Faith precedes the miracle

[slavereeno]

So often times when Faith is conflated with belief, it is said that you have to have faith first. As in, you get your mind to believe, then the proof will come. The more I studied church history the less I was able to believe in the truth claims of the church. So does God either plant false evidence (or allow the adversary to do so) and enable our deceit so as to test if we will believe in his true church or not?

Why is belief or blind faith so critical to test us on? I have been asked this by youth and I am still not sure what the real answer is. I used to say that if God made it obvious then it would remove our agency from us. When it comes to the church I hear a lot of very "faith promoting" conversion stories etc.

Why not just leave it without all the baggage? Why do polygamy with JS? Or allow him to? Why allow him to mess with the kinderhook plates or papyri or use masonic stuff in the temple? Why bother to have him get gold plates then use a stone he used to treasure hunt with to dictate the contents anyway? Take all that out and there would still be no "hard" proof the church is true?

[Dravin]

I used to say that if God made it obvious then it would remove our agency from us.

A line of argument that pokes serious holes into the War in Heaven narrative. If you believe this than that means either a third part of the host of heaven (and Satan) made their decision in ignorance or had knowledge but no agency, either scenario makes their damnation rather icky. Alternatively they were somehow able to exist in heaven without hitting the magical so much knowledge it removes agency point and this point is somehow the lesser when compared to a Nephite archaeological dig site (strangely when the possibility of the existence of such a site wasn't so implausible it was the confirmation of belief Mormons expected archaeologists to encounter some day and not a vile unwanted assault on agency).

[slavereeno]

(strangely when the possibility of the existence of such a site wasn't so implausible it was the confirmation of belief Mormons expected archaeologists to encounter some day and not a vile unwanted assault on agency).

So I guess what I am still puzzled at is what is the virtue of Faith? Why does God want to reward unfounded belief? What is being judged? Many people do some awful things because of this. Is it so that we will be good soldiers, never questioning or reasoning on our own? Wouldn't God want to reward intelligence and people who actually do good stuff because they have the ability to determine from within what is right? Instead of just following?

I suppose an argument could be made for the virtue of loyalty.

[Hagoth]

Why is belief or blind faith so critical to test us on?

Unfounded faith is not a requirement of God, it's a requirement of men who want you to do their bidding without thinking too much about it. It is possible to create an emotional response in people that can be more convincing than facts because it is more immediate and visceral. Most people believe their emotions more readily than they believe logic, so using belief as a yardstick for epistemology is a convenient shortcut around critical thinking.

To your first question, though. It seems utterly ridiculous for a god to remove your memory of him and then determine your eternal salvation or damnation based on your faith in him. Actually, it works great for all of those people who never heard of Mormonism and the restoration, but the unlucky ones born into the faith are required to somehow pass the test because now they know better.

[slavereeno]

It seems utterly ridiculous for a god to remove your memory of him and then determine your eternal salvation or damnation based on your faith in him. Actually, it works great for all of those people who never heard of Mormonism and the restoration, but the unlucky ones born into the faith are required to somehow pass the test because now they know better.

Yeah I am having a real tough time right now seeing the manipulative aspect of this. Maybe if we as individuals have control of our faith that would be different?

[Reuben]

I'm going to get precise, because I think many of our problems with belief and faith come from conflating the two and not understanding them.

I think of belief in a proposition (statement of truth) as a probability. "I believe there's a God" might mean "I think the probability that God exists and has certain attributes is about 75%." Human belief doesn't map exactly onto probability distributions, partly because it's possible for the sum of a human's beliefs to be greater than 100% (that is, we can believe strongly in mutually exclusive propositions), but it's a close enough approximation.

Humans have almost no direct control over their beliefs. We have control over the evidence we expose ourselves to, and can actively influence our beliefs for short periods of time, but that's about it.

I think the best synonym for faith is trust. I've found that replacing every instance of "faith" in the scriptures with "trust" makes the scriptures make more sense. Trust means voluntarily acting on a proposition as if you believe it 100% even though you don't. Trust and doubt exist in the same space. Without doubt, there's no need for trust.

