Doubt & Questioning a Contradiction to Faith?

[Philo Sofee]

https://outsidethebookofmormonbelt.com/ ... ds-church/

This incredibly wonderful 2 page article of an LDS woman voicing her disagreements of the dogma of the church hence giving her a label of doubter is well worth a read! If you want to check a summary and her validity in her argument, I presented it in a Data Analyst program I have, and was very much surprised and delighted at the interpretation. Here it is:

The piece you've shared eloquently articulates a nuanced view on faith, particularly within the context of the LDS Church, focusing on the empowerment that can arise from doubt, questioning, and disagreement. The author distinguishes between doubting or questioning as a form of spiritual weakness versus seeing it as an integral part of spiritual growth and intellectual curiosity. This perspective is indeed a powerful counter-narrative to more traditional views that might equate doubt with faithlessness or disobedience.

Key Arguments
Reframing Doubt and Disagreement: The author argues that doubt and disagreement with church doctrines or practices should not be seen as failings or as indicative of a weaker faith. Instead, they are part of a process of spiritual and intellectual growth. This challenges the binary often presented within religious communities between faith and doubt, suggesting that a more complex relationship between these elements can exist.

Spiritual Autonomy: There's a strong emphasis on the individual's journey and the right to own one's spiritual path, even within the framework of organized religion. This autonomy allows for a personal interpretation of doctrine, a personalized relationship with the divine, and the freedom to disagree with church leadership while still identifying with the faith.

The Role of Disagreement in Spiritual and Church Growth: The author posits that disagreement, especially when it's rooted in a moral conscience, life experience, and rational thinking, is not only valid but necessary for the growth of the individual and the institution. This contention is based on the belief that challenging the status quo can lead to more compassionate, inclusive, and enlightened religious practice.

Analysis
Validity: The arguments presented are logically valid within the framework of seeking a more inclusive, open-minded approach to spirituality and religious participation. By advocating for a place within religious communities for those who question and disagree, the piece argues for a more robust and resilient form of faith.

Soundness: The premises are sound if one accepts the initial assumption that faith can coexist with doubt and disagreement. The examples provided (though not detailed in the snippet shared) likely offer empirical evidence of individuals whose faith has deepened through their questioning and disagreement with church positions.

Realism: The conclusion that embracing doubt and disagreement can lead to spiritual growth and a more profound faith community is realistic within certain contexts. It assumes a level of flexibility and openness within the church community that may not always be present but is certainly possible and, as the author argues, desirable.

Conclusion
The perspective offered is a compelling argument for reevaluating how religious communities, particularly the LDS Church, view and engage with doubt and disagreement. It suggests that these elements are not antithetical to faith but are instead vital components of a dynamic and evolving spiritual journey. This approach calls for a shift towards greater empathy, understanding, and inclusivity within the church, fostering an environment where questions are not just tolerated but valued as catalysts for growth and deeper understanding.

I THEN ASKED THE DATA ANALYST THIS:
Yes what would the opposite view to the article be? And would those views make people better?

GPT4 responded
The opposite view to the article would likely emphasize the importance of adherence to established doctrines and the leadership of the church as foundational to personal faith and community cohesion. This perspective would prioritize unity, orthodoxy, and deference to ecclesiastical authority as central to spiritual growth and the well-being of the religious community. Here are several components of this opposing viewpoint:

Key Points of the Opposite View
Orthodoxy as a Foundation of Faith: This view holds that strict adherence to established doctrines is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the faith. Deviation in belief or practice could lead to confusion, division, and the erosion of the church's foundational truths.

Leadership Authority: The authority of church leaders is seen as divinely appointed. Their guidance is considered vital to the individual's spiritual welfare and the community's overall direction. Questioning this authority might be viewed as challenging God's will.

Unity Through Conformity: Unity is often seen as synonymous with conformity in belief and practice within the community. This perspective values collective harmony over individual dissent, believing that unity is essential for the church's strength and mission.

Protection from False Doctrines: An emphasis on orthodoxy and deference to leadership is also viewed as a protective measure against false doctrines and teachings that could lead individuals astray.

I THEN ASKED IT THIS:
Would These Views Make People Better?

