Fwiw, I regularly say “I believe” in my talks and testimonies, interspersed with those things I feel confident saying I know.

We are taught that we should strive to receive sufficient testimony to say “I know” the validity of the truth claims of the Church. This “I know”, in my opinion, is the equivalent of “certainty”, and allows no “uncertainty” (“doubt”). Indeed, testimonies frequently are borne that “I know, without shadow of a doubt.” [Of course, I have yet to hear a testimony that "I have faith, without shadow of a doubt", but that is another subject.]

Inasmuch as we are encouraged to banish doubt and uncertainty in order to “know” without “shadow of doubt, then many Latter-day Saints would not find troubling at all a statement that faith and uncertainty (or doubt) are inconsistent.

Latter-day Saints who feel certain would not be troubled, because they do not experience uncertainty. And many Latter-day Saints who do experience uncertainty already feel inadequate because of the lack of certainty–and the statement, condemning uncertainty, would be consistent with their pre-existing self-criticism.

“Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt.”
-Clarence Darrow

“Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.”
-Peter Ustinov

Doubt is not the enemy of faith, fear is.

It seems to me that speakers in GC should be extra careful to be inclusive, knowing the audience, knowing that these words live on forever and become unofficial canon, and knowing the tendency of others to use their words to be exclusivist.

Cowboy, just to clarify. It’s always possible that the speaker *would* say that if you have faith, you have no uncertainty because he was defining “faith” as “certainty.” (This does seem to be what the commenters thought he meant.) But if this is the case, the original commenters are still often being unfair to him since they are assuming a different definition of “faith” than he is and not clarifying their own difference in meaning, yet getting mad at him over it. It’s the same argument either way.

Nevertheless, it’s at least common courtesy to not take several possible meanings of a speaker and pick only the contradictory one and ignore the other possible meanings. So my assumption (be it right or wrong) is that the people quoted in the post were not intentionally being jerks. (i.e. Jerks = they had full knowledge that there are other possible meanings, but didn’t care because they’re trying to be hurtful and misrepresent others beliefs or words.)

I was only exploring the possibility that while they were being “unfair” they didn’t mean to be.

I know some people will claim I’m scrambling to apologize or simply defend. But this is something that bothers me going both ways and it’s not an irrelevant point. We are generally unforgiving in our assessments of others.

In any case, I’m out (really this time) now. If even Ray can’t find something to agree with me on, I’ve definitely confused the issue by being too precise and dropping comprehensibility. Guess trying to be clear isn’t what you are all cracking it up to be after all. It’s definitely time to pack it for a while. (Oy! Now I remember why I hate blogs and am such an ill fit for them. I feel like hibernating again.)

Happy Easter everyone. See you at Christmas. (just kidding on that last part.)

Faith is three things. First it is an expression of hope.

Second, it is the spiritual reaching after things, born of hope.

Third, it is reaching through to the Spirit and making contact.

Those three things are very different.

We’ve parsed what doubt is, but it is important to also parse what faith is.

The truth is that passively experienced, faith and doubt will drive each other out.

Actively engaged in, they can strengthen and guide us.

Interesting difference.

I was just thinking about the following experiment. Imagine that you take a member and show them the quote: “Faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.”

Imagine asking them about it in three different ways:

1. Ask them ‘how can that be true when faith and uncertainty go together?’
2. Ask them ‘seeing as doubt can either mean ‘distrust/disbelief/fear’ or ‘uncertainty’, what do you think the speaker meant in this context?
3. Ask them to just explain what it means to them personally without giving them any definitions.

I would not think you’d get anywhere near the same results with these three different experiments.

I think for #1, you’d find that a few would realize you are misinterpreting the speaker, but I think most would either agree with you that the speaker is incorrect or they’d try to justify the speaker in some way by conflating “know” and “faith.” The point being, once you’ve handed them a certain definition for “doubt” I think it’s generally very difficult to stop and think about the word “doubt” long enough to realize that you’ve just been manipulated in your answer.

For #2, I think you’d overwhelmingly find that people agree the speaker didn’t mean that doubt meant “uncertain” and would settle that he meant “distrust or disbelief.”

For #3 I think people would have a hard time expressing themselves. But I think overwhelmingly, they’d probably use examples to explain the feelings that would equate to faith meaning not taking a disbelieving attitude or being full of fear.

I do not think this is because they are asleep at the switch at all. I think this is true of just about anything you try a similar experiment on. I think we capture ideas out of words and don’t parse them like Ray does.

In the case of #1, we are forcing the person to see the statement as inconsistent. It’s the rare person indeed that is able to see that there is equivocation going on and can think their way out of it.

