Can faith and doubt coexist?

[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.

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.

Turning the other cheek is a powerful, powerful method of dealing with antagonists/attackers. Youre point on 'context' is well taken.

[brianj]

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.

Mary did not exercise faith. When an angel appeared to Alma Junior and threatened him with a voice that caused the earth to shake, he didn't exercise faith at that point in time. Just like Mary, there was no denying what he saw and he had a perfect knowledge.

Faith and doubt can and do coexist. It's not like a switch that is either off or on, but like a dimmer switch. When you first exercise a trial size amount of faith and you recognize an answer to your prayers, you can (and most likely do) have a lot of doubt. You feel that what you observe really is an answer to prayer, but you still have plenty of doubt. As you proceed down the path, you begin to have more faith and less doubt. But you can get very far up the path and still have some amount of doubt. It's only when you have a perfect knowledge that doubt no longer exists.

[marc]

One either has faith or one does not. If one has faith as a mustard seed, it is enough to move forward, even if in a tiniest increment. If one then doubts, even slightly, one pauses from moving forward because one questions that in which one is applying faith. Then, if and when that mustard seed size faith returns, after pausing with doubt or otherwise, in order to apply reasoning, one may move forward with that measure of faith that has returned. It is that exchange of faith and doubt, however incrementally, that causes one to start or stop moving forward. One either takes that step or leap forward or one remains still. One may fall mid step as soon as doubt returns just as Peter began to sink when his doubt returned. One cannot move forward and stand still (or move another direction) at the same time.