Everyone Has Faith; That is the Only Option

[JohnW]

I don't think faith as risk assessment is a convincing framework for what religious people generally mean when they say to have faith. I definitely don't believe the actuarial definition of faith is compatible with what's in scripture.

A long time ago I decided the best exegesis of faith is found in horror movies. Disbelief in the supernatural and especially, mocking the supernatural or disbelieving a report about the supernatural is a death sentence. Believing in the supernatural won't necessarily save you, but it is a necessary condition, because it requires you to think in terms of whatever random supernatural logic is in play. You have to beat evil by it's own rules.

The Bible isn't a philosophical text. Faith is tied only to its narrative, it isn't an abstract principle. You can't wonder if the people who worshipped Baal had faith. They didn't. If you believed and followed Jehovah or Christ you had faith. While worshipping darkness and trusting the arm of flesh is something that occurs in a way that mirrors how people follow and worship God except to a bad end, it still isn't ever described as faith. If you believed in Christ's resurrection but didn't see, you had faith, if you believed in Satan's -- whatever his thing is -- but didn't see, you're just deceived. There isn't an "anti-Christ' version of faith aside from basic deception.

Even in James or Alma 32 what seems potentially abstract is never hinted at being applicable to anything but the gospel in the exegesis. Showing your devotion to Satan by works of darkness cannot be called faith. And of course, in the scriptures, disbelief and mockery is a ticket punch to damnation and eternal hell.

I think you are largely correct here. I did a quick search and only found a couple instances were faith is described as being in something other than God or other good things. I think the word trust is probably better used here. In the scriptures we can trust in God or trust in man, Satan, etc. I think the main purpose of the OP wasn't to say that faith and trust are absolutely the same thing. I think I was just trying to point out that they are much closer than most people realize. At least, that is what it was for me. As I've talked to people leaving the church over the years, there are lots of reasons people leave the church, but I've found two that are almost completely consistent. One of those is a poor understanding of what faith actually is. How it applies in their life, and what it looks like to have faith. If you substitute the word trust for faith in those discussions, it sometimes help them see better. Trust is better understood, generally. In my case, it helped me bootstrap up to a more nuanced understanding of faith.

What is most striking then about the commonality between horror movies and the gospel of Jesus Christ, is both deal with literal worlds, not hypothetical ones. How ever that particular world is in the horror movie mirrors how the particular world is in the gospel. If you laugh at supernatural or religion that isn't true in that world, the intent in the abstract is meaningless, there is no penalty. If you laugh or ignore the true religion you are screwed. From a modernist standpoint it sounds like I'm saying all evil is existential evil. If you walk by a dark cave and laugh and flip it off and a bear happens to be there and comes running out, that seems to be a very similar fate to the fate of laughing at the report of a demon but then whoah, there really was a demon. But that's because we're so used to thinking in counterfactuals, we want to say that it can only be a fate deserved in principle if it works across all possible worlds -- if disrespecting a dark cave is bad universally. But that's imposing a framework that is false for the sake of horror movies or the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you happened to disrespect that dark cave that had a bear in it, and the bear attacked you, it's a fate justified by the narrative of that world. End of story. And if you didn't believe Jesus, but two weeks ago you also ignored some other guy who sounded similar, then you reap damnation in the one case and it's justified, while not in the other. End of story.

I'm not sure I completely follow you here. Are you saying that you can always find the "rules of the game" by testing consequences? I would imagine you would allow for delayed consequences, which happen in practice. I guess I probably just didn't follow you completely.

[JohnW]

I just don't think it is as important that we have a perfect idea of God before we start building our relationship with him. Most things in life are like this. There is always some learning along the way.

Unless you’re a child who God decides to give childhood cancer to and you die at age 9 after years of painful and fruitless treatments. Then you don’t get a chance to learn anything.

Once you believe in God and start to look at the world God created, you quickly believe he either can’t exist or if he does he is a monster.

To tell you the truth, I think I have seen enough heartache and sorrow around that I can understand why someone might come to that conclusion. I personally see it another way, but I don't blame you for coming to that conclusion. The evidence seems to give only a few options: either there is no God, he is actively torturing us in a covert manner, or he is benevolent but unusually distant. In my mind, Latter-day Saint Theology is an refreshingly optimistic way to explain the latter. Of course, there are other, more pessimistic ways to explain it as well.

[JohnW]

It seems like you have not looked into the details of various methods that he could have used. This is exactly what Brian Hales uses as an apologetic. Even worse, you are simply using an argument from ignorance.....I can't see how he could do it so I will continue. At least you are brave enough to admit it in this forum. Have you looked into the variety of religious experiences going on during his time? How his first vision experiences match many others? His material he used matches a 19th century perspective regarding Christianity? His use of the Adam Clark Commentary regarding the Bible? His use of Swedenborg regarding the levels of heaven? His fascination with the Native American culture that resulted in stories being told to his family as a young man? There are many contemporary sources now that have a legitimate scholarly approach as to how it was done. Visions in a Seer Stone for one.

Yes, I'm familiar with all that. It seemed like grasping at straws for me at the time. Some theories are better than others, but they are just too circumstantial for me, especially when compared with accounts of the three witnesses or others. I recognize this is a personal opinion.

. . . you are simply using an argument from ignorance . . .

