This blog post is a follow up from a previous blog post review of the book Bridges, by David Ostler. This post considers some of the criticisms of the book or pushback on some of the ideas from the book that I’ve seen from the conservative LDS perspective. That conservative LDS perspective I’m speaking to comes from various online comments as well as a formal review published at The Interpreter by Dan Ellsworth. I also give some pushback of my own to any doubters or metaphorical believers who feel the responsibility for them to feel more comfortable at church is all or mostly the responsibility of Church leaders and active members.
Role of Apologetics in Faith Crisis
When you come from the assumption that the traditional narrative of the LDS Church is true, then the solution for those in faith crisis is simply to help them understand the answers to their questions. Simple.
Apologetics is the effort to defend the church using logic and scholarly methods, and is used by many traditionally believing LDS to show answers for difficult questions to those in faith crisis. For example, a criticism of BOM historicity is that the BOM contains New Testament phraseology that ancient BOM prophets wouldn’t have had access to, implying that it has modern origins. But LDS Apologists counter this with logic such as that BOM prophets and New Testament writers might have been both relying on more ancient writings. Much of the New Testament is quoting or paraphrasing the Old Testament after all. That’s a simplistic example with more evidences both for and against BOM historicity ignored for sake of brevity.
Many LDS that have never been through a faith crisis believe that LDS Apologetics has satisfactorily answered every difficult question and there is no logical reason to ever doubt an LDS testimony. Even some that claim to have been through faith crisis believe Apologetics can answer questions such that one who once doubted can come back to full belief.
My experience and my observation of others has been different. I was interested in Apologetics and drew on apologetic reasoning to answer questions when I was early in my faith exploration/crisis. But as I studied more, I personally came to see the apologetic logic as being very weak. Since I’ve been very active online in the faith crisis world for the last five years, I know dozens of people very closely, and am part of communities that number in the thousands, and I know very, very few people who would say that Apologetics was helpful in restoring an LDS testimony after experiencing a significant faith crisis.
David Ostler, in the book Bridges, didn’t acknowledge Apologetics as being an important tool in bringing doubters back to full fellowship in the church. He implied that once one goes through the dark night of the soul experience of losing belief in a traditional LDS testimony it’s impossible or unlikely to restore it. That’s my observation as well.
That does not mean one can piece back together a belief in God, a belief that the LDS church is good and valuable and important, or that the LDS church is true in many ways, that LDS covenants are critical to one’s salvation, that Joseph Smith was inspired, that the church is inspired today, that the church is the best place to raise a family, that the church can provide meaning and spiritual guidance. This is possible and this should be our effort in ministering to doubters and trying to bring them back into the fold. Restoring literal belief in many of the difficult aspects of church history and scripture through Apologetic reasoning—that is very unlikely.
So then what is the role of Apologetics in the church? I’m not against Apologetics. I just don’t think it’s very effective for those who have reached the dark night of the soul moment. I think it’s helpful for people who are faith crisis dabblers. If you’re faith crisis level 10 out of 100, Apologetics seems to have a good chance to work. If you reach level 70 out of 100, Apologetics seems to have very little chance to work. The people that are to the point where they say they no longer believe or have reduced participation because of faith issues are in that 70 out of 100 category. I have no data to support this. Just my hunch based on many years of observation.
Epistemology
Dan Ellsworth’s review focused a lot on epistemology. I would like to hear Dan explain with a little more clarity for the non-academic types like myself, who struggle when big words like epistemology are used. But I think this is what he means.
The role of epistemology in an LDS faith crisis would be something like this:
Tina had a testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Then Tina read stuff online that made her no longer believe that. The role of epistemology in this would be to explore what it meant exactly when Tina initially had a testimony of Joseph Smith. Did she have unnecessary or faulty assumptions? Did the information she read online really disprove Joseph as a prophet or did it just disprove a certain, incomplete and faulty definition of that? For example, what does it mean to believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham? A “high view” might be that Abraham wrote Egyptian with his hand on the papyri which Joseph translated. A “low view” might be that though the Egyptian papyri Joseph had access to had nothing from Abraham, Joseph might have thought it was Abraham’s words, which caused him to get in the revelatory spirit and allowed him to receive actual inspiration from God to produce the Book of Abraham. So for one person, evidence to show the papyri was something other than the Book of Abraham would be devastating to a testimony while to another it would be no big deal.
I agree this is an important aspect in sorting through LDS faith crisis. But there’s a limit to how valuable this perspective can be. For many who pass through faith crisis and can’t revive their former testimony, even when they’re walked carefully through this explanation of epistemology and assumptions, it doesn’t seem to help a lot.
There are “high view” facts related to a traditional LDS testimony that seem critical to many, ie literal angel visitations, literal ancient American prophets, etc. It’s very difficult for some to accept “low view” explanations where it seems convenient but stick to “high view” explanations where it’s required to do so to maintain an LDS testimony.
I have adopted what others would call a “low view” for most all of these issues, including BOM historicity and LDS exclusivity. I still believe the church is valuable and good. But my approach to these issues has pushed me out of a traditional testimony.
