ASK: Principles for Engaging Church Difficulties from a Seminary-Teaching Skeptic

 

New Seminary, who’s this?

I’ve been teaching early morning seminary for about a month now, and I’m loving every minute of it. I even love the challenging bits: 

• Figuring out how to get students to look up from their phones

• Getting students to speak up more

• Pushing students to look at the scriptures deeper

• Convincing students to set and achieve meaningful scripture study goals

• Reducing distractions in class

• Dealing with students’ exhaustion

• Balancing participation across students 

• Integrating study for myself with study for seminary

• Determining what to say and what to keep to myself 

• Dealing with parents

All of these are challenges I am constantly thinking about and finding joy in. 

Seminary is a bit different than when I went through it at a different time and in a different place. My 9 students represent all the active church members in two high schools. They are all in my ward. The scripture masteries are all different, and they call them “doctrinal masteries” now. There are a lot more of them than in my day, and the students are encouraged to memorize the reference and a “key phrase” instead of the entire passage for each. 

Along with the Doctrinal Mastery scriptures, the seminary curriculum focuses on what it calls “Acquiring Spiritual Knowledge,” three principles for helping students face difficult questions, issues, and situations that may arise in their lives. The principles are as follows: 

1. Act in faith

2. Examine concepts and questions with an eternal perspective 

3. Seek further understanding through divinely appointed sources

I think these principles are great, and I think the curriculum writers are wise to emphasize dealing with church difficulties. Without effective strategies and principles, the church will likely continue to lose young people at alarming rates. The principles have helped me think through my own questions and issues in spiritually productive ways. I’d like to opine and expound on them a bit, in part for my own synthesis, and in part hope that someone out there will be helped through their own church challenges by reading this. 

Problems with the method

Perhaps counter-intuitively, I want to start by talking about some problems I have with the ASK method (setting aside its imperfection as an acronym). This isn’t to tear down the principles, but rather to acknowledge some weaknesses and uncover some ways to use them effectively by revealing the opposite. If this section of my post bothers you, please read through to the end. I think you’ll find that I’m not as apostate as you think. 

“Act in Faith” can be manipulative

Perhaps one of the surest ways to keep people in an organization is to bind members to the rituals, practices, and sense of community that make up its culture. Consider, for example, a multi-level marketing company (MLM) that convinces its members that the only way to financial success is to continue buying and selling company products and convincing others to enter their downline. Each of the actions are “acting in faith” in the company. And each of these actions reinforce faith in the company, regardless of the truth of the company’s claims. Every time an MLM member buys another product, they become more invested in the company and the cost of disconnecting seems greater. Every time they sell a product–especially if sales are rare–the excitement of making a sale is associated with the company. And every time they try to convince someone to join their downline–sometimes especially if they are rejected–the more they rehearse and reinforce the company’s claims and the more entrenched they become. This is why politicians have rallies and sell merch. This is why churches sponsor missionaries. This is why new religious movements led by dangerous individuals emphasize forming exclusive communities and getting adherents to “drink the Kool-Aid” on a regular basis. Just because you do something prescribed by an organization and feel good about it, does not mean the organization is true. 

And some of the ways members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints “act in faith” serve to further isolate and entrench church members in the church and the church alone, shutting out other alternatives with an iron fist. Coffee, tea, and alcohol are extremely common elements of social life outside of the church. Acting in faith by strictly keeping the word of wisdom actively limits my chances of forming deep social connections outside of the church. Paying tithing makes me financially invested in continuing to believe in the church. And temple rituals are tied to promised blessings I would be stupid to reject–even if I think the odds are fairly low that the promised blessings are exclusive to temple covenants. 

At least sometimes, I think it’s a valuable experience to disconnect from the actions of faith prescribed by the church–not in rebellion against the word of God given by the church, but in experiment upon the words of others. If that sounds radical to you, consider turning the tables. If you invite a friend to investigate the restored church of Jesus Christ, you are inviting others to do the exact same thing that I’m suggesting: spare some of their time currently invested in their church to experiment upon truth claims of yours. 

“Eternal Perspective” can be dismissive 

Consider the following questions: 

• If God is all good and all powerful, why did innocent people have their homes and lives destroyed in Hurricane Milton? 

• Why did Joseph Smith marry children? 

• If homosexual behavior is a sin, why do I exclusively feel same-sex attraction? 

Each of these can be answered by an appeal to a broader perspective: 

• In heaven, God will right every wrong and heal all wounds.

• God will ultimately reveal the truth of all things.

