Good news for many readers: the Church has recently posted a series of posts now residing at the top of the “Topics and Questions” page addressing doubts and doubters. Perhaps it will clear your shelf. Let’s take a look. The first of two sections, titled “Seeking Answers to Questions,” contains six short articles.
“Introduction” — The first article is an introductory presentation by Elder Renlund, with two paragraphs of text below the video summarizing his remarks. From the second paragraph:
Today, information about the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is more accessible than ever before. … And some of the things we learn may raise difficult questions. … The articles in this resource offer several suggestions that can help you find peace as you seek answers to your questions.
“Center Your Life on Jesus Christ” — We are told, “[F]aith is more than belief. It involves trust, confidence, and loyalty.” Which sort of links the opposite of faith (doubt) with the opposite traits suspicion, insecurity, and betrayal. So stop asking pesky (i.e., relevant) questions and show more trust and loyalty. If you have “questions or concerns related to historical events, Church teachings and policies, or human failures,” you should “distinguish core gospel truths from things that aren’t as essential” (that is, any questions you have).
It’s a little puzzling how centering one’s life on Jesus Christ links with the main points of this section. Some LDS come to their doubts precisely by centering their focus on Jesus Christ (reading the New Testament very carefully) and finding it doesn’t necessarily match up with LDS doctrines and practices.
“Be Patient with Yourself and with Others” — Be patient and more patient. Here’s a nice gaslighting paragraph:
It can be confusing or upsetting when you learn something about the Church or its history that conflicts with what you previously understood. Allow yourself time to see an issue more clearly and begin to understand new information. Continue studying and praying. It may take time before you feel like you are back on solid ground. Those who have seen this process through can testify that it has deepened their conversion to the gospel.
The conflict isn’t your fault (“with what you previously understood”), it’s generally between facts you learn by reading LDS history and the way the Church has misrepresented or simply ignored those historical facts or episodes.
“Recognize That Revelation Is a Process” — Yeah, so is deconversion. Here’s an interesting paragraph, almost stepping back from the “I know” format of LDS testimonies, rather candidly acknowledging that “I know” in Mormon-speak simply means “I believe that” or “I hope that” or “I have nice feelings that.”
Latter-day Saints often declare “I know” when they share their testimonies. These heartfelt expressions describe personal spiritual experiences obtained by studying and living the gospel. But we all walk by faith in this life.
“Consult Reliable Sources” — This is a lengthy and fairly reasonable section: evaluate sources, recognize bias, distinguish facts from interpretation or opinion. But this approach does not necessarily lead to the conclusion LDS leaders want you to reach. Deep down, they would prefer you not consult any sources, reliable or otherwise, except what’s at LDS.org and General Conference.
“Work to Understand the Past” — So … read lots of books about LDS history written by actual historians? That would be good advice, and they ought to go ahead and say that. Of course, given confirmation bias, most readers will read historical accounts as confirming their prior beliefs. There are a lot of open questions in history and religious history.
The subsection “Recognize the limits of our knowledge” is worth ponderizing. Objectively, it can be read as suggesting, again, that the “I know” claims of LDS testimonies are overconfident exaggerations, at least as they relate to LDS historical claims. Of course what the article wants to suggest is that doubts are always uncertain and subject to rethinking, whereas LDS faith claims (history mingled with lots of faith) rests on a sure spiritual foundation and is not subject to uncertainty or questioning. But hey, the historical knife cuts both ways. Here is a quotation from the subsection, you can judge for yourself.
Histories are interpretations of the past based on the limited sources that remain. There are many things we can say with confidence about the past. But there are many things we just don’t know. And the information we have almost always allows for more than one interpretation.
There is an entire second section of articles under the heading, “Helping Others with Questions.” You can examine that section at your leisure.
I came across these new articles at LDS.org not by scouring the site but by reading a Jana Riess article at RNS entitled, “LDS Church quietly shifts its message to doubters.” You should definitely go read that article.
Go and read a full article or two in the first section. They’re not that long. What do you think?
- Are these helpful to you?
- Would these be helpful to the average LDS question-asker or doubter?
- Would these (or the second section) be helpful to a mainstream LDS member?
- This seems like a watered-down attempt to do what the Gospel Topics Essays were intended to do.
Wheat & Tares 
“It can be confusing or upsetting when you learn something about the Church or its history that conflicts with what you previously understood.”
Not anymore. I’m not confused at all. Upset, yes.
“Allow yourself time to see an issue more clearly and begin to understand new information.”
I’ve allowed myself lots of time to study and reflect and I’ve learned lots of new information. The clarity through which I see Mormon history is better than it has ever been. It is quite clear that there is zero evidence that neither the church nor Joseph Smith are what they are claiming to be.
