I posted a note on the Mormon Dialogue forum (MDDB), saying that I was doubting many of the core beliefs of the Church, and if I was in error if someone would point out my errors. I noted that all I wanted was truth. Here were some of the replies:
It is a little off-putting when the first thing I read was how dangerous it was to question anything in the Church.
Yes, it is dangerous. Try bringing up any of the taboos I listed in Sunday School, and see how far that gets you.
The truth from whose point of view?
Is all truth subjective? Or is there any truth that is objective? If you belong to a church which seems to not teach truth and deceives consistently, you might start believing a “truth” which has nothing to do with reality. But in that case it is not really truth at all. Placing your faith in false “truth” won’t get you very far in understanding the world, yourself, or life in general. I want truth that is most closely aligned with reality, rather than a truth that is far removed from reality.
One person shared this link, “Of Doubt, Faith, Questions, and Choices,” the thesis of which is that faith is a choice we make. Indeed, it is. At what point does choosing to believe become irrational? Or does it not matter if faith becomes irrational? I don’t lack faith because I don’t have satisfying answers. I lack faith because I’ve found answers that are completely and entirely contrary to what the Church teaches. Should I continue to choose to believe regardless of my new found knowledge? At what point does that become illogical, unreasonable, and irrational? Or does that not matter?
What do you want to learn the truth about?
The truth about reality. The truth about history. The truth about practice. The truth about doctrine. The truth about Joseph. The truth about plural marriage. The truth about the Book of Mormon. The truth about evolution. The truth about God. The truth about life. Reality, as it really is. Not just “faith promoting” truth, but actual truth. I can decide for myself if the truth is faith promoting or not.
Based on what I read of your blog, you are not even Mormon in thought anymore, even if you technically still are LDS. You are beyond doubting. You disbelieve.
One of the definitions of doubt is to “question the truth or fact of something,” and “to disbelieve.” I’m questioning the “truth” or “facts” that the Church teaches, and disbelieving what it has taught.
It seems, acccording [sic] to your attitude in your blogs, there will be no satisfactory answers to your quesions [sic] that will aleviate [sic] your doubts. Through my personal study of many of the issues you bring up, I have been able to satisfy any doubts that I have had about things, without the need to talk to church leaders or others about them. I have the faith and patience to know that God will eventually reveal the truth for any unresolved issues.
This is something that seems to be common among members of the Church. If they have a doubt, they should seek a satisfactory answer, even if it doesn’t resolve the issue. If the issue isn’t resolved to one’s satisfaction, we should just wait patiently until God eventually reveals the truth of it to us. But at what point does that become irrational? How many unresolved issues can you carry around with you throughout your life, hoping that one day they will be resolved? A hundred? A thousand? At what point do you recognize that you are living a life of unresolved issues that don’t make sense? Is that a life well lived?
Why an anonymous blog? Do you not have the courage of your convictions?
Because if it wasn’t anonymous, I would surely be excommunicated for the doubts I’ve expressed, which would result in losing friend and family relationships, and possibly employment. I have no desire for that. Unfortunately, this is the guise one must take in order to honestly question things in the Church without severe repercussions in one’s life.
If Mormonism doesn’t work for Doubting Mormon, they should move on and find what will.
I am moving on in many ways, and finding many things that are working very well. But I have spent most of my life as a Mormon, and in exploring these doubts I’m in some ways trying to understand myself better. I’m trying to understand how I could have believed what I did, and how others continue to believe it, or if it is all simply based on emotive faith. Or am I wrong after all.
Why would you expect God would allow there to be visible archaeological evidence in support of the historicity of the Book of Mormon…
I don’t expect God would allow an overabundance of evidence for Book of Mormon historicity, as I’ve explained a number of times in previous posts. The problem with this, I believe, is that this results in a God that must hide things from us, things in the natural world, and is consequently deceptive and a trickster. What we find in the natural world is not really what was or is there. Why would we worship a God that would do this?
…physical evidence designed to convince sign-seekers…
Are all scientists sign seekers? They work with physical empirical evidence, and expect nothing less, in order to discover truth about the natural world and about reality. Shame on them.
Just as a side note, there was no sealing between plural wives.
You may be technically right, but just as two siblings are considered sealed together by virtue of their sealing to their parents, so are two plural wives to a husband likely considered sealed together as well. The “welding link” of the sealing extends beyond the direct sealing. Or do you believe you will never see your siblings again after this life? Would plural wives never see any other wife of the same husband?
Perhaps the poster only came here to advertise her blog?
That is one reason, yes. I wanted feedback on my doubts. Talking to an empty room quickly becomes dull.
…you seem to make much of a very narrow range of discussion in some blogs and books, and completely ignore the broader range of available information and opinion. You are clearly as confused about Constitutional law and history as you are about epistemological issues…
I am intimately aware of the blogs, books, information, and opinion available. Just because I didn’t develop my blog posts into doctoral theses doesn’t mean I “completely ignore them.” Stating I’m wrong, but then not saying specifically how you think I’m wrong, doesn’t get us very far in trying to better understand these issues.
Update: And now it looks like I’ve been banned from posting links on MDDB, because that’s just “spam.” Right. Well, I gave it a shot.