Choose to Believe
Terryl Givens has championed the concept of “choose to believe” in the LDS world. The idea Terryl puts forward is that there are cases where an idea has evidence both for and against, that one can choose to believe in this. A testimony of the restored church is in this category because there is evidence against it and evidence for it. Gravity, on the other hand, is not in this category because evidence for gravity is so overwhelmingly strong, one can’t choose to not believe in gravity.
Control over beliefs in the academic world is called “doxastic voluntarism”. Scholars do not believe human beings have direct control over their beliefs. Beliefs are formulated at a deep, subconscious level. I went into this subject and what I think is a better way to express a similar idea in great detail in an old post that’s worth the read if you haven’t read it. https://www.churchistrue.com/blog/belief-as-choice/
tldr: We can’t choose beliefs. Faith is a better word to use in religious context. Faith is sometimes expressed as being synonymous with belief. But another definition of faith is to “to trust a religious proposal and to act as if one knows or believes in it.” We can choose to have faith. For example, I may not believe the church is literally the one, true exclusive church with its doctrine and teachings given to us directly from God and angels. I can’t just choose to believe it. But I can choose to exercise faith in this and live the gospel as if I knew it was literally true.
Scriptures imply belief is a choice. And for the principle of free agency and the gospel to make logical sense, it seems belief would need to be something humans can choose. Because of this, I would guess the large majority of active LDS would side with this view of belief. And that makes it very obvious how to respond to someone in faith crisis. “Just choose to believe, duh.” There doesn’t seem to be a need to make space for those with unorthodox beliefs if belief is a moral choice. That makes it tougher to have empathy for the doubter or work hard to do the things David Ostler suggests in the Bridges book.
Responsibility of Doubter
One of the common criticisms of Ostler’s book was that there seems to be no discussion of the responsibility of the doubter. He has addressed this saying he did this intentionally, as the audience was active LDS and the purpose of the book was to understand how active members an can more effectively minister to those doubters.
But if a doubter takes this as permission they can do anything they want and the active member is the only one with a responsibility to make them feel more comfortable, then I agree this is a problem. There sometimes appears to be an attitude that when it comes to faith crisis, the doubter makes demands and the LDS Church and leaders and believers need to acquiesce to those demands. Missing sometimes seems to be a discussion of the responsibility of the doubter to do what he or she can to fit in responsibly in the church without disrupting things or causing doubt for others.
Ostler’s main thesis is that someone who has experienced deep faith crisis can stay in the church even without a traditional testimony if needs in three areas can be met:
–trust: they need to be able to trust the Church and local leaders
–belonging: they need to feel like they belong
–meaning: they need to be able to find meaning in the Church even if that is a different meaning than they found prior to faith crisis
Ostler discussed ways local church leaders and active members can help the doubter in these three areas. But if the doubter wants to stay, they also have a huge responsibility in each of these.
Trust. The doubter can choose to view the church and leaders with an attitude of grace, patience, and generosity. The doubter can choose to see the best in people. To assume good intentions. To understand someone with a traditional testimony views things completely differently and so what might feel hurtful to them is done with love by the active member. The doubter can understand that change in an organization like the church can be very slow and not to expect too much too quickly.
Belonging. The doubter can work in the belonging aspect as well. Believing LDS and local leaders can be more careful with lessons and comments that ostracize doubters. But doubters have a responsibility. They should realize that they are unorthodox and that they can pick and choose when to make comments that they know will be hard for others to receive. Like Abraham Lincoln, they can write the letter then throw it away without sending. Sometimes you need to be authentic and you just have to make that comment. But you can do it in a gentle way, and if your actions and comments at other times show that you’re loyal and want to be on the same team, that controversial comment will be received easier. The doubter can look for things in common rather than look for things not in common and try to focus on those things in common while seeking to feel like they belong.
Meaning. The doubter can appreciate the lived experience and work to find meaning in ways they haven’t noticed before. Even an atheist can find significant meaning in being part of a worship and service community. The doubter can find meaning in the work of LDS theologians like Adam Miller and Terryl Givens that are helping to shift the LDS narrative into finding value in more pragmatic and intellectually viable teachings. The doubter can work to find meaning in symbols and metaphors and not get hung up on the implausibility of the literalness of certain scripture and church history events. And at the same time, understand that their more traditional co-religionists are still going to talk about these events as literal and only find them meaningful if they are perceived as literal.
If the doubter wants to stay, and the church wants to keep the doubter, it can happen. Both sides have some work to do to create an environment where this can be done more smoothly.
Committed non-believer as detractor
In Dan Ellsworth’s Interpreter article, he expresses a concern that committed non-believers could detract from others’ church experience by causing others to doubt or damaging the trusting environment in a ward where members feel comfortable to sharing testimony.
He shares an anecdote about a woman who did temple work for her mother and received a confirmation through a dream this was effectual. He is worried the presence of committed non-believers would cause other members to feel uncomfortable. Church would no longer be a safe haven where believers could share personal experiences and affirm each other’s beliefs. This is an important aspect of the church and any religious community.
I understand Dan’s perspective, but I don’t think the concern is warranted, and it’s hard not to take it personally, even though I just got done saying we need to try our hardest to see the best motives in each other.