In the case of #2, we are clarifying that the word doubt has two meanings, so it’s easy to pick out the meaning and explain it properly back tot he questioner.

In the case of #3, we are forcing the person to (without a dictionary handy) try to explain a word by word meaning to a phrase that carried an abstract idea. Thus I’d expect that most couldn’t explain fully, but their examples would match #2. This is why I suspect the vast majority of listeners “understood it correctly” and the Mormon Matters commenters are the exception to the rule.

Assuming you agree with me (or even if you don’t)… do you see what I am getting at?

This whole thread, as well as the original conference thread you are pulling it from, is an example of #1. We framed the question at the outset in such a way that we forced people to see the statement as inconsistent, even though it wasn’t. So it’s not suprising that people express extra concern over the statement. But if we hadn’t framed it that way from the outset, I’m not so sure it would have seemed so confusing or concerning in the first place.

(People can say “yes, it would still be confusing for me” but honestly, you can’t be sure once the framing is done one way how you would have seen it if it was framed a different way initially.)

That is true to a degree; the other determining factor is how picky the two people are being. (I am grinning at you, Bruce.) Sometimes, as you said in different words, trying to understand something comprehensively gets in the way of understanding something.

8. Obsolete. fear; dread. (again, this is relevant due to scriptural implications)

Let’s parse them all out:

“Faith and [a feeling of uncertainty] cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.”

“Faith and [distrust] cannot exist int he same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.”

“Faith and [fear] cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.”

Let’s ask what “faith” means. Scripturally, it means “trust or entrust” in the Greek. Modernly, it generally has one of two meanings:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

So let’s reword one more time:

“[Trust] and [a feeling of uncertainty] cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.”

“[Trust] and [distrust] cannot exist int he same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.”

“[Trust] and [fear] cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.”

Please note that #2 and #3 are effectively saying the same thing in this context, for all intents and purposes (that I can think of anyhow.) So I don’t see the difference here as significant. You may disagree, Hawk, but I don’t see it.

Those taking exception to this statement are assuming that the speaker means and can only mean #1 — but this clearly was never true. I think the fact that it simply isn’t true is a strike against the original complaints, if we are going to be fair.

There also is an underlying assumption in this complaint that even if #1 wasn’t intended, it’s the speakers own fault for not clarifying more and it was sloppy of him that he didn’t. This is a more difficult thing to assess and frankly it’s purely subjective. Personally, I don’t think this is a fair conclusion based on the data currently available. We really have no reason to believe that the average person that heard this statement was asleep at the switch and just ignored it. I suspect that most people approximate #2 or #3 in their mind.

(one more post, then I’m going into hibernation again.)

This is really just a matter circular reasoning. If you are having doubts, in other words are unsure whether the Church is true, go ahead and have questions – but just accept that it is true, and God will give you clarity that it is. Since doubts, questions, uncertainty, whatever, each challenge our perspectives on faith, how can we legitimately search for answers if we don’t allow that those answers could alter the equation?

Hawk, since I didn’t write #22, I’m confused.

Nevertheless, I think I understand what you are saying. Still, I don’t think you are understanding what I am saying, not sure.

If you were responding to my #28, you are mistaken. I am not trying to relate this back to the original post. My point is simple: a person that says they are unsure about doctrines of the church usually *is* expressing disbelief when they use those words. So I feel JMason in #22 is skipping this distinction. This means I have heavy suspicions that his is freely comingling the fact that when someone starts to “doubt” (i.e. disbelieve) doctrines of the church that they are in trouble from a religious faith community perspective and the response he describes might be ultimately inappropriate, but completely rational.

“But in doing so, you are dismissing the equally valid interpretation (using the noun “doubt”) of faith (assertion) and doubt (uncertainty).”

I’m confused why you say I’m dismissing this. Yes, I’m dismissing this as what the speaker originally meant. But I thought we were all in agreement that he didn’t mean this and were now just arguing over whether or not this was primarily the speakers fault or not. What else would I be dismissing? If you think I’m dismissing something else, please clarify.

If you disagree with me that we are all in agreement over what the speaker originally meant, then let me make my argument in #30 a bit more clear:

“Faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.”

There are two ways to read this statement as per quoted definitions in #12

(next post)

Bruce #29 – I didn’t misunderstand you. Those remarks are my observation. I am not attributing them to you. I was just taking your remark out of context and twisting it (ironically) to fit my own observation. I find most believers who watch GC do not give much thought to the content if they are paying attention at all. The disbelievers who watch either pay attention so they can criticize it or marginalize the counsel or hoping to find something that revitalizes their interest. There are a handful who are listening for content because they are at a point to receive counsel, they want to feel inspired, etc. So, the impact to the culture is more passively created and after the fact through future quotations. Again, all that is just my opinion.

