Can faith and doubt coexist?

[ajax]

[marc]

From the 6th Lecture on Faith:

10 Those, then, who make the sacrifice will have the testimony that their course is pleasing in the sight of God, and those who have this testimony will have faith to lay hold on eternal life, and will be enabled, through faith, to endure unto the end, and receive the crown that is laid up for them that love the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. But those who do not make the sacrifice cannot enjoy this faith, because men are dependent upon this sacrifice in order to obtain this faith; therefore, they cannot lay hold upon eternal life, because the revelations of God do not guarantee unto them the authority so to do; and without this guarantee faith could not exist....

12 But those who have not made this sacrifice to God, do not know that the course which they pursue is well pleasing in his sight; for whatever may be their belief or their opinion, it is a matter of doubt and uncertainty in their mind; and where doubt and uncertainty is, there faith is not, nor can it be. For doubt and faith do not exist in the same person at the same time. So that persons whose minds are under doubts and fears cannot have unshaken confidence, and where unshaken confidence is not, there faith is weak, and where faith is weak, the persons will not be able to contend against all the opposition, tribulations and afflictions which they will have to encounter in order to be heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ Jesus; and they will grow weary in their minds, and the adversary will have power over them and destroy them.

If Jesus had ever doubted His divinity, or His capability to suffer infinitely for us all, Satan would have triumphed over Him and thus over us. But Because Jesus continued in faith to make that ultimate sacrifice, knowing it was His Father's will, He gained the confidence necessary to put the devil under His feet forever.

[marc]

There is an interesting dichotomy between the doubting Thomas and the highly favored brother of Jared. One doubted because up until he saw the resurrected Jesus, he had made no sacrifice. He had no real skin in the game. It wasn't until Thomas saw with his own eyes the resurrected Lord that he had faith no longer, nothing doubting. It wasn't until Thomas began his ministry that the effects of his faith were made manifest by his sacrifice, ultimately costing his life. The brother of Jared, on the other hand, demonstrated his faith by obedience and by his sacrifices on behalf of his people, which resulted in a glorious manifestation.

[eddie]

Doubt is a struggle faced by the believer.
Doubt is the questioning of your faith, doubting what you believe.

In C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters, he points out that Satan uses ploy after ploy to try to get Christians to break their links with God. Doubt is one of those ploys.


Can faith and doubt co-exist?
When does doubt become unbelief?

When Peter begins to sink, Jesus says to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Matthew 14:31).

[ajax]

Doubt didn’t stop Thomas from witnessing the resurrected Lord. Not sure I see a problem here. Doubt is a necessary and healthy tool to navigate life. We don’t and shouldn’t trust everyone and every situation. We ought to question and reason.

JS had doubts in the religious systems of his day to move on and question and get answers. Doubt is a necessary means to an end and shouldn’t be an end in and of itself. You cannot have faith that the earth is round without simultaneously doubting the earth is flat. You cannot have faith Jesus is Lord without simultaneously doubting the pagan gods. Faith and doubt seem to me to be twin brothers, two sides of the same coin that occupy our minds at the same time.

[creator]

Yes. You can doubt one thing and have faith in another thing. Or is that not the question?

The Gospel is not all or nothing.

[Rose Garden]

You cannot have faith in something you don't know without doubt without a reasonable amount of knowledge about that thing. You plant seeds and expect them to grow because you have seen it done before and because you've gained enough experience to know how to care for them. If you lack experience, you may foolishly have faith in seeds that won't grow because you didn't take proper care of them but I wouldn't call that perfect faith. If you have enough experience, you are still likely to have some degree of doubt because you should know that you can't control everything and something unexpected might happen to kill your plants before they bear fruit.

I personally believe faith and doubt can and do coexist. I think telling people that they need to have perfect faith in a being they have never even seen in the flesh is foolish and can create a great deal of unexpected problems. One of the first things I was taught through the Spirit is that spiritual progression is a process, not an instantaneous event. I believe the Lord understands that process and is happy to help us through it, despite our many doubts. I believe he knows we need to learn to trust little by little and he does everything he can to help us.

[eddie]

Is doubt different than questions?

The Savior’s declaration: “Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not” (D&C 6:36).

“Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other." Thomas S. Monson

[oneClimbs]

Not knowing something yet is not doubt. Doubt involves distrust, fear, and hesitation. Faith is not belief, it is simply the moving cause of action in all intelligent beings.