There are always going to be a wide variety of beliefs in an LDS congregation. Some believe in a young earth, while others believe in evolution. Some believe the reason black people have black skin is resulting from the curse of Cain and Ham, while others believe in scientific reasons and that religious reasoning is a misunderstanding rooted in racism. Some people are very spiritual and see God’s hand everywhere. I found my keys because God led them to me. Some LDS have a view of God as very hands off and allowing humans to operate with their own free agency, rarely intervening.
If a person stands up in testimony meeting and bears testimony that their dead mother visited them, some might believe it, some might not. But many that might not believe it also might have a very traditional LDS testimony and just happen to be skeptical related to this woman’s testimony.
I know enough about Dan Ellsworth to know he has a non-traditional testimony. Non-traditional enough that he likely would be chastized by certain general authorities, they perceiving him as a non-believer. We as LDS have a lot of beliefs! And some of those that are considered non-essential to some are considered core to others. Dan is non-traditional enough that he would make people in my LDS congregation very uncomfortable if he spoke about his beliefs aggressively and in a manner that made those that didn’t agree with him feel stupid. Over time, if he did this often enough, it would make people uncomfortable with sharing their own beliefs. But I would never suggest that the LDS Church is better if Dan Ellsworth stays home from church, simply based on his beliefs. If he ignores social protocol and accepted behavior repeatedly, then at that point, I might say it’s better he stays home. But if he acts with patience and courtesy, then he should easily be able to interact positively even with an unorthodox belief set.
The problem with this kind of boundary policing is that you never know where to draw the line. There is always someone more orthodox than you who might want to draw the boundary with you on the outside. The solution is for us all to find a way to worship together, treating each other with tolerance and love.
Doubt is contagious
Doubters need to acknowledge that doubt is contagious and that they should not encourage believers to doubt. If you can’t sit still when something you believe is untrue literally is being taught, if you have to confront that, then you need to do more inner work before you’re ready to mingle with believers in an LDS congregation.
It’s OK to be frustrated. It’s OK to want to stand up and rattle off . But that’s not why people are in church, and it’s not the doubter’s job to fix it in Sunday School.
I think it’s helpful for the metaphorical believer who wants to continue to engage in the LDS Church to almost have a feeling like they want to help the believer from the pain of faith crisis. I believe a person will hit faith crisis when they’re ready but not before. If they do it on their own time table, they’re more likely to do it in a more mentally healthy way. If the doubter can view it this way, it makes it easier to look for ways in church to be authentic that are gentle and graceful and not disruptive and aggressive.
“Modern science has proven beyond shadow of a doubt that there is no way possible Adam and Eve could be real people” vs “Some people view Adam and Eve as literal but some believers view them as metaphorical”.
I don’t believe the Book of Mormon is historical. I believe in evolution and take the Adam and Eve Garden of Eden story metaphorically. I think most likely the stories in the Old Testament prior to David have at best loose correlation to actual history. I don’t think polygamy was ever God’s will for Joseph Smith. I don’t think the Book of Abraham is translated from an ancient record correlating to its text. I don’t think the Church is exclusively God’s one, true church in the same way other LDS believe. You might that’s too much not in common with a traditional LDS for me to worship together peacefully and comfortably.
But I believe in God. I believe in following Jesus Christ. I think the Book of Mormon is inspired. I love our scripture. I think we have the truest religion in the world, in terms of how it can help me be a better person, serve other people, help me raise my kids, and foster conditions where I can seek and worship God. I love our doctrine of Heavenly Mother. I love our Sunday sabbath experience. I love the concept of missions. I love being a member of the Church. I want to do all I can, and I covenant to give all I can to help create Zion, a heaven on Earth. That’s a lot in common with a traditional member.
For me, what I have in common far outweighs what is not in common. My goal is to become more authentic among my ward congregation while doing my best not to disrupt other people’s experience.
Wheat & Tares 
I enjoyed this post very much. As a gay member who has experienced a faith crisis, struggling with both discrimination and doubt is not something that can be easily overcome in the LDS Church. I tried going to meetings and being a quiet observer but the very nature of our religion does not lend itself to sitting on the sidelines. I am in limbo now but hopefully I’ll land safely somewhere… someday. My heart and prayers go out to those who struggle to find their way. I know how difficult it is.
I read David Ostler’s book and enjoyed it very much. It made me stop and think about how I have helped others in the past who were experiencing a faith crisis, and how I can help others in the future who will experience a faith crisis. Several years ago a friend of mine was going through a faith crisis, and, unfortunately, I feel that I was not very helpful to her. I responded in ways that David suggested is not helpful for those in the 70 out of 100 group. After reading the book I realized that I had not responded with love and empathy. So I sent my friend an email and apologized for the way I responded to her feelings at the time. She thanked me and mentioned another friend who helped her work through it. Presently she is fully active in the church. It made me feel sad that I had not been more supportive of her when she was going through her faith crisis. The book has helped me determine how I will respond to others in the future in a way that will be loving and empathetic. And, yes, I agree that both sides have to meet in the middle. We all have to do our part to make church a safe and loving place, regardless of where we are on the belief continuum.
