God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

I think gad’s points are accurate. If “faith” means little more than optimism or inductive reasoning under uncertainty, then it loses the depth of the biblical understanding. Everyone reasons under uncertainty, and everyone trusts something. But biblical faith seems more like trust in the character of a specific God with a specific character, not just confidence that something unseen exists.

I’ve been thinking about IHQ’s comment about “mind coaching” as well, and while I think there is application of that type of method, I think it falls short of intent. I don’t think biblical faith was intended to enhance performance or to enable a transaction. It’s trust directed toward someone expected to be faithful, even when there is nothing to gain—in fact it can cost everything. So yes, if the object of faith isn’t real, it reduces to psychology. But if it’s real? As Paul put it, if Christ hasn’t been raised, then faith is futile.

[malkie]

I think gad’s points are accurate. If “faith” means little more than optimism or inductive reasoning under uncertainty, then it loses the depth of the biblical understanding. Everyone reasons under uncertainty, and everyone trusts something. But biblical faith seems more like trust in the character of a specific God with a specific character, not just confidence that something unseen exists.

I’ve been thinking about IHQ’s comment about “mind coaching” as well, and while I think there is application of that type of method, I think it falls short of intent. I don’t think biblical faith was intended to enhance performance or to enable a transaction. It’s trust directed toward someone expected to be faithful, even when there is nothing to gain—in fact it can cost everything. So yes, if the object of faith isn’t real, it reduces to psychology. But if it’s real? As Paul put it, if Christ hasn’t been raised, then faith is futile.

As far as Mormonism is concerned, perhaps we should start from the church's definition, and (supposedly) Joseph Smith's definition:

Confidence in something or someone. As most often used in the scriptures, faith is confidence and trust in Jesus Christ that lead a person to obey Him. Faith must be centered in Jesus Christ in order for it to lead a person to salvation. Latter-day Saints also have faith in God the Father, the Holy Ghost, priesthood power, and other important aspects of the restored gospel.

Guide to the Scriptures: Faith

Question 5: What is faith?
It is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen: Hebrews 11:1. That is, it is the assurance we have of the existence of unseen things. And being the assurance which we have of the existence of unseen things, must be the principle of action in all intelligent beings. Hebrews 11:3: Through faith we understand the worlds were framed by the word of God. (1:8-9)

Faith Defined: Lecture First

In this context I think that anything not compatible with the combination of these two definitions, however well intentioned, or well argued, should perhaps be discarded, or at least rethought.

[MG 2.0]

I think gad’s points are accurate. If “faith” means little more than optimism or inductive reasoning under uncertainty, then it loses the depth of the biblical understanding. Everyone reasons under uncertainty, and everyone trusts something. But biblical faith seems more like trust in the character of a specific God with a specific character, not just confidence that something unseen exists.

I’ve been thinking about IHQ’s comment about “mind coaching” as well, and while I think there is application of that type of method, I think it falls short of intent. I don’t think biblical faith was intended to enhance performance or to enable a transaction. It’s trust directed toward someone expected to be faithful, even when there is nothing to gain—in fact it can cost everything. So yes, if the object of faith isn’t real, it reduces to psychology. But if it’s real? As Paul put it, if Christ hasn’t been raised, then faith is futile.

As far as Mormonism is concerned, perhaps we should start from the church's definition, and (supposedly) Joseph Smith's definition:

Confidence in something or someone. As most often used in the scriptures, faith is confidence and trust in Jesus Christ that lead a person to obey Him. Faith must be centered in Jesus Christ in order for it to lead a person to salvation. Latter-day Saints also have faith in God the Father, the Holy Ghost, priesthood power, and other important aspects of the restored gospel.

Guide to the Scriptures: Faith

Question 5: What is faith?
It is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen: Hebrews 11:1. That is, it is the assurance we have of the existence of unseen things. And being the assurance which we have of the existence of unseen things, must be the principle of action in all intelligent beings. Hebrews 11:3: Through faith we understand the worlds were framed by the word of God. (1:8-9)

Faith Defined: Lecture First

In this context I think that anything not compatible with the combination of these two definitions, however well intentioned, or well argued, should perhaps be discarded, or at least rethought.

"In this context". That puts it into a nice little box.

Any reason for that?

My I suggest you're 'in' on the circumvention?

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

For those concerned about the "this context" I mentioned: I thought it was pretty obvious, since I had just given two Mormon-related definitions, but here is a more explicit statement.

I was talking about considerations in the context of Mormon-specific definitions of faith - as distinct from wider faith contexts that have also been discussed in this thread.

I can't help wondering if anyone else assumed bad faith, or nefarious purposes, in my comment.

ETA: Sheesh

[I Have Questions]

I think gad’s points are accurate. If “faith” means little more than optimism or inductive reasoning under uncertainty, then it loses the depth of the biblical understanding. Everyone reasons under uncertainty, and everyone trusts something. But biblical faith seems more like trust in the character of a specific God with a specific character, not just confidence that something unseen exists.

