I think both you and Rosalynde make a valuable point. Why should Latter-day Saints, with such a tradition of questioning, suggest that doubt is such an egregious sin? Shouldn’t we reverence doubt to a degree? Every firm affirmation I have in my testimony today developed because I doubted, I wondered, I questioned in the past. Why not embrace the doubter and say “Your worldview is growing. It is very painful at times. Please remain open to communication from heaven.”

On the other hand, there is value in the basics. We don’t pray/study/ponder/participate because we know God and ourselves in every detail. We pray/study/ponder/participate because we want to know God and ourselves more fully.

The standard LDS paradigm gives leaders and members no clue at all on how to shepherd a doubting member toward Faith 2, which isn’t even on the standard Mormon map. I’d even suggest much of the time leaders or members simply try to retain the doubter’s activity (attendance, callings, tithing) through a mix of sticks and carrots once they determine that Faith 1 isn’t going to happen again.

It seems like you’re eliding the difference between Mormon doctrine being merely indeterminate in places and being full blown relativistic.

The doubters faith can’t exist while the dominant traditional narrative remains. So in preserving a modicum of faith for the doubter by accommodating contemporary secular perspectives, we not only change the faith of the traditional faithful, but we move their faith to mirror that of the doubter.

The marginal faith adjustment of course continues as the next group of doubters who would have previously just left the church altogether remains, but now the doubters faith is adjusted to accommodate what would have previously been the defector.

It’s good to keep everyone in the tent, but there is a cost to the faith of the base. There are less and less faithful members in the “first world” like those in “third world” countries. Is that a good thing?

It’s hubris to assume the modern and contemporary approach to faith and history is better; especially when we don’t have any more claim on the truth than the way our forbearers practiced their faith and yet we build into our assumptions the past was wrong and we’re doing it right.

I remain unconvicted and skeptical of the contemporary way. Would that our contemporary skeptics beheld their own philosophical beams the way they behold others’ motes.

To the portion you quoted I think what Rosalynde is saying is that those things are complex. For instance does the Church believe that homosexuality is just a choice? I think you’ll quickly discover that the apostles have said different things on this point. Elder Oaks and Elder Packer for instance clearly had different views.

To the final part, I’m wrong enough to have a appreciation for fallibilism. I don’t think you have to look far to find places where I acknowledged mistakes. I can think of several comments this week where I’ve done that. To always needing a response, I think that is a weakness of mine. I attempt to respond even when I should realize the futility of engaging. I’m coming to realize this is one of those times so I’ll try to keep your criticism in mind going forward.

Something that I’ve found incredibly helpful (and refreshing) on both sides of a “faith disconnect” is to get to really know people, the scriptures, and history, which inevitably means getting to enjoy the experience of shedding your assumptions, and confront the necessarily crude nature of stereotypes. As you note, claims that if they knew X, they could never believe; if only they would [read/pray/attend the temple], they wouldn’t be able to help but feel the spirit/truth; if they’re really prophets, seers, and revelators, then they couldn’t [be wrong/think Y]; the scriptures clearly mean Z—these are almost never accurate, and the more you come to know people, scriptures, history, the more you see the clumsiness of our binaries. One also learns that it will always be the case that there are folks who are smarter than us, more loving than us, more plagued by tragedy than us, and closer to God than us who remain staunch, faithful members of the Church and some who have left the Church. This makes things messy. But failing to recognize that messiness and the falseness of our assumptions about folks in or out of the Church, is one of the blinders that not only holds us back in our relationships, but also in our spiritual development.

Dan, that was an incredibly bone-headed comment.

Wow, the idea that Mormon truth is relative rears its erroneous head yet again on this blog. The uncertainty narrative is like a drug among the intellectual believers. Sorry, Rosalynde, but what Mormon leaders claim to be truth is far, far from relative. The LDS church leaders’ beliefs on a range of issues regarding women, gays, race, and the origins and purpose of the Book of Mormon are quite clear. Of course the stances of LDS leaders on some issues have evolved over time. But the direction in which they have evolved is quite clear. Evolution of belief does not many anything goes. I have told this to Clark and others, but you don’t get to have your Mormonism and eat it too.

I’d add two variations on the “expectation blinders.” One is that it’s a good practice to minimize goal oriented conversations. Although counter-cultural for many of us (maybe men even more than women?) just listening, just paying attention, just mourning with, all without trying to get some-where or accomplish some-thing, is often the best thing we can do. The other is that expectations can run both ways. Those of us in fragile faith (or faith crisis) can easily project a demand that the other, the listener, agree or come along or walk the road. I believe that it is usually not intentional or conscious, however clearly projected. I don’t know a fix, but recognition of a common phenomenon, and some confidence that it is possible to empathize without taking the plunge, can help avoid an over-reaction.