• It is unfair to judge people of the past by modern standards.

• Through the atonement of Jesus Christ, at some point all unrighteous desires can be overcome. 

But each of these appeals can be used to sidestep or dismiss the legitimate concerns of honest truth seekers. All the eternal perspective in the world can’t resolve the reality we live in now, and I don’t think the wisdom of Christianity should rely solely on eternity. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus says, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” His message is to bring heaven and earth into contact now, not just at some future date or future phase of the plan of salvation. I’m partial to the words of Emily Dickinson, which, rather than pointing the earthly to heaven, points the heavens to earth: 

Forever – is composed of Nows –

‘Tis not a different time –

Except for Infiniteness –

And Latitude of Home –

From this – experienced Here –

Remove the Dates – to These –

Let Months dissolve in further Months –

And Years – exhale in Years –

Without Debate – or Pause –

Or Celebrated Days –

No different Our Years would be

From Anno Dominies –

“Divinely Appointed Sources” place dogma over data

When evaluating a source, one of the first things to define is the source’s agenda. For example a source found on an anti-mormon website has a well-defined agenda that anyone reading it should be aware of. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also has an agenda, and it’s just as explicit. Church members simply tend to accept it and therefore not label it a bias at all. 

The invitation to rely on “divinely appointed sources” for answers about church is circular logic. 

Here’s an example Q/A to demonstrate: 

Question: How can I trust that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ when early accounts of the first vision disagree. 

Answer: Divinely appointed sources testify that he did. 

Question: How do I know those sources are divinely appointed. 

Answer: They come through God’s church restored through the revelation of the prophet Joseph Smith. 

You see, the very concept of “divinely appointed sources” comes with a whole series of dogmatic assumptions that the ASK principles compel askers to accept—something that can be especially hard to do when experiencing periods of questioning and doubt. These assumptions include the following: 

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restored church established by Jesus Christ

• The current prophet has a direct connection to God, and can clearly reveal what sources God has appointed. 

• The church website is all thoroughly reviewed by the prophet and approved by God. 

• The scriptural canon is the inspired word of God, subject to human error only when transmitted through human-led translation. 

When you accept these and other doctrines first, before examining the evidence required to answer a difficult question, you shape your conclusions based on previous assumptions more than the evidence available. 

A far better approach is to factor in the church’s bias when consulting church-approved sources, just like you would any other source. And interpret the data available before forming a conclusion. 

To be clear, I think that the church does a decent job at moderating its agenda, especially in recent years. And I do think that its motives are relatively pure–especially when compared to organizations whose agenda revolves around tearing down the faith and lifestyle of others. But I think it foolish to reject all outside sources out of hand, or to assume that church published always equals correct. 

ASK, Reconsidered 

Now that I’ve outlined a few of my concerns with ASK, let me sing its praises. And more importantly, let me discuss how my concerns about the methodology inform how it can be applied effectively. 

Act in Faith: turning off the auto-pilot

In John 7:17, Jesus says, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself.” This verse (which I memorized in seminary) would retain its wisdom coming from anywhere–not just the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s not a sure-fire test of course. The advice of someone is not always directly related to the doctrine they teach. But if you try something sincerely, and it works, it’s a piece of evidence you can use when determining if the source is trustworthy. 

The trick is to practice awareness of how your participation in the church and gospel affects you. That’s kind of obvious if you think about it. How can you know that your actions affirm/deny the truth of the gospel if you aren’t aware what the fruit of those actions actually are? But dig a little deeper. What results would be expected with or without faithful action? What negative results do you get when you act in faith? Are those negative results constructive or destructive? 

Another important element of acting in faith is that it allows you to maintain the benefits of religious participation while you experience doubt. Those benefits are worthwhile even if they don’t actually come from God–but are just positive side effects of having a community, a process for self-improvement, and rituals to tie it all together. There are disadvantages to religious belief too of course, but acting with faith, consistency, and awareness can help you accurately weigh the benefits against the disadvantages on the scale of your mind. 

I am grateful for my own faith crisis, because it made me stop being what I’ve come to refer to as an “auto-pilot mormon.” For years, I went through the motions. I felt all the right things at all the right times. It was a little too perfect. Experiences and information that challenged my testimony forced me to act in faith–not perceived knowledge–and enter a period of radical honesty with myself and others. I’m not afraid to question or even challenge what I experience at church. I’m not afraid to let go of parts of the church that don’t stand up to scrutiny. And I feel anchored in positive religious experiences the whole way through. I stay in the old ship zion, and in important ways, I am at the wheel. 

