Check out the Series Index to all Five Posts.
Part 5: The Space for Doubt
How Healthy Communities Handle Hard Questions
If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.
– J. Reuben Clark
First Counselor in the First Presidency
June 12, 1959 – October 6, 1961
A Question Before the Questions
Have you ever felt guilty for having doubts? Have you ever wondered whether your questions about faith—honest, sincere questions born from careful study—might themselves be evidence of spiritual failure? If so, you are not alone. Across religious traditions, countless believers have struggled with the relationship between faith and inquiry, between trust and questioning.
This essay is not an attack on any particular community. It is an invitation to think carefully about a phenomenon that affects religious movements of all kinds: the way institutions respond to doubt, dissent, and difficult questions. The patterns we will examine appear in many contexts—Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and yes, Latter-day Saint. But because this series has focused on LDS truth claims, we will give particular attention to how these dynamics manifest within that tradition.
Let us begin with an observation that requires no controversy: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has produced genuinely admirable fruits. The emphasis on family cohesion, the remarkable welfare system, the sacrificial service of missionaries, the tight-knit ward communities—these are not small things. Any honest assessment must acknowledge that Latter-day Saints, as individuals and as communities, often exemplify virtues that the broader culture has abandoned.
Yet this observation extends far beyond Salt Lake City. Jehovah’s Witnesses demonstrate extraordinary commitment to their faith, enduring persecution with remarkable courage and maintaining moral standards that shame the permissiveness of secular society. Seventh-day Adventists have established world-renowned healthcare institutions and educational systems, with their emphasis on health and stewardship yielding measurable benefits for their communities. Muslims practice disciplined prayer five times daily, give generously through zakat, and maintain strong family bonds across generations. Orthodox Jews preserve ancient traditions with meticulous devotion, creating communities marked by learning, charity, and mutual support. Even secular movements like Alcoholics Anonymous, built on spiritual principles, have transformed millions of broken lives.
The presence of admirable fruit, however, does not settle the question of truth. Our Lord Himself issued a sobering warning that should give every sincere believer pause:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'” (Matthew 7:21–23)
Consider the weight of these words: Jesus does not deny that these individuals performed mighty works. He does not dispute their prophesying or their exorcisms. The fruit appeared genuine—yet the relationship was counterfeit. They called Him “Lord” while remaining strangers to Him.
And yet. And yet a question presses itself upon us: What happens in such communities when someone begins to doubt? What resources are available for believers who encounter troubling historical information? What space is there for the member who finds certain truth claims increasingly difficult to affirm? These are not hostile questions. They are, I would suggest, essential questions for any community that claims to value truth.
What the Sociologists Have Found
Social scientists who study religious movements have developed a useful concept: the distinction between high-demand and low-demand religious groups. High-demand groups ask much of their members—time, money, behavioral conformity, in-group marriage, distinctive dress, or dietary practices. In return, they often provide strong community bonds, clear identity markers, and robust meaning-making frameworks.
There is nothing inherently wrong with high-demand religion. Indeed, sociologist Rodney Stark has argued persuasively that such movements often thrive precisely because their demands create value—commitment is costly, and costly commitment builds strong communities. The early Christian church was emphatically a high-demand movement, and its growth is one of history’s most remarkable phenomena.
However, researchers have also identified a risk inherent in high-demand environments: the tendency to conflate questioning with disloyalty. When community membership requires significant sacrifice, those who raise doubts can be perceived as threatening the collective investment. The questioner becomes, in the eyes of the group, not someone seeking truth but someone undermining the community’s foundation.
Benjamin Zablocki and other scholars have documented how high-conformity environments can create what they term “bounded choice“—a situation where members technically have freedom to leave but face such significant social, familial, and psychological costs that departure becomes almost unthinkable. Any honest Latter-day Saint who has watched a family member or friend leave the Church knows exactly what this looks like: the strained relationships, the whispered concerns, the subtle (or not so subtle) distance that emerges. This is not coercion in any legal sense, but it is a form of constraint that deserves honest acknowledgment.
The Latter-day Saint Context
How do these sociological patterns manifest within Latter-day Saint culture? Several distinctive features deserve consideration.
