You know, I just got released from being EQ instructor, and through my lessons I always tried to “walk the line” where I didn’t bear testimony of things I didn’t believe (I’ve really struggled w/ atheism since I was about 15; not to mention the slew of other problems, mostly similar to #32), and yet also present a faithful treatment of the material. I have had a surprising number of people “come out of the closet” to me. I think Burton, in one of his “Borderlands” articles, suggested bearing testimony about your doubts openly. When I was a teenager I did that and had a very positive reception from people, but I don’t know that I’d be able to pull it off again. It is something you might consider though. The comments about honesty in the original post I think are vital (I’m not trying to accuse you of being less than honest here, I promise).

As to the original question of this post, I think one of the most helpful people for me was an Institute instructor. During the pre-mission year at the U of U, I had a mediocre experience at Institute, and the first semester home a crappy experience. I realized then that Institute depended entirely on the instructor, not the curriculum. I found a guy at the U’s “tute” that I could really identify with. It took a minute, but it became clear he was one of the people that we’re trying to label above – call it a faithful skeptic, a cafeteria Mormon, or whatever; and he taught Institute! He’d even bring up things like post-manifesto polygamy, magic and early Mormonism, racism among church leaders, etc. I had a lot of conversations with him that helped a lot as I’ve struggled through this.

In addition to that Institute teacher, Burton’s articles, the Bloggernacle in general (esp. John Dehlin, truth be told), and a self-realization that it was acceptable to be a menu Mormon (even in a family of some of the truest and bluest) are the reasons I still go to a ridiculously-long three hour block of church meetings every Sunday. I even enjoy it some weeks!

I would also present a classification of “Blind Believer.” One who says they “know,” never questions anything, can’t articulate why they beleive, they just do. often times, these are the folks who make the “unusual” statement we hear at Church.

I am really sorry it has taken me so long to reply to your post and I seem to have missed the dialectic. Been really busy. I love Jeff Burton’s book and glad you gave us a heads up to it. I read some of it last year and it really helped me to get past a lot of cognitive dissonance I was feeling.

Lisa Ray – I loved your comments. I also think there is definitely a place in the church for doubters and even a place for people that have discarded many things. I also think that your bishop was out of his boundaries as an ecclesiastical leader to make demands on another person like that. If I was in your son’s shoes I would have just appeased the Bishop letting him believe what he wanted to believe because he doesnt seem to want to step into the world of dynamic faith/doubt.

Ray , Andrew & co. – I prefer not to use the labels because I feel that it paints a broad brush. The only thing I can be sure about with Joseph Smith is that I believe, from reading the historical accounts, that he honestly believed he was called of God. As far as seeing visions…I am skeptical.

When it comes to Brigham Young saying there are men on the moon…..I have concluded that it is false. I have concluded that many things the church teaches are false too.

I have concluded that no one has convinced me that they know if there is life after death and if there is what it is like. I hope I will be with my family but I do not know.

I hope Christ is my saviour…I cannot get by each week without that spiritual, mental and emotional reassurance. But as for Joseph Smith I have had to redefine my terms of him as a prophet. I see many things that he said we false and I see him as a charlatan in many circumstances. HOWEVER…I also see him as being very insightful and inspired about other things.

I would say I am a doubting hopeful about certain aspects of the gospel that keep me in the church….

I have a suspension of disbelief http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief (on the book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon. I see the value they bring as being of enough value that I will suspend my disbelief but maintain skepticism and doubt.

and a straight out disbeliever about things like seeing things in hats, men on the moon, polygamy, blacks being of Cain, polyandry, angels slaying Joseph if women dont marry him, Gold Plates in hills that open up to show vast amounts of plates that arent shown through archaeological finds, canes that heal, cloaks that heal, glossolalia, so on and so on.

It is very important not to come to premature judgement but it is also important to take the time to study the evidence out before drawing the conclusion….this is called suspension of judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_judgment). I encourage people that are learning mormon history to suspend their judgement until they feel they could write a very good scholarly book on the subject and if that is the case then they would probably have sufficient knowledge to draw an informed decision about the validity of them staying in the church or leaving.

I knew Peggy only from the internet. Peggy was my lifesaver. I was angry and bitter and snarky and cynical. Peggy never, ever gave up encouraging me to see the positive, to relax, to not be so hard on the church and myself. The main thing she helped me to see was that nothing at all had changed except for my perspective. She literally coached me through this for years.

Peggy died the day before Thanksgiving last year of ocular melanoma metastasized to her liver, bones and lungs. She was only 58. She had two regrets: that she would not live to read to her grandchildren, and that she didn’t outlive Gordon B. Hinckley. I still think of her often, like when I read posts like this. She was a good friend.

Lisa, I can’t speak to the appropriateness of that statement in your son’s individual case, but, as a general rule, I can. The Church has not raised the bar that high for missionaries. Period. Any standard for missionary service that is HIGHER than the standard for temple attendance is wrong. Period. That standard is higher than that required to attend the temple; therefore, as a general rule, it is wrong. Period.

If there is a proper way to share that with someone who can share it properly with your Bishop, please do so. Otherwise, I hope at least that it helps your understanding of the Church’s actual stance relative to that comment.

For me, I am very independent minded, so I don’t think any individual person has been so influential on me in the way mentioned. It was more my own internal search. But I would say that my parents’ influence, having given up everything to join the church against both their families’ wishes, makes it something not taken lightly in my mind.

I see your point about “Believing Skeptic” meaning “skeptic” and “Skeptical Believer” being a “believer.” Guess new labels are harder to make up than it first appears.

So I guess I’ll go with Skeptical Believer for now unless I can find a better and more descriptive label.

Interestingly, my wife gives me the hardest time over my skeptic side. I’m skeptical of just about everything. I constantly turn down get rich quick schemes and think financial analysts are pretty much witch doctors and historians are gossip mongers.

By the way, I sent John an email suggesting that believers that we’re “Skeptical Believers” might fit the label of “The Simply Faithful” or maybe “Those of Simple Faith.” The problem with that label is that “simple” might be “naive” which is not what I mean. I mean as opposed to “complex.” As you said, they are happy without having to question everything like my brian is wired to do. I see no problem with this and personally I think a good many atheists fit that very label.

“How would you characterize a non-skeptical believer in positive terms?”

As someone who has reached a level of confidence that they don’t need to know or understand more to be happy. That’s not me, but it’s not necessarily a bad thing. It drives unbelieving skeptics absolutely nuts, but if it really works for someone, I’m not going to say it’s a bad thing. I’d rather they be happy in their confidence than miserable outside it.

That’s great to hear. It’s great to correspond with Jeff as well. I experienced it the other way, encountering Jeff first, then John. They are mutually reinforcing of staying for the good in the Church, which is incidentally what Richard Bushman highlights in John’s interview with him: http://mormonstories.org/podcast/MormonStories-051-RichardBushmanPart5.mp3

You know, Ray, this is perfect. I was just thinking about the Adam-God doctrine as an example.

Now on the one hand, I’m skeptical of the current scholarly view that I’ve seen that has Brigham Young teaching things contrary to scripture. But on the other hand, I’m skeptical enough of any human being to believe that Brigham Young, imperfect person that he was, might have misunderstood some scriptures.

And yet, even if I assume a WORST CASE scenario, that Brigham Young did teach a doctrine entirely contrary to scripture, the truth is that I think it’s a sort of beautiful doctrine, even if not true.

The whole concept of Adam-God, as scholars claim it to be (which I do not necessarily accept as a correct interpretation of BY) is that we have a great-grandfather God, and a grand-father God that get together and take an Arch Angel and help him become a God that becomes the direct lineal ancestor of all of us. It’s beautiful. It contains within it the idea that our “God” is multiple persons that all work together in perfect harmony for our good. It contains hints of the true source of the divine nature that hides within mankind. It contains a direction connection to God in a way that scripture does not teach.

