The Folk Prophet

It strikes me that your answer (in sync with my thinking) demonstrates they are the same at the core. If one has faith, one is faithful. If one is faithful, one has faith. If one has no faith, one is not faithful. If one is not faithful, one is not having faith. I can understand that the usage of the words has different contextual usage. Of course. But they essentially, and in practice, amount to the same thing. Stating one "has" faith but then not remaining faithful puts a lie to the statement that one has faith. They are inseparable. Restating the quote from the Bible Dictionary in my reply to @Sal, "Faith in Jesus Christ is the first principle of the gospel and is more than belief, since true faith always moves its possessor to some kind of physical and mental action;", might well be stated, "Faith in Jesus Christ is the first principle of the gospel and is more than belief, since true faith always [means being faithful];" Having faith. Acting in good faith. Being faithful. Showing faith. Etc., etc.... it's basically all the same. By the way, the only reason I'm harping on this is because it is quite true that in common usage, "having faith" does mean to simply "believe". And that is problematic. In many ways, that idea is taught us by the movies. You know...Hollywood wisdom. Just what we want guiding our eternal understanding, right?

Exclamation point aside, I think that's a pretty narrow and limiting view of it. Moreover, I think it's incorrect. Though I will grant that is the primary kids answer that's often the typical view. But I'd suggest that "belief" is it's own principle. One we are commanded on as well. I think belief plays a role in faith. But claiming faith and belief to be synonymous, as I said, seems limiting. Words have different meaning, of course. And "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof:" is, indeed ONE of the definitions of it. I don't tend to think, however, that when the scriptures or the prophets and apostles discuss faith that they're exclusively speaking of "belief in the unseen", though sometimes they may be. In point of fact, the Bible Dictionary explicitly states: "Faith in Jesus Christ is the first principle of the gospel and is more than belief, since true faith always moves its possessor to some kind of physical and mental action;" Though, I will grant, the Bible Dictionary entry on faith is, in my opinion, flawed. I mean it says, for example, "Although faith is a gift, it must be cultured and sought after until it grows from a tiny seed to a great tree." This is scripturally incorrect. Alma does not teach that of faith. The seed that is planted, must be cultured, and which grows from a tiny seed to a great tree is not faith. As Alma clearly states: "Now, we will compare the word unto a seed...." (Alma 32:28) But I digress. I think there's room for a broader understanding of what faith is, how it relates to faithfulness, and how application of the two are, in many ways, similar. And I believe it is, as I said, limiting to closing oneself off to that sort of thinking.

I can see that (obviously it's semantics). But...a dog does darned too have faith in their owner! 😀 Literally, the dictionary gives one of the definitions of faithful as "full of faith", though it terms the definition obsolete. But I have little doubt that many scriptural usages of that word mean exactly that. I don't see that, necessarily, as the singular meaning of "faithful" in the scriptures. But in my study I have determined that to be what it likely often means. Actually, even more importantly, to my understanding, I think understanding it in reverse is useful... as in the meaning of "to have faith" means to be faithful.

Would you distinguish the two ideas as being different?

This isn't an indication that the US isn't great. It's WHY the US is great.

Disagree!!

I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure starving your kids to death is already illegal.

You talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say you have no moral outrage but then follow it up by saying what they did was offensive. "Morally outrageous" and "offensive" are the same thing. Moreover, you're discussing it just as much as anyone else here, which means you're also giving them exactly what they want. But mere attention is not all they want. Not by a long shot.

Actually, I'd be okay with repentance.