First, the epistemological framework. From childhood, Latter-day Saints are taught to seek and obtain a ‘testimony’—a spiritual witness of the truth of foundational claims. This testimony, once received, becomes the lens through which all other evidence must be filtered. As Elder Boyd K. Packer famously counseled: ‘Some things that are true are not very useful.’ The implication is clear: spiritual knowledge takes precedence over historical or empirical knowledge when the two appear to conflict.
This creates an interesting philosophical challenge. If one’s testimony is the ultimate arbiter of truth, what happens when historical evidence contradicts that testimony? The faithful member is placed in a difficult position: either the evidence must be explained away, or the testimony itself must be questioned—but questioning the testimony is itself evidence of spiritual failure. This may explain why an entire industry of apologetic resources has emerged—resources that employ various methods to interpret or present historical information in ways that align with modern theological beliefs, sometimes downplaying, avoiding, or reframing sensitive issues rather than confronting them directly. The logic becomes circular in ways that deserve careful examination.
Second, the institutional response to doubt. Consider the language that has historically surrounded those who leave. Terms like ‘apostate,’ ‘fallen away,’ ‘lost their testimony,’ and ‘deceived by Satan’ are not neutral descriptors. They frame departure as moral and spiritual failure rather than as a potentially legitimate conclusion reached through honest inquiry. When the only categories available are ‘faithful member’ and ‘spiritual casualty,’ the space for thoughtful disagreement contracts dramatically.
LDS scholar Terryl Givens has acknowledged this dynamic, writing that the church has sometimes created ‘a culture that has discouraged frank acknowledgment of difficult issues.’ Richard Bushman, author of the landmark biography Rough Stone Rolling, has similarly observed that the church’s ‘correlation’ program, while promoting doctrinal unity, has sometimes come at the cost of historical nuance. These are not critics speaking from outside; these are committed Latter-day Saints who recognize a genuine tension.
The Evolution of Apologetic Method
Every religious tradition develops apologetics—reasoned defenses of its truth claims. This is entirely appropriate. What becomes philosophically interesting is how apologetic methods evolve when evidence proves recalcitrant.
Consider the case of the Book of Abraham, one of the texts in the LDS scriptural canon. For over a century, the church maintained that Joseph Smith had translated this text directly from Egyptian papyri. When fragments of those papyri were rediscovered in 1966, and competent Egyptologists determined that they contained common funerary texts unrelated to Abraham, a significant challenge emerged.
The apologetic response has evolved through several stages. Initially, some defenders questioned the competence of Egyptologists or suggested that the relevant portions of the papyri were lost. When these approaches proved insufficient, a more sophisticated theory emerged: perhaps the papyri served merely as a ‘catalyst’ for revelation rather than as the actual source of the translation. The Book of Abraham, on this view, came through inspiration triggered by the papyri rather than from the papyri themselves.
From a methodological standpoint, this evolution raises important questions. When a truth claim is disconfirmed by evidence, what are the epistemological implications of simply redefining what the claim meant in the first place? In mainstream historical scholarship, such moves are generally viewed with suspicion. If a theory can accommodate any possible evidence by continually shifting its core claims, it becomes, in Karl Popper’s terminology, unfalsifiable—and unfalsifiable theories, whatever their other merits, are not empirically testable.
We might call this pattern the ‘epistemological retreat’: when historical or empirical evidence proves troublesome, the response is to retreat from verifiable claims to purely subjective ones. ‘The Book of Mormon is an ancient historical record’ becomes ‘The Book of Mormon speaks to my heart.’ ‘Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from Egyptian’ becomes ‘The Book of Abraham is inspired scripture, however it came about.’ Each iteration is harder to falsify—but also harder to verify, and further removed from the original, confident assertions.
Google Gemini:
Mormon theology can appear as an “epistemological retreat” because it heavily prioritizes subjective spiritual revelation (feelings, intuition) and faith over objective, external, or purely rational verification, often discouraging deep intellectual questioning or engagement with secular scholarship, leading critics to see it as an avoidance of complex philosophical challenges by retreating into “I just know” experiences rather than shared, demonstrable truth. Key points include reliance on personal revelation, downplaying traditional philosophical proofs for God’s existence, and a tendency to dismiss doubts as lack of faith, creating tension between belief and critical inquiry.
Patterns of Reasoning: A Philosophical Interlude
In examining any system of thought, it can be helpful to identify patterns of reasoning that may not serve the pursuit of truth. Several such patterns appear with some regularity in apologetic discourse—not only LDS apologetics, but apologetics generally. We note them here not to score points but to aid clear thinking.
