When Doubts and Questions Arise - March Ensign

[_suniluni2]

"Real intent" always leads to "the church is true". If it doesn't, it's because you masturbate.

I want to call a CFR on this, just to be cantankerous.

Moroni 10:3-5 and Boyd K. Packer.

[_mentalgymnast]

And when you speak of people who shed their Mormonism and obedience to "all" commandments, what are you really talking about? Are you talking about people going out to murder, rape, defraud, assault, and commit otherwise unkind acts or are you talking about people who just stop doing their home teaching and drink a cup of coffee every now and then?

It would vary from person to person, I suppose. I would hazard a guess that the most likely suspects would fall in these two areas: WofW and morality/pornography. But again, I think it would be difficult to know how strict obedience to the commandments would change/vary from one person to another as they default to 'doubt' rather than 'questioning'.

by the way, what are the commandments that Scientoligists are expected to obey/follow? And whatever they are, would we expect that those folks would curtail their obedience to those commandments...whatever they are? For example, to the Scientologists have a moral/sexual code the restricts and/or encourages certain behaviors/actions? Do they have a prohibition against looking at pornography? Do they have a health code that is expected to be followed?

Regards,
MG

Let me ask you a question: Let's just say for argument's sake (even though I'm pretty sure it isn't true) that Scientology has a prohibition on eating chicken and let's also say that there has been a Scientology follower who just really doesn't morally understand some of the theology of Scientology and has decided that the ban on eating chicken just doesn't make sense to him anymore. He has started eating chicken because he thinks it is a healthier way to get protein in his diet than the beef he was previously eating. If Scientology were the one true faith, would it make sense for God refuse to help someone understand things that don't make sense to them morally in their theology until they stopped breaking a rule that is obviously completely arbitrary?

If Scientology wrote an article blaming this man for not getting answers to his questions because he was eating chicken or "not obeying all of the commandments", would it seem like a dodge of his real questions and a cheap shot?

You're using chicken as the 'catch all' analogy? C'mon.

Regards,
MG

[_Polygamy-Porter]

OMG who does the guy in the article look like???

[_I have a question]

by the way, in my estimation I think that is a natural tendency for folks to once they have shed their "Mormonism" and obedience to all of the commandments to find reason to justify and/or rationalize their decisions. That may entail choosing doubt, as the default, rather than questioning because doubt excuses/nullifies strict obedience. Questioning entails, at least as far as this article is saying, continuing forward in faith and obedience without wavering.[/s]
People apostatise from the Church because they want to sin.

Yeah, because people who shed Mormonism do so because they are lazy, or want to sin etc. and then need to justify it, right?




And why do I think the Church is a cult....

A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... glish/cult

...because it is.

[_mentalgymnast]

by the way, in my estimation I think that is a natural tendency for folks to once they have shed their "Mormonism" and obedience to all of the commandments to find reason to justify and/or rationalize their decisions. That may entail choosing doubt, as the default, rather than questioning because doubt excuses/nullifies strict obedience. Questioning entails, at least as far as this article is saying, continuing forward in faith and obedience without wavering.

People apostatize from the Church because they want to sin...and then need to justify it...[and] they are lazy.

Lazy and want to sin? I doubt it. I suppose that may be true for some. But if folks doubt the tenets/teachings of the church it would seem more likely that they will discontinue practicing/living the faith and all of the commandments. OTOH, and I know you're in disagreement here, if someone is questioning yet at the same time being patient, looking for answers, and walking in obedience to the commandments, it seems more likely that they may at some point in time be able to resolve some questions and continue live with others. Dogmatic and entrenched doubts, OTOH, tend to lead an individual to a position where they may figure, oh well, why live all the tenets/teachings of the church? I don't believe in any of it, and it's all hogwash...so why stay close to the church(?)...attendance, obedience, etc.

The article makes it quite clear that there is a quantifiable difference between questions and doubts. I do agree with you, however, that having questions my also, in some respects, allow for an element of doubt...until the question is resolved or at least is sitting comfortably on the shelf...waiting for further light and knowledge. I suppose it's more of an approach to difficult questions/issues. Remaining open, or becoming closed minded.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

I suppose it's more of an approach to difficult questions/issues. Remaining open, or becoming closed minded.