If you distrust, have fear or hesitation you will not move, if you have faith you will move, you cannot both move and not move at the same time, these are action principles, not mental states.

Understanding that helps distinguish between the two. Even if you are fearful and unsure but move foward anyway then by definition that is faith.

[ajax]

From John A. Widtsoe's EVIDENCES AND RECONCILIATIONS:

7. IS IT WRONG TO DOUBT?

Doubt usually means uncertainty. You doubt the presence of gold in the
ore, though there are yellow flakes in it; or that the man is a thief, though
stolen goods are found in his possession; or that a principle of the gospel is
correctly interpreted by the speaker. What you really mean is that the
evidence in your possession is insufficient to convince you that there is gold
in the ore, or that the man is a thief, or that the gospel principle has been
explained correctly. Doubt arises from lack of evidence.

Intelligent people cannot long endure such doubt. It must be resolved.
Proof must be secured of the presence of gold in the ore or of the dishonesty
of the man, or of the correctness of the doctrinal exposition. Consequently,
we set about to remove doubt by gathering information and making tests
concerning the subject in question. Doubt, then, becomes converted into
inquiry or investigation.

After proper inquiries, using all the powers at our command, the truth
concerning the subject becomes known, or it remains unknown to be unravelled
perhaps at some future time. The weight of evidence is on one side or the
other. Doubt is removed. Doubt, therefore, can be and should be only a
temporary condition. Certainly, a question cannot forever be suspended between
heaven and earth; it is either answered or unanswered. As the results of an
inquiry appear, doubt must flee.

In other words, doubt, which ever is or should be a passing condition,
must never itself be an end. Doubt as an objective of life is an intellectual
and a spiritual offense. A lasting doubt implies an unwillingness on the part
of the individual to seek the solution of his problem, or a fear to face the
truth. Doubt should vanish as it appears, or as soon as proper inquiry can
place it either with the known or the unknown facts of life; with the solvable
or the unsolvable; with the knowable or the unknowable.

The strong man is not afraid to say, "I do not know"; the weak man
simpers and answers, "I doubt." Doubt, unless transmuted into inquiry, has no
value or worth in the world. Of itself it has never lifted a brick, driven a
nail, or turned a furrow. To take pride in being a doubter, without earnestly
seeking to remove the doubt, is to reveal shallowness of thought and purpose.

Perhaps you are questioning the correctness of a gospel principle. Call
it doubt if you prefer. Proceed to take it out of the region of doubt by
examination and practice. Soon it will be understood, or left with the many
things not yet within the reach of man. But remember: failure to understand
one principle does not vitiate other principles. When proved false, one
doctrine may cast distrust upon other doctrines, but the others must be tested
for their own correctness.

Doubt of the right kind -- that is, honest questioning -- leads to faith.
Such doubt impels men to inquiry which always opens the door to truth. The
scientist in his laboratory, the explorer in distant parts, the prayerful man
upon his knees -- these and all inquirers like them find truth. They learn
that some things are known, others are not. They cease to doubt. They settle
down with the knowledge they possess to make the forces of nature do their
bidding, knowing well that they will be victorious; and that more knowledge
will come to them, if sought, to yield new power.

On the other hand the stagnant doubter, one content with himself,
unwilling `to make the effort, to pay the price of discovery, inevitably
reaches unbelief and miry darkness. His doubts grow like poisonous mushrooms
in the dim shadows of his mental and spiritual chambers. At last, blind like
the mole in his burrow, he usually substitutes ridicule for reason, and
indolence for labor. The simplest truth is worth the sum of all such doubts.
He joins the unhappy army of doubters who, weakened by their doubts, have at
all periods of human history allowed others, men of faith, to move the world
into increasing light.

Faith is practically the opposite of doubt. Faith rests securely upon
"evidences" and "assurances." Note the definition by the Apostle Paul: "Faith
is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith
knows, and goes forth courageously to use knowledge in the affairs of men. It
declares itself the master of things; it lays mountains low; it lifts valleys;
it promotes the welfare of man.

Joseph Smith is an excellent example of proper doubt. The ministers of
his day were contending for the membership of the boy. He went to God for
help; received it; and doubt disappeared. From that day on, doubt did not
reappear. His doubt was lost in the desired knowledge he gained from proper
inquiry. So may every man do.

