- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I get faith as a necessary precondition to action. We have to have faith to attempt anything challenging — get an education, take on a new job, accept a promotion, buy a house, or even have a child. It’s a precursor to action, which I understand fully. But when it comes to faith in religious artifacts, it gets fuzzy for me. The Book of Mormon is replete with admonitions to have faith in Christ, or to perish. The problem is, there are so many religions and people who have faith in their own central characters, it’s hard to know whether these invisible constructs are true or not.
Why did God make it so to have salvation you have to believe in Christ without seeing? The Book of Mormon proves that when Christ shows himself, or provides miracles, a high proportion of the people experiencing the Savior in person, or miracles, go on to believe. Not all do, but a high proportion of the experiencers do in fact accept the experience as truth and have ample reason to believe, when presumably, they would not have done so. So why aren’t these kinds of experiences more prevalent if they have such a profound effect on belief?
I have a friend who claims to have had a vision when he was a young adult, and he has gone on to be fully active in the church, a bishop, and fully TR holding throughout his life. I have no such assurance — only a few spiritual experiences where I felt the spirit strongly, but which aren’t sufficient to carry me through the different challenges I faced in the church.
Some will say that the reason faith is required is to relieve us of the accountability that comes with sure knowledge. But that doesn’t satisfy — the scriptures heap more than enough condemnation on us for not having faith, or not enduring to the end. So, there is a ton of accountability even without sure knowledge.
To make matters even more complicated, we see how misguided faith leads people to do things that are outright wrong or destructive to themselves. For example — the Jonestown Massacre — people willingly drank cyanide-laced Cool-Aid and gave it to their children out of faith in someone I believe was a false prophet — Jim Jones. I am sure we can dig up a lot of other situations where people have done dumb, or destructive, “untrue” things simply because they chose to have faith in the wrong thing.
So, my question — why does God require us to have faith in Christ rather than giving us a sure knowledge so we believe?SilentDawning wrote:
So, my question — why does God require us to have faith in Christ rather than giving us a sure knowledge so we believe?
I think that God doesn’t require that – but other humans require that to establish organization and community affiliation. [SIDE STORY BELOW}
God is reported by sources seeking to be to be “authorized” by us, to be trusted with our moral authority – that God requires specific acts, specific meanings assigned to statements, etc. We don’t identify a lot of interactions with God – whether God doesn’t interact a lot with us, or we just don’t recognize it for what it is, God sets boundaries and leaves interactions with us based on our behavior,
. When we are talking about religion, we are talking about community and organization setup around some form of “God said” and “here is why this is legit from God”. Some people say that it takes a myth to form communities (in the sense to provide the interest and commitment among individuals to stay in relation and to stay engaged). I believe them, for many reasons.
A more generous assumption I have found is that when I “consider myself the expert”, I am also likely to be arrogant about it and make stupid decisions out of complacency – maybe “Faith” and it’s related uncertainty is supposed to protect against that. So maybe if I absolutely had sure knowledge about something related to God, I would be dis-connective and less tolerant. That actually tracks pretty well – so plausible.
But “knowing something” means we are likely to act through that knowledge. If we know that we are walking germ vectors and we take that state very seriously, we are likely to develop innate habits of hand-washing and cleanliness without having to have the constant reminders (but some people need those reminders for other reasons). In fact, taking that statement of “germ vectors” to the extreme can create habits of OCD behaviors and generate worthiness evaluation behaviors where we misjudge our own worth as “unclean” aka “not clean enough”.
SIDE STORY: CHRISTMAS AND EASTER MORMON
I have relayed on this site a little story about how I floored a stranger I had just met by describing myself as “a Christmas and Easter Mormon”.
– I get how “we don’t describe ourselves by such faithless terms” so blatantly.
– I get how “I wasn’t attempting to prove my worthiness” (which we do a lot of).
– I also think that he was a little offended that I was there at the activity – I wasn’t saying in “my own little box” outside the activity where I could be categorized/condemned as “the faithless out in the world” and I was in essence labelling myself as “the faithless among you”.
AmyJ wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:
So, my question — why does God require us to have faith in Christ rather than giving us a sure knowledge so we believe?
I think that God doesn’t require that – but other humans require that to establish organization and community affiliation. [SIDE STORY BELOW}God is reported by sources seeking to be to be “authorized” by us, to be trusted with our moral authority – that God requires specific acts, specific meanings assigned to statements, etc. We don’t identify a lot of interactions with God – whether God doesn’t interact a lot with us, or we just don’t recognize it for what it is, God sets boundaries and leaves interactions with us based on our behavior,
. When we are talking about religion, we are talking about community and organization setup around some form of “God said” and “here is why this is legit from God”. Some people say that it takes a myth to form communities (in the sense to provide the interest and commitment among individuals to stay in relation and to stay engaged). I believe them, for many reasons.
