Many Latter-day Saints consider faith to be the effort to achieve unquestioning belief.  Faith, for these Saints, is the quality which, in the cliché, leads a person who has been asked to jump to respond, “How high?”

I don’t think that faith is unquestioning belief.  Before I explain why, let’s consider some of the texts on faith that are available to us as Latter-day Saints.  First, let us consider statements by Church leadership in General Conferences.  At least two major recent talks have focused on faith (I omit a third, on testimony, because it is quite similar), offering definitions and clarifications.

In the Sunday afternoon session of the October, 2002, General Conference, Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin offered a pair of definitions of faith (drawing on Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary and the Bible Dictionary):

Faith is defined as “belief and trust in and loyalty to God… firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”  We believe that “faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true…, and must be centered in Jesus Christ.”  In fact, we believe that “faith in Jesus Christ is the first principle of the gospel.”

Later in the same talk, Elder Wirthlin adds:

Faith exists when absolute confidence in that which we cannot see combines with action that is in absolute conformity to the will of our Heavenly Father.

These statements contain phrases invoking the power and solidity of faith: firm belief and absolute confidence.  Specifically, we are to have firm belief in “things which are not seen, but which are true,” (i.e., Jesus Christ) and absolute confidence in that which we cannot see (i.e., Christ and our Heavenly Father).  Is this the same as firm belief and absolute confidence in that which we can see (i.e., the church, the central leadership, the bishop, the Ensign, the Bible, and so forth)?  Obviously not–otherwise these two quotes would not emphasize the need to belief and confide in that which is unseen.  What does this distinction mean?

A direct implication is that faith does not involve absolute confidence in anything in mortality—the church and its leadership included.  Indeed, we know the church to be an institution made up of mortal women and men, just like the leadership.  Joseph Smith famously declared that a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as one, and we know that prophets are always also mortals.  This certainly does not mean that messages delivered through prophets and other leaders should not be taken seriously; we should, of course, consider them in all earnestness. 

But because messages from mortal leaders are things that can be seen (or heard), we must accept that our faith will not consist of firm belief and absolute confidence in them.  Sometimes, our faith consists of questioning the meaning, applicability, or utility of a specific message.  At the same time, my personal faith involves accepting that, even in the face of a confusing, muddled, or unhelpful message, our leaders are still prophets.

Furthermore, it must be noted that “firm belief” refers to degree of commitment in the belief.  We can firmly believe that which we cannot fully understand and that for which we have weak or faulty evidence.  Someone with a firm belief in Christ is someone who will continue in that overall belief even if some aspects of that belief prove to be false or misunderstood.  It is someone who has absolute confidence that God and Christ have a plan for us—even if our understanding of that plan is imperfect and our role in it is to stumble forward in partial blindness.

In a second speech related to faith, given during the October, 2003, General Conference, President James E. Faust stated:

A testimony begins with the acceptance by faith of the divine mission of Jesus Christ, the head of this Church; and the prophet of the Restoration, Joseph Smith. The gospel as restored by Joseph Smith is either true or it is not. To receive all of the promised blessings we must accept the gospel in faith and in full. However, this certain faith does not usually come all at once. We learn spiritually line upon line and precept upon precept….  We can have a certain testimony that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and Redeemer of mankind, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet commissioned to restore the Church in our day and time without having a complete understanding of all gospel principles. But when you pick up a stick you pick up both ends. And so it is with the gospel. As members of the Church we need to accept all of it. Even limited spiritual assurance of some of the aspects of the gospel is a blessing, and in time the other elements of which you are uncertain can come through faith and obedience.

President Faust in this talk uses the curious phrases “certain faith” and “certain testimony,” which I take in this context to be interchangeable.  What does it mean to have certain faith?  In order to fully appreciate the meaning of this question, let’s consider some canonical definitions of faith.  Below, I include four of the most famous scriptural statements on the meaning of faith. 
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Alma 32:21 And now as I said concerning faith–faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

1 Corinthians 13:9-12 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.  When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.  For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Ether 12:6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.