” Doubters need to acknowledge that doubt is contagious and that they should not encourage believers to doubt.”
I agree. Building and strengthening faith is a far nobler and more charitable objective.
I really needed this today.❤️
By all means, we are not fully in control of our beliefs. We cannot fully choose them.
“Doubters need to acknowledge that doubt is contagious and that they should not encourage believers to doubt.”
Are believers’ beliefs so fragile that we constantly have to do everything in our power not to offend or challenge their beliefs? Isn’t the LDS church everyday telling tens of thousands of missionaries to contact people around the world and get them to doubt their traditional beliefs and accept Mormonism? Lastly, in your posts aren’t you routinely and indirectly encouraging believers to doubt the historicity of the BOM, belief in which pay leaders have called a keystone to the religion?
Also I really, really doubt that we reincarnate into a different life form after we die. If a believer in reincarnation were to come on here and encourage you all to believe in reincarnation, might you express doubt in that like me? Would that be wrong? Would you have a responsibility not to offend the believer in reincarnation? Would it be wrong to disagree with them? Would it be wetting to tell them that (gasp!) they are wrong?
Nice write-up. Thoughtful and prudent. I emerged from a crisis of faith when I learned to differentiate (1) the gospel, (2) the church, and (3) the institution. I regard the gospel as pure and true; church is as good as its people, and the institution is corrupt.
One of the problems I view with LDS apologists writing about faith crisis is that they frame “doubt” with faith crisis. This is dangerous because if we continue to couple “doubt” with faith crisis, every doubter ends up being pigeon-holed in the space of having a crisis-of-faith.
This is problematic because faith crisis is not doubt. Joseph doubted the churches of his era and it led to The Restoration. We need Doubters in the Congregation to keep the Pharisees in-check.
Faith crisis is a trauma, not a doubt. We need to address spiritual trauma, not doubt. Doubt is a fuel for discernment and should be encouraged—it’s the nerve of human agency. Trauma is different because it cuts at the root of one’s worldview, one’s ethics, one’s hopes and dreams—it is an existential crisis where meaning and value are uprooted.
The sad thing is that the institution is often responsible for a lot of trauma. To experience gaslighting on an institutional scale is traumatic. Witnessing corruption by “those in authority” is traumatic. Being lied to by the CES is traumatic. Hearing about the treatment of Doubters—their being disfellowshiped and excommunicated—is traumatic.
Agreed, John W: No coddling. Let it rip. The marketplace of ideas is rough and necessary. May the truest survive.
John W.
1. No, I don’t think I encourage doubt in the historicity of the BOM. My objective is to share my paradigm to those who already have lost faith in a historical BOM to show them that they have more options than believe traditionally or leave. I understand the more I clamor about that, the more “collateral damage” that could cause to believers who might otherwise never doubt the BOM might not be historical. It’s something I worry about a lot. I hope in the end, my work promotes faith more than tears down. I don’t post my views in forums that would confront traditional believing LDS.
2. On the idea that we shouldn’t worry about belief being so fragile to tiptoe around things so much. I agree to an extent. But we’re talking about the responsibility of a metaphorical believer who has the desire to remain active in the church. Wheat and Tares or my blog or my fb profile where mostly Exmo’s, Progmo’s. or experienced Mo’s congregate is my home turf where these kinds of discussions are expected. Your typical gospel doctrine class is home turf for traditional believing LDS to go to be spiritually uplifted. If I want to take advantage of that blessing, which I do view it as a blessing, I feel a responsibility to help preserve that atmosphere.
We recently had a series of Sunday evening meetings, organised by Stake RS and presented by our local LDS Social Services bloke. The last one was on levels of faith based on
http://www.psychologycharts.com/james-fowler-stages-of-faith.html
As he presented it level 3 is standard obedient members
Level 4 is transition either by crisis or personal revelation or increasing understanding.
Level 5 is a new understanding of life and the Gospel
He presented level 4 as progress from level 3 and towards level 5 and 6. And that you could not get to 5 or 6 without going through 4 and 5.
He inferred that Apostles would be 5 or 6. I thing some may be but some are still 3.
I found this very uplifting and helpful.
Sometimes people outside the church understand better.
“–trust: they (doubters) need to be able to trust the Church and local leaders”
It’s hard for me to see this put on the doubter/non-traditional believer when having trust was the starting place for the doubter. The trust was lost not because of actions on the part of the doubter, but because the doubter uncovered difficult, somewhat hidden truths about the church’s history/choices and/or had negative (often horrible) experiences with leadership. This section feels about like telling someone who is abused that they need to get it together and trust the abuser again when the abuser hasn’t even acknowledged they have a problem. The thought of putting my whole heart and trust back into the church and church leadership makes me feel very, very queasy.
ReTx, If Ostler was accurately summarized in the OP, what he meant by “trust the Church and local leaders” was not “put [one’s] whole heart and trust back into the church and church leadership.” Instead, it was “Trust. The doubter can choose to view the church and leaders with an attitude of grace, patience, and generosity. The doubter can choose to see the best in people. To assume good intentions. … The doubter can understand that change in an organization like the church can be very slow and not to expect too much too quickly.” For some who are doubters as to what some church leaders say and do, it may be possible to choose some such level of trust in their good intentions and/or in the much larger story arc of change in the church — while still watching for the exceptions as to intentions and being doubtful (or even certain 🙂 ) that the church has not yet arrived at the place God would have it.
