WTF is Faith, anyway?

[Anonymous]

Hi Heber, I too like the idea of following Christ as the best way to lasting happiness. One of the things that impresses me the most about Christ is that he taught to follow the spirit of the law verses the letter of the law. When the Pharises asked him “What is the greatest commandment” we know what he said. “To love God and your neighbor.” “And by this hang all the laws and the prophets” This is the only absolute law. So, I do not have to remember a 1000 commandments and rules like the early Jews did. I just have to ask myself “Is this a loving thing to do.” So, even though ‘going to church on Sunday’ may be a commandment to keeping the Sabbath Day holy.” The higher law of love kicked in for me one Sunday, when my oldest son was very depressed and needed me to talk to him that morning instead.

This is why I love “Dallin Oaks’ talk on “Special Cases”, which I think I posted once on this group somewhere. Bridget

[Anonymous]

I feel an old pet-peeve working its way to the surface:

Take the “Doctrine and Covenants”. The actual title was given because the original publishing actually contained two distinct sections. The “Doctrine” was a collection of works from the “School of the Prophets” entitled …. Drum roll…. “The Lectures on Faith”. Of course the “Covenants” were the commandments of God.

For some reason, the doctrine was removed from the D&C leaving us only the covenants. And just as surprisingly most LDS have never read the doctrine portion.

The Lectures on Faith, surprise surprise, covers this exact question … “what is faith”

You might find that JS’s take on it differs from your standard, meeting house versions.

Well worth the read.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely, the Lectures on Faith are fascinating. Thanks for bringing them up here.

[Anonymous]

timpanogos

Yes, the Lectures on Faith are well worth reading and really thinking about. Thanks for reminding us.

They were removed in the 1921 version of the D&C which was a major reworking of the footnotes. At the time the Brethern said that the Lectures were never intended to be thought of as “scripture” but as a set of theological lessons or lectures. There is quite a debate on who actually wrote each of the lectures and it is likely that though Joseph was instrumental in the development of all the ideas found in them he was not necessarily the author it is likely that Sidney Rigdon was the major writer. That may be another reason that they decided to remove them in 1921.

[Anonymous]

From time to time, there are people that do something extremely strange based on the exercise of faith as outlined in the Lectures on Faith. Namely the requirement of Action.

As hard/sad/unusual some of these events have been … there is an admiration within me for these people that they have the where-with-all to exercise their faith with the total expectation of moving mountains results, come hell or high water.

It is my own personal attempts at exercising faith to this definition that left me in a deep pit of despair and my current situation.

My heart goes out to Nick, as he is headed for a fall.

Nick

Bottom line … be careful out there with the full strength stuff.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Poppyseed, you asked so i’ll give my opinion. I think it’s wrong to look inward for God. I don’t think you’ll find Him there. I don’t believe that any of us have any righteousness in us ourselves. I agree that when were born again, the old dies and we become new creatures. What I would call sactification, but there’s nothing in me that is Godly apart form the spirit, But that would be God and not me. It sounds Deepak Chopra esque to look into ourselves to find God, I don’t think it’s right and could become an Idol for us. That’s what I think.

Hi J pip. Been a while since I visited this thread. Thank you for your response.

I don’t think what I am saying is that we look inward to find God. I am not God and I am dependant on God for my very breath. I look to God to lead me and answer my prayers. I look inside to hear his messages, but I know who I am and I know who he is and you are right that there is nothing to be worshipped inside of me or you.

But I see God like the perfect parent, and since I am his spirit child, there are parts of me that are divine — part of me waiting to be nurtured and developed into maturity. We are also taught that we have talents and capacities and certainly as we come to Christ our spiritual capacities increase. I believe that God wants us to cultivate those gifts and talents. I think He wants to help us turn our weak places into strong ones and I think he wants us to learn to trust ourselves and stand immoveble on our own without the sting of the whip and the bite of the dog. I think He wants to trust us. There is a scripture in the D&C that I think of often that refers to “without compulsory means”. I think that God is leading us to be independently righteous. I am not quite sure how that works exactly as it is thru Jesus that any perfection happens. Perhaps there is a point in eternal progression where we do become independent….independent in that thing. Perhaps we become independent inside of Grace “bringing to pass much righteousness of our free will and choice.” I think we underestimate ourselves if we don’t recognize the divinity within and recognizing it in no way underminds the Atonement or the reality of the natural man. Certainly if any of us forgets where our power comes from, the Lord can help us quickly remember. Which actually brings me to my excitement about faith. With faith in Christ, anything is possible! As we trust and join our force with God’s, great things happen……even if they seem insignificant to others. I think this is why God invites us to trust Him because he not only leads us to our own power, but gives us access to His.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for bringing this thread back up. I’ve been thinking alot about faith recently as I’ve been struggling with church history. This scripture exactly has been sticking in my mind:

