Does Faith HAVE to be a belief in TRUE unseen things?

[Anonymous]

We know the scriptures say that one definition of faith is a belief in things unseen that are TRUE.

I challenge this definition. I don’t necessarily belief things have to be TRUE for their belief in them to qualify as faith.

People throughout history — tyrants, entrepreneurs, godlike people — they have all had faith in certain things such as their vision of the future, and it motivated them to action –which faith is — the moving cause of ALL action. I repeat — ALL action. Not only belief in the truth, but belief in shysters, dictators, benevolent people, and people who love us — all those sources. Not all are true, but if they motivate us to action, then we have faith.

This question has always bothered me as people always insist the thing you are believing in must be true for it to be faith. Otherwise, it’s just belief. To me, the distinction is academic….and given how hard it is to discern absolute truth, an unecessary distinction.

Comments?

[Anonymous]

Well Personally I don’t feel that there is such a thing as absolute truth.

The sky only appears to be blue even though most people will say that it is blue.

The laws of gravity on this planet only exist because of the shape of the earth and its location in the solar system. Had such things been altered the laws would change a bit.

I don’t see faith as a belief in the unseen that are TRUE!

No.

I see faith as a belief in hope.

I hope ___________ is true.

I’m sure many of us once had a strong faith in Santa Clause. We sat on his lap when he visited a location near by. We woke up on Christmas morning with gifts and candy in stalkings and brightly wrapped presents under the tree.

Then one day we calculated some things in our head and decided that Santa Clause isn’t real. We were angry that we were lied to.

For the sake of allowing the others who believe in Santa Clause we just kept our mouth shut and played along so that we could keep getting those wonderful gifts.

Then later we might stumble on something like this. http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/who-is-st-nicholas/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/who-is-st-nicholas/ And we think well maybe there was a Santa Clause after all. For the sake of keeping his spirit alive we continue to play along.

I think the overall idea of Santa Clause gives hope for people and puts them in a better mood.

[Anonymous]

This will probably get me in trouble but I have always seen faith as a motivator by god( as in the reason it’s important and how it’s used). We try and try different things putting our faith in it(even scientist use faith believing that the answers are just around the corner to keep pushing). Faith pushes us forward to find answers, to find truth. Sometimes we are wrong, sometimes right. At the end of the day god seems to be pushing ideas as in “try it out(faith), see it it bears fruit, good or bad(truth or falsehood)”. We as humans need faith to push us forward. Without it we would be lifeless and unmotivated to search for god or truth or answers. Wether you put faith in something that turned out not to be true is inconsequential in the long run(to me it seems). So much as you put the effort to try it out and find out the truth for yourself. It’s what drives us toward god and knowledge. If we didn’t have faith we would find answers or truth then we would just stop trying or not bark down potential “trees” of truth. Faith to find “answers” is what drives us to be better and search for more truth.

[Anonymous]

No.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

No.

could you expand on this?

[Anonymous]

I think the purest definition of faith allows us to be wrong about the object(s) of our faith – and I think the purest definition of the Atonement requires that we be wrong about our faith occasionally (even often) without it being anything less than real faith.

[Anonymous]

Ok, there are enough of us here to help me with this here who agree with this line of thinking….I am considering sharing this as a question in my next lesson on the Strengthening Power of Strength. I tend to share it as a question, give my opinion, and then when people counter it with TBM perspectives, I also validate those as alternate perspectives that will leave me personally, as the teacher, thinking about this further, and that I appreciate their perspectives.

How do you reconcile this idea that faith is more of a belief in something — whether true or not — with the scripture in the Book of Mormon says:

Quote:

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.

The Bible doesn’t appear to have such a qualifier that faith is faith only if it is true.

However, there is a slight contradiction in the BoM which could be used to justify faith as belief in anything, whether true or not:

Quote:

Enos 1:14

14 For at the present our strugglings were vain in restoring them to the true faith. And they swore in their wrath that, if it were possible, they would destroy our records and us, and also all the traditions of our fathers.

This implies there is more than one faith — the true one Enos and his people were trying to restore people to, and other kinds of faith. This contradicts the Alma definition above, indicating there are multiple kinds of faith spanning the true and untrue camps. Here is another

Quote:

3 Nephi 6:14

14 And thus there became a great inequality in all the land, insomuch that the church began to be broken up; yea, insomuch that in the thirtieth year the church was broken up in all the land save it were among a few of the Lamanites who were converted unto the true faith; and they would not depart from it, for they were firm, and steadfast, and immovable, willing with all diligence to keep the commandments of the Lord.

