Faith and Intellect

Hang in there eman, it gets better.

This is a great topic, I appreciate your comments on the article.

The one part of this I struggled with was this.

…I have come to rely chiefly on spiritual experiences, not intellectual deliberations, as a basis for my testimony.

I wish I could say this. As much as I wish I was a spiritual experience person, I’m just not. I would be if I could. I often feel that if I just had a bunch of spiritual experience this whole faith transition wouldn’t be so hard.

My fist thought on this quote was “spiritual experiences are the basis for the spiritual part of my understanding, while intellectual knowledge is the basis for my temporal/intellectual understanding.” My religious life consists of both spiritual and intellectual components, and I don’t try to force either one of them into a pre-formed mold – or mix them together into some magical perfectly cohesive whole.

I would also say I am not a “spiritual person” in the same way that many other people are. From a very young age I learned that my emotions can lead me wrong, and I have always struggled differentiating what I hear people call “the spirit” from an emotional experience. I have however had a couple experiences that I consider to be strong and spiritual, but I don’t think they are the same as what I always imagined others experiencing. My spiritual life is much more akin to sitting on a mountain top and contemplating the beauty and complexity of nature — or tapping into the reality of love in the world.

So my thought is don’t compare your experiences to others, live your own life, take what you can discover for yourself and cherish it – even if you don’t feel like you can share it.

…I wish I could say this. As much as I wish I was a spiritual experience person, I’m just not. I would be if I could. I often feel that if I just had a bunch of spiritual experience this whole faith transition wouldn’t be so hard. I get it. Faith is a choice. The church does way more good than harm. But without the basis of these spiritual experiences that people often talk of, I wonder why I should try so hard. For me I feel as if I’m intellectually trying to stay in the church. I know it’s good and all that stuff but I don’t have a spiritual bases that is somehow unique to Mormonism. My prayers for a “testimony” have gone unheard….all of these “witnesses” don’t help me to have a testimony of the church. Just because I can choose to believe the church is true why should I?

I’m glad to see that they are at least paying some attention to the threat that critical thinking often poses to the traditional testimony concept. The main message I get out of this article is that you can be very smart, knowledgeable, etc. and still believe in the Church at the same time because it doesn’t necessarily have to be either one or the other. I don’t doubt that because I work with some TBMs that are as smart as anyone I have ever met and to be honest I have often wondered how they can manage to continue believing in the Church year after year while I have had so many difficulties accepting these same doctrines almost as long as I can remember. I think the following excerpts from this article explain how many TBMs go about it (basically by compartmentalizing things and not worrying too much about the toughest questions).

I also came to see that different forms of knowledge have different methods by which things are known (see 1 Corinthians 2:10–14). Religious questions cannot be addressed satisfactorily through scholarly inquiry alone…Realizations such as these have helped me to understand that although I will probably always have some unresolved questions, these intellectual issues are no longer central concerns for me…I have come to rely chiefly on spiritual experiences, not intellectual deliberations, as a basis for my testimony.

Why should we try to redefine what things like “knowledge” mean to fit around personal preferences or preconceived biases? Why couldn’t she just say that she likes the Church and she feels like it has made a positive difference to her and others? The truth is that most (if not all) of us don’t really know for sure what exactly will happen when we die among many other things the Church already treats as a foregone conclusion. I agree that faith and intellect are not necessarily incompatible. However, to me the proper relationship between faith and intellect would be to start with what you accept as facts using your intellect to interpret what everything means as accurately as possible and then use faith, speculation, intuition, judgment calls, etc. to fill in the blanks as much as you need to or feel comfortable with. Basically I think the Church has it backwards when they expect people to put more stock in faith, accepted “revelations”, and warm fuzzy feelings than evidence and logical reasoning. It looks to me like this misplaced and undeserved level of trust in things that have repeatedly proven to be unreliable at best is one thing that has already led to many of the worst problems the Church has faced several of which continue to plague the Church to this day.

Why should we try to redefine what things like “knowledge” mean to fit around personal preferences or preconceived biases? Why couldn’t she just say that she likes the Church and she feels like it has made a positive difference to her and others?

Some people crave the sense of certainty. That powerful longing and its resulting actions are a part of the core personality that none of us will be able to change. The only thing we can “change” is our own views (to some degree) so the best way to avoid conflict in this situation is to tweak our own understanding/definitions to make a little more room for different perspectives/personalities.

…why do TBMs often question the status of their marriage and why they should even be together anymore as soon as they find out their spouse has lost faith in the Church? I think the current way testimony, temple marriage, and temple worthiness are taught and emphasized plays a major part in this type of reaction so that’s why I don’t think it’s that easy to dismiss as simply some harmless difference of opinion or personality.

I hear you and understand you have a valid point, but I have a hard time feeling the reality of it. Maybe there is a danger there that personally I am not in touch with. I can’t imagine questioning the status of my marriage, or feeling “freed” of “commandments” such as WoW or chastity etc. For me and my experience maybe in some ways I have always been driving parallel to the church bus emotionally, instead of being fully on board and under someone else’s direction.

At the same time I don’t know how to tell someone fully invested in being “on the bus” that wouldn’t consider driving themselves on the same road and at the same general pace as the “church bus” that their personal growth and possibly salvation depends on their getting behind the wheel. I wouldn’t dream of initiating that conversation or even participating in it unless it opened up right before me.

Also, is anyone familiar with this quote from President Uchtdorf that went along with the article (it was a sidebar quote in the print version)?

Fear not; ask questions. Be curious, but doubt not! Always hold fast to faith and to the light you have already received. Because we see imperfectly in mortality, not everything is going to make sense right now. … It’s true that ‘faith is not … a perfect knowledge’ (Alma 32:21), but as you exercise your faith, applying gospel principles every day under any circumstances, you will taste the sweet fruits of the gospel, and by this fruit you will know of its truth (see Matthew 7:16–20; John 7:17; Alma 32:41–43).

It reads to me like “Be curious, but not too curious!” I’m trying to fully understand what he means when he throws in that “doubt not!” I have doubts about many things in the church, but that doesn’t nullify all of the wonderful wisdom and experiences I have gained as a result of it. Thoughts?

I have been told by my Bishop that the Spirit is the one true litmus test for truth.

Hogwash. That might work for him, but it’s not correct as worded. Even our own scriptures tell us to study things out in our hearts AND in our minds.

‘Nuff said.

I love that quote by Pres. Uchtdorf, but I define “doubt” differently than many people. I see doubt as the opposite of faith. I see faith as being willing to hope for things that can’t be seen (yet) – as a willingness to continue to explore and consider and ponder and experiment amid uncertainty. I see doubt, in that context, as an unwillingness to hope and believe until full clarity is reached – an active disbelief, not just a lack of belief – a closing of the mind as opposed to keeping an open mind. I see faith as living between belief and disbelief – a suspension of decision while searching, if you will.

We had an awesome priesthood lesson today on ‘feelings of the heart.’ One man I have huge respect for and who I know has had extensive struggles with historocity etc said that in the end his faith was a choice based on feelings. He said that he accepted he couldn’t prove it and so chose to embrace the permanent uncertainty and live with it.

This, he said, brought him peace and made him more able to live fully. It hasn’t stopped him reading and exploring. He reads from every era and source.