Regards,
MG

Actually, I think it's more of an approach to difficult answers.
Some accept the answers for what they are, answers.
Some choose to place those answers on a mental shelf to allow them to hold fast to what they wanted to believe in the first place.

Let's look at it this way.
I know of a really good investment scheme and I want you to place your life savings in it. It's run by a guy called Bernie Madoff. Now I know you've heard some troubling things about him and possibly you've read some bad stuff on the Internet that might cause you to doubt his scheme. Look, you simply need to have faith and put those doubts to one side as they will be resolved at some point in the future after you have invested. It's okay to ask questions about the scheme, so long as they are the questions I want you to ask and that you only seek answers to those questions from sources Bernie himself has approved of.

Are you starting to have an inkling as to why the approach suggested in Hollands talk and articles like the one in the OP might be slightly coercive? (Or are you already doubting your doubts in readiness for handing Bernie your cheque?)

[_fetchface]

You're using chicken as the 'catch all' analogy? C'mon.

I'm not using it as a catch-all, and it's no less arbitrary than coffee or pork. And those are serious offenses to people who are brought up from birth to believe them.

But if you want to avoid seriously thinking about this, go ahead MG.

[_mentalgymnast]

I suppose it's more of an approach to difficult questions/issues. Remaining open, or becoming closed minded.

Regards,
MG

Actually, I think it's more of an approach to difficult answers.
Some accept the answers for what they are, answers.
Some choose to place those answers on a mental shelf to allow them to hold fast to what they wanted to believe in the first place.

Let's look at it this way.
I know of a really good investment scheme and I want you to place your life savings in it. It's run by a guy called Bernie Madoff. Now I know you've heard some troubling things about him and possibly you've read some bad stuff on the Internet that might cause you to doubt his scheme. Look, you simply need to have faith and put those doubts to one side as they will be resolved at some point in the future after you have invested. It's okay to ask questions about the scheme, so long as they are the questions I want you to ask and that you only seek answers to those questions from sources Bernie himself has approved of.

Are you starting to have an inkling as to why the approach suggested in Hollands talk and articles like the one in the OP might be slightly coercive? (Or are you already doubting your doubts in readiness for handing Bernie your cheque?)

How often on this forum do we see examples of red herrings? Diversion? Evading the issue? Side tracking? Or answering the question with a question? Or dodging? Or setting up a smokescreen? Or arguing a minor point in order to ignore the main point? Or distorting the original context/meaning/application?

Let's look at it this way.

You know something fishy is going on when this introduction is used.

Some accept the answers for what they are, answers.

Well, OK...? And we know that they are correct? Right?

Some choose to place those answers on a mental shelf to allow them to hold fast to what they wanted to believe in the first place.

This may be true...but within the context of what I've said, this applies...how?

My argument still stands. There is a qualitative difference between questioning and doubting. The points I've made are difficult to swallow, I know. I've been there. Questioning allows for flexibility/openess. Dogmatic/entrenched doubts don't...they result in a closed mind. But an openness to disobedience and leaving the commandments behind.

That is one of the major points/arguments of the article. Relative to the church/gospel/restoration...nothing directly to do with Bernie Madoff or any other misdirect that can be dredged up.

I can't count the number of times now on this forum where misdirection and some of the other tactics I've listed are used in order to avoid the actual question or point being made. It gets a bit tiresome.

Just thought I'd mention it.

Regards,
MG

[_just me]

So, does that mean that having questions is like being same-sex attracted and having doubts is like being gay?

[_I have a question]

MG, stop being closed minded about my Bernie simile.
It's bang on the money as far as demonstrating the insidious coercive nature of the article and Hollands talk. The premise being promoted is "The Church is true, it's okay to have questions and doubts (as redefined by mental gymnast to mean non entrenched doubts) so long as they don't interfere with the conclusion that the Church is true. If you think they threaten that foregone conclusion then stick 'em up on the shelf alongside polygamy, financial irregularity, apostate Prophets, Institutional racism, sexism etc. remember, the Church is true."

I know you exhort against closed mindedness but you suffer from it badly. Allow me to demonstrate, MG can you think of anything that the Church or the Prophet or Jesus Christ Himself could do that would convince you the Church wasn't true?