This is not the kind of whole-hearted trust you or I first thought of in the summary claim that doubters “need to be able to trust the Church and local leaders”. Frankly, there have been some local leaders at least who were not always trustworthy even as to intentions. (And I don’t know why that statement should be limited to past tense or local leaders.)
Here’s an interesting approach to trust and the language of doubt: https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/2019/9/15/chris-kimball-the-language-of-doubt
ReTx. “It’s hard for me to see this put on the doubter/non-traditional believer when having trust was the starting place for the doubter. ”
JR did a perfect job responding to this, but I’ll add one more thing.
It’s easy to read my post and assume I’m declaring that everyone who goes through faith crisis has a responsibility to do things in those three areas (trust, meaning, belonging) in order to salvage a testimony and stay in the church. That’s not my intention. The assumption first is that the doubter first has a desire to stay in the church. Given that, the doubter has some responsibility to try to make it work. If they don’t care and don’t have that desire, then I wouldn’t put responsibility on them to do things a certain way.
JR, take what you wrote and replace LDS church with FLDS church. Would it still apply? What you’re not acknowledging is that in different contexts you are also a doubter. If the doctrines of the FLDS church were being forced into relevance, I have strong reason to believe that you would doubt their teachings and express distrust in their leaders, both in the sense of doubt that they were telling the truth and in the sense of doubt that they are even going slowly in the right direction.
Lots of high expectations on doubters of the LDS church teachings and leaders. But doubters in the LDS Church often live in environments where LDS teachings are forced into relevance. It is only because you live in environments where the relevance of other religious teachings aren’t forced into relevance that you don’t think of yourselves as doubters, but you would be if they were.
One thing to consider regarding the relative social/community responsibility of the doubter and the true believer is the disproportionate amount of social capital each has in a church setting. Most doubters or people of nuanced faith already feel silenced and marginalized at church, so it does make sense to me that more of the responsibility lies with the true believers (those who, because they are supposedly more righteous, would be much more in tune with and able to demonstrate Christ’s love, right?) to love and embrace those who are different kinds of believers. Of course, it’s also up to the marginalized to accept these gestures and overtures. I think this issue demonstrates to me that we have a long way to go as a church. I wonder if most of us tend, still, to focus on what divides us rather than on what can unite us. It’s an incredibly complex issue, but I think self-righteousness and smugness on the part of whatever group just makes things that much harder.
Having said that, I do agree with ReTx’s comment about not blaming the doubter because they actually spent time investigating the church’s claims (something we’re told we should all do, right?) and found them to be disingenuous, false, hidden, etc. Historically, zealots/true believers of whatever kind tend not to want to hear the truth and so blame and denigrate the messenger instead of considering what the messenger is saying. Indeed, in that context, trusting the very institution and its leaders that lied to you is just about impossible and frankly, I don’t think it’s required. I know that I will never trust church leaders the way I did thirty years ago. That ship has sailed. But I can, if I try hard, feel compassion for them and extend forgiveness to them.
Enlightening phrase for the day: “Faith crisis dabblers.” They think they know what a faith crisis is, but they don’t. But because they think they do, they have a lot of simplistic advice to offer. If their simplistic advice doesn’t work or is dismissed out of hand, the Dabbler is likely to get critical or even angry. Beware the rejected Dabbler.
I haven’t read Bridges. It’s a little disconcerting that members of the Church need a long explanation of how to be nice or kind to people. I mean if you don’t have a natural or learned inclination to be kind and patient and considerate to others, even others who believe differently than you do, I doubt a book-length treatment of the topic is going to change your approach. Some people are just jerks. And the problem is that the Church, as an institution, seems to teach people to act like jerks toward those who, for whatever reason, no longer affirm the historical faith claims and orthodox teachings of the Church. “Stop acting like a Mormon and just be kind to people, whether you understand what they are going through or not.” Who needs a book to explain that?
What Dave B. said. Similar to the questions I had about the term “compassionate conservative.”
Excellent essay.
A scriptural metaphor is the *house built on sand* which cannot weather a storm. All people must be *tried* and if you were born and raised in the church, guess where that trial is going to be found? In church. The parable of the seeds tells the same story. The implication is that many people, maybe most, haven’t built houses on rock or have planted seeds sufficiently. In the case of the seed parable, young seedlings cannot be exposed to the full force of the sun until they have sufficiently taken root.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And that is why Moroni 10:4-5 is presented to new members of the church. You need a testimony and you need it from God Himself via the Holy Ghost (or maybe you’ll get really lucky and have a visit of some sort). Once that happens, bring on the Kinderhook plates. They don’t matter; a historical curiosity of interest to historians.
John W asks many is it wrong questions (“Would you have a responsibility not to offend the believer in reincarnation? Would it be wrong to disagree with them? “)
I suggest that the cart is before the horse. Right and wrong require an authority of right and wrong, but it is that very authority that is in doubt.