Again, the qualifier of TRUE faith, which would be unecessary if faith is only belief in things that are true; such a qualifier of true faith would be unecessary. The scripture implies the Lamanites had a different faith — one that was not based on truth.

And another one:

Quote:

Enos 1:20

20 And I bear record that the people of Nephi did seek diligently to restore the Lamanites unto the true faith in God. But our labors were vain; their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us.

Here is another definition of faith that makes it indistinguishible from belief in things that are true, or not true:

Quote:

Belief, Believe: The Guide to the Scriptures

See also Faith; Jesus Christ; Trust; Unbelief.

To have faith in someone or to accept something as true. A person must repent and believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved in the kingdom of God (D&C 20:29).

however, if you go to the Guide to the Scriptures (I’m not sure what the heck that is, by the way — the Bible Dictionary perhaps? It provides a mixed answer — reasserting that faith is in things that are true, but also indicating that faith has to be based on true knowledge or it will provide salvation or miracles.

Quote:

Faith

Faith. Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true (Heb. 11:1; Alma 32:21), and must be centered in Jesus Christ in order to produce salvation. To have faith is to have confidence in something or someone. The Lord has revealed himself and his perfect character, possessing in their fulness all the attributes of love, knowledge, justice, mercy, unchangeableness, power, and every other needful thing, so as to enable the mind of man to place confidence in him without reservation….

All true faith must be based upon correct knowledge or it cannot produce the desired results. Faith in Jesus Christ is the first principle of the gospel and is more than belief, since true faith always moves its possessor to some kind of physical and mental action; it carries an assurance of the fulfillment of the things hoped for. A lack of faith leads one to despair, which comes because of iniquity.

This was going well until this last quote which screws it all up and provides what I feel is a conflicting definition of faith.

Comments?

[Anonymous]

this topic has consumed me over the past several months.

i wouldn’t say that the alma 32 statement is just “one statement” of faith, but a standard definition. i could be wrong, but i am working with it.

alma proposes that we test specific things as if the were seeds. upon testing a thing, if the thing is testable, then it either grows or doesn’t. the way I see it, testable specific things are simple/singular existential propositions. “the book of mormon has value to me”, or “the book of mormon speaks truth to me”. while these are personally testable, they are not universal–they are specific, and thus fit the scope of Alma’s experiment.

Let’s take another couple common propositions: “the book of mormon is an accurate historical document”. or, “every sentence in the book of mormon is the word of god” (ted callister) these are not simple propositions, but rather categorical or universal propositions. they are testable/falsifiable because they propose a positive absolute: and if there is a single inaccuracy in the historical record, or if there is some part of the book that is clearly “not true”, then the proposition fails. in both cases, i can easily demonstrate evidence that shows these universals are not true.

but those who claim these universals must be either true or “all false” pose a false dilemma fallacy: the book of mormon is either exactly what it says it is: a historical document, and entirely the word of god in every sentence, or it is nothing. the church is either the church and kingdom of god, or it is nothing. direct quotes. and, as a result, these statements are made with the following simple, declarative proposition: “there is no middle ground”. “you are either with me, or against me”.

against this backdrop, Alma 32 speaks with extraordinary clarity: “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 think this statement, alone, establishes faith — authentic faith — as the principal basis of the Middle Way. there are many things we know to be true: as Alma pointed out, these are things we have learned through our own experience. we have a testimony of these things. there are things as well we reject, because we have had through our own experience a witness that those things are false and bad. between these two poles are things we don’t know.

unfortunately, with the dualistic, all-or-nothing truth paradigm in the church, the realm of “we don’t know” must be asserted as either true or false by virtue of our testimony. if we pray about the book of mormon, and get a positive answer, then the whole church is true: every teaching, prophetic utterance, scripture, conference talk is also true. you may think this to be extreme, but it is what is implied by the all-or-nothing statements. because this is an extreme inductive heuristic, it is a hopeless flawed paradigm for determining truth.

Here is a logical framework for what is going on:

1. when we accept the Moroni promise that a single positive spiritual experience confirms the entire church schema, then we have accepted a categorical (universal) positive proposition that the church is true and everything in it is true.

2. when we discover something that isn’t true in the church, then the categorical assertion should fall as well– instead we begin to rationalize.

3. when there are too many things on the rationalization shelf, the “it’s all true or all fraud” proposition kicks in, leading to a summary and categorical rejection of the church and its entire schema.