“Continue studying and praying. It may take time before you feel like you are back on solid ground”
I am on perfectly solid ground. I really can’t stand how the church paints doubt in its teachings with doubt in oneself. I’m quite confident in myself. My self-esteem is high. But I doubt the church’s truth claims in the exact same way that church leaders and members doubt reincarnation or the prophethood of Muhammad.
The problem with these articles is that they aren’t meant to encourage thoughtful inquiry and dialogue, they are meant to shut it down, often by using straw man arguments, thought-stopping cliches, and generally gaslighting doubting members into believing they themselves are the problem. Even if the Church’s intentions are sincere, it’s too little too late.
Members are still at the mercy of bishop roulette. If every bishop was made aware of the existence of these articles, only a small percentage would actually read them, and only a much smaller subset would be willing to take the advice to heart in any meaningful way. My most recent former bishop, though kind and well intentioned, was not particularly bright intellectually, not well-read or well-studied, nor was he flexible in his thinking. He simply could not wrap his head around the idea that a once-devout lifelong Church member would willingly step back from full activity, unless said member was in a state of serious sin that required repentance and/or under Satanic influence. To question the teachings/doctrine/validity of the Church was so far outside of his own rigid, literalist experience that he was unable to have empathy for doubting/nuanced members. As much as I would love to see the Church more fully acknowledge and include nuanced- and non-believers, it still has a long way to go, especially at the local level.
My doubts were greatly accelerated by a very in depth study of the Hebrew Bible & realizing it was not what I had been taught at church my whole life. Mormon theology is based on a literal reading, so the doctrine falls apart if the Bible is mostly allegory.
So the advice to center one’s life on Christ? That falls apart when we don’t know who wrote the gospels or what the writers added from their own agendas.
We have some vague idea of what Jesus may have taught, along with some patently false stories of nativity, etc.
Several years ago I realized I wasn’t getting any good or accurate answers about doctrine, history, or prophetic reliability from any apologetic sources. They are continuing to gaslight everyone through these essays and topics, and every other church approved source.
I have no trust in the system, the leadership, or the doctrines.
And it has eliminated a ton of confusion to let everything go!
With all of our doubts–I plead with everyone not to let go of our belief in God and the resurrection. I cannot abide the thought of 95 percent of humanity — those who have lived as paupers & peasants and servants & slaves — not getting an opportunity to live in better circumstances.
I think I like Elder Renlund’s message. Centering one’s life in Christ is a better message than, say, centering one’s life in cultural Mormonism. Following Christ is a better message than, say, following cultural Mormonism. I think there are some good messages here, and maybe these good messages silently declare that cultural Mormonism is not the end objective after all.
This sentence you write has an underlying assumption to it that within four years of gospel study that every church member will have become well versed in everything possibly church history related. And it’s just not true. Primary teachers aren’t going to be delving into nuances of historical matters. Volunteer teachers aren’t going to be covering every possible piece of information related to history. That’s not what they’re for. That’s not what the classes are for. I think you’ll be surprised to know that church lessons focus on faithful and uplifting experiences. This prioritization will naturally result in ignoring historical facts or episodes. It’s what happens with limited time and an intentional focus. The result is that there are going to lots of things that members don’t learn about. It’s not because of some conspiracy though.
Does the church tell members to not look up or read about certain things? No. Quite the opposite actually. (Okay, there is pornography, but I hope you can excuse that). Pretty much every historical episode has been covered by an Ensign or New Era articles for decades. If not that, there are BYU produced publications about them. Those efforts outside of the three/two hour block don’t seem to represent the church to you. But the church has to deal with the fact that many members subconsciously think that they’ve learned everything possible from Sunday school.
So, the church isn’t hiding any of this. It just doesn’t prioritize it during Sunday School.
A few years ago I had a gospel doctrine teacher who was a newly wed. She’d grown up active in the church and was active as a YSA. Every lesson was her going over what she had learned (seemingly) for the first time that week while studying the lesson. It was kind of sad really. She must have committed absolutely nothing to memory from church classes while growing up. Probably took every possible opportunity to cut out on 2nd and 3rd hour to attend friends Sacrament Meetings too. Her being called as a teacher was more for her and less for the other adults in the room.
So I think that asking people that they give themselves more time to study out an issue is good advice. It’s what they should have been doing all along.
I do agree with you that these headers do feel like watered down versions of what the gospel topics essays are intended to be.
Brad D somehow read my mind and put my words into his post above. Amen bro.
