The Folk Prophet

I will grant, I have always been a poor one for paying attention to, understanding, or much caring about instructions. To be fair, I did not read the title of the thread, and totally missed the A-Z thing, and it was not reiterated in the first post instructions. I have also never participated in any of the other A-Z games because the A-Z thing makes me uncomfortable. :) My bad.

It's worth noting on the idea of God acting by faith (by faith the worlds were created) that God has all knowledge and still acts with faith.

I'm not sure a plain "dictionary" definition of faith is sufficient in LDS theology. Faith is a complicated principle. It is one we learn more and more about as we work to exercise it. At it's core faith can be described as belief with action I think. But I, for one, am constantly learning more as I study and practice faith as to what it actually means to have faith.

Per the "better than" thought, hopefully, generally (per Vort's thought) the members of the church are. But like any generalization it cannot be applied one-to-one. As in, women may "generally" be more righteous than men. That doesn't mean that Eowyn, by virtue being female, is more righteous than, say, Vort. (She may be...but she also may not be...the male/female thing doesn't apply at the one-to-one level). Therefore, it is accurate to say that being a member of the church does not mean you are more righteous than anyone outside the church. But in adding the words "in general", and phrasing it the way it was...likely not true.

Hopefully this comment doesn't stem from the same sentiment as those who despise every word I write.

The lectures on Faith teach that faith is "the principle of action in all intelligent beings" (emphasis mine). I agree that it may be termed the foundation of action.

Maybe I shouldn't have "ha ha ha'd". But that's not really the point. I would agree with it if you'd limited it to those who are politically informed to some degree or another. But there's a whole wide world of people who are, decidedly, politically uninformed who know who Mitt Romney is and that he's a Mormon who have never heard of Harry Reid.

Good save.

Respectfully, in my opinion, this is inaccurate. Faith does not drive action. That is the typical LDS reading of "faith without works is dead", like they're two separate entities and one is dead without the action. But I read it that faith is dead without works in the same way the soul is dead without both body and spirit. The two make up the soul. And so it is without action. Faith is not faith without action, just the same as faith is not faith without believe. In point of fact, I believe that action is more important to faith than belief is. I can have belief issues and still act in faith. I cannot, however, believe and fail to act and still call it faith. Accordingly, almost the opposite of your statement is true. (Not literally, of course. It wouldn't make total sense to say that action drives to faith. But to state the action renders faith might be viable.)

In mortality, I'm not convinced we can literally "know" anything. We pretty much act on faith in everything. We claim we "know" but we don't really. We trust what we strongly believe and act on it. That's faith. Of course that idea gets a bit out there when you get into ideas like are we all in a big Matrix, is the sky blue, does China exist, etc. But when it comes to spiritual things, not many of us have the privilege of "knowing" and even those who do don't really know. In fact, the world plainly claims those who experience visions are delusional. Either way, I'm not convinced knowledge is the key. We have Laban and Lemuel as a prime example. They, technically, "knew". God spoke to them directly. Angels appeared to them time and again. And yet they had no faith. Can we argue that their faith was merely "dormant" because they knew. Hardly. Their faith never existed. They had no faith to become dormant even in the face of knowledge. Satan has knowledge. He knows God exists. He knows Christ is the Savior. Etc. It has no meaning. Knowledge is insufficient. Faith is required.

Excellent.

I would submit that perhaps faith and knowledge are not two ends of the same path. They are, substantially, different planes altogether. Speaking in the terms of faith leading to knowledge and then faith growing dormant is valid, but not because the knowledge replaces the faith. Using it in these terms is treating faith as if it is nothing more than belief. But faith is significantly more than belief. Alma 32 doesn't speak of faith not being needed, but rather, being dormant. You bring up an interesting subject, but, I entirely reject the idea that we rely on Faith too much. Rather the other way around methinks. I have more to say on the matter, but there's some thoughts for now.

Hey, speak for yourself! :)

Word edit: What? Too on the nose? :)

Which also, sadly, implies that too many people understand the scriptures based on primary lessons rather than from actually having read the scriptures.

This seems a bit of a cheat too, to be fair. Let me try one... Hatless. Dogless. Flavorless. I mean, you can stick 'less' on nigh anything and it fits.

Sentence. Sentences. Paragraph.

Just FYI (maybe you know this) the comparison Alma makes to the seed is not faith. It is the word of God. Alma 32:28 "Now, we will compare the word unto a seed."

D&C 64:9-10 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin. I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Yeah, right.

Doesn't seem like it has anything to do with Catholic/LDS thinking. Seems to me it's more about whether it's viewed as a separate and distinct covenant that replaces the Bible or whether it's viewed as an additional covenant that supplements and supports the Bible. The latter is the case and that's easily explained without understanding any mindset.

Culmination of anything, historically speaking, shouldn't really be the deciding factor though. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm saying you need to set your decision making paradigm primarily on the Spirit's communications rather than the difficult things you are now digesting. Work through the issues. Yes. Figure it out, read through the excellent resources indicated by Just a Guy in the 2nd post. But do it all from a position of, "I know this church is true." If you cannot, then you need to start there. Get into the Book of Mormon and get on your knees and wrestle with the Spirit until you know. That is key. But this isn't the important line to find. The wrong question is being asked inherently by the concern. Was Joseph looking for power and riches, or a mistake ridden good man? