Faith, Evidence, Things not seen, and Truth

[græy]

A few other threads/posts got me to look up Hebrews 11:1 and JS's version of that scripture in Alma 32:21. For reference here they are...

Hebrews 11:1 - (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1 - (NIV) Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Alma 32:21 - ...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.

I really like the NT versions of this verse, especially the NIV. We have faith in things that we hope for, but are not yet substantiated through direct evidence. Faith becomes the means that those hopes are given substance.

The Alma version has always really bugged me. When anyone shares that verse in church they always interpret it identical to the Hebrews version. But it is NOT identical. It is in fact VERY different.

faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things

Good so far.

if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen

Still good.

which are true

WTF? Why is that qualifier there!? Didn't this verse just start by saying faith isn't a perfect knowledge? Without knowledge, how do we know if the object of that faith is true or not?

Also, does this mean something HAS to be true to have faith in that thing? If we have hope in something that isn't true, and act on that hope, does the fact that it wasn't true meant we never had faith? What does that say about all those millions who claim to have faith in the foundational stories of Mormonism which are at best embellished and at worst downright fabrications?

/rant

Sorry, for the probably undue rail against an otherwise insignificant verse of scripture. Its just one small grain of sand among thousands currently stuck in my garments, rubbing me raw.

[Reuben]

Also, if the plant doesn't take root, it's because your ground is barren (verse 39).

The chapter is written from the perspective that what Alma says is true, and if the listeners don't have faith in it, they just haven't done enough yet. It's "do the works until you have faith" instead of "do the works to see if you should have faith." Even Jesus wasn't that arrogant. At least he admitted the possibility of speaking for himself, and he was supposed to be the flippin' son of God.

Alma 32 illustrates an epistemology wherein no answer but "Alma is right" is possible.

[deacon blues]

The is an example for me, of the immaturity of thought in Alma 32. This chapter, and many other parts of the BOM, seem to me, to exhibit what B.H. Roberts meant when he said: "that what is here presented illustrates sufficiently the matter taken in hand....so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator." (B.H. Roberts, "Book of Mormon Studies, p. 271)

[hiding in plain sight]

Also, does this mean something HAS to be true to have faith in that thing? If we have hope in something that isn't true, and act on that hope, does the fact that it wasn't true meant we never had faith? What does that say about all those millions who claim to have faith in the foundational stories of Mormonism which are at best embellished and at worst downright fabrications?

There are two analogies that I sometimes use to explain these verses and how they apply to the difference between faith and belief.

Analogy #1 - Going to work.

I get up every day and have faith that I will get to work safely in my daily commute. I have faith that other drivers will be doing their best at being safe and we will all watch out for each other. And ultimately I will survive another day.

And almost every day my faith is rewarded with evidences of people trying to do their best. And almost every day I arrive safely at work.

I don't know any of this for sure. And yes there was that one day I was in a 7 car pile up. But overall my faith is rewarded with evidences that my faith could be built upon truth.

Analogy #2 - Investing in a ponzi scheme

People tell me that I can make a ton of money. Guaranteed. If I would only just invest in their company. All I have to do is wait 90 days to get my money back. During the first 90 day period I get my money back. Maybe even in the second 90 day period. But ultimately, if I stay with these companies they go belly up and my money magically disappears.

I could "try" and have faith that these will ultimately work out. But the evidences keep pointing to the fact that they never do.

Is this faith? No. It is just a belief, boardering on delusion.

Faith has evidences that it could be true.

You can believe in anything, but you have to work hard to avoid the evidences pointing in the opposite direction and telling you it is all a scam.

Queue the music - Mormons just believe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e370GUVRlQo

[Corsair]

which are true

WTF? Why is that qualifier there!? Didn't this verse just start by saying faith isn't a perfect knowledge? Without knowledge, how do we know if the object of that faith is true or not?

This is the poison pill inside the LDS doctrine of faith. This is one basis for avoiding anti-Mormon literature, i.e., "known facts" about many aspects of LDS history.

The other day I walked in my garage and turned on the light with full faith that I would suddenly be able to see in a darkened garage with no windows. Unbenownst to me, the bulb had burned out and despite multiple attempts flipping the switch, the room stayed dark. I was confident in my faith that the light would turn on, but since it was not true, my faith was proven false.

Having a fervent faith in something is not indicative that such a thing is necessarily true. A strong faith can cause a person to do all sorts of great or silly things. How many people turn down cancer treatments like chemotherapy in favor of easier, but ineffective, alternative treatments? How often have you heard the testimony of a member or leader of different churches proclaim their faith and testimony in their chosen denomination? The LDS church sends out thousands of missionaries to get people to follow a different faith.

Did any of you go on an LDS mission with faith about the number of wives Joseph Smith had? Or about the method of Book of Mormon translation? Or about the likelihood that the current prophet had seen and talked to Jesus? Or about the firm historicity of the Book of Mormon? Or about the efficacy of priesthood blessings? Or about the translation abilities of Joseph Smith with the Book of Abraham? Or about how the MTC Presidents were consistently upstanding men who did not sexually abuse missionaries? I could go on, but people have already made much longer lists of these issues.

The idea that "things which are not seen which are true" is the basis for faith has accidentally killed a lot of testimonies. It's one of my unintentionally favorite passages in the Book of Mormon.

[wtfluff]

There are two analogies that I sometimes use to explain these verses and how they apply to the difference between faith and belief.