A slightly better approach is to ask self about the possible consequences of your intended approach. My mother believed in a great many things rival with her other beliefs; straight out of Alice in Wonderland. Reincarnation being among them. While I do not believe in reincarnation I am not quite prepared to denounce it; rather it raises a great many questions which advocates of reincarnation seem unable to answer or have even considered the questions. So, I don’t bother getting into arguments over it. My mother’s beliefs were relatively harmless and gave her life purpose. The atonement of Jesus Christ opens doors to good hearted charitable people everywhere.
Now should it happen that my mother insisted that I subscribe to her point of view a line is drawn and it would likely result in losing a relationship. There cannot be a bridge between two dogmatic people having significantly different views. They might, if they possess good character, still respect each other and have the good sense to “not go there” out of the sheer futility of it.
John W asks “Are believers’ beliefs so fragile that we constantly have to do everything in our power not to offend or challenge their beliefs?”
I suggest a reasonable effort to not offend and that’s pretty much assured if you are humble. You won’t be tempted to pluck motes out of other people’s eyes.
Matthew 18: 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
6 But whoso shall offend (*) one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 ¶ Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
* Some translations say “stumbling blocks” rather than merely annoying a child. It also makes a lot more sense.
Some innoculation or preparation seems wise, but it is the duty of parents to raise and teach their children and gradually prepare them for the storm that comes into nearly everyone’s life. Missionaries should understand they will encounter many conflicted and contrary views and not wander into the weeds of a futile argument. Occasionally improper doctrine is taught in church and responding is a delicate matter. I consider it *sometimes* important to correct a teacher if I sense that damage is being done to the class *right now* and must be corrected. The risk factor is becoming the new teacher. One example of that is the “nail in the wood” metaphor of repentance. The teacher was saying that repentance is like pulling a nail out of wood, it leaves a hole. No, says I, it is like removing a nail from a jar of water. There is no hole, no trace; and the scripture is “I the Lord will remember them no more”. It is true that many nails will displace water, and if you remove the nails the water level will be lower than had there been no nails, but it is easy enough with prayer and study to fill the jar with water (holiness).
In response to John W.’s two questions, “Are believers’ beliefs so fragile that we constantly have to do everything in our power not to offend or challenge their beliefs?” and “Would it be wetting to tell them that (gasp!) they are wrong?”
I don’t believe the author’s focus was on the fragility of others’ beliefs but rather on the respect we show to others. There is a wide gulf between walking on eggshells around others’ beliefs and actively attacking their beliefs and no one needs to do either. Beliefs are very personal and any attack on someone’s beliefs is often received as an attack on the person. Even if it is never your intent to attack the person, you should always understand that any disagreement with someone’s beliefs will often be received that way. Even simply saying that you think they are wrong. Is it so bad to tell someone that you think they are wrong? No, but neither is it productive. What do people usually do when they are told their beliefs are wrong? Usually they will get defensive and entrench deeper into their beliefs. And what if you do cause someone to doubt their beliefs without also giving them a new belief to latch on to? Usually that doesn’t end well either.
In my experience, the best way to discuss differing beliefs is not to tell someone that they or their beliefs are wrong but rather to simply share my own beliefs. “You say you believe in reincarnation? You know, I don’t believe that personally but this is what I do believe.” “I know a lot of members believe the church teaches that, but I’ve never seen that in the scriptures or in anything official from the church. What I have read is this.”
From Joseph Smith History 1:19:
“I was answered [by God and Jesus Christ] that I must join none of them [referring to the Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, and other Protestant Christian denominations], for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
From Joseph Smith History 1:20:
“I [Joseph Smith] then said to my mother, ‘I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.'”
According to the founder of Mormonism, the religion was founded on doubt of the doctrinal teachings of Protestant sects in upstate New Yorks in the 1810s and 1820s and a solemn declaration from God and Jesus Christ that they were not only wrong, but actual abominations. The pre-1990 endowment ceremony included a sectarian preacher who under the influence of Lucifer taught that God had no body, suggesting that such an idea was of the devil.
Now that secularism is seen as the greatest threat to Mormonism and other religions not so much, Mormonism has completely changed the narrative about doubt. It is no longer about doubting Protestant teachings and having absolute certainty in Joseph Smith’s teachings, it is about challenging secularism with a newfangled uncertainty narrative. “How can you be so sure,” is the common refrain said to secularist doubts cast on Mormonism, all the while holding on with near certainty the fundamental teachings of Mormonism.
The church I grew up with and the church going forward are two different churches. I was steeped in Brigham Young’s teaching that all truth belongs to Mormonism. We weren’t afraid of new truths or what science uncovered – since those truths are bound to confirm Mormonism. This was the church of Bruce McConkie and Hugh Nibley where they proclaimed “bring it on” – the restored gospel can handle it with ease and if it doesn’t, it deserves to be buried.
Turns out the church isn’t what it said it was and it can’t accommodate much of the inconvenient truths that have surfaced. Going forward, knowledge is now being reduced to what one can feel, or what Dan Ellsworth euphemistically calls “witness testimony” as in “Witness testimony that is core of Latter-day Saint epistemology.” His argument to doubters is akin to saying “who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”
I may have left, but ironically I’ve stuck to the “Mormon” principles I grew up with. I don’t intend to replace them with new principles invented to paper over problems.
