"Six Destructive D’s"

You know, if we turn the simple word doubt into “doubt yourself” I think this whole thing could be true.

Self doubt is not from God. Could that be true? I get discouraged whenever I doubt myself or feel that I am not good enough. To me, doubting myself is like doubting or denying the Light of Christ within.

Now, if we are talking about doubt in the general terms, I have to say I disagree. God is the one who put me on this path of questioning. I find it to be full of Light and very edifying. Of course there have been moments of pain and mourning along the way, but that is how we grow.

Lack of diligence and disobedience are only a problem if it is God/Light of Christ you are being disobedient to. Many members do not seperate the church leadership and God-they are treated as one in the same. If God leads me a different direction than a church leader, I am gonna follow God. As a TBM I didn’t believe that would ever be possible, now I am very open to the possibility. Not because I desire to prove a point by “disobeying councel” but because Christ is my first priority.

Super interesting discussion at your blog, Ray (which I love, btw!).

It’s hard to critique a talk like this if the very definition of “doubt” we are using is different than what the speaker meant by that same word.

You’re right except, I think, you’re wrong. I feel certain that the speaker intentionally did not define doubt. There’s the specious argument about whether doubt is uncertainty or “actively disbelieving”. The speaker didn’t clarify what version of “doubt” he was referring.

And this is the heart of why I wanted this thread. Not to define doubt, but rather to display the tendency of the brethren towards the treatment of doubt, disbelief, uncertainty, insecurity, etc.

What I’m trying to say is, there have been lots of comments here at staylds.com which express the inability to “speak up” in church, to express “uncertainty”, or an “insecurity” with doctrine. My argument is that this is not just a culture thing. It feels like a top-down issue, demonstrated by this talk.

Most of us here at staylds.com are “actively” trying to stay lds, obviously along a large spectrum of what it means to “be” lds. If, in that journey, the largest stumbling block is going to church with the knowledge that our spiritual/intellectual/emotional/mental/psychological journey is thwarted by the inability to “stretch” those “muscles”, it becomes troublesome, at best.

It’s like joining a gym and while you’re there every morning to work out, you just wander around, drink from the drinking fountain, chat up the trainer, watch the aerobics class and then go home and do push ups and sit ups in your bedroom, maybe a pilates dvd in the family room, etc.

I know, I know, you get out of it what you put in it. But, if you’re feeling insecure about speaking, engaging, etc, how do you “put in it” what you need to “get out of it”?

We all have those “D’s” inside of us. It is all about what we do with it.

I kind of wish these talks didn’t speak as if these emotions aren’t suppose to happen. Rather I wish they would say “WHEN this happens…..here is what helps.”

Totally agree!!! I think there is the possibility of light dawning that never would, without some doubt, somewhere.

Did Nephi doubt? hmm….

HiJolly

You know, this talk was the only one in the last conference that I had to shut off. I do not like the idea that faith comes only from exact obedience. I don’t think that is exactly true. I think this is one of the most damaging ideas taught in the church. We have faith in Christ because we need him to save us from our weakness and our disobedience. That is the whole basis of faith in Christ.

I think this idea is damaging because it teaches people that to have faith you have to be obedient. Yet there are many scriptures that point to the opposite fact. Look at the apostle Paul or Alma the younger. The found faith in Christ in their state of disobedience. It was their faith in Christ and his saving power that lead to their desire to be more obedient to the commandments. I think obedience is a result of faith not a predecessor to faith.

Doubt, Discouragement and Distraction can lead first Disappointment. However, that is the way things are supposed to be. We are here to learn and grow by our experience. If we have Doubts we should not try to push them away. We need to find the answers to our doubts. We need to learn to deal with all of these things, however the scriptures are very clear. We should turn to Christ to seek solace from these things. He will help us and teach us line upon line, bit by bit.

The problem is, as LDS people, so much of our faith is in the church and not in Christ and his saving power. We so resist the use of the prodestant idea of being saved in Christ. So we think that we gain salvation by obedience to the church. What this dear brother needs to learn is that it is healthy to lose this kind of faith. We must learn to first have faith in Christ. That is what the fourth Article of Faith states. If the basis of our testimony is that the church is true instead of that Christ is the Lord and can save us, then we are truly on shakey ground and putting our faith in the arm of flesh.

I would propose that the kind of faith talked about here should be lost and we need to refocus our testimonies in Christ. That does not mean to abandon the church, rather restructuring your testimony putting the first things first. When you start to view the requirements of exaltation and church service from the framework of being partnered with Christ “saved” by him. It becomes much more clear and your desire to do the Lord’s work is increased. We become better members of the church that way. We become less judgmental and more charitable. If I remember the scripture correctly, you first have faith in Christ with brings you hope and then charity. We have a desire to servce our fellow man because we have come to understand the awesome gift the Lord has given us.

Brilliant comments. I squirmed as I heard the talk — it was not comfortable for me, either.

HiJolly

Amen, mr_musicman.

Now, if I could only figure out a way to incorporate that into the lesson I am teaching Sunday….

From an orthodox perspective, this makes sense. It ties into why they censor history, because uncensored stuff makes it nearly impossible not to doubt, and that undermines the Church’s goals. I personally liken doubt to skepticism, and I think some level of that is healthy and very necessary. That may not lead one to be an orthodox Mormon, but searching for the truth, even if it leads to some doubt is okay. If God really did create us, then he gave us the capacity to reason. I don’t think God would have done that, and not wanted us to use it.

Moderators, feel free to start a new thread or something here since I’m clearly threadjacking.

So I agree with Ray, the context of doubt must be understood to know if it is a good thing or bad thing. I define my doubts I had as a very positive way to seeking truth…not a negative way of pessimistically rejecting things because of my pride.

This is interesting, and probably warrants a new thread. I’d be interested in exploring this issue a bit more. What I mean is the lack of definition. GAs and church spokespeople have a great tendency to say things in a very ambiguous way. The good news, is that it allows us flexibility in determining what they mean. For instance, tithing being 10% of our “interest” annually. But the bad news is that they create culture where fear mongering is introduced by not clearly defining what they mean. This talk is a great example. I claim doubt and skepticism are good attributes to have, just like faith, charity, etc. They keep us from being too gullible, too ignorant. Taken to the extreme they are disabling for a psychologically healthy adult. A better word for the “good kind of doubt” is uncertainty. So, my question to the author of the talk would be why didn’t you say this? And this, I think, is an important issue in the church.

Not long ago Foxnews did an interview with the church answering 21 questions. See here http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html. Not long after, John Dehlin (I assume) addressed this exact interview, and largely had the same response I did: why the obfuscation? Here is John’s analysis http://mormonstories.org/?p=379” class=”bbcode_url”>http://mormonstories.org/?p=379

This is one thing that led me to where I am. The church preaches honesty, and encourages it, and at times have even proclaimed they are totally open about everything, yet it is clear they purposely skirt what could be an opportunity to clarify, and, IMHO border on being dishonest. What would be the downside of an open, honest, clear, concise response? Are they afraid of something? Would it undermine authority, or damage people’s testimony?

This, to me, is especially frustrating in light of how often I hear people like Ray say what they mean in a way that is clear and easily understandable, using definitions of words that are technically accurate, while colloquially acceptable. I vote for Ray as new church spokesperson!