”you should “distinguish core gospel truths from things that aren’t as essential” ”
I like this idea, and that is exactly what every nuanced member does to some degree or another. But the church itself absolutely sucks at doing this. We have a handbook that details which hand you can take the sacrament with, and who is supposed to greet you when you walk into the building, without distinguishing the core truths from the unessential. And then we have repeated statements from church leaders that there is no distinction between the church and Jesus Christ himself. As such, they are claiming that Jesus said I can’t take the sacrament with my left hand, and Jesus said some people need supervision to go to the bathroom. Surely they don’t want me dismissing stuff that Jesus himself said!
This is the worst of the gaslighting the church does. Everything they say is revelation from God, but any time they do something stupid I should brush it off as “not core gospel truths”.
“It can be confusing or upsetting when you learn something about the Church or its history that conflicts with what you previously understood.”
This statement feels a bit disingenuous based on the choice of words alone. My confusion and anger are not based on what I previously “understood” but on what I was repeatedly taught by the Church as truth. This wording carefully redirects the responsibility on the member to adjust, not on the Church to come clean.
jader3rd
“Does the church tell members to not look up or read about certain things? No.”
Not my experience at all. “Anti-Mormon” literature has long been discouraged. I have heard many-a-story about someone who left the church because “they read something online.” Never have I ever heard any leader encourage people to read what critics have to say. Growing up I felt people around me in the church made me feel scared to read “anti-Mormon” literature and that this stuff would damage my fragile, delicate, precious little testimony. That I would be wasting my time and going down the wrong path.
“So, the church isn’t hiding any of this. It just doesn’t prioritize it during Sunday School.”
How is it that the average rank-and-file members remain clueless about the details of Joseph Smith’s polygamy. A few years back I had a discussion with a member who flat out denied that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy at all and claimed that it was Brigham Young who started it to care for widows. The church has long been extremely reluctant to feature controversial information in its magazines, conference talks, Sunday School manuals, and other commonly read material. They put essays in a part of its website that they know barely any members reads. Really, the average members seems completely clueless about most problematic details of history and doctrine.
jader3rd, Brad D
I think a different way to frame this is that the church prioritizes the institutional integrity and infallibility over everything else. All of these headlines, everything in gospel doctrine, everything in how the church teaches people to search things out–it all inevitably leads someone to the conclusion that the institution is without reproach, so therefore any issues found must be external to it. The polygamy denier movement is a direct result of infallibility. The “reporting abuse less actually results in better help for abused kids” nonsense lately is a direct result of infallibility.
Jack
Not sure how believing something changes anything for those 95%. Rather, it might be better, instead, for you to go and sell all that you have and give it to a few of these 95 percenters–that would actually move the needle for those few out of those circumstances right now–no belief in God or the resurrection necessary.
This is a small step in the right direction, but the most obvious problem as others have observed is the large gap between the ideas in these articles and the behavior of the church’s leaders and dominant culture.
If there are just a few core principles that really matter (and I agree generally with this idea), then the brethren should reverse and apologize for some recent excommunications that did not threaten any of these core doctrines.
If revelation is a “process” conditioned by culture and mortal limitations, then please stop saying that the words of the prophets are the same as the word of God. Acknowledge when we got it wrong. Acknowledge that the priesthood and temple ban was a horrible mistake.
If faith is more about faithfulness and commitment than belief in the truthfulness of certain things, then come out and say that it is acceptable to consider the Books of Mormon and Abraham as ahistorical.
I do get the feeling that as time goes on, some of the brethren (the younger ones?) are coming around to being comfortable with allowing for a less fundamentalist approach, but they are in tension with the old guard (and the new-old guard).
The purpose of the gospel topics essays was to make an effort at transparency around the difficult issues. They address the historical facts and try (not always successfully) to offer faith-affirming spins on them. But they never addressed the bigger questions about how to think about doubts and questions surrounding the issues brought up in the essays. This seems to be an attempt at addressing that gap, putting in writing how someone at church headquarters imagines what a good response from a bishop might look like if someone wanted to discuss the state of their faith. So it’s probably a net positive, but it’s a very small step.
What is missing here is a willingness to go where I think it needs to go. Just as the race and priesthood essay opened the door to the possibility that the previous policy was human error but didn’t take that last step, these essays are unwilling to provide what I think most questioners are looking for most: permission to come to their own conclusions about the hard questions, whatever those might be. For me the resolution came in the form of realizing that I had the authority all along to come to my own conclusions, even if they diverge from what the church leadership thinks is acceptable. I remain active in the church despite my many unorthodox beliefs, but many who believe the same things I do have chosen to leave, and the fear of that keeps the church from creating an environment that allows for true freedom of belief. I hope the church is eventually able to get past its fears on this and become more open, but I do think we’re making tiny steps in that direction.