I disagree here. I'm not arguing from ignorance. All ignorance did was give me pause. That is often what ignorance does, at least when it is fulfilling its proper function. Hopefully ignorance makes one realize they may be acting a bit too hasty. During that pause, I decided to allow for other types of evidence--you know, the spiritual type that just doesn't fly here. That is why I'm not arguing that you should believe in the Book of Mormon. I don't expect you to believe. I suspect it is more or less impossible to have a positive opinion of the Book of Mormon without allowing for spiritual evidence.

[drumdude]

Unless you’re a child who God decides to give childhood cancer to and you die at age 9 after years of painful and fruitless treatments. Then you don’t get a chance to learn anything.

Once you believe in God and start to look at the world God created, you quickly believe he either can’t exist or if he does he is a monster.

To tell you the truth, I think I have seen enough heartache and sorrow around that I can understand why someone might come to that conclusion. I personally see it another way, but I don't blame you for coming to that conclusion. The evidence seems to give only a few options: either there is no God, he is actively torturing us in a covert manner, or he is benevolent but unusually distant. In my mind, Latter-day Saint Theology is an refreshingly optimistic way to explain the latter. Of course, there are other, more pessimistic ways to explain it as well.

The way I see LDS theology dealing with it is a combination of 1)we live in a fallen world 2) God is not all powerful and 3) children who have a severe disability or die early go straight to the celestial kingdom.

They’re not super satisfying to me, but I guess they’re something.

[Rivendale]

It seems like you have not looked into the details of various methods that he could have used. This is exactly what Brian Hales uses as an apologetic. Even worse, you are simply using an argument from ignorance.....I can't see how he could do it so I will continue. At least you are brave enough to admit it in this forum. Have you looked into the variety of religious experiences going on during his time? How his first vision experiences match many others? His material he used matches a 19th century perspective regarding Christianity? His use of the Adam Clark Commentary regarding the Bible? His use of Swedenborg regarding the levels of heaven? His fascination with the Native American culture that resulted in stories being told to his family as a young man? There are many contemporary sources now that have a legitimate scholarly approach as to how it was done. Visions in a Seer Stone for one.

Yes, I'm familiar with all that. It seemed like grasping at straws for me at the time. Some theories are better than others, but they are just too circumstantial for me, especially when compared with accounts of the three witnesses or others. I recognize this is a personal opinion.

. . . you are simply using an argument from ignorance . . .

I disagree here. I'm not arguing from ignorance. All ignorance did was give me pause. That is often what ignorance does, at least when it is fulfilling its proper function. Hopefully ignorance makes one realize they may be acting a bit too hasty. During that pause, I decided to allow for other types of evidence--you know, the spiritual type that just doesn't fly here. That is why I'm not arguing that you should believe in the Book of Mormon. I don't expect you to believe. I suspect it is more or less impossible to have a positive opinion of the Book of Mormon without allowing for spiritual evidence.

I appreciate that. I understand that some people have a great draw to what they consider spiritual experiences. I guess my question centers on two things. How do you know those experiences are divine? If not do you care if they are?

[MG 2.0]

"Assuming the Book of Mormon is false, how would I explain that some farmer kid came up with it" (yes, I became familiar with the various theories along those lines). I never found a completely satisfactory answer as to how he could have done it. I'm not saying that there is overwhelming evidence for the Book of Mormon, but there was just enough evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon that I decided to continue on with my faith for a little longer. After a year or so, I decided to go a little bit longer. I kept doing that until I realized that I had the beginnings of a testimony again. Eventually, for various reasons, it far surpassed anything I had before my struggles.

This generally parallels my experience.

Nice to see another active LDS’r participating.

I’m enjoying the comments all the way around.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I personally believe there is a God. That is the difficult one (in my mind). Once you get past that, it is a rather easy step to assume God is willing to inspire or help people who are trying to reach out to him regardless of their religious preferences.

Also parallels my experience. I appreciate being able to know others have traveled a somewhat similar path although I’m sure there are many peculiarities.

Anthropic principle played an important part in this process for me.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I just don't think it is as important that we have a perfect idea of God before we start building our relationship with him. Most things in life are like this. There is always some learning along the way.

Unless you’re a child who God decides to give childhood cancer to and you die at age 9 after years of painful and fruitless treatments. Then you don’t get a chance to learn anything.

Once you believe in God and start to look at the world God created, you quickly believe he either can’t exist or if he does he is a monster.

Or that we live in a natural world of cause and effect. Opposition in all things with a dash of entropy thrown in for good measure.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

Unless you’re a child who God decides to give childhood cancer to and you die at age 9 after years of painful and fruitless treatments. Then you don’t get a chance to learn anything.

Once you believe in God and start to look at the world God created, you quickly believe he either can’t exist or if he does he is a monster.

Or that we live in a natural world of cause and effect. Opposition in all things with a dash of entropy thrown in for good measure.

Regards,
MG

Entropy could be run backwards. But apparently someone is comfortable with Loiasis.

[MG 2.0]

Or that we live in a natural world of cause and effect. Opposition in all things with a dash of entropy thrown in for good measure.

Regards,
MG

Entropy could be run backwards. But apparently someone is comfortable with Loiasis.

If my stepping into this thread somehow disrupted the “train of thought” that was moving along the rails, please don’t mind me. I was enjoying the discussion. I will back out and not interrupt.

Promise.

Please carry on.

Regards,
MG