I think this about sums it up from my point of view as well. Because the vast majority of us never see God, we take it totally on faith there actually is a God or Gods. Likewise with Christ, but extending that to the belief that He lived, paid for our sins, died, and was resurrected. Despite some testimonies one might hear in SM or GC, none of us know for certainty any of that happened or if Jesus Christ was a real individual (or by extension a God, something early Christians did not necessarily believe). As far as I can tell, the idea that we must believe in Jesus Christ in order to return to God, go to heaven, or whatever else, is a construct of men.
Because we are human, and we are geared individually, differently than each other. One standard would be simple and easy – and damning of so many. (which explains the general Christian view of the number of people in Heaven vs. Hell)
Old-Timer wrote:
One standard would be simple and easy – and damning of so many. (which explains the general Christian view of the number of people in Heaven vs. Hell)
But I said earlier that relief from accountability (damning as you put it OT) does not hold water with me because the scriptures have heaps of accountability for not believing. So, the vagueness of the truth doesn’t provide us much relief from being damned. We are already damned if we don’t believe, or if we believe and then fall off the wagon.
SilentDawning wrote:
Old-Timer wrote:
One standard would be simple and easy – and damning of so many. (which explains the general Christian view of the number of people in Heaven vs. Hell)
But I said earlier that relief from accountability (damning as you put it OT) does not hold water with me
because the scriptures have heaps of accountability for not believing. So, the vagueness of the truth doesn’t provide us much relief from being damned. We are already damned if we don’t believe, or if we believe and then fall off the wagon.
Absolutely the language of certainty is there. The writers of the scriptures and the leaders using them fully interpret them that way and are teaching those interpretations.
But that level of certainty reminds me of “teenage babysitters” who were put in charge of their siblings. The teenager will give some good advice and help the younger siblings follow some rules. However, the teenager can “promise” in authority and with certainty that the parents will impose specific consequences when they get back that don’t always pan out the way that the teenager promised.
Church leaders and biblical writers have a perspective that they are authorized by God (and the organization) to “babysit us” much like the example I just gave. Much like a younger sibling, I don’t think that everything always pans out the way that my sibling authorized to babysit me says it will.
If there is a God who sits with me in a judgement day, I believe that the attention will be on how I treated other people in private rather then a summary of the meetings I attended, and a host of related judgements.
SilentDawning wrote:
But I said earlier that relief from accountability (damning as you put it OT) does not hold water with me because the scriptures have heaps of accountability for not believing.
What is scripture and why should what a particular scripture say matter?
AmyJ wrote:
If there is a God who sits with me in a judgement day, I believe that the attention will be on how I treated other people in private rather then a summary of the meetings I attended, and a host of related judgements.
I believe this as well.
nibbler wrote:
What is scripture and why should what a particular scripture say matter?
We have to remember that all scripture is filtered through people (mostly men apparently) who have their own biases, agendas, and points of view. I don’t believe there are any “pure” words of God, even through our own “personal revelation.”
This seems to have greatly frustrated Joseph Smith (JSH 8-9, 12):
Quote:During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.
My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others…
…for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.
Additionally, we need to keep in mind that scripture is and always has been subject to editing.
DarkJedi wrote:
AmyJ wrote:
If there is a God who sits with me in a judgement day, I believe that the attention will be on how I treated other people in private rather then a summary of the meetings I attended, and a host of related judgements.
I believe this as well.
nibbler wrote:
What is scripture and why should what a particular scripture say matter?
We have to remember that all scripture is filtered through people (mostly men apparently) who have their own biases, agendas, and points of view. I don’t believe there are any “pure” words of God, even through our own “personal revelation.”
This seems to have greatly frustrated Joseph Smith (JSH 8-9, 12):
Quote:During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.
My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others…
…for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.
Additionally, we need to keep in mind that scripture is and always has been subject to editing.
I guess I envy Joseph Smith’s first vision. He didn’t have to go forward on faith alone. Sure, faith encouraged him to ask the question of God about which church to join, but he got a sure answer. I wish I had something like that on which to hang my hat.
SilentDawning wrote:
I guess I envy Joseph Smith’s first vision. He didn’t have to go forward on faith alone. Sure, faith encouraged him to ask the question of God about which church to join, but he got a sure answer. I wish I had something like that on which to hang my hat.
I don’t know that I would put stock in the narrative that the 1st version is what JS “hung his hat on”.
a) His narrative changed regarding the # of divine people involved from 1 to 2.
b) In terms of writing, he switched/drifted between a trinitarian and a more universalist theology.
c) He told people more about the Book of Mormon during his lifetime then he did about the 1st vision.