Trusting a proposition requires justification. Some common justifications include being convinced of the goodness of the results of acting on the proposition (see Alma 32 minus the circular bits), trusting the source of the proposition (because of its character or historical veracity), believing other propositions that support it, having no other options, and fear. Obviously, not all justifications are equally good.

Trusting a proposition also requires nonzero belief. It's not really possible for a human to trust while having no belief at all. (Utility theory says that voluntarily acting on something in which you have zero belief is subjectively suboptimal, so we're on mathematically solid ground, here.)

I can't accept a god who requires 100% belief, or who requires blind faith; that is, trust without solid justification or without belief. I can accept a god who gives evidence for belief to some people, and then requires their trust, justified by goodness. I think that any god who gives less or requires more is immoral, and frankly is a controlling asshole.

Mormons get belief and faith wrong in a variety of ways, which leads them to manipulate and abuse each other.

IMO the biggest is the cultural requirement to grow your "testimony" until you reach absolute certainty (100% belief). Mormon culture picks this requirement up from Mormon leaders' direct statements to that effect, and indirectly from statements that stigmatize "backsliding" into less belief (Elder Holland's statement "hold the ground you've already won" is a recent example), statements that "strong testimonies" are required to resist Satan, and statements that criminalize doubt. One result is that Mormons collectively can't understand those who believe differently, and marginalize and fear those people in their own ranks who believe differently, often regardless of how they act. (There are many fine individuals who buck the trend, though.) Another result is that Mormons usually can't admit disconfirming evidence, which impairs their ability to change their minds and makes them collectively arrogant.

Absolute certainty damns the heart and mind. It's also the bread and butter of all fundamentalist religions.

Conflating belief with trust/faith is another problem. Because of this, there's barely any acknowledgement of the need to justify having faith, aside from occasional epistemologically problematic claims that goodness equals truth (usually appealing to one of the two passages in Alma 32 that even mentions truth). This removes some of the responsibility to demonstrate goodness, which is partly why Mormon communities tend to be insular and self-serving. (Again, there are shining examples that buck the trend.) It's a big reason Mormons put up with things that are clearly not good: so many things, such as being certain of beliefs and demonstrating loyalty, are more important than justifying faith. This is in stark contrast to the example of Jesus, who spent his time healing and helping outsiders, and who, when confronted with lack of faith, gave really good reasons to have it.

One more problem I've noticed is the difference in many Mormons' minds between trust and faith: where the responsibility lies. Pretty much everyone agrees that trusting some source of beliefs requires that source to justify it; i.e. the responsibility is on the other. For faith, though, most Mormons (I would say almost all) if asked, would identify the self as the party responsible. That is, your lack of trust is probably the other party's fault, but your lack of faith is probably your fault.

I reject this notion of faith as irrational.

I also think it enables abuse. If any authority - any at all, religious or secular - can get you to believe that you didn't try hard enough to trust them, they can guilt you into doing almost anything.

[Hagoth]

Excellent observations, Reuben.

Humans have almost no direct control over their beliefs. We have control over the evidence we expose ourselves to, and can actively influence our beliefs for short periods of time, but that's about it.

Bingo. In fact, the greatest influence on your what you believe is where you were born. Just look at a world map of the distribution of religions. Another example is the conversion of entire nations once their ruler converts. This is something that happened over and over again in the ancient world. Of course there are dramatic exceptions, but generally when the people in charge tell their subjects what they should believe the subjects fall in line over a generation or so. It seems that belonging to the culture of the common belief system is often more important than the specific beliefs or practices themselves. Odds are the if Brigham Young had converted to Zoroastrianism shortly after entering the Salt Lake valley we would be discussing this in a forum called New Order Zoroastrians.

In retrospect, I realize that most of my life in the church has been a valiant struggle against my inner voice, to continue believing despite the contradictory information I kept stumbling upon and my inherent tendency to not believe. Although no on ever asks me why I have stepped aside, I think the best answer would simply be, "because I can't make myself believe it anymore." That's hard to argue with.

I think the best synonym for faith is trust. I've found that replacing every instance of "faith" in the scriptures with "trust" makes the scriptures make more sense. Trust means voluntarily acting on a proposition as if you believe it 100% even though you don't. Trust and doubt exist in the same space. Without doubt, there's no need for trust.