Is it true? Of course its not entirely true. But there is much truth in it and I do not see it as horrible or something to be afraid of. And it matches up so well with tried and true doctrines of the Church that are scriptural, such as the oneness of God and the plurality of Gods and the literal Fatherhood of God. Now all of those doctrines are scriptural even if Adam-God was just an attempt to literalize them in a way that BY could comprehend them better.

That being said, I wish to express again my deep skepticism that the scholars have BY figured out. I’ll wait to ask him.

I now return to my regular radio silence during the week. John, don’t ever say I didn’t take an active commenting role on one of your (well done, btw) posts.

It emphasizes belief first and also matches up against “Faithful Doubter” a bit better.

Thanks for summing up my position as well: “for a faithful doubter to understand my views is to understand that the root of my logic will always be self-skepticism.”

Self-skepticism is important and beneficial for people on all points along the spectrum. Self-skepticism can protect you from disillusionment and error regardless of whether you’re a TBM or a DAMU.

Also, I love the Ninth Article of Faith because it provides a doctrinal basis for being skeptical, not only as individuals, but as a Church at large. We believe that God WILL YET (i.e., hasn’t happened already) reveal MANY (i.e., not just a few) GREAT AND IMPORTANT THINGS (i.e., not just minor policy or program tweaks) pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

That Article of Faith gives us a solid reason to be skeptical whenever we or anyone else claims to have a perfect, complete, and certain understanding of something.

I read your post about your dad. He sounds like one of those people who’ll be in the front of the line in the next life.

I’ll quibble with one item, since quibbling clarifies and keeps the discussion alive.

You say you have not, nor could imagine, having doubts about the Restoration which would make you leave (the Church?) The faithful doubters Jeff Burton writes about have not left. In fact, that’s why the appellation “faithful” works in any sense for them. They have maintained faith with the organization by staying in it and as active as they and the organization can mutually stomach.

You also describe the position of the skeptical believer so well you make it virtually impossible for any believing Mormon (I imagine) not to want to be described that way (unless they have a visceral reaction to the word “skeptical”.) How would you characterize a non-skeptical believer in positive terms?

Chris,

I see where you’re coming from. Have you been able to use your experience of leaving to counsel others? I’ll see you at Sunstone!

To make this real and practical, try the following:

If someone makes a claim or a statement that sounds different than what you believe, what is your first reaction – your “gut instinct”? If it is to accept that there is some validity in it and then look for that validity – even if you have to discard a bunch of crap to find it, you are a skeptical believer. You believed there was good in there somewhere, and you were willing to exercise skepticism to sort through the crap to find the good. Otoh, if your immediate reaction is, “That’s a bunch of crap,” you are less likely to search through it for a nugget of gold. You still are “faithful” to what you believe, but you aren’t very open to finding insights among the ashes – to wade through the grime to find the sublime. Your “faithfulness” keeps you anchored to your current truth, but it keeps you anchored away from any other truth.

That’s my take, anyway.

(Btw, I think you can be a temple-recommend holding Mormon and be a faithful doubter – or an atheist and a skeptical believer. Neither title automatically endows one or the other with any degree of “truth”. That is a completely separate exercise in title bestowal.)

Welcome fellow Skeptical Believer!

You too Thomas.

Pardon the label. Just remember the first law of labels. No one ever fits them perfectly. They’re just a way to simply the world for when we are talking in generalities.

“My personal experience becoming a Skeptical Believer means I have no problem understanding skepticism of the LDS Church truth claims because I understand the truth claims are “non-proven” in the objective sense of outside proof and thus worthy of skepticism. And that means I can easily talk about and even entertain a skeptical point of view without … pain.”

Amen.

~