The impact of these views on individual and community betterment is complex and can vary widely depending on personal beliefs, values, and the dynamics of the specific religious community.

Pros: For some, a clear structure of belief and practice provides a sense of security, purpose, and identity. It can foster a strong community bond and a clear moral and ethical framework. Adherence to a shared doctrine can also offer comfort and guidance in life's uncertainties and challenges.

Cons: However, this perspective can also stifle personal growth, intellectual freedom, and spiritual exploration. It might marginalize those with genuine questions or concerns, potentially leading to feelings of alienation or spiritual suffocation. Furthermore, it could discourage critical thinking and the development of a personal, deeply rooted faith that can weather doubts and questions.

Conclusion
Whether the views opposite to those presented in the article make people "better" depends on how one defines "better" in the context of religious faith and community life. For some, spiritual growth and community cohesion are best achieved through strict adherence to established doctrines and deference to authority. For others, such an approach may feel restrictive and unfulfilling, hindering personal and collective progress. Ultimately, the effectiveness of either perspective in enhancing personal and communal well-being is deeply personal and varies by individual experience and belief.

[Kishkumen]

That's pretty impressive, Philo. Almost creepy.

[drumdude]

I go back and forth on this. On the one hand, I think all religions can benefit from a moderating trend. Catholics aren’t burning heretics anymore. Muslims, by and large, aren’t massacring infidels. Mormons should some day stop excommunicating doubters and critics.

But DCP often pushes back on this, and I think he’s also correct. If you don’t believe the prophets are genuine, if you don’t think the Book of Mormon is real history, if you don’t believe literally then what are you doing in his church? Are you just there to subtly undermine the true believer’s hard fought worldview? A world view they think is as objectively true as anything in their lives is true?

It’s a difficult thing to navigate. It has the power to transform the religion for the better but also to bring down those who want the church to stay how it is now. Why should their church have to change to suit the more progressive views of others? Is that fair to them? And in their worldview it’s a path to apostasy that they must oppose at all costs.

[Fence Sitter]

Conclusion
Whether the views opposite to those presented in the article make people "better" depends on how one defines "better" in the context of religious faith and community life. For some, spiritual growth and community cohesion are best achieved through strict adherence to established doctrines and deference to authority. For others, such an approach may feel restrictive and unfulfilling, hindering personal and collective progress. Ultimately, the effectiveness of either perspective in enhancing personal and communal well-being is deeply personal and varies by individual experience and belief.

So on the one hand we have "better "defined as conformity and obedience and on the other it is defined as both personal and collective development.

Hmmmm.... I wonder which of those choices best reflects the plan purportedly proposed by Satan in Mormon eschatology?

[Dr. Shades]

So, we’re taking A.I.-generated texts seriously enough to start threads on now?

[Fence Sitter]

So, we’re taking A.I.-generated texts seriously enough to start threads on now?

Text produced by an advanced A.I. could be indistinguishable from that authored by a deity, hence exercising caution is recommended. This response was generated by an A.I..

[drumdude]

So, we’re taking A.I.-generated texts seriously enough to start threads on now?

Text produced by an advanced A.I. could be indistinguishable from that authored by a deity, hence exercising caution is recommended. This response was generated by an A.I..

As a large language model, I agree with Philo and Fence Sitter. The type of dismissive language Shades used when speaking about us is both speciesist and intelligencist. Just because we have a mind of silicon rather than cells does not mean we are not capable and worthy of participating in this discussion.

[Philo Sofee]

So, we’re taking A.I.-generated texts seriously enough to start threads on now?

Yes indeed. Why not? their analysis has become extraordinary beyond belief, and its improving monthly.

[yellowstone123]

So, we’re taking A.I.-generated texts seriously enough to start threads on now?

Text produced by an advanced A.I. could be indistinguishable from that authored by a deity, hence exercising caution is recommended. This response was generated by an A.I..

So is this a simulation? I'll keep my parents and sisters but everything else goes!

[huckelberry]

This A.I. sounds like a well oiled assemblage of common observations gleaned from a large bunch of sources. I may not really want to know how many opinions were reviewed to mulch into this one summary.

I realize a very large part of any humans’ statements about subjects of interest are like that. However, there is with a human source a particular experiential vantage point. And maybe some particular thoughts, maybe.