Or if that doesn't work for you, take it down a notch to hope. But that complicates it by a further degree. I only have a temple recommend because my SP told me to replace the words "faith and testimony" in the questions with "hope." If he had said to replace it with "trust" I would have failed. I can hope that the Q15 are prophets, seers and revelators, but I do not trust that this is the case. They have shown me that they are not trustworthy. So maybe when we're talking about faith we should talk about it in terms of a rainbow, rather than specifics. A serious problem in Mormonism is that we
not only conflate faith and belief but we demand that they are equivalent to knowledge.

[moksha]

When words can have multiple meanings (curse you Oxford Unabridged Dictionary) usages of words within various concepts have some overlap and can change based on which part of speech (adjective, noun, verb) it is being used for. I believe it to be the case and I have faith that it is so are examples. It is my Belief and it is my Faith.

Believe it or not....

[Reuben]

Yeah, I end up mentally translating a lot. Fortunately, "faith" tends to have a consistent meaning, even if "believe" tends to jump around among meanings like a grasshopper with ADHD.

Hagoth, the thing that bothers me most about the word "knowledge" is that Mormons use it to mean "certainty." But certainty is usually the antithesis of knowledge.

[slavereeno]

I think the best synonym for faith is trust. I've found that replacing every instance of "faith" in the scriptures with "trust" makes the scriptures make more sense. Trust means voluntarily acting on a proposition as if you believe it 100% even though you don't. Trust and doubt exist in the same space. Without doubt, there's no need for trust.

Trusting a proposition requires justification. Some common justifications include being convinced of the goodness of the results of acting on the proposition (see Alma 32 minus the circular bits), trusting the source of the proposition (because of its character or historical veracity), believing other propositions that support it, having no other options, and fear. Obviously, not all justifications are equally good.

Trusting a proposition also requires nonzero belief. It's not really possible for a human to trust while having no belief at all. (Utility theory says that voluntarily acting on something in which you have zero belief is subjectively suboptimal, so we're on mathematically solid ground, here.)

The Book of Reuben 1:4-6

So why is Reuben's explanation of faith so much easier to understand and make so much more sense to me than Alma 32!?

In retrospect, I realize that most of my life in the church has been a valiant struggle against my inner voice, to continue believing despite the contradictory information I kept stumbling upon and my inherent tendency to not believe. Although no on ever asks me why I have stepped aside, I think the best answer would simply be, "because I can't make myself believe it anymore." That's hard to argue with.

Yes, this. I guess I feel bad for those who will eventually know this about me, for whom belief has never been an issue. It will hurt them because they think I am going to hell or have been deceived by and evil force, etc..

[Reuben]

I think the best synonym for faith is trust. I've found that replacing every instance of "faith" in the scriptures with "trust" makes the scriptures make more sense. Trust means voluntarily acting on a proposition as if you believe it 100% even though you don't. Trust and doubt exist in the same space. Without doubt, there's no need for trust.

Trusting a proposition requires justification. Some common justifications include being convinced of the goodness of the results of acting on the proposition (see Alma 32 minus the circular bits), trusting the source of the proposition (because of its character or historical veracity), believing other propositions that support it, having no other options, and fear. Obviously, not all justifications are equally good.

Trusting a proposition also requires nonzero belief. It's not really possible for a human to trust while having no belief at all. (Utility theory says that voluntarily acting on something in which you have zero belief is subjectively suboptimal, so we're on mathematically solid ground, here.)

The Book of Reuben 1:4-6

Ha! If there ever is a Book of Reuben, I'll make sure that this discussion is in Chapter 1, exactly as you have it.

I'll have to add my apostate brother's statement that doubt is a form of humility. That's a good one.

So why is Reuben's explanation of faith so much easier to understand and make so much more sense to me than Alma 32!?

It might have something to do with the fact that Alma 32 doesn't define faith. It only describes faith. "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen" only describes the mental state of someone who trusts. The rest of the chapter is a description in the form of a parable, which goes like this:

Alma Dude: So, Poor Dude, I have this awesome tree. Here's a seed from it. If you plant it and take care of it, you'll get an awesome tree, too.

