"The Answer to All the Hard Questions"

Here is someone’s take on it:

http://rationalfaiths.com/answer-hard-questions-um-maybe/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://rationalfaiths.com/answer-hard-questions-um-maybe/

A solution in search of a problem.

Agreed. An attempted solution when the problem doesn’t seem to be understood.

Here is someone’s take on it:

http://rationalfaiths.com/answer-hard-questions-um-maybe/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://rationalfaiths.com/answer-hard-questions-um-maybe/

Yeah, This concurs with my reading of the article:

The assumption is that trusting in God = trusting in the Church’s leaders

Essentially that no hard situation or troubling question really matters as long as you plod along, putting your butt in the pew every Sunday and sending in that tithing check. This is how we show our trust in God. Someday it will all make sense – or if not then it will be explained in the afterlife.

But if we love God above all else, if we trust in His love for us, we will be able to endure in faith until that day dawns when the veil lifts and all becomes clear.

The unfortunate assumption is that if individuals are unable to adhere to traditional church beliefs and perform traditional church behaviors it reflects a deficiency in their love for God and their trust in Him.

Here is someone’s take on it:

http://rationalfaiths.com/answer-hard-questions-um-maybe/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://rationalfaiths.com/answer-hard-questions-um-maybe/

I really liked that response but I didn’t like one of the conclusions:

The largest problem I see with this particular Ensign article, is that R. Val Johnson is giving uninformed advice; it seems that the author has never experienced serious doubts.

How many committees does an Ensign article have to go through before it is accepted for print? How many times was the article edited to conform to suggestions from committees? Does the article still reflect the innermost views of the author at that point? I know someone that had an article published in the Ensign (a long time ago). They had to go through some serious hoops, I imagine the process is still the same. In some ways R. Val Johnson is only giving the advice that they are allowed to give in the Ensign.

Back to the article:

I read it over the Thanksgiving break when I saw a copy at the in-laws. The cover of the December Ensign sparked the interest. Right there on the front cover:

“Bringing Others Back to Faith in Christ”

and

“The Answer to All the Hard Questions” – huge missed opportunity, should have tucked that one away on page 42, not page 16.

So of course interest was piqued. I think one of the things that prevents people from understanding one another is that the believer will say “trust god” and the doubter will hear “trust the leaders.” That’s understandable since sometimes the believer actually says “leaders.” To further complicate matters sometimes the believer can’t see the difference between those two statements.

Some of the hardest questions come when what we believe is challenged by changing cultural fashions or by new information, sometimes misinformation, that critics of the Church confront us with.

That’s where the wheels started coming off for me. The immediate thought was “they just had to get that dig in, didn’t they?” That or “here we go again.” Sigh.

DJ also correctly points out that answers like “trust god” don’t work so well for people that have reached the end of their god rope. That’s why counsel for people struggling with difficult questions to read scriptures and to pray ring so hollow. People have already exhausted the traditional methods and come up empty, that’s why the questions are hard!

The article appeared to be quite “nerf” so while reading the article my brain switched gears on me. I read the Ensign article with the perspective of placing myself in god’s shoes. [Side note: How might he/she/it deal with the doubter?]

Principle 1: God Knows Infinitely More Than We Do. – There are things that I know that others don’t know… and not to be prideful, there are many things that I don’t know that others know.

Principle 2: God Shares Some of His Knowledge. – God doesn’t dump. This one goes with principle 1, god seems to be okay with the dynamic of allowing people to learn at their own pace. I can be comfortable with that approach as well. Don’t dump. [Side note: this is where the Ensign article is guilty of saying “trust the leaders.”]

Principle 3: We Can Trust in God’s Love. – Can others trust my love?

Principle 4: We Need to Seek Spiritual Affirmations. – According to the theology each of us has a soul which is comprised of a body and a spirit. We all have a spirit, a piece of divinity, within us. Perhaps some time can be placed on seeking internal spiritual affirmations instead of limiting myself to only looking for spiritual affirmations with external sources.

Principle 5: We May Need to Wait Upon the Lord. – I find that one somewhat humorous. Where are my car keys? Always in the last place I look for them! How long do we wait? Until the waiting is over. In the interim, what other choice do we have but to wait? Pulling this back to the strange bent that I put into my reading of the article… other people are just going to have to wait on me. I might not be immediate, I might only come around in the next life 🙂 . On a more serious note, a takeaway could be to extend that same waiting courtesy to everyone. I mean if I can’t wait on people (or myself) that I have seen how can I claim to be able to wait on god, whom I have not seen.

I think the article deserves possibly a B- for effort. Didn’t love it for many of the reasons already mentioned in this thread, but the main two reasons were that my big doubt is if God even exists because He doesn’t seem to exist very often. The second reason is – and maybe I’m inserting my own bias – it seemed implicit that we are dependent on others to tell us God’s will. So not only do I have to trust God, but I have to trust the servants of God to interpret for me.

But I like that the author acknowledges that that there are hard questions and the possibility that his article is oversimplified.