The unknown universe, material, mental, spiritual, is greater than the
known. If we seek, we shall forever add knowledge to knowledge. That which
seems dark today, will be crystal clear tomorrow. Eternal progress means the
unending elucidation of things not known or understood today.

No! Doubt is not wrong unless it becomes an end of life. It rises to high
dignity when it becomes an active search for, and practice of, truth.

Doubt which immediately leads to honest inquiry, and thereby removes
itself, is wholesome. But that doubt which feeds and grows upon itself, and,
with stubborn indolence, breeds more doubt, is evil.

[ajax]

There is an interesting dichotomy between the doubting Thomas and the highly favored brother of Jared. One doubted because up until he saw the resurrected Jesus, he had made no sacrifice.

Doubt didn't keep Thomas from seeing the Lord. And why would you say he made no sacrifice? Wasn't he one of the twelve who dropped everything to follow Jesus?

And was it really doubt?
https://www.christiancentury.org/blogs/ ... idnt-doubt

[ajax]

“Doubt as sin. — Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature — is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

[marc]

There is an interesting dichotomy between the doubting Thomas and the highly favored brother of Jared. One doubted because up until he saw the resurrected Jesus, he had made no sacrifice.

Doubt didn't keep Thomas from seeing the Lord. And why would you say he made no sacrifice? Wasn't he one of the twelve who dropped everything to follow Jesus?

And was it really doubt?
https://www.christiancentury.org/blogs/ ... idnt-doubt

I disagree with the author of that blog. Thomas' unbelief was what caused the risen Lord to demonstrate proof. To Thomas' credit, he continued his discipleship and apostleship, having become an eye witness of the risen Christ thereafter in his travels. But Brian said it best above. One can doubt one thing while believing another. But you will either walk on water or you will sink. You will either move forward or move somewhere else.

[marc]

When Mary came to the tomb early in the morning while it was still dark, she spoke with whom she thought was the gardener. Jesus only needed to speak her name for her to immediately reach out to embrace him. She didn't need to question this stranger or reality for that matter. She didn't consider that she might be talking to a ghost or an imposter. She didn't require the man to show his hands and feet to prove he had the marks of crucifixion. Jesus Christ appeared to Thomas and showed him the tokens of His sacrifice so that Thomas could bear witness of them and that it really was Jesus come back from the dead.

[eddie]

Alma taught us to use both our intellectual as well as spiritual faculties to experiment upon the word. (Alma 32:27.) John taught us to test the spirits to see if they are of God. (1 John 4:1.) Similarly, Paul taught us to “Prove all things.” (1 Thess. 5:21.) We are told to diligently teach and seek “out of the best books words of wisdom.” We are to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 88:118; D&C 109:7 & 14.) So as we ask, seek and knock, we are to do so in a spirit of faith, not in a spirit of cynicism, bitterness or doubt. (James 1:5-6.)

Nevertheless, although we should try to avoid complacently accepting doubt, it is not a sin to be tempted by doubt. But thoughts and feelings of doubt do not need to be indulged. It has been said that a bird may land on your head, but you don’t need to let it build a nest there. So, like other temptations of the mind, thoughts of doubt about God and His Church may enter our heads, but there is no sin in that unless we choose to cultivate, embrace or act on those thoughts.
Fair Mormon

[larsenb]

Doubt didn’t stop Thomas from witnessing the resurrected Lord. Not sure I see a problem here. Doubt is a necessary and healthy tool to navigate life. We don’t and shouldn’t trust everyone and every situation. We ought to question and reason.

JS had doubts in the religious systems of his day to move on and question and get answers. Doubt is a necessary means to an end and shouldn’t be an end in and of itself. You cannot have faith that the earth is round without simultaneously doubting the earth is flat. You cannot have faith Jesus is Lord without simultaneously doubting the pagan gods. Faith and doubt seem to me to be twin brothers, two sides of the same coin that occupy our minds at the same time.

I generally agree with this. Faith is our central decision about something, some idea, direction, goal, etc. It defines our chosen purpose toward these 'things'. However, we can waver from this purpose, and may have to reafirm it, or simply be overcome by our doubt regarding it.

But having faith in a global earth, etc., is different than doubting it's opposite, or any other shape than 'global'.