Poor Dude: Okay, I trust you. [Plants the seed, etc., because he trusts Alma Dude.] Cool, my trust paid off, and I don't need to trust Alma Dude about it anymore. Also, this fruit is legit.

There's also a lot of distracting stuff in the chapter about digging about and dunging and breastical swelling motions and goodness=truth and it being morally wrong to not trust Alma (the "your ground is barren" crap). So between the fact that the chapter doesn't say what Mormons say it says and all that verbiage, you're totally justified in not cutting through it all so you could find what isn't there.

[Dravin]

So I guess what I am still puzzled at is what is the virtue of Faith? Why does God want to reward unfounded belief? What is being judged? Many people do some awful things because of this. Is it so that we will be good soldiers, never questioning or reasoning on our own? Wouldn't God want to reward intelligence and people who actually do good stuff because they have the ability to determine from within what is right? Instead of just following?

I suppose an argument could be made for the virtue of loyalty.

The only sense the Mormon concept of the testing of the virtue of faith makes to me is some sort of inner character test. So you get wiped clean and the purity of character allows you to faith your way back. The runs into issues though when considered with all the rhetoric of agency (it's not about choosing, it's about having the right spiritual character) and with scriptures like D&C 46 which suggest faith is a gift. So if having sufficient faith comes down to who you were in the preexistence or god deciding to gift it to you then the idea of just choosing sufficient faith becomes rather muddled doesn't it?

I realize this doesn't in any way answer your question, just know you aren't the only one puzzled by the Rube Goldbergesque the Plan of Salvation is when you no longer just simply accept it as some beautiful master plan without actually considering it in depth.

[wtfluff]

I reject this notion of faith as irrational.

I also think it enables abuse. If any authority - any at all, religious or secular - can get you to believe that you didn't try hard enough to trust them, they can guilt you into doing almost anything.

"Doing almost anything" - And therein lies the problem with faith: Who's "authority" guilted Nephi to hack Laban's head off, based on his faith that the voice inside his head was correct in telling him to murder Laban? (Yes I know that's a fictional story.) Who's "authority" led the 9-11 terrorists to fly planes into buildings based on their faith?

Faith can be used to justify incredibly horrible things, and it can be used to justify wonderful things. So: If faith can be used to come to mutually contradictory conclusions, it actually shouldn't be used to justify anything.

[moksha]

This is all part of a longitudinal genetics experiment started by Professor Aloysius H. Crowley of Harvard University in 1823. Professor Crowley conjectured that by the year 2133, the end result of this experiment would be the creation of a whole new species called Homo Know-fer-sures. The professor helped to introduce the practice of polygamy in order to selectively inbreed the gene pool of true knowers. Crowley envisioned eventually turning this bold experiment into an HBO series and tasked this side portion of the experiment to his longtime assistant Merriweather Hanks, who would enlist his descendants in carrying out his assignment.

[RubinHighlander]

This line of thinking, that God purposely placed challenging evidence in our paths to test our faith, or let the Devil do it, is something I grappled with quite a bit as a TBM, especially in the area of evolution. I was a big fan of the fossils and geology and it was something that caused a lot of cogdis for me, trying to come up with mental gymnastics to make it work with the LDS way of thinking.

I've posted these lyrics in the NOM soundtrack channel, but for me they are very applicable to this thread in the false arguments of TBMs to try and justify evidence that runs contrary to their dogma:

Alice In Chain
"The Devil Put Dinosaurs Here"

Come to me, I'll fill the hole
Why would I be lying
End fan, all planned out
Offering a wonderful
Peace of mind worth buying
Bow down last round up

I am wise and you don't know
A cloud is my home
Only some get in
Got a 'maginary friend

The devil put dinosaurs here
Jesus don't like a queer
The devil put dinosaurs here
No problem with faith just fear

Promise those who've gone before
Waitin' on you flyin'
Leading, receiving us
I'm as flawed as any man
Look at me I'm smiling
Drink me, eat me up

I am wise and you don't know
A cloud is my home
Only some get in
Got a 'maginary friend