There are different kinds of doubters. There are those that doubt BoM historicity, the garden if Eden as a literal place, etc., and there are doubters who are atheists. Of these doubters, some attend church for different reasons, whether it be finding value in rituals and social connection, or merely maintaining the ability to attend a family member’s sealing. I’m not sure who the OP is addressing.
Depending on their reason for attending, I can see that “doubters” maybe shouldn’t stir doubts in believers if said doubters find value in those beliefs. Or if the doubters are full on atheists they may choose to avoid stirring doubts at church, in Sunday school, out of necessity in maintaining relationships or out of respect for those that want a safe place to worship.
Outside of that, I’m not sure why doubters would have any obligation to protect the beliefs of others, beliefs that the doubter does not hold to be true. Rather, as part of the human family, we all have an obligation to work towards an understanding about what is truth, which necessarily means at some point we must talk about our doubts, or rather, our alternate beliefs.
John W. It seems you know nothing about me and that you missed the point entirely. Look at the qualifiers in my response to ReTx.
I want to gently push back on the notion, if it’s there, that metaphorical believers should be silent and let literal believers maintain their literal beliefs. I mean, I don’t expect metaphorical believers to aggressively preach to try to convert the literal believers, but I do think they should be free to express their opinions like anyone else.
What I’m saying is that beliefs matter: beliefs are the underlying basis for action. A believer may wish to be left alone to believe what they will, but their beliefs have consequences. A Young Earth Creationist, for example, may be less likely to believe the science behind evolution and medicine. Someone who believes the world will be imminently burned and then purified at the second coming is not likely to concern themselves with climate change.
So I’m not saying that people need to go proselyte their doubts or unbelief, but i don’t think they should feel constrained in order to preserve someone else’s belief, except for the need to respect places of worship and relationships as mentioned in my previous comment.
John W., Your response seems to indicate that you know nothing about me and that you missed the point by ignoring the qualifiers in my response to ReTx. You might want to read it again.
I spent 2-1/2 years of my life telling the Belgians and French that their beliefs were wrong, trying to create doubt in their minds about their own church and belief structure. Now people are telling me that I should be careful not to shake members’ testimonies? So if it’s a Church member, I should be very careful. But if it’s anyone else, I’m free to go for it. And unfortunately the message I presented 50+ years ago was filled with inaccuracies and half truths. I think someone told me the 6 discussion were inspired.
Like everybody else, I have my own set of beliefs. They are unique to me. I feel no obligation to convert anyone to my religious point of view. But when I hear racist and discriminatory comments, I feel an obligation to respond. When I hear anti-science comments, I feel an obligation to respond. But since I’ve given up going to church meetings, I don’t get the opportunity to comment much.
The leaders told me that blacks couldn’t have the priesthood. The leaders are now telling me that a person’s sex is binary. But science doesn’t support that belief. When enough young people leave the Church, or people quit paying tithing, maybe the Church will develop a better attitude toward the LGBTQ+ community. But it will take decades and I will be dead by then.
I want to help the living. The Church is more interested in helping the dead. So why would I want to pay tithing? I can make my own decisions about my tithe.
The reason I complain about Church policies is not convert others to my belief structure, it’s to encourage the Church to stop its discrimination and think more about the global poor.
JR, I read your response again. My point are fairly simple:
1) We’re all doubters. Some people doubt the truth claims of the LDS church and some people doubt the truth claims of the FLDS church, believing Nelsonite Mormons included (I’ve never encountered a Nelsonite who believes that Warren Jeffs is God’s true prophet). The doubter vs. believer binary is a false dichotomy.
2) We shouldn’t have to treat all religions and their leaders with “grace, patience, and generosity.” Staying with the FLDS analogy, Warren Jeffs is a convicted child rapist and his organization routinely forces underage girls into marriage. I have no patience with the FLDS church or any other offshoot Mormon polygamist sect. They should all be abolished entirely. I wouldn’t expect doubters in the LDS church’s truth claims to treat the church delicately. We don’t have to agree with them, but they should have the right to harshly criticize the LDS church much like I should have the right to harshly criticize the FLDS church.
Too often, I hear religious folks appealing to this idea that their beliefs are above any sort of criticism simply because their religious beliefs and we must tread very delicately when dealing with these beliefs. Nonsense, let’s open any and all religious truth claims up to widespread public debate and go at it. No one has to respect the LDS church and its leaders. Of course, we don’t have to maintain company with someone who is disrespectful to LDS church leaders, nor do we have to tolerate them being disruptive in a priesthood or Sunday School lesson.
John W You got it. There is no call to attribute any different view to me. As I said, for some who are doubters as to what some church leaders say and do, it may be possible to choose some such level of trust in their good intentions and/or in the much larger story arc of change in the church…
Good essay. Lots of good thoughts I was nodding to as I read it. I had 2 thoughts in response:
First, I still have to think some more, but I still think I choose what to believe in and what I have faith in. I think belief can come from my experiences, my thinking patterns, and my personality (I seem to have a personality where I believe others easily…maybe I trust others and doubt myself less, I dunno). But I think I have made a choice to find the things to believe in that help me stay and help me be connected to other believers, and let go of some other things like the word of wisdom that I simply choose not to believe is important or inspired. I think belief can be a choice. And certainly what we do about our beliefs and how we act with others is a choice.