So in terms of what we put our faith in and affirm, we aren't doubting that purpose or thing. However, we can certainly oscillate between the two poles of our faith and doubt in a purpose, idea, thing. And this oscillation can be as fast as one thought succeeding another.

That's my view of it, having given at least superficial thought to the matter.

[Thinker]

Yes. You can doubt one thing and have faith in another thing. Or is that not the question?

The Gospel is not all or nothing.

Exactly!
It is theorized that all matter is constantly vibrating, or as a 6th grader defined it, “trying to decide which way to go.” The fundamental challenge in this life is to harmonize doubt and faith. If we just had faith - it would be misdirected because we’re not all-knowing. And if we just doubted, we’d be paralyzed with skepticism. We need both.

• “Thought can only advance on 2 feet. One foot is reason & logic. The other is faith & common sense. By shifting from foot to foot, the faith providing the premises & the reason provoding the deduction, the mind can move forward to grasp more & more truth. Breaking up this productive partnership disables the mind. In the absence of faith, reason goes round in circles. In the absence of reason, faith flies off on a tangent uncorrected by anything.”

[Thinker]

You cannot have faith in something you don't know without doubt without a reasonable amount of knowledge about that thing. You plant seeds and expect them to grow because you have seen it done before and because you've gained enough experience to know how to care for them. If you lack experience, you may foolishly have faith in seeds that won't grow because you didn't take proper care of them but I wouldn't call that perfect faith. If you have enough experience, you are still likely to have some degree of doubt because you should know that you can't control everything and something unexpected might happen to kill your plants before they bear fruit.

I personally believe faith and doubt can and do coexist. I think telling people that they need to have perfect faith in a being they have never even seen in the flesh is foolish and can create a great deal of unexpected problems. One of the first things I was taught through the Spirit is that spiritual progression is a process, not an instantaneous event. I believe the Lord understands that process and is happy to help us through it, despite our many doubts. I believe he knows we need to learn to trust little by little and he does everything he can to help us.

Also well put!
I’d say not only do faith and doubt co-exist but BOTH are essential. Faith is the 1st principle - but what can God do with an arrogant, unreachable heart?

• “An egotist will never get anywhere in this world because he thinks he’s already there.” - MJ Ashton

Paul Tillech suggested that no matter what God someone claims to worship, what they truly worship in practice is their ultimate concern - what they prioritize. And the question is not whether such an ultimate concern exists (whether one worships a God) but if their ultimate concern has the least idolatrous elements possible. I believe this means worshiping God - with faith while humbly knowing I could be mistaken and I’m open to learning more.

[larsenb]

Yes. You can doubt one thing and have faith in another thing. Or is that not the question?

The Gospel is not all or nothing.

Exactly!
It is theorized that all matter is constantly vibrating, or as a 6th grader defined it, “trying to decide which way to go.” The fundamental challenge in this life is to harmonize doubt and faith. If we just had faith - it would be misdirected because we’re not all-knowing. And if we just doubted, we’d be paralyzed with skepticism. We need both.

• “Thought can only advance on 2 feet. One foot is reason & logic. The other is faith & common sense. By shifting from foot to foot, the faith providing the premises & the reason provoding the deduction, the mind can move forward to grasp more & more truth. Breaking up this productive partnership disables the mind. In the absence of faith, reason goes round in circles. In the absence of reason, faith flies off on a tangent uncorrected by anything.”

Hugh Nibley recognized faith as a part-and-parcel, essential portion of intelligence. Reason and logic still lead out by using that portion of intelligence called faith. I.e., you begin to reason about something because you have faith that you can make sense of what you are focusing on, you have faith that the logic of something will become apparent. This may be subtle, but I think Nibley had it pegged.

Faith is the first principle, after all . . . . generically, and not just in Jesus Christ . . . . which is of course, the first step with real, spiritual promise, where your decision to excercise faith in Christ reaches out for an increase in this particluar but exceedingly important gift of faith.

[larsenb]

As others have mentioned, though, we may put our faith in the wrong things, ideas, purposes, etc., but when our direct experience and logical thought and reasoning negate a particular goal of our faith, doubt allows for corrective measures and realignment.