Analogy #1 - Going to work.

I get up every day and have faith that I will get to work safely in my daily commute. I have faith that other drivers will be doing their best at being safe and we will all watch out for each other. And ultimately I will survive another day.

And almost every day my faith is rewarded with evidences of people trying to do their best. And almost every day I arrive safely at work.

I don't know any of this for sure. And yes there was that one day I was in a 7 car pile up. But overall my faith is rewarded with evidences that my faith could be built upon truth.

Analogy #2 - Investing in a ponzi scheme

People tell me that I can make a ton of money. Guaranteed. If I would only just invest in their company. All I have to do is wait 90 days to get my money back. During the first 90 day period I get my money back. Maybe even in the second 90 day period. But ultimately, if I stay with these companies they go belly up and my money magically disappears.

I could "try" and have faith that these will ultimately work out. But the evidences keep pointing to the fact that they never do.

Is this faith? No. It is just a belief, boardering on delusion.

Faith has evidences that it could be true.

You can believe in anything, but you have to work hard to avoid the evidences pointing in the opposite direction and telling you it is all a scam.

I'm going to call you out here H.I.P.S. and say that the "faith" that you mention in your scenarios is completely different than blind religious faith.

In your "daily commute" scenario: You have commuted to work safely thousands of times. You have thousands of verifiable data points (evidence) that you'll more than likely make it to work safely.

And again, with the ponzi scheme scenario: Thousands of examples of failed ponzi schemes. Thousands of points of evidence that it's not smart to "invest" in ponzi schemes.



When it comes blind religious faith there is no verifiable evidence to justify belief.

[hiding in plain sight]

I'm going to call you out here H.I.P.S. and say that the "faith" that you mention in your scenarios is completely different than blind religious faith.

In your "daily commute" scenario: You have commuted to work safely thousands of times. You have thousands of verifiable data points (evidence) that you'll more than likely make it to work safely.

And again, with the ponzi scheme scenario: Thousands of examples of failed ponzi schemes. Thousands of points of evidence that it's not smart to "invest" in ponzi schemes.



When it comes blind religious faith there is no verifiable evidence to justify belief.

Hey WTFluff.

Don't you be calling me out on that. My ego is too delicate for such harsh words.

I like to tell my wife I am living my life using the framework of probable verses possible.

Your thousands of points of evidence make things "probable" about what is and what will happen.

When there is that lack of confirming evidence then you are living in the world of increasingly remote possibilities. I don't have to live in that world anymore.

[Rob4Hope]

Interesting topic.

For years and years I've wrestled to understand these faith scriptures. I've seen holes in them from the beginning. WOW, in hind site, I recognize now that cognitive dissonance has been my warm companion my whole life!

YIKES!

The whole idea of forcing faith, and happy feelings I might add, onto people in order to gather them into your tribe has been used by so many groups from the beginning! It amazes me how the same patterns work over and over! What is sadly lacking seems to be those who disseminate facts and verifiable conclusions while allowing people to choose for themselves.

The internet is a fascinating machine. It is the bane of the LDS church. I didn't know, for example, 2 years ago that JS was a polyandrous man.

Go figure.

LDS faith requires ignorance to thrive. Thats my take anyway.

[Thoughtful]

Behavioral science separates contingency governed behavior from rule governed. Rule governed behavior is useful when the consequences are extreme, but unlikely or less likely. For example, I won't get a ticket or into a deadly accident everytime I speed or don't wear my seatbelt. But the fine is large enough, and death is scary enough, that saying "wear your seatbelt and follow the speed limit" is compelling.

As opposed to a contingency where, "if you do x, y will result." Like to my teenager, "if you're late to curfew, you lose the car keys." The consequences are implemented everytime, on schedule.

Churches love rule governed behaviors. Consequences like hell are scary but a long ways off. Others like "losing the spirit" are subjective and implemented with social contingencies that while possibly arbitrary, are powerful ways of enforcing the rules. (Making people feel more guilty and worrying more about going to hell etc. )

The faith and truth debacles just reinforce the social and behavioral conditioning.

[oliblish]

which are true

WTF? Why is that qualifier there!? Didn't this verse just start by saying faith isn't a perfect knowledge? Without knowledge, how do we know if the object of that faith is true or not?

Also, does this mean something HAS to be true to have faith in that thing? If we have hope in something that isn't true, and act on that hope, does the fact that it wasn't true meant we never had faith? What does that say about all those millions who claim to have faith in the foundational stories of Mormonism which are at best embellished and at worst downright fabrications?

I remember there was a thread about this on the old NOM. I think the conclusion was that you could have faith in something, but you could not know if you had faith in it or not. Because if you knew you had faith, that implied you knew it was true, so it was a perfect knowledge and not faith.

Somehow this makes sense to TBMs. I think when they say they don't have a perfect knowledge, that means a worldly knowledge (seeing something with your physical eyes). But I think they are talking about an alternate way of "knowing" things (through feelings).

So to have faith, you believe in something you didn't see, but you "know" it is true because of feelings. Could this be how it works?

[græy]

So to have faith, you believe in something you didn't see, but you "know" it is true because of feelings. Could this be how it works?

I've thought of this before, basically different definitions of the word "know."

To me, the TBM definition now sounds more like- "I really really hope it's true because that means everything I'm invested in has actual value. So I'm just going to say I know to help myself feel better."