Alma’s statement turns this inductive heuristic upside down. if we accept alma, we must reject the all-or-nothing statements. Alma specifically says that a single test is insufficient for establishing truth. As well, that which fails a truth test should be cast aside: for faith needs to be in something that is true, so when we “see” something to be “not true”, like the book of mormon containing things that are either non-historical or non-doctrinal, then we can cast aside…what? the book of mormon? no! according to alma, we cast aside the specific thing: the seed, not the garden.

alma’s test is the way to build authentic faith. by deconstructing the church schema into specific testable atomic propositions, we sort out truth versus nontruth.

but not everything will remain testable. there will be a vast middle ground of things where the test of absolute facticity is beyond our reach. a proposition such as “Jesus Christ was resurrected” is atomic and falsifiable, but the proof is way beyond our reach — it is truly “unseen”. we don’t have perfect knowledge of this. Alma suggests that seeds like these shold not be cast out because of unbelief, so thus we hope for it, knowing that we don’t know, and therefore we have faith.

Authentic faith is the mature and honest acknowledgment that we hope for something that we cannot prove, and therefore don’t know that it is “true”, but in accepting on faith and trusting that it is true, it motivates our action. it is the Middle Way between the Way of categorical acceptance of the church schema and the Way of categorical rejection of the church. I believe that Alma’s experiment on faith is the Way we must follow to gain authentic faith.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

this topic has consumed me over the past several months.

i wouldn’t say that the alma 32 statement is just “one statement” of faith, but a standard definition. i could be wrong, but i am working with it.

See, I think it’s a mistake to take any one assertion from any source as the absolute truth when there are other credible sources. If we were to modify Alma’s statement to say “Faith that LEADS TO SALVATION is a belief in things that are unseen, which are true”, then it might be more defensible.

At the same time, all the fruits of faith — moving mountains, moving oneself to action, having hope, achieving vision are all biproducts and results of believing in some future state of affairs whether “true” or not. Supporting this is JS’s definition that faith is “mental exertion” which totally eliminates truth as a key component. IN fact, you might argue that he meant “belief is mental exertion”. So, there is another simple definition which confused the matter even further and implies that faith has a belief subcomponent, with belief existing whether truth is present or not in the thing the person believes.

This is so complicated, and the taxonomy of faith so unclear in our doctrine, I’m considering reframing my lesson next week as “The Strengthening Power of Belief and Faith”. In this lesson, I will separate the truth component from Faith, in which case i will propose that we call it “belief” — sidestepping the truth component temporarily. And then, be free to talk about how belief motivates us to action, and how it can bring hope, optimism, and and inner peace . And then talk about faith, it’s predicate of truth, and its role as a prequisite to salvation. That way we get around Alma’s definition which does not separate the belief (“mental exertion”) from faith that is based on truth leading to salvation.

I will separate it for the group, and have two separate discussions — one on the positive effects of belief in things we can’t see yet, and another on the posiive effects of FAITH — which is belief in things that are so true they lead to salvation.

[Anonymous]

I’m pretty sure we are on completely different pages.

Faith is an acknowledgement that we don’t know, but are willing to trust in something. Belief is something different. Belief is a feeling that we know something, even if we don’t know it. Belief is a state of mind, faith is an agreement to act in trust. very, very different things. If you say we believe (which we do not do in the church, btw), without the express understanding that we don’t know, then we’re just deluding ourselves. Instead, people in the church say “I know x”, when they don’t really know x, but rather, believe x and are satisfied that their belief fills in for knowledge. It’s an emotional commitment to an idea.

Faith always involves trust and willingness to act on the idea. Sure, blind faith can involve belief, but once a thing is known, faith is inoperative. Belief becomes ‘justified true belief’, the epistemological definition of knowledge. Faith is inoperative because it isn’t faith when you know. So here is the taxonomy of faith:

Faith (trust and the willingness to act) in something known to be true — not faith

Faith (trust and the willingness to act) in something known to be false — not faith

Faith (trust and the willingness to act) in something unknown — faith.

Faith (trust and the willingness to act) in something unknown, knowing that it is unknown — authentic faith.

Trust and the willingness to act in something is the power that makes worlds happen. Without the idea of trusting in an idea, no ideas would become reality. But trust in something that isn’t true doesn’t become reality, because it isn’t true and it ultimately fails.