The devil put dinosaurs here
Jesus don't like a queer
The devil put dinosaurs here
No problem with faith just fear

I am wise and you don't know
A cloud is my home
Only some get in
Got a 'maginary friend

The devil put dinosaurs here
Jesus don't like a queer
The devil put dinosaurs here
The problem with faith

Fear

Liar

[Corsair]

One underlying assumption of the LDS church is that faith will lead to greater religious devotion to Jesus Christ and his authorized prophets and apostles residing on North Temple Street in Salt Lake City, Utah. This is the problem. The church definitely wants more faith, but it wants that faith oriented directly towards one specfic brand of Mormonism, not for Christianity in general. The church wants faith in a Jesus that agrees with Thomas Monson, not in the radical, itinterant preacher of first century Judea living under Roman imperial rule.

The church wants a narrow faith that supports decisions and policies Thomas, Henry, Dieter, Russell, and Dallin, not necessarily Peter, James, and John. And certainly not of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaus, Origen, Ambrose, or Augustine. These are men that wrestled with the teachings of Jesus in a much more visceral way and had a faith that allowed for an astonishing amount of disagreement. Irenaus had faith that allowed him to suffer persecution that makes 19th century Mormon pioneers look pretty weak. In the case of Bishop Irenaus of Lyon, faith preceded a much more prosaic miracle of simply remaining Christian and alive during some horrific persecution under Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

I accept and admire Christian faith that makes men and women better followers of Jesus the Christ. The kind of sincere study of faith in Christ in the 21st century does not inorexably lead back to avoiding coffee or paying tithing to one specific religious entity based in Utah. The organizational longevity of the LDS church wants converts that are loyal to the authority of Thomas Monson of Salt Lake City, rather than simply towards Jesus of Nazareth. Faith in Mormon Jesus produces a much less impressive miracle.

[slavereeno]

So between the fact that the chapter doesn't say what Mormons say it says and all that verbiage, you're totally justified in not cutting through it all so you could find what isn't there.

yes this.

digging about and dunging and breastical swelling motions

this make me laugh, I am basically just an overgrown 12 year old.

just know you aren't the only one puzzled by the Rube Goldbergesque the Plan of Salvation is when you no longer just simply accept it as some beautiful master plan without actually considering it in depth.

Thanks, So many things that I had accepted, and taught all the while my brain kept saying "uh ok... I'll regurgitate this, but it doesn't make a damn lick of sense"

So: If faith can be used to come to mutually contradictory conclusions, it actually shouldn't be used to justify anything.

I was pondering this the other day, if Church A says "we have the truth and if you don't believe it you are going to hell" and Church B says "No no no, we hate the truth and if you believe them your going to Hell" So how is God giving both these people answers? Obviously this is a flawed system, especially when you throw in the fact that the religion of my youth make up such a tiny fraction of the humans that lived on this rock. The Mormon god is just not a people person apparently.

The devil put dinosaurs here

About 12 years ago I went on a hike with teh 11 year old scouts, my co-leader was a convert of like 5 years. I was showing the boys some fossils in the rocks (the whole purpose of the hike) and this brother made the comment that fossils bugged him because they existed, but he knew we weren't supposed to believe in them. I told him I did and gave my reasons. But if that is the way a convert feels, that was taught to him at some point.

The organizational longevity of the LDS church wants converts that are loyal to the authority of Thomas Monson of Salt Lake City, rather than simply towards Jesus of Nazareth. Faith in Mormon Jesus produces a much less impressive miracle.

The last meeting I had with a GA before I was released was just before a stake conference. I had the opportunity to offer my thoughts on what topics should be focused on during the conference. There was talk of tithing, fast offerings, women not feeling like they met expectations, how to make the members feel part of the group, and the biggie: how do we cram a testimony of JS down the members throats. At the end i was given my opportunity, I suggested that we focus on the teachings of Jesus Christ. I left it at that and got a patronizing response about how all of it was about Jesus Christ. When the conference came however, Joseph Smith, Temple, Book of Mormon, Testimony of the Church were each uttered at a bare minimum, 10 times more frequently than the name Jesus Christ. Some of the talks didn't even use his name or reference the savior, at all. It really did absolutely nothing but hurt my "testimony" of the church.