The genetic fallacy. This fallacy occurs when we dismiss an argument based on its source rather than its content. It can work in both directions. Critics of a religious movement sometimes dismiss all insider scholarship as biased; defenders sometimes dismiss all critical scholarship as motivated by hostility. The proper question is not ‘who is making this argument?’ but ‘is this argument sound?’
The appeal to authority. Religious traditions necessarily involve authority claims—this prophet speaks for God, this text is divinely inspired. But when authority claims are deployed to foreclose inquiry rather than to ground it, something has gone wrong. The statement ‘This is true because the prophet said so’ is not an argument; it is an assertion that may or may not be well-founded. The question ‘How do we know the prophet speaks for God?’ remains legitimate even after prophetic utterances are cited.
The ad hominem response. When difficult questions arise, there is a temptation to attack the questioner rather than address the question. ‘You’re only asking because you sinned,’ or ‘You must have been offended,’ or ‘You never really had a testimony’ are responses that avoid the substantive issue entirely. If a historical claim is problematic, it remains problematic regardless of the moral character or spiritual state of the person raising the concern.
Special pleading. This occurs when we apply different standards to our own claims than we would to competing claims. If archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon is consistently elusive, and we explain this by appealing to special circumstances, we should ask: Would we accept similar explanations from adherents of other religions? If the Islamic scholar said ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,’ we would likely find this unsatisfying. Intellectual honesty requires consistent standards.
How Other Traditions Have Handled Doubt
It would be unfair to critique one tradition’s handling of doubt without acknowledging that this is a challenge for all religious communities. The history of institutional Christianity includes troubling examples of doubt being suppressed, questioners being punished, and orthodoxy being enforced through coercion. The Inquisition was not a Latter-day Saint invention. However, orthodox Christians would argue—and this author agrees—that such coercive practices represent a departure from, not an expression of, biblical Christianity. The New Testament calls believers to “be ready always to give an answer” (1 Peter 3:15) and to persuade through reason and evidence, not compulsion.
And yet within Christian history, we also find a rich tradition of wrestling with doubt as a legitimate part of faith. The Psalms are filled with laments, complaints, and even accusations hurled at God. Job argues with the Almighty and is, remarkably, vindicated. The father in Mark’s Gospel cries out, ‘I believe; help my unbelief!’—and Jesus does not rebuke him but heals his son. Thomas demands empirical evidence of the resurrection and receives it without condemnation.
The great theologians of the church have often been remarkable doubters. Augustine’s Confessions trace his tortuous path to faith through years of philosophical questioning. Aquinas structured his Summa Theologica around objections, giving the best arguments against each position before offering his response. Luther’s wrestling with the question ‘How can I find a gracious God?’ drove the Reformation. Pascal, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky—the roster of Christian thinkers who took doubt seriously is long and distinguished.
Contemporary theologian Alister McGrath has written helpfully on this theme: ‘Doubt is not the same as unbelief. Doubt arises within the context of faith. It is a wistful longing to be sure of the things in which we trust. But it is not skepticism, which deliberately refuses to trust.’ Similarly, Os Guinness distinguishes between ‘faith seeking understanding’—the honest pursuit of answers within a framework of trust—and ‘unfaith seeking justification’—the use of intellectual questions as cover for a predetermined rejection.
The Christian tradition, at its best, has recognized that honest doubt can be the prelude to deeper faith. The night of wrestling may end with a blessing. The dark night of the soul may give way to dawn. But this requires communities that can hold space for the wrestling, that do not mistake the struggle for apostasy.
A Methodological Concern
Let us return to the specific question of LDS apologetics, particularly as practiced by organizations like FAIR (Faithful Answers, Informed Response, formerly FAIR Mormon). How would the methodological approaches commonly employed in LDS apologetics fare in mainstream academic contexts?
This is not a rhetorical question designed to embarrass. It is a genuine methodological inquiry. Peer-reviewed historical journals have established norms for evaluating evidence, handling conflicting sources, and reaching conclusions. These norms exist because they have proven useful for getting at the truth. How does the LDS apologetic method compare?