[Rose Garden]

You cannot have faith in something you don't know without doubt without a reasonable amount of knowledge about that thing. You plant seeds and expect them to grow because you have seen it done before and because you've gained enough experience to know how to care for them. If you lack experience, you may foolishly have faith in seeds that won't grow because you didn't take proper care of them but I wouldn't call that perfect faith. If you have enough experience, you are still likely to have some degree of doubt because you should know that you can't control everything and something unexpected might happen to kill your plants before they bear fruit.

I personally believe faith and doubt can and do coexist. I think telling people that they need to have perfect faith in a being they have never even seen in the flesh is foolish and can create a great deal of unexpected problems. One of the first things I was taught through the Spirit is that spiritual progression is a process, not an instantaneous event. I believe the Lord understands that process and is happy to help us through it, despite our many doubts. I believe he knows we need to learn to trust little by little and he does everything he can to help us.

Also well put!
I’d say not only do faith and doubt co-exist but BOTH are essential. Faith is the 1st principle - but what can God do with an arrogant, unreachable heart?

• “An egotist will never get anywhere in this world because he thinks he’s already there.” - MJ Ashton

Paul Tillech suggested that no matter what God someone claims to worship, what they truly worship in practice is their ultimate concern - what they prioritize. And the question is not whether such an ultimate concern exists (whether one worships a God) but if their ultimate concern has the least idolatrous elements possible. I believe this means worshiping God - with faith while humbly knowing I could be mistaken and I’m open to learning more.

Well put. Deserves more than a thumbs up.

[Thinker]

As others have mentioned, though, we may put our faith in the wrong things, ideas, purposes, etc., but when our direct experience and logical thought and reasoning negate a particular goal of our faith, doubt allows for corrective measures and realignment.

Good point in your other comment about using intelligence at the get-go in aiming in a general direction. And I’m glad you added the above about correcting course when needed so we don’t miss the mark.

Lately, I’ve been studying about personality disorders - BPD and narcissism. They both refuse to admit they’re wrong - they never genuinely apologize. Children raised by parents with such problems tend to respond in 1 of 2 ways...

• 1) repeat the shifting blame, (become narcisistic too) or
  2) take the blame on themselves (neurosis).

Both are natural but dysfunctional responses, however the 2nd has a much greater rate of overcoming their dysfunction. Though they have to learn to be less self-punitive - at least they look where they have some power to change things - within themselves. The others who shift blame give away that power to change - in shifting response-ability. God can help anyone, except those who refuse help.

Some have suggested narcissistic tendencies in the church - like Oaks saying, “The church doesn't ‘seek apologies, and we don't give them,” and related implications that it’s the members’ faults, never the church. Imagine trying that tactic in marriage or other relationships - especially with God!

[Mark]

As others have mentioned, though, we may put our faith in the wrong things, ideas, purposes, etc., but when our direct experience and logical thought and reasoning negate a particular goal of our faith, doubt allows for corrective measures and realignment.

Good point in your other comment about using intelligence at the get-go in aiming in a general direction. And I’m glad you added the above about correcting course when needed so we don’t miss the mark.

Lately, I’ve been studying about personality disorders - BPD and narcissism. They both refuse to admit they’re wrong - they never genuinely apologize. Children raised by parents with such problems tend to respond in 1 of 2 ways...

• 1) repeat the shifting blame, (become narcisistic too) or
  2) take the blame on themselves (neurosis).

Both are natural but dysfunctional responses, however the 2nd has a much greater rate of overcoming their dysfunction. Though they have to learn to be less self-punitive - at least they look where they have some power to change things - within themselves. The others who shift blame give away that power to change - in shifting response-ability. God can help anyone, except those who refuse help.

Some have suggested narcissistic tendencies in the church - like Oaks saying, “The church doesn't ‘seek apologies, and we don't give them,” and related implications that it’s the members’ faults, never the church. Imagine trying that tactic in marriage or other relationships - especially with God!

Pres. Oaks comments above have been used by many church haters to try and put him and the church in the least favorable light possible. Why not put into context what Pres Oaks was really meaning in his statement? Here is what he actually said:

“I’m not aware that the word ‘apology’ appears anywhere in the scriptures — Bible or BOM. The word ‘apology’ contains a lot of connotations in it, and a lot of significance. We do not seek apologies. When our temple was desecrated in CA, when people were fired and intimidated, when a lot of other coercive measures were used, we sought no apology. That’s what I meant by saying ‘we don’t seek apology.’ We think that the best way to solve these problems is not a formal statement of words that a [sic] apology consists of, but talking about principles and good will among contending viewpoints.”

