come to the same conclusion.
And no, I didn’t compare vaccine-deniers to ex-Mormons. I compared vaccine-deniers to people who espouse a specific form of doubt. While I suspect that some, even many ex-Mormons fall into that category, I certainly don’t think all or even most do.
“There is no evidence that would be considered valid in modern intellectual circles that Mormonism’s main truth claims are true.” For the umpteenth time, that’s true, and it’s not the topic of this discussion. And no, for the umpteenth time, it’s not implied in the vaccine analogy. I have already explained what the point of it was. If you want to keep attacking this straw man, go ahead. Your arguments have been routinely incoherent in that they don’t actually address what I’ve said.
Cody,
I think sincere inquiry, as opposed to pessimistic doubt, would lead to th same conclusions in the cases of the FLDS, the Kingston clan, and Scientology. So, no, I think that analogy is inferior.
Again, I think the Renlunds were addressing the same kind of doubt that is addressed in James 1:6-8. That is, the one who doubts who is “like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.”
Dsc, you didn’t answer my question. If someone in the Kingston Clan, FLDS, Scientology, or really any religion other than LDS, was struggling with faith, would you say to them what Renlund said in his devotional?
If someone in the LDS church in Sweden, Japan, or really any region other than Utah, was struggling with faith, would you say to them what Elder Renlund said in his devotional?
Cody,
For the Kingston Clan and FLDS, no, I wouldn’t, but that’s because there are some serious cult issues that create a real emergency, which is precisely the problem with the analogy. And I probably wouldn’t be the one saying that to someone of another faith, but I wouldn’t begrudge or criticize a rabbi, priest, imam, minister, etc. of another faith saying those precise things to members of their own congregations. In fact, I would be nodding right along.
Dsc, thanks, I think that explains your position well. I appreciate your candor.
Dsc. the idea that there is a difference between honest inquiry and focusing on the negative is a false dichotomy. Can’t honest inquiry focus on negative aspects? In fact, shouldn’t honest inquiry focus on negative aspects? That is in a way how the scientific method is supposed to work. You focus on reasons that your hypothesis might not be true and publish what you found the hardest to disprove.
“Your arguments have been routinely incoherent in that they don’t actually address what I’ve said.”
Right, use the exact critiques that I use against your arguments against mine and then proceed not to show exactly how. Reminds me of the playground. “You’re a dunderhead, no you’re a dunderhead!”
John W
1a. After further consideration, contrary to what I said originally, it’s not just focusing on the negative that’s a problem. It’s distrust. And it’s the kind of distrust exhibited in my example, which as you can probably see, is a kind of distrust that gets in the way of knowing the truth.
1b. I sure hope you don’t conduct your everyday life like a scientist. But even in science, you don’t conduct an experiment to try to disprove gravity. You test your understanding of it. And that’s the difference between doubt(1) and doubt(2). Doubt(1) is adding nuance to your understanding of gravity when you find that Newtonian laws don’t apply in some circumstances. Doubt(2) is throwing out all of Newton’s theories and calling him a liar upon learning the same.
2. If the boot fits. Had you done something more substantive than label my arguments incoherent (they’re not), perhaps I could have had a more substantive rebuttal.
Dsc, trust has to be earned. I trust experts because they have established their reputation among other experts presumably on there command of subject material or because maybe they’ve made a discovery considered valid and important among other experts. However, Mormon truth claims don’t carry any weight among experts who weren’t already raised Mormon. For instance, no non-Mormon Egyptologist gives any serious regard to Joseph Smith’s claims about Abraham. Why should we then trust Joseph Smith on Egypt, which is part of what Mormon leaders ask people to do?
Bear in mind gravity is a law not a theory. However, Newton and Einstein and many others have conducted many tests to build a theory on whether there is gravitational push or pull. And they didn’t claim divine revelation to establish their theories. Newton was one of the greats and people influenced by him have been able to publish studies refuting his central ideas on gravity and not be excommunicated or shamed and shunned. Imagine a Mormon leader declaring Joseph Smith to have been completely wrong about the origins of the Book of Mormon. It wouldn’t fly very well now would it?
“The problem here isn’t the crisis of faith many members experience, but rather a loss of institutional credibility.”
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes!
That is my experience perfectly stated. Once the origin story and exclusivity claims are honestly evaluated in context, the Church becomes an institution like many others. As an institution like any other, our expectations change regarding our interactions with it. Many of the recent changes are a direct result of people experiencing this in large numbers.
Why go through the agony on 3 hour Church when you are not being spiritually fulfilled? Why keep hammering on a HT/VT program that has been obviously broken for at least 25 years? Why pretend that the Master of the Universe requires my children to participate in Boy Scouts?
The Church is now employing a strategy that creates a false dynamic. If you lose faith in Mormonism you reject God. Watch carefully how they manipulate and move the goal posts on this. It is as if they are on the side of religion and a doubter on the side of the irreligious.
Personally, I perceive that the Renlund’s are probably nice, genuine people; who most likely sincerely care about people. The challenge they (and many people who listen to their message) face is that they now publicly represent an organization which has, by it’s own actions – or inactions, steadily undermined much of the moral authority and integrity which they may have once had. In other words, as I read their words the thought in my mind was “the LDS Church has obsfucated, mis-led and sometimes lied about what has happened in their (our) past, you have no right to challenge my doubts or struggles; you’re now just trying to protect the organization; and your position. And, it may not deserve to be protected. Therefore, words heard – message rejected.
For me I will give Elder and Sister Renlund the benefit of the “doubt”. 🙂 And I agree it depends on what your definition of “doubt” is. Finally, my life has been enriched and I have been better able to enrich the lives of others more fully when I am open to the counsel of the apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.