[slavereeno]

I have been trying to think of my questions as though i were debating them with my father, who is as TBM as the come and not a stupid man. I think his response would be to bring up the story of Abraham and Isaac, the "Trial of ones faith" is the test God uses to determine if you can be responsible with greater things.

My problem is this: God says "Go kill you kid," and Abraham says "No problem boss, you want me to saute him with some onions for you too?"
I get that this is in similitude of the sacrifice of God's Son, but in that narrative God knew all the facts, he wasn't blindly following a marching order. So if we are to expect an apotheosis of our own, what kind of gods are we to become, mindless zombie gods that have no ability of their own for moral reasoning without Dad telling us? Frankly I wouldn't trust Abraham to be a God, IMHO he failed that test! "Ok so if anybody can trick you into thinking they are me, you would seriously kill your own kid? Abraham, that's messed up." A better version of this story would be if an army was coming and the family had a discussion and Isaac said "Dad, I'll hold them off with my sling while you take the rest of the family, servants, etc to safety. I will die, but its worth it to save the others." Isaac agrees to the sacrifice, but it breaks his heart. And then the angel drops in and says "April Fools!" and saves Isaac.

I think Christ's teaching in the parable of the talents is a better fit for my brain. In the parable when the master leaves and then comes back, the only one who screws up is the guy that hid his talent for fear he wouldn't do exactly what the lazy master wanted him to. (The parable would have been better if one of the servant's had actually made a bad investment, how then would the master have responded?)

Sorry, but if accepting Joseph Smith's polygamy and polyandry (just to name one!) is a "Faith" test then I guess I fail, and the CK will be full of bobble headed "Yes" men and their harems and the TK will be full of people with actual moral reasoning of their own!

Jesus visiting me in the TK: "So what are you in for?"
Me (a little sheepishly): "Thinking on my own, and trying to do the right thing..."

[Corsair]

I have been trying to think of my questions as though i were debating them with my father, who is as TBM as the come and not a stupid man. I think his response would be to bring up the story of Abraham and Isaac, the "Trial of ones faith" is the test God uses to determine if you can be responsible with greater things.

The story of Abraham and Isaac is still taught with the silliest lessons to be learned from it. This is a mythical story that can still provide some useful lessons, but the lesson is not "Be prepared to obediently commit Class 1 felonies if God asks you to do that".

The story of Abraham arose out of a time when bloodthirsty sacrifices were common in that area. This is the earliest story of a god telling someone to "stop doing that!" We cannot and should not follow homicial directives no matter where they originate. One Jewish legend tells how Abraham disagreed with God and that it was actually Abraham testing Jehovah to see if this god was going to be just another sacrifice-loving pagan god. That's a much better story for a modern audience. Yes, I know that there are supposed to be parallels to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But in that case, Isaac would have tried to willingly plunged the knife directly into his own chest and not leave Abraham with attempted murder.

In the unlikely event that I ever teach from Genesis chapter 22 in Sunday School, I would simply state that if you hear a voice from God telling you to kill your child, you should reply, "OK God, I can't stop you if you want to kill my child. And I suppose that you can easily kill me. But there no circumstances where I will be killing someone, especially my innocent child." Think how much better the story of Nephi and Laban would be if Nephi told God to give him a massive heart attack rather than leaving Nephi with the trauma of murder.

This modern interpretation of "Obedience Uber Alles" is not helpful. Think how much better would be the history of Utah if someone had the stood up to Isaac C. Haight, John H. Higbee, and John D. Lee and told them to let God handle the Baker-Fancher party in 1857. This wasn't just a bad day in LDS history, this was arguable the worst day of LDS history. Mormons are far too quick to proclaim that Obedience is the first law of Heaven. I would disagree since we have Jesus stating on record that "Love God and Love your Neighbor" are the top commandments. Let's have a lot more circumspection about how much we should be obeying any mortal leader claiming to speak for God. It saved Isaac and it might save some of our children also.

[deacon blues]

This whole thread makes my bosom burn; seriously.