Not long after Peter’s declaration of the divinity of Christ, as Jesus was prophesying to them about his pending capture, suffering and death, all at the hands of the Elders, Chief Priests, and Scribes… Peter, doubting the truth of those claims, began to contradict what Jesus was teaching. The Savior’s firm, but loving rebuke was calculated to get Peter to realize the source of his doubts. He said to Peter; “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” (Matthew 16:22-24) Helping Peter recognize the source of his doubts, strengthened him to be able to set them aside, to “deny himself” and to seek to take up his cross and do God’s will rather than his own. A powerful lesson.
Simply because doubts are based in new information and seek to replace the belief we already hold, does not mean that they should be accepted on their face. Being new does not make them true. Doubts must be exposed to their roots, which roots are the claims and claimants whose presentation cause the doubts to grow. We should always question what type of soil they spring from, who planted them, and why.
As in any pursuit of knowledge one must focus on the source and hold that source up in the light of deep inquiry. We must put the witnesses for our doubts on trial, and try to discern, as attorneys in a court of law do, the character of the witnesses, and to expose any indications of bias, prejudice, evil intent, self-interest, etc. It comes down to an issue of credibility.
If doubts are caused by the claims of humans and based in human reason alone, then we must view them in the light of the indisputable truth that all humans are flawed, and thus their claims, are suspect. Titles, degrees, positions alone are no guarantee of reliability. Since certain motivations have a propensity to dishonesty, we should ask what the motivation of the source is, why are they making the claims they are making, is there any indication of anger, malice, self-justification, rationalization? Can we detect in the source self-interest, or do their claimants seem truly selfless? What do their actions and their other claims teach us about their present claim?
Some examples:
The mother of a Soldier killed in battle suddenly took to the air waves and was given full run of the news circuits. She was quoted and applauded, as if the fact of her son’s death suddenly made her an expert on national defense policy, and just war theory. Emotions like pity, or feelings of patriotism, validated her claims in the minds of some and elevated her opinions. However, her opinions should have actually been considered as among the most suspect. She was suffering from grief which clouds, rather than refines judgment. Her anger at the circumstance filled her with a clear bias and agenda. Thus, her protestation should have been greatly doubted rather than unquestionably embraced.
I was recently introduced to a work called the CES Letter. Its introduction reads as follows; “CES Letter is one Latter-Day Saint's “honest quest” to get official answers from the LDS Church on its troubling origins, history, and practices.” (Emphasis Added). As is usually the case with Anti-Mormon dogma, the author begins by feigning a sincere desire to know truth. However, as I read his lengthy “questions” it became clear that were not really questions at all, but arguments for his view point. His questions were merely rhetorical, with the clear purpose of providing the author with a jumping off point to attack the church and justify his rejection of it. His Anti-Mormon bias was as clear as was his flawed and pervasive reliance on human reason alone, particularly his own and or that of those who supported his claims. The author no more desired to know truth than the scribes really wanted to know which of the seven men would end up married to the woman. They were asking Christ the question not because they wanted to know truth, but because they wanted to prove how ridiculous His claims of resurrection were. (Matthew 22:25-32) Even so in this case the author's truly honest quest was to debunk the church.
Looking very closely at the sources of the doubts, acknowledging the biases, prejudices, and motivations of the sources, will help us to keep them in their true light, that of mere opinion, rather than accepting them as fact or truth. Additionally, recognizing a clear bias or selfish agenda at their roots can also provide us with legitimate reasons for casting aside any doubts supported by such dishonest claims or self-serving motivations.