NOTE: I believe there are all valid reasons/justifications for all 3 points, I just bring them up as reasons “not to believe that JS had anything he hung his hat on”.
This is more of a comfort then not – maybe JS was like the rest of us and less “grounded”.
DISCLOSURE: I believe that JS had a strong belief that God showed up and was a catalyst for a lot of JS’s choices. I am greatly less certain that God said and meant what JS relates as what happened.
Visions were common in his time. They, in no way, warranted special attention or divine mandate claims. New scriptures weren’t. They did warrant special attention. They were tangible. They were available to everyone. They were special – for good and bad. They were polarizing and brought acceptance and praise by some but attention, persecution, rejection, and scorn by many more – especially when they were used to say, “You are wrong and not God-ordained.”
It wasn’t the First Vision that brought widespread attention, rejection, and success; it was the Book of Mormon. Also, Joseph didn’t use it as a proof text to bolster doctrine, like we tend to do now; rather, he used it as a spiritual converter. The difference is important. Frankly, I don’t like the first use, and I do like the second one.
Old-Timer wrote:
It wasn’t the First Vision that brought widespread attention, rejection, and success; it was the Book of Mormon. Also, Joseph didn’t use it as a proof text to bolster doctrine, like we tend to do now; rather, he used it as a spiritual converter. The difference is important. Frankly, I don’t like the first use, and I do like the second one.
So when you describe “spiritual converter” are you talking about more of a thematic focus of “what if” (to generate change) vs “this is” (to provide authoritarian grounding/doctrine)?
Granted, JS’s bread and butter was producing scripture and making a lot of “this is” statements (and it could be argued “what if” statements clearly disguised as “this is” statements to live up to the divine calling he envisioned from God).
Wouldn’t it be interesting to sit down with JS & ask him specific questions about what he experienced? We can read all the historical documents & research about him. In the end, nothing compares to a
face to face conversation.
In the end, all we have is our own personal beliefs & convictions.
There is no doubt in my mind, he was a very interesting & special person.
Imagine (today) trying to write something like the BOM & having the contents hold up for 194 years.
Minyan Man wrote:
Wouldn’t it be interesting to sit down with JS & ask him specific questions about what he experienced?We can read all the historical documents & research about him. In the end, nothing compares to a
face to face conversation.
In the end, all we have is our own personal beliefs & convictions.
There is no doubt in my mind, he was a very interesting & special person.
Imagine (today) trying to write something like the BOM & having the contents hold up for 194 years.
I’m not sure that I could sit down with him and do the conversation justice.
Now a conversation with Emma…. that would either be a very special or very mundane conversation.
My mom taught me that “Ginger Rogers did every step Fred Astaire did – backwards and in high heels” from the time I was young because she felt that Fred’s skill and persona overshadowed Ginger’s proficiency. It’s one of the thought that I use to double-check what I am paying attention/assigning meaning to.
AmyJ wrote:
Old-Timer wrote:
It wasn’t the First Vision that brought widespread attention, rejection, and success; it was the Book of Mormon. Also, Joseph didn’t use it as a proof text to bolster doctrine, like we tend to do now; rather, he used it as a spiritual converter. The difference is important. Frankly, I don’t like the first use, and I do like the second one.
So when you describe “spiritual converter” are you talking about more of a thematic focus of “what if” (to generate change) vs “this is” (to provide authoritarian grounding/doctrine)?
Granted, JS’s bread and butter was producing scripture and making a lot of “this is” statements (and it could be argued “what if” statements clearly disguised as “this is” statements to live up to the divine calling he envisioned from God).
I’m not going to answer for OT, but I will give my interpretation of what he meant because I think we’re on the same page.
Back in the day the Book of Mormon was sold or sometimes given. Books were often handed around in those days because they weren’t common and many people couldn’t afford them (these are reasons most people, apparently including Joseph Smith, learned to read from the Bible – it was the only book most people had). As a related aside, Joseph took a huge loss on the $3000 printing/publication of the book (as did Martin Harris, much to the consternation of Mrs. Harris). That book was not divided into chapters and verses as we know it today, and missionaries didn’t turn to Moroni and talk about the promise (which is really to the Lamanites anyway). While some copies were distributed by missionaries, a fair number (handed around, etc.) were not and thus the book spoke for itself. With some frequency I say I don’t believe the BoM is what it claims to be (gold plates, story of ancient Americans, etc.) but it is a book about faith in Jesus Christ and can and does bring people closer to God and Christ. It does this all on its own, no Moroni’s promise needed. Many of those early church leaders were converted by the book alone (including Brigham Young), having never met a missionary or apostle or Joseph Smith. It does have a power all its own, and I think as OT intimates we sometimes diminish that power by moving the focus away from it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.