I’ve been thinking about IHQ’s comment about “mind coaching” as well, and while I think there is application of that type of method, I think it falls short of intent. I don’t think biblical faith was intended to enhance performance or to enable a transaction. It’s trust directed toward someone expected to be faithful, even when there is nothing to gain—in fact it can cost everything. So yes, if the object of faith isn’t real, it reduces to psychology. But if it’s real? As Paul put it, if Christ hasn’t been raised, then faith is futile.

I don’t disagree with your distinction Limnor between “faith” and “religious faith”. Although I would say that the Placebo effect applies equally well to both. I’ve had an additional thought that faith in either context is a way of offloading personal guilt to facilitate lightning the load so as to move forward more easily.

As far as Mormonism is concerned, perhaps we should start from the church's definition, and (supposedly) Joseph Smith's definition:

Confidence in something or someone. As most often used in the scriptures, faith is confidence and trust in Jesus Christ that lead a person to obey Him. Faith must be centered in Jesus Christ in order for it to lead a person to salvation. Latter-day Saints also have faith in God the Father, the Holy Ghost, priesthood power, and other important aspects of the restored gospel.

Guide to the Scriptures: Faith

Question 5: What is faith?
It is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen: Hebrews 11:1. That is, it is the assurance we have of the existence of unseen things. And being the assurance which we have of the existence of unseen things, must be the principle of action in all intelligent beings. Hebrews 11:3: Through faith we understand the worlds were framed by the word of God. (1:8-9)

Faith Defined: Lecture First

In this context I think that anything not compatible with the combination of these two definitions, however well intentioned, or well argued, should perhaps be discarded, or at least rethought.

I agree that’s what the words say. But I disagree that’s how Mormons generally parctice faith in today’s reality. For example, Church leadership would promote the idea that faith in Jesus Christ equals and is inextricable from faith in them, and faith in Joseph Smith, and faith in The Book of Mormon etc. in those scenarios, faith is the assurance of things hoped for despite the evidence.

[I Have Questions]

It's a ridiculous position as it undercuts faith. If faith is nothing more than inductive reasoning or optimism, and everyone has faith, then the scriptures wouldn't indicate "faith" is what separates believers from nonbelievers. I don't think any scriptures indicate "faith" is in play when serving false gods. I've never seen the success of evil powers attributed to great "faith" in the devil, or whatever. If all faith amounted to was believing in God like believing in China without having been there, then faith would be a joke. The scriptures aren't clear about exactly what faith is, but there is no reason to believe that faith is a deep conviction in the power of Satan that reflects a believers conviction in God, or that faith is the great confidence that if I put my mind to it, I can build a nuclear reactor in my garage.

I’m reminded of the explanation from Ezra Taft Benson “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.” He appears to be suggesting that faith is in play when serving a false God - in this case an errant Prophet.

[MG 2.0]

For those concerned about the "this context" I mentioned: I thought it was pretty obvious, since I had just given two Mormon-related definitions, but here is a more explicit statement.

I was talking about considerations in the context of Mormon-specific definitions of faith - as distinct from wider faith contexts that have also been discussed in this thread.

I can't help wondering if anyone else assumed bad faith, or nefarious purposes, in my comment.

ETA: Sheesh

Nothing nefarious.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

For those concerned about the "this context" I mentioned: I thought it was pretty obvious, since I had just given two Mormon-related definitions, but here is a more explicit statement.

I was talking about considerations in the context of Mormon-specific definitions of faith - as distinct from wider faith contexts that have also been discussed in this thread.

I can't help wondering if anyone else assumed bad faith, or nefarious purposes, in my comment.

ETA: Sheesh

Lol, no one else assumed it; it takes a mental gymnast to define his own opinion as fact. And then, when his error is pointed out, to define that fact as circumvention.

[Limnor]

For those concerned about the "this context" I mentioned: I thought it was pretty obvious, since I had just given two Mormon-related definitions, but here is a more explicit statement.

I was talking about considerations in the context of Mormon-specific definitions of faith - as distinct from wider faith contexts that have also been discussed in this thread.

I can't help wondering if anyone else assumed bad faith, or nefarious purposes, in my comment.

ETA: Sheesh

Lol, no one else assumed it; it takes a mental gymnast to define his own opinion as fact. And then, when his error is pointed out, to define that fact as circumvention.

For those at home keeping track of the “hoppy taw hopscotch” rules of the game. Earlier the hoppy taw landed on the “ambiguity is necessary for faith and certainty eliminates the need for faith” square. But now the hoppy taw has skipped into the square that says “definitional narrowing is circumvention,” and we seem very certain about what God would or wouldn’t do.

I wondered about the use of “circumvention” myself. How does circumvention fit within a frameplonet where ambiguity is necessary? Are we allowed to hop on some squares with certainty and others with ambiguity?

[Limnor]

I don’t disagree with your distinction Limnor between “faith” and “religious faith”. Although I would say that the Placebo effect applies equally well to both. I’ve had an additional thought that faith in either context is a way of offloading personal guilt to facilitate lightning the load so as to move forward more easily.

-snip-

in those scenarios, faith is the assurance of things hoped for despite the evidence.

I think that’s a fair assessment of the placebo effect—I’ve often thought the Catholic “confession” serves that function.

I also agree with your second observation.