There are hundreds of deluded LDS archeologists trusting that the book of mormon is a literal history of native americans, and they’re spending millions of dollars trying to act on their faith. It’s a complete waste of time. There are millions of people who trust and are willing to act on the message of the book of mormon, and they’re reaping the benefits of their faith. The fact is we do not know that Jesus is the Christ, but we have faith that somehow, Jesus saves us and it will be well with us if we follow his example. It certainly has worked for me. The acknowledgment that I don’t know that Jesus is the Christ does not diminish my agreement to follow him, my trust in his grace, and my hope for salvation, but rather, makes it real. Acknowledging that I don’t know – seemingly a denial of belief — is in fact what makes faith faith.

So important is the thing about ‘being true’ as relevant to faith. Let’s say I believe in an afterlife so much that I have faith and know it fully. If this is the case, then I should have no issue sacrificing my life for any cause, regardless of how small, because the afterlife is a better condition than now, right? Yet we don’t simply cast away our lives. Why not? Krishna tells arjuna that killing his kindred should be no issue if you understand the plan of reincarnation and the eternality of this life — should anyone really believe that genocide is acceptable because we’re just helping a person move along the line of eternal life?

No. If I am willing to sacrifice my life, I will do it, willingly, knowing that I may not existentially survive my death. that is a real, authentic, and honest opinion. Yet, I would still do it (or at least hope so), trusting in my agreement with the Savior that there is a purpose for whatever sacrifice I make in his name.

[Anonymous]

This isn’t a scriptural example but bear with me here, I’m trying.

In primary we sing a song called primary colors(the primary colors are 1,2,3 red,yellow and blue). As children we accepted it based on faith that our teacher was teaching the correct thing and we trusted her. It is an example that I use because as children we place faith in it through our primary teacher. Then some of us grow up and learn this.

http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/pdfs/Final%20Monkey%20article.pdf” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/pdfs/Final%20Monkey%20article.pdf

Quote:

When asked what are the primary colors, most of us would answer, “That’s easy. The primary colors are red, yellow, and blue.” We are sure of the answer because we were taught this in school, have read it in books, and have studied color theory based on this model. However, if we begin to investigate this issue and look at a variety of different sources for our answer, we find conflict and confusion.Using the above definition of primary colors, let’s see if red, yellow and blue are, indeed, primary colors. We know that yellow paint cannot be formed by combining other pigments. That’s intuitive. But how about red and blue? A few quick experiments with color printing can prove that blue is made from equal amounts of cyan and magenta and red is made from equal amounts of yellow and magenta. So by our definition, red and blue cannot be primary colors because they can be made by mixing other pigments. When we mix red, blue, and yellow, we get a very limited number of dark colors. (This can be especially frustrating for elementary art educators using tempera paint to teach color mixing). On the other hand, mixing cyan, magenta, and yellow gives us a huge range of colors. For proof, take a look at color printed pages, such as a magazine, a colored page in a newspaper, or your own color printer. All of these use mixtures of cyan, magenta, and yellow to make all of the other colors. The correct primary colors of pigment are, therefore, cyan, magenta, and yellow and not red, yellow, and blue. The correct secondary colors, made by mixing the primaries, are red, green, and blue. (Green is made by mixing cyan and yellow.)

Many groups already recognize the correct primary colors of paint. The New York State standards for visual arts states that the primary colors of pigment are cyan, magenta, and yellow. The Inter-Society Color Council (ISCC) is the principal professional society in the field of color, encompassing the arts, sciences, and industry. They agree that cyan, magenta and yellow are the primary colors of pigment, which in combination can form all hues. The most recent draft of the revised California science framework also states this.

We must stop teaching color theory based on a false set of primary colors. We shouldn’t be afraid to spread the truth even though most of the literature is wrong. This in itself is an important lesson to teach students.

What if Columbus had been afraid to tell the truth? We still might believe the Earth was flat! Oops … bad analogy. It turns out that neither Columbus nor his contemporaries believed the earth was flat. Yet this illusion persists today, firmly established with the help of the media, textbooks, teachers, and even noted historians. Shades of the primary colors of paint!It is time for color to be taught consistently throughout all subject areas. It’s time to tear down the walls of the Color Tower of Babel and teach the truth about color, that the primary colors of paint are cyan, magenta, and yellow.

Thus we see that our “faith” in the teacher or teaching or hymn is incorrect and not true. Is it no longer faith now? Do we throw out our “faith” in the teacher, the lesson, the hymn book? Is the faith we placed in this incorrect teaching now called belief? Do we change the term we use after the fact that we know it’s no longer true? Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Just a couple of nit-picky things first:

Quote:

the book of mormon is either exactly what it says it is: a historical document, and entirely the word of god in every sentence

That’s not what the Book of Mormon says it is. Actually, the Book of Mormon says explicitly it’s not that type of document.

