mountthepavement

I'm in the process of reading all this new and interesting posts after a week's hiatus, but I hope I can venture a new relevant question: Consider the idea that people only have the power to reject the gospel and god but not the power to accept him (or, paradoxically, to accept him only in weakness or brokenness, through a surrender of the will, which I hope you can see is an apparent contradiction, a paradox, even if a poetic-sounding one). How does this fit with all of y'all's beliefs? To me, this simplifies things utterly, and removes all the terminology and poetry which might otherwise characterize our reflections on our faith. To put it another way: we are all liars, so the only way to speak the truth is to avoid propositions.

No, I like what you are saying here and how you said it, not that you need me as a judge. But that is my response.

General follow up: It is common parlance to think of sins as actions, perhaps less-so to think of faith as such. However, I believe that y'all are reflecting the notion in LDS that faith is commensurate with action or works. Perhaps we can gain something by considering whether sin isn't the opposite of faith in every way. As such, sin is connected directly with actions, but has something to it which is internal as well. This may help us to realize something that we hadn't previously about sin. This, I think, is the simplest, let's say most parsimonious, understanding of what faith is: the opposite of sin. What is sin? That is inherently a subject of debate, because we would all like to conceal our sin, guard it, cherish it, celebrate it, excuse it, flaunt it, and finally despair of it, all of which only contribute further to it. Faith is what happens when we don't do those things. That's why I say faith can be defined only negatively. I mistrust any positive things we might have to say about it: it's all poetry -- rhetoric potentially available to the clever, sinful mind. Thanks y'all!

Interesting point.

Thanks for the input. Again, I would just observe that this seems to be a central thesis of LDS. I am not saying whether I think this is good or bad, just pointing it out.

I don't say faith can be defined necessarily: perhaps negatively or paradoxically (self-referentially or through an apparent contradiction) which is not the same. In fact, you are engaging in a kind of negative description of faith yourself, to the extent that your rhetoric relies on expressing how we can know when we have it wrong. I don't say that this is itself bad; on the contrary. However, what is a gossip if not someone who talks about people not present? Are the people you are talking about present?

I don't quite get what you are saying, but thanks for the response anyway.

Thanks for the response.

I see your point about faith being inextricably tied to works, but to equate them seems to cheapen language. Why are they distinct words? Also, it doesn't seem to me to be playing fair to say at one moment that faith is more simple and then turn around and say it is complicated. However, perhaps you are yourself referring to a particular paradox concerning faith. You can explain it if you want.

Yes, I felt this is the LDS position on the "debate." That is what I mean by "nuanced."

I get it: so works and agency alone are not sufficient. Nor is Christ's sacrifice if it is not reciprocated by sacrifices and repentance (and "so forth" :))on our parts. Both, however, are necessary to salvation. It might be fair and quite accurate to say that the difference between this position and PC's is that his wants to emphasize, which is to say grant sole credit to, christ. LDS, on the other hand, distrusts the tendency or the appearance of claiming that one can be saved without having to lift a finger, so to speak: what is sincerity of belief except for an illusion unless it is justified by works and, as you say, faith, no?

I need to hear more about this: You are saying that accepting grace (indeed, a humble act (?)) and repentance (also humble) is not meritorious; therefore, not works. What do you mean by meritorious? Is it true that all works of love, so to speak, are meritorious? Do you perhaps mean meritorious in a particular sense but not in all possible senses of the word? Thanks

Sorry, I don't for the moment get how that relates. I would like to ask about it though: I certainly do not understand how the author can at once say that the death of christ atones for sins while appending the mechanism of "through faith and repentance:" Is it like the supports of a three-spoked wheel, none of which can be removed without the whell ceasing to function? At the least, I think it is badly worded, and this seems to me a troubling prospect. If they are of equal importance, one ought to structure the sentence to reflect this, placing "sufferings and death of christ," "faith," and "repentance" in a list. As it is, the sentence appears to be a bit of a nonsequitur, as it is not at all clear (is it just me?) how a death of some individual could atone for someones sins, and here's the important part, through the faith and repentance of another individual. That I think is fairly labelled a non-sequitur. In summary, it ought to have been worded, I argue: but the faith, repentance, and the sufferings (and so forth!!!) and death of Christ atone for their sins It is simply a matter of where the author wished to place the rhetorical emphasis: apparently, in this passage he (she??) wished to place it on christ, though did not appear to be justified in doing say, given (my interpretation of) the message of the passage.

What's the difference, would you say, between the requirement of tithing and the selling of indulgences by the Catholic church? Consider further: when a work is prescribed, doesn't that remove the crisis that would otherwise be present at the moment of any decision or act of faith and that alerts one to the possibility of risk and earthly embarrassment? What then is risked, when, while we sacrifice our material resources in terms of time and money, but gain others in the form of community (no doubt a good trade), a sense of history, belonging, an allayment of anxiety concerning the future and, "yea," the present, and even a sense of identity. Perhaps I have overlooked more benefits. It is no doubt faith in some sense, perhaps even "good faith," like that of a party to a contract, but is it the type of faith which we regard as vital to the religion? that which sacrifices the earthly comfort for something not altogether certain inasmuch as it is somewhat foreign to us in our present state, but which may seem certain, indeed, in some sense, a special sense of the word: more certain, if one is feeling especially swell, then even death and taxes. I am at once dubious of your points of view, while also at a loss to express my own, so the best I can do is ask you questions and see if it clarifies things for me.

No doubt you are right that people do not consciously follow the ancients you describe, but I am not convinced by what you wrote that their precepts, in fundamental or analogous terms, are ignored by all or most. It struck me as rhetorical but not necessarily accurate.