Examine Perspective 

In my opinion, the key to ASK’s second principle is to examine the perspectives we view questions and issues through–not to simply adopt a single (even eternal) perspective. We need both the telescope and the microscope. And we need to use alternative perspectives to challenge our own. 

I’ll share just one perspective that has helped me: the overlap between the truth, official church doctrine, what most members of the church believe, and what I believe. 

I used to think all these circles would make a perfect or near-perfect venn diagram: 

But as my faith destabilized, I realized it wasn’t so simple. 

As I started to navigate new perspectives on truth, I realized that the category of “all truth,” is by-far the largest. I realized that what most members believe is not always in alignment with official church doctrine. And I allowed the possibility that there are some areas where I likely side with the majority of members on certain topics, even if widespread beliefs aren’t established church doctrine, and that some things that are neither widespread nor church doctrine are still true. 

Eventually, humility led me to admit that I likely have beliefs that are not true. And the same goes for my faith tradition, and the official doctrine of the church. My study of the scriptures has led me to a firm belief that truth is revealed line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little, and that sometimes, even the church gets it wrong. 

But I do believe that, some day, all truth will be circumscribed into one whole. 

This perspective leads me to some important conclusions: 

• I should approach my own ideas and the ideas of others–even the ideas of the church–with intellectual humility. We’re all trying to figure stuff out, and we all need space and grace to do it in. 

• I should avoid assuming that all truth is ALREADY circumscribed into one whole. There are numerous, contradictory perspectives in scripture and in life, and it’s foolish to treat them as if they are all currently in alignment. Allow them to be separate. Value each for what they are. Then and only then, should you form an opinion on which you think is more aligned with Truth with a capital T. 

Mind Your Sources

Learning to find and evaluate high quality sources of information has become increasingly difficult in a politically divided digital age. In my opinion, most people let their political or religious bias simply tell them what sources can be trusted and what sources are utterly corrupt. People rarely see a middle ground. 

That’s what makes this principle tricky if it’s expanded beyond just “use the church’s appointed sources.” You might be surprised to hear that I actually think that, for teenagers, the best course of action is probably to tell them to stick to church approved sources when seeking answers to difficult questions. It just avoids all the mess of trying to figure out how to develop source consciousness without being buffeted around in today’s toxic political climate. 

But we should be helping students rigorously evaluate content within church-approved resources, using the same criteria that might be applied to an outside source. There are plenty of conflicting arguments just within the scriptural canon to go around–especially if you resist the urge to smooth everything over and assume it’s all teaching the same thing. Then after they’ve developed the skills necessary to evaluate sources outside of the church, and they gain a little autonomy to do so in young adulthood, they will be better prepared to evaluate sources on a whole range of topics. 

Here are some questions worth asking about any source: 

• Who is speaking/writing? What is their background?

• What is the agenda or bias present in the source? 

• When was the source written? How have peoples’ perspectives changed since then? 

• What was the original audience of the source? How would they have understood it? 

• What evidence does the source use to support its claim? Is this evidence verifiable? 

• What logic is used by the source to make its claim? Is this logic sound? 

Importantly, these questions are not intended to be filters for eliminating sources from consideration. Instead, they should be used to better understand how to fit the claims of sources into our overall understanding. 

A few additional principles

This post is long enough, but I want to end it with a rapid-fire list of some additional principles for engaging with difficult questions, issues, and experiences. This is not an exhaustive list, and I’ve referenced some of these principles above, but here’s my conclusion: 

• Don’t jump to conclusions

• Let your (and others’) faith journey’s progress at their own pace

• Mind your own bias, especially confirmation bias

• Let scriptures say what they say without forcing them to conform to other scriptures

• Let yourself disagree with individual teachings without throwing all church teachings out

• Prophets aren’t perfect

• Study other religions. Compare best to best. Let yourself feel holy envy. 

• “Compare best to best” doesn’t just mean to see the best in other religions. See the best in your own as well 

• Recognize that we still have much to learn

• Avoid “all or nothing” thinking

• It’s okay to set boundaries 

• Repent, which includes changing the way you think

• Learn from others

• When you study the scriptures, don’t assume you know what they mean before you start reading

• If you do leave the church, don’t abandon the parts of it that were helpful. Some principles are in the church because they’re good–not because they are the church

• Judge not unrighteously. Some people you know who leave the church will be making the right decision. Some people you know who stay in the church will be making the right decision too. 

• Change. It’s hard but it’s necessary. 

• You can do it!