Doubt as part of faith

[Whistler]

So I was looking at Sunstone archives from when I posted on the "how to be rebellious" thread and I found a lovely article by Boyd Petersen on faith and doubt and learning more about church history (https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-con ... -42-50.pdf). I really enjoyed reading it. I like how Boyd dispelled this "either/or" myth about Mormon faith (often people say "either the church is true or it's not!" which doesn't aid a very nuanced view of the Church, the Gospel, and God). I also like how he says that a denial of God's existence requires just as much faith as asserting it.

It's part of living in Utah, I think, where I feel like my attitude towards religion is very different from my fellow church-goers, but then I read an article like this (also somewhat a product of Utah, in my mind), and I feel completely accepted in my faith. And maybe I'm underestimating my fellow ward members, and we simply don't talk about our doubts and trials very much at church (it seems that stories about trials always end with a renewal of faith, which I guess makes it relevant to church discussion, but I think trials and doubts that still haven't had this resolution are also valid points of discussion).

[Marduk]

Hey I know that guy! He teaches at UVU. He was gonna talk to my Milton class one day about comparisons between Milton and Mormonism, but then there were scheduling problems and he never came. I was sad.

[Violet]

He's also been adjunct at BYU. He was one of my favorite professors. But yes, I think it's an excellent article.

[Whistler]

yeah, I had his wife for a literature class and I want to be like her when I grow up

[Dragon Lady]

I am becoming more and more confident in my opinion that the whole, "I know X is true" is overdone and not true. The scriptures even tell us that faith is *not* to have a perfect knowledge of things. If you actually *know* something, you no longer have faith in it. You know it. I've always felt a little guilty bearing my testimony that I believe in this or I have a testimony of that. I feel like I'm skirting around not saying, "I know this is true." But then last year when I was in Young Women's we had a lesson that was talking about faith and we read the scripture about faith not being a perfect knowledge of things. And I felt very strongly to share my opinion (my belief, if you will ) that it's perfectly ok to bear your testimony about your faith instead of your knowledge. And it's ok and good even to not know the truth of something, but simply to believe it. There were audible sighs of relief and a couple of incredulous, but hopeful, "Really?!" And I realized that most of these girls had grown up only hearing testimonies of "I know this and I know that" and they didn't realize that it's ok to just have faith. Ever since I've made it a point to not say, "I know" in testimony meeting, specifically for those girls. Because honestly, I don't. I have very strong belief, but I wouldn't say I know without any shadow of doubt any part of the gospel. And I don't think I'm bad or spiritually immature because of it.

[Portia]

I am becoming more and more confident in my opinion that the whole, "I know X is true" is overdone and not true. The scriptures even tell us that faith is *not* to have a perfect knowledge of things. If you actually *know* something, you no longer have faith in it. You know it. I've always felt a little guilty bearing my testimony that I believe in this or I have a testimony of that. I feel like I'm skirting around not saying, "I know this is true." But then last year when I was in Young Women's we had a lesson that was talking about faith and we read the scripture about faith not being a perfect knowledge of things. And I felt very strongly to share my opinion (my belief, if you will :D) that it's perfectly ok to bear your testimony about your faith instead of your knowledge. And it's ok and good even to not know the truth of something, but simply to believe it. There were audible sighs of relief and a couple of incredulous, but hopeful, "Really?!" And I realized that most of these girls had grown up only hearing testimonies of "I know this and I know that" and they didn't realize that it's ok to just have faith. Ever since I've made it a point to not say, "I know" in testimony meeting, specifically for those girls. Because honestly, I don't. I have very strong belief, but I wouldn't say I know without any shadow of doubt any part of the gospel. And I don't think I'm bad or spiritually immature because of it.

What about testimonies of disbelief? For instance, "I do not believe [but of course am not 100% certain] in X." What place is there for that in our discourse? Saying that you believe in something still has an element of socially-approved credulousness.

[Dragon Lady]

Well, I'm specifically talking in a formal bearing of testimonies setting. Where the purpose is to build ours and others' testimonies. And I suppose that wording can be used in a building sort of way, but not normally. (And it's hard to really discuss this without having more specific examples.)

In a less formal setting I think that's perfectly reasonable. And good. Doubt absolutely has room in faith discussions. If you don't know something and only believe in it, there has to be a level of doubt as well. An admission of "if I don't know this to be true, then there has to be a possibility that it is not. I choose to believe it anyway." On the flip side, there will be things that you say, "if I don't know this to be false, then there has to be a possibility that it is. I choose not to believe in it anyway."

For example, in a light-hearted example, I don't believe that the Greek gods existed. But I don't *know* that. I think saying such (even in more serious topics) is perfectly acceptable. So long as you and everyone involved in the conversation is respectful.

[Marduk]

I don't believe that Jesus was white, but I don't *know* that.

[Portia]

I don't believe that Jesus was white, but I don't *know* that.

If he were to fill out a U.S. census, he would be.

[Digit]

there will be things that you say, "if I don't know this to be false, then there has to be a possibility that it is. I choose not to believe in it anyway."

Even Richard Dawkins would probably agree with you on that. In The God Delusion, he doesn't state that there is no God; he states that there is almost certainly no God.

[Dragon Lady]

Are Israeli Jews considered white?

[Portia]

Yes, ma'am.

White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/l ... 125212.htm

[Dragon Lady]

Huh. Who knew? I wouldn't have ever thought to describe them as such as their skin is more olive.

Well, there you go. Learn something new every day.

[Portia]

Huh. Who knew? I wouldn't have ever thought to describe them as such as their skin is more olive.

Well, there you go. Learn something new every day.

Whiteness has next to nothing to do with skin tone. The History of White People looks like one place to start.

Irish people like myself were, at one time, not considered white, and last I checked, our pallor is great. But we weren't WASPs, so No Irish Need Apply, and so on.

This gets really gnarly with the Mormon community and the whole "white and delightsome" concept you find in the Book of Mormon, where skin tone is a very literal mark of goodness or badness.