From these statements, it is clear that faith involves partial knowledge, incomplete and distorted vision, and hope as much as reason.  Even the Apostle Paul in mortality could only know in part, only metaphorically speak and understand as a child, and only see through a glass, darkly.  If one of the greatest believers and leaders in the history of Christianity had to accept such partial and incomplete vision, what more can we expect?

It is this scriptural tradition of equating faith with the imperfect and the uncertain that leads me to consider President Faust’s usage, “certain faith,” unusual and in need of further consideration.  Faith, by scriptural definition, cannot involve perfect knowledge, clear and certain vision, or even (according to Moroni) a solid, reliable witness.  So the certainty in Faust’s certain faith must apply to something other than the degree of conviction and room for question involved in the faith: if the faith were certain in the sense of total conviction and unwavering vision, it would not be faith at all.

In fact, a careful reading of President Faust’s text, quoted above, suggests that what is distinctive about certain faith is not its reliability but rather its scope.  Certain faith covers the entire doctrinal core of church teachings.  Since even certain faith is still faith, it necessarily involves imperfect knowledge, challengeable conviction, partial and distorted vision, and a suspension of disbelief while awaiting a witness.

In other words, even references to “firm belief,” “certain faith,” and “absolute confidence,” when considered in light of scriptural definitions of faith, are seen to refer to a partial, imperfect, and questionable understanding.  If it were otherwise, then there would be no faith!

Faith is scripturally known to be imperfect and not a form of knowledge—indeed, an opposite of knowledge.  Furthermore, the correct object of faith is that which is not seen, so institutions, texts, and mortals that we can see in the world are not appropriate targets of faith.  So it is obvious that faith is not the same as unquestionable belief.

But is faith maybe the decision not to question the partial and questionable vision we are given?  Perhaps; there seems to be little scriptural or prophetic material available on this point.  But this approach leaves us in danger of serious error.  After all, if we, with our imperfect vision and flawed and partial understanding, decide never to question any aspect of that understanding, we will almost certainly find ourselves clinging to, and even building on, false ideas derived from a number of sources, including: our cultural backgrounds, the speculations and theories of other mortals, and our own simple mistakes.

I would suggest an alternative interpretation of faith: rather than unquestioning belief, faith is specifically questioning belief.  Faith is the decision to accept God and Christ and to believe that they have a plan even in the absence of detailed and clear understanding of that plan; it is the decision to accept that there is a (possibly unknown) useful interpretation of scriptural texts even when they are unclear, confusing, or seemingly incorrect; it is the decision to accept a group of men we’ve never met as prophets even if they turn out to be mistaken about major issues.  Faith is the acceptance of these things as an evidence of our belief in that which is not seen.  But faith is also the decision to keep worrying about the things that are wrong, or that seem wrong—whether inside the church or out; faith requires a belief that they can be made right. 

Faith requires the belief that there will be a perfect day when all of us see face to face, just as we are seen by our Heavenly Father.  But faith also requires the acknowledgement that this is not that day for any of us on earth, and that the best mortal knowledge of the divine is still seen through a glass, darkly and distortedly.   Each of us sees that distorted vision from a slightly different perspective, so faith requires that all of us offer what vision we have.  This means holding onto our questions until there is a final, resounding, and satisfactory answer for them. 

Setting aside our questions is not an act of faith; it is an act of disbelief.  It pretends that God is so fragile that He and His plan will crumble if we fail to understand them perfectly on our first try.  It imagines that God’s leaders are perfect and divine, rather than good and inspired but mortal.  It supposes that Heavenly Father has sent us to a mortal world of uncertain knowledge without realizing that we will know uncertainly when we get here!

When we avoid these traps, we can claim for ourselves the title of questioning believers.  It’s not perfect—but it will do until we do see God face to face.