Quote:

when we accept the Moroni promise that a single positive spiritual experience confirms the entire church schema

That’s not what Moroni’s promise says.

I know you know what I just said, wayfarer, and I’m sure you meant to frame the above in terms of assumptions by people who misunderstand the Book of Mormon and what it actually says, but I just want to make that point clear – since your original wording is easy to misunderstand.

Now, to totally contradict my quick, reflexive, first answer (“No.”), let me dig a little deeper – thanking SD and wayfarer for giving me the opportunity to do so.

I agree with the analysis of Alma 32 that wayfarer lays out – and I like the way SD phrased “faith that leads to salvation”. I think that phrasing is consistent with using “true” to mean “pointed in the right direction” (e.g., true north) – and I think “true” has that meaning more often in the Book of Mormon than “factually correct”.

In that light, I have no problem accepting “faith” as believing things which you haven’t seen and don’t know but that point you in the direction you want to go. I actually like that definition, since it puts the “power” of faith directly in the hands of those who “exercise” it – making me the “author” of my own faith.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Just a couple of nit-picky things first:

Quote:

the book of mormon is either exactly what it says it is: a historical document, and entirely the word of god in every sentence

That’s not what the Book of Mormon says it is. Actually, the Book of Mormon says explicitly it’s not that type of document.

Quote:

when we accept the Moroni promise that a single positive spiritual experience confirms the entire church schema

That’s not what Moroni’s promise says.

I know you know what I just said, wayfarer, and I’m sure you meant to frame the above in terms of assumptions by people who misunderstand the Book of Mormon and what it actually says, but I just want to make that point clear – since your original wording is easy to misunderstand.

Ah, but my dear Ray, if it’s said in General Conference, then it must be true, right? While I accept and agree that the book of mormon does not claim to be historical, the Moroni promise quickly goes from the ‘truth of these things’ to the ‘truth of all things’, and the lazy heuristic (short-cut) is to fall-in-love with the church and buy it lock, stock, and barrel. You know I’m not making this up. We need to explicitly address that the church takes advantage of the naivite of its members in asserting the church is true when they don’t nearly have enough data to make that claim.

[Anonymous]

Forgotten_Charity wrote:

Thus we see that our “faith” in the teacher or teaching or hymn is incorrect and not true. Is it no longer faith now? Do we throw out our “faith” in the teacher, the lesson, the hymn book? Is the faith we placed in this incorrect teaching now called belief? Do we change the term we use after the fact that we know it’s no longer true? Thoughts?

Faith in a teacher is a complex proposition. “The primary colors are red, yellow, and blue” is a molecular proposition made up of three atomic propositions: “red is a primary color”, ‘blue is a primary color”, and “Yellow is a primary color”. Two out of the three are ‘not true’, therefore we fix the atomic propositions, but do not need to throw out faith in our teacher.

Not only that, your little four color watercoloring kit didn’t have something called ‘cyan’ or ‘magenta’, or if it did, it might have been called ‘blue’ meaning cyan and ‘red’ meaning magenta, because they’re kind-of close. When I was a kid, I didn’t know what cyan and magenta were, but I might easily have called them by the more familiar blue (bluish-greenish-blue = cyan) and red (reddish-purplish-red = magenta). How precise does our language have to be here?

Does the LDS church practice polygamy? The answer could be “yes” or “no” but the problem is that the word ‘practice’ is not specific enough to form a concrete simple proposition with a yes or no answer. But nuance is too difficult to express to the press, so the church quckly answers “No”. Well, that’s not entirely true, because in our belief in celestial marriage, we are still married to a dead wife, so in marrying another woman after my wife’s death, I’m practicing polygamy according to the mormon definition of marriage, but not according the more common secular definition.

Paul expressed it very well, “Now we see through a glass darkly”. Let’s give ourselves a break and recognize that truth is an ongoing process. Faith, aggregated into sweeping absolutes like “My teacher is true” leads to disaffection when we figure out that she should have said “cyan and magenta” instead of “blue and red”. And such dualistic thinking is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Agreed, wayfarer. I just wanted to correct your own short-cut description, since your wording implied the Book of Mormon itself teaches those things.

/back to the regularly scheduled discussion

[Author]

Posts