I not sure the above conclusion is a given. I think we tend to draw more of a disinction between Mormon Matters participants and “chapel” Mormons than what reality would bare out. Some here are educated, some are not. Some are more conservative, some are more liberal. Some have a strong belief in the Church, some have questions. Most, not all, of us however, at least one day per week are chapel Mormons. In other words, we attend the same meetings and participate in more or less the same culture and society, then we come here.

With the above comments in mind, I don’t think we have nailed the exact intentions down in reference to what was meant by doubts. We now that there are different ways of looking at it, I think Ray’s comment was insightful, but is that how the speaker intended it. I can’t be sure given that our culture and general leadership places so much emphasis on absolute positions of faith.

Clarification: this statement wasn’t meant to blame Hawk for our misunderstanding. My only point here is that even when someone gives lots of examples, tries there best to explain themselves, etc, that sometimes even huge misunderstandings take place. They simply can’t be avoided.

Real communication will always be (mostly) limited between two parties that want to understand each other and keep asking for clarification or make a strong attempt to consider all possible meanings (or go back and carefully parse was actually said.)

You’ll have to forgive me, but in the end, saying “Faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other” is actually a self explaining statement that doesn’t require rocket science to understand.

I’m all in favor of a speaker trying hard to explain themselves, but every additional caveat actually reduces the comprehensibility of a statement like this. If he had said, for example “Faith and doubt (as the scriptures use this term as meaning ‘disbelieve’ rather than ‘uncertainty’) cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other. Now faith and uncertainty can exist, but only if we understand ‘uncertainty’ as choosing to believe, but without complete perfect knowledge, which is inherent in the definition of faith in the first place.”

Now I really would expect members to be asleep at the switch, and for good reason. The precision of the statement is much better, but the comprehensibility has dropped dramatically.

(If you are familiar with software requirements, you’ll understand what I mean here. Humans comprehend abstractness better then precision, but by its nature abstractness has more chance of multiple meanings. It’s the dilemma I face every day in my job. It’s the same dilemma here.)

Hawk, this isn’t what I said and I feel I gave ample examples to avoid this misunderstanding. I am not suggesting believers are “asleep at the switch” but it’s okay because we’re “doing no harm to the majority.” I didn’t say this or even suggest it.

To be honest, I don’t believe the reason I was misunderstood was because I wasn’t careful how I said things. This sort of illustrates my point. Communication is very difficult and it’s wrong to lay blame on one person over the other like we are doing here. Speaker and listener will naturally misunderstand each other because that’s life.

The real determining factor in communication will always be if the two parties want to try to put in the effort to understand each other or not.

“I am not sure Joseph Smith was really a prophet.”

“I have faith Joseph Smith was really a prophet.”

The basis for all our semantic bickering is that “faith” contains within it “uncertainty” and thus the speaker was being contradictory. But if that is strictly true, then the two statements above should be parsed as being the same thing too.

But we all know they are not.

(Also consider: “I believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God” and “I doubt Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.” Are these really saying the same thing?)

So if someone were to express their uncertainty as “not sure” (as you are saying) I WOULD expect others to understand that to mean something similar to “disbelieving” because presumably that wording was chosen for precisely that reason — they currently feel disbelieving.

There is a separate but related issue over whether or not members of a religious community of faith should “freak out” just because someone goes through a period of disbelieving. But let’s not comingle the issues. That really is a seperate issues and more complicated then it first appears.

Also, we could separate out those that feel “faith” is insufficient because they should “know.” (And here we are using “know” to mean “certain knowledge” even though the word is rarely used that way.) But this is a separate issue also.

Ultimately, that’s an impossible standard, but it still is an important effort, imo.

Bruce – “Most likely the overwhelming majority of the audience did NOT think to themselves “oh, I shouldn’t be uncertain at all or I’m a bad person.”” If so, I think that’s because most don’t give GC much thought at all. Unbelievers find it a source of irritation perhaps (a key point of this post), but worse yet, believers are asleep at the switch! Who then is the target audience? If doing no harm to the majority is the standard, that’s a low bar. But I do certainly agree that someone with a desire to be critical or irritated will be impossible to please.

David Stout – “another way, faith is like falling in love. I choose to treat my girlfriend well because I love her, but I did not choose to fall for her. It just happened.” Great analogy. I agree with your line of thinking here. Thanks!

My personal belief is that without doubt, there is nothing for faith to leap over.

“Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things.” Alma 32:21.

“I believe, help thou mine unbelief.” Mark 9:24.

I agree with the commenters who say it boils down to a semantic or definitional matter. I probably just understand the words “faith” and “doubt” mean something different than the speaker had in mind.