How does one make this equation? I mean I assume when you speak of "THE Antichrist" you're meaning the 2nd beast mentioned in Revelations 13? Let's look at that: I gotta ask.... how does Trump "fit the mold" of this? I mean unless one wants to claim that Trump performed a miracle by getting shot in the ear... which, granted, I've seen a lot of commentary that it was by providence.... but not that Trump performed it somehow. Either way...it's not exactly making fire come down from heaven in the sight of men. Or are you speaking of literal references to "Antichrist" in 1 John 2:18,22: Has Trump denied Jesus or the Father and the Son? Or 1 John 4:3: ...and... 2 John 1:7 Once again... has Trump done these things? I'm not making a pro Trump point here. But "the", or even "an" Antichrist is a pretty ridiculous assertion. I mean, here's some Trump quotes: “People are so shocked when they find … out I am Protestant. I am Presbyterian. And I go to church and I love God and I love my church,” “Though I was confirmed at a Presbyterian church as a child, I now consider myself to be a non-denominational Christian,” "Melania and I have gotten to visit some amazing churches and meet with great faith leaders from around the world. During the unprecedented COVID-19 outbreak, I tuned into several virtual church services and know that millions of Americans did the same.” And, lest we forget: I mean, sure...it was a bit for show...and the cynics, obviously, consider it ALL for show. But to call it "anti" or him THE Antichrist? Once again.... how does he "fit the mold"? I mean people who have Trump Derangement Syndrome are going to have Trump Derangement Syndrome. So I don't expect any convincing to be done here either way. But this kind of thought is legitimately laughable. Calling Trump "the antichrist" is as laughable as calling Trump "the savior".

The arrogance of these sorts of readings of the Book of Mormon always kind of amazes me. Of course it's typical of so-called "academia". When they are learned they think they are wise, indeed. It's one thing to understand conceptually that the prophets aren't perfect. It's another thing entirely to point out specific imperfections, as if we are somehow more enlightened than they are and well suited to judge when, if, and how they weren't perfect. If and when the scriptures or a prophet explicitly states that something said was mistaken then I'll accept that. Until then, I think I'll assume that my imperfections are the problem rather than looking for theirs.

Depends on the joke. Not to justify anything...but speaking of beyond the pale.... When I was in high-school, I seem to recall a bout of "dead baby" jokes becoming all the rage. Some of them were hilarious.

Maybe not continually. But in a 5 shot burst it's not even that fast. Count to five in a second. It's not that fast. A Thompson Machine gun (ye olden days ganster machine gun) shoots 25 rounds per second. Just to be clear.

You can literally just pull the trigger 5 to 6 times a second without that.

Yeah, I could do some googling and try to figure out where I found these I suppose. But since someone else could just as easily do said googling, I'll leave it to them if they're that interested. @Lindsay Powell I apologize for not more explicitly sighting where I pulled the quotes from. I have no idea where they were from other than that I use search engines (church website, google, bing, etc.) to look for stuff the same as anyone could.

Sure. But I expect the wording wasn't such that if looked at carefully it meant "you must have a career". Maybe. I dunno. Worth considering.

Oh... and for what it's worth, the above doesn't imply having a career.

There are already repercussions.

I guess what I can't help but think is.... we always look at these sorts of things as if our job is to make it as easy as possible for others to return to God. To remove all obstacles. To lay out the red carpet, etc., etc. Obviously there is some correctness to this idea. And yet... Life is meant to be a trial. And how do we know that we aren't meant to be a trial for someone else? I mean....maybe God put someone in our path because He knew we'd rub them the wrong way in everything we say and do and they're being tested to see if they'll stay true to Him despite that? That doesn't mean we ought to go about being jerks to people on purpose with the idea that we're testing them. (Everything being relative. Because He has asked us to speak truth boldly and warned us that we will offend, and he that is ashamed because of the offense of the world is not worthy, etc., etc.) I just worry about second-guessing that because of OUR wisdom in what's offensive and what isn't. The simple matter-of-fact is that Christ offended. Constantly. Every where He went. He offended, and offended, and offended. They put Him to death for it. And we've been asked to take up the cross and follow Him. We should expect that doing so will EXTREMELY offend others. I've learned, sadly, that speaking the truth offends. And it offends badly and often. If we speak the truth, we will offend. I get what you're saying. I have, myself, often made changes in my communication methods to try and better align with what I believe God would have me do and say. But we also need to be careful to not hide away, fail to speak what is true and right, etc., because we fear offending others. There's obviously a balance there to be struck. And maybe some strike it easier than others. I struggle with it.

The creepy music they added helped.

#defundTheMods

Oh...I have no current complaints. I only claim RIGHT to be able to complain....hashtag ...#allModsAreBulliesWithBadges!

We need a private forum where we can talk about the moderators behind their backs!

Nevertheless, I don't agree that the Community of Christ should be classified as a church of God. It's not led by God and it has none of God's authority. Those are my defining criteria for a church being God's. Not whether it has some truth and light or not.