HiJolly wrote:

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

Mormonism seems to place a strong emphasis on something being true in order to be faith. Is the current “white-washing” of church history actually keeping people from developing true faith as they are not exposed to the actual facts? What do you think? Do you need to know the actual history of Joseph Smith before you can have faith in him as a Prophet of God (assuming of course he was actually a prophet)? Or is this “true” concept something in Mormon doctrine that people decide to ignore in their buffet approach?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

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

This is the softer/gentler definition we are used to hearing. In some ways it’s almost a contradiction of the industrial strength version I’ve referenced previously.

Maybe we need a new thread titled WTFlip is hope?

[Anonymous]

timpanogos wrote:

Quote:

This is the softer/gentler definition we are used to hearing. In some ways it’s almost a contradiction of the industrial strength version I’ve referenced previously.

Maybe be need a new thread titled WTFlip is hope?

I’m struggling with the softest definitions of faith right now. Faith as a principle of power was something I used to ponder and grapple with, but now I’m just trying to hold on to the smallest bit of any faith I can muster.

[Anonymous]

MisterCurie:

I made a comment in the Temple thread, which I expected would have excited a few.

“Maybe the Temple ceremony is not as Christ centered as we might want to believe.”

The contrast I’m pointing out here is along the same lines.

There is the Alma chapter 13 type of High Priest which we might be inclined to seek after (Patriarchal Holy Order King and Priest, miracle/power based on Calling and Election faith).

And then there is the meek and mild Elder who’s only desire is to obtain to a level of Christ like charity.

Throughout my previous quest … I had a very blind eye to the lowely Elder.

For me, any new quest would be for a goal that is opposite my personality and previous experience … a kinder/gentler faith, with charity being the sustaining factor for the hope.

edit:

Poor Nick … really I feel for him

[Anonymous]

I’m bumping this because of a recent epiphany.

I guess, it may seem obvious to many but I just never put it in this context.

I now feel that faith is simply one’s world-view. One’s place in one’s meaning. This concept, of course, calls into question the other part of faith, the not knowing part. I’m not sure this exists in almost any paradigm. People with “strong” faith, believe in their “perspective” so deeply that doubt isn’t allowed. Not that they aren’t capable of it, but that they will not let it have any mental real estate. And, those of us with “weak” faith, simply can’t make our minds and hearts be so sure of something that seems so unknowable. This may sound elitist, but I don’t intend it that way. Like I said in another post, I’m under no pretense that my “perspective” is any better than anyone else’s. My “illusion” may be just as cussed up as anyone else’s.

So, is there merit in that? Is faith just the name we put on our belief of what the meaning of life is to us?

[Anonymous]

Great thought, swim. My simplest definition of faith is, “Belief that is so strong it motivates action.”

That absolutely is vital, but it’s a two-edged sword.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

My simplest definition of faith is, “Belief that is so strong it motivates action.”

Can belief also be so strong as to motivate inaction?

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

Can belief also be so strong as to motivate inaction?

I usually don’t equate belief with motivation as much as faith, whether for action or inaction. Belief is more mental.

I think you can believe in something and act on those beliefs, or you can believe and only think about it without acting on it.

I don’t think you can have faith without action. Faith isn’t faith until you do something.

[Anonymous]

So, your level of certainty would motivate that action/inaction, in this way making “faith” a measure of your certainty of the belief?

That would make sense in the paradigm of “faith-promoting”; not in hearing something faith-promoting but in acting on your certainty, self-promoting the “faith” and finding oneself in a more certain place, to then repeat the process until the certainty is “unshakable”. That feels self-reinforcing which makes sense in the paradigm of total immersion in the pursuit of faith, ie, praying constantly, reading scriptures regularly, bearing testimony, going to church, etc, etc.

It also makes sense in the troubling context of orthodox believers being so resistant to concepts which contradict their belief. In the self-promoting process of “faith” building, it would be counter-intuitive to let anything derail that process.

The end-game for orthodox believers, then, seems to be absolute certainty.

And, if the endgame is certainty, what is motivating the action at that point? Keeping score? If you know, with absolute certainty, that would call into question the true intention of any action as altruistically selfish.

Maybe??

[Author]

Posts