Does that change the perception and spirit of his comment? He is not being prideful and unworkable here. He simply is in essence turning the other cheek from the many abuses that have been heaped upon the church and the Brethren for their moral stands made in standing up for things like marriage and other moral principles. That to me is far different than what many are trying to push as an agenda to beat up the church whenever they can thru trying to take things out of their proper context. . As for the 2nd part The church is not going to apologize for standing up for moral and righteous principles espoused in scripture and by revelation from the Lord thru Prophets and Apostles. Why should it? I'm glad that they don't. It shows that they have some backbone and don't cave to all the moral relativism being espoused by Babylon. Everyone should be cheering that.

[Thinker]

As others have mentioned, though, we may put our faith in the wrong things, ideas, purposes, etc., but when our direct experience and logical thought and reasoning negate a particular goal of our faith, doubt allows for corrective measures and realignment.

Good point in your other comment about using intelligence at the get-go in aiming in a general direction. And I’m glad you added the above about correcting course when needed so we don’t miss the mark.

Lately, I’ve been studying about personality disorders - BPD and narcissism. They both refuse to admit they’re wrong - they never genuinely apologize. Children raised by parents with such problems tend to respond in 1 of 2 ways...

• 1) repeat the shifting blame, (become narcisistic too) or
  2) take the blame on themselves (neurosis).

Both are natural but dysfunctional responses, however the 2nd has a much greater rate of overcoming their dysfunction. Though they have to learn to be less self-punitive - at least they look where they have some power to change things - within themselves. The others who shift blame give away that power to change - in shifting response-ability. God can help anyone, except those who refuse help.

Some have suggested narcissistic tendencies in the church - like Oaks saying, “The church doesn't ‘seek apologies, and we don't give them,” and related implications that it’s the members’ faults, never the church. Imagine trying that tactic in marriage or other relationships - especially with God!

Pres. Oaks comments above have been used by many church haters to try and put him and the church in the least favorable light possible. Why not put into context what Pres Oaks was really meaning in his statement? Here is what he actually said:

“I’m not aware that the word ‘apology’ appears anywhere in the scriptures — Bible or BOM. The word ‘apology’ contains a lot of connotations in it, and a lot of significance. We do not seek apologies. When our temple was desecrated in CA, when people were fired and intimidated, when a lot of other coercive measures were used, we sought no apology. That’s what I meant by saying ‘we don’t seek apology.’ We think that the best way to solve these problems is not a formal statement of words that a [sic] apology consists of, but talking about principles and good will among contending viewpoints.”

Does that change the perception and spirit of his comment? He is not being prideful and unworkable here. He simply is in essence turning the other cheek from the many abuses that have been heaped upon the church and the Brethren for their moral stands made in standing up for things like marriage and other moral principles. That to me is far different than what many are trying to push as an agenda to beat up the church whenever they can thru trying to take things out of their proper context. . As for the 2nd part The church is not going to apologize for standing up for moral and righteous principles espoused in scripture and by revelation from the Lord thru Prophets and Apostles. Why should it? I'm glad that they don't. It shows that they have some backbone and don't cave to all the moral relativism being espoused by Babylon. Everyone should be cheering that.

Thank you - the context confirms non-repentant leadership.
Part of repentance is confessing and forsaking sins - especially to those who were harmed. Oaks said that the church doesn't seek apologies, “and we don't give them.” Just because modern words, “sorry” or “apology” are not in scriptures doesn’t mean one should not say them and repent. Repentance is throughout scriptures.

There is no need to apologize for defending marriage and family - defending those is godly. However, church leaders need to apologize (confess their wrong) and REPENT (correct their behavior) for taking money that was intended for the poor, for taking too much from members, hiding money, using temples & Christ’s name to make money - & spending it in unChristlike ways, and for teaching incorrect principles like considering leaders as infallible. They ought to LEAD by example in repentance but they do not.

[Thinker]

Why does Utah have some of the highest rates for scams and ponzi schemes?
Maybe...
1) Members doubt their doubts too much - & are too trusting of other members, &
2) Scammers narcissistically are unapologetic & can teach a lesson Sunday then Monday rip off people.

It goes back to the 2 responses to being taught narcisisism... either take or shift blame.