Second, If doubting is contagious, I don’t think it is any more or less contagious than belief. As we interact with others, we can influence and be influenced, and should act accordingly to be respectful of others because of that.
More important than belief or doubt, is love and concern for others. Because doubting some things that are not quite right may be a loving thing to others, even those who believe.
More important is how we built the trust you talked about, so we can interact with others and learn together and grow in spirit.
“The doubter vs. believer binary is a false dichotomy.”
I like this comment from John W. Well said. I may be a doubter on word of wisdom, but believer on symbolic lessons from the Book of Mormon. Am I a doubter or believer? I think the answer is: Yes. I think as others said…we are all both as we journey to build faith.
All in all, there is a place for doubters in church, I believe. But not disruptors or attackers.
I choose to believe in the good and let go of the rest, so I can stay and keep learning and growing, as I do the epistemology thing.
Great blog post and discussion. I agree that if someone is angry and comes to church to raise hell and kick the hornet’s nest it will not be a friendly place and they are better off taking a sabbatical. I think the responsibility of the doubter is to remain largely positive and try to make comments and questions that may offer a fresh perspective but are heartfelt and positive. If you don’t believe in the historicity of the BOM, don’t mention that, but focus on what you like about it and what you take away from the stories. I also think discretion and respect are key. A doubter may choose to take a different approach to wearing temple garments or in how they interpret the WOW, but rolling up to a ward party with a Starbucks cup in a tank top and short shorts is still a faux pas and will offend people, even if you are being authentic. I think if you can be respectful and not stir the pot too much, you can live as a non-literal believer. If you are too loud and open (a pain in the a** for everyone), Church will be uncomfortable for anyone and you will be pushed out sooner rather than later. This seems to have been the experience of Gina Colvin, Bill Reel and many others.
Let me start by saying how much I love Wheat and Tares and how important it is to me in my faith journey – always the comments and usually the OP. Thank you all.
During my very long night, I never felt it my place to challenge traditional beliefs in church – even when I no longer held them. I had no problem challenging unloving responses. One day, while getting ready for church, I just couldn’t walk through the door again.
I must say that I think the OP’s assessment of a faith crisis is faith crisis lite. At some point, apologetics can’t cure it anymore.
“That does not mean one can[not] piece back together a belief in God” Of course, but it will very likely be a very different God than the LDS God
“a belief that the LDS church is good and valuable and important” This has to coexist with the LDS church being deceitful, hurtful, traumatizing, and marginalizing not just of doubters, but other very large demographics.
“or that the LDS church is true in many ways” Along with, as CIT says, the many ways its canonical claims are NOT true.
“that LDS covenants are critical to one’s salvation” How can anyone who does not think the LDS church is true possibly think that the LDS covenants are critical to salvation.
“that Joseph Smith was inspired, that the church is inspired today.” Anyone can be inspired.
“that the church is the best place to raise a family” Unless your daughter is black or your son is gay or your wife is a woman.
“that the church can provide meaning and spiritual guidance” Can’t this be true of almost anything?
“This is possible and this should be our effort in ministering to doubters and trying to bring them back into the fold.” Again, only applies to amateur doubters.
The author outlines his many non-literal “low view” beliefs. If one had the opportunity to explain them to one of the Q15, how well do you think they would be received? Terryl Givens isn’t likely to get a slot in the next general conference. The church is a hard place for serious doubters.
Apologetics work for those who are questioning, but are very inclined to believe. When one’s well-researched and agonizingly painful journey gets to a certain point, apologetics look like the other side of the anti-Mormon coin: mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and deceptions.
The term “doubter” is being used incorrectly here. Is someone who disbelieves flat earth simply a flat earth doubter? That implies wriggle room regarding the basic concept: maybe the earth is flat and maybe it’s not. But there is no wriggle room. The earth is not flat. Nor is the Book of Mormon in any sense historical, or the Book of Abraham in any sense a translation. Those ships sailed long ago as the Brethren well know. At some point an honest institution will deal with Inconvenient realities that have enormous implications for millions of people.
“At some point an honest institution will deal with Inconvenient realities” Why will it do that? Insitutions do not act, they do not make decisions. There is, for now anyway, always a Person that is the actor and makes decisions. If that Person decides the earth is flat, then for that institution the earth is flat, and if you subscribe to flatness you are a good match for that institution otherwise not so much.
“Nor is the Book of Mormon in any sense historical” Sure it is. It was first published in March 1830. That appears to be a historical fact. But you mean the words on it. Well, I do not accept your authority and expertise on the matter and consider it your opinion. I have one too. It is a bottomless pit since some of the words may well be more historical than others; a feature shared by the bible. For now I provisionally accept it. I feel strongly the spirit of God when reading the words but at the same time its provenance seems a bit uncertain.