Several tensions emerge. First, there is the question of starting points. Mainstream historical scholarship proceeds on the assumption that claims should be evaluated by the evidence rather than that evidence should be filtered through prior commitment to the claims. When apologists begin from the premise that the Book of Mormon is an ancient historical record and then seek evidence to support that conclusion, they are reversing the normal direction of historical inquiry. This doesn’t make their conclusions wrong, but it does raise methodological questions.
Second, there is the question of selective citation. Careful scholars present the strongest arguments on all sides of contested questions. If chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is cited as evidence of ancient Hebrew literary structure, the prevalence of chiastic patterns in other nineteenth-century texts should also be acknowledged. If some archaeological evidence might support a Nephite presence in the Americas, the overwhelming absence of expected evidence should also be weighed. Selective citation is not unique to LDS apologetics, but it is a methodological concern wherever it appears.
Third, there is the question of falsifiability. As noted earlier, claims that can accommodate any possible evidence are not empirically meaningful claims. If the ‘catalyst theory’ of the Book of Abraham means that no conceivable evidence about the papyri could ever count against the text’s inspired status, then the claim of inspiration has been rendered unfalsifiable. This may satisfy faith, but it does not satisfy inquiry.
What Might Healthy Faith Look Like?
If we grant that doubt is an inevitable feature of the spiritual life, what characteristics might distinguish healthy faith communities from unhealthy ones?
Honesty about difficulties. Healthy communities acknowledge that hard questions exist and do not pretend they have been definitively answered when they have not. The 2013 publication of the LDS Gospel Topics essays represented a significant step in this direction—for the first time, the institutional church acknowledged in official documents that Joseph Smith practiced polyandry, that the translation of the Book of Abraham is complicated, and that the historical record on issues like the priesthood and temple ban is messy. This transparency, however belated, is encouraging.
Charity toward doubters. Healthy communities recognize that doubt often arises from intellectual honesty rather than moral failure. The member who struggles with the Book of Mormon’s historicity after reading widely in the relevant scholarship may be exercising epistemic virtue rather than displaying spiritual weakness. Communities that can distinguish between ‘he’s asking hard questions’ and ‘he’s lost his way’ create space for people to work through difficulties without feeling that their eternal destiny hangs in the balance.
Methodological consistency. Healthy faith applies the same evidentiary standards to its own claims that it applies to competing claims. If we demand extraordinary evidence before accepting the miraculous claims of other religions, we should be willing to examine our own miraculous claims with similar rigor. This does not mean rejecting the miraculous; it means refusing to special plead.
Humility about certainty. Healthy faith recognizes the difference between confidence and certainty. ‘I am confident that Christ is risen’ is a statement of committed trust. ‘I know with absolute certainty that every claim of my tradition is literally true’ is a statement that goes beyond what finite human beings can legitimately claim. The Latter-day Saint testimony, with its formulaic ‘I know,’ may inadvertently encourage a kind of certainty that is both philosophically and spiritually problematic.
An Invitation, Not a Verdict
This essay has raised questions rather than pronounced verdicts. It has examined patterns rather than condemned persons. The goal has been to think carefully about how religious communities—including but not limited to the Latter-day Saint community—handle the inevitable reality of doubt.
To any Latter-day Saint who has stumbled upon this essay: Please know that the author holds no hostility toward you or your community. The genuine virtues of Latter-day Saint life—the commitment to family, the ethic of service, the tight-knit community, the serious moral striving—deserve acknowledgment and respect. These are not trivial goods, and they should not be dismissed.
At the same time, if you have found yourself wrestling with difficult questions, if you have encountered historical information that troubles you, if you have felt that the available answers seem to require intellectual contortions—you are not alone, and your questions are not evidence of spiritual failure. The great tradition of Christian faith has always included wrestlers, doubters, and honest inquirers. The night of struggle may yet give way to dawn.
Whether that dawn finds you within the Latter-day Saint tradition, within historic Christianity, or elsewhere, may your journey be marked by honesty, humility, and a genuine love of truth. For as Augustine wrote, ‘All truth is God’s truth’—and the pursuit of truth, wherever it leads, is a sacred calling.
“The unexamined life is not worth living.” — Socrates
“You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” — Jesus of Nazareth
This article was developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools, which have proven to be valuable research assets across numerous academic disciplines. While AI-generated insights informed portions of this work, all content has been carefully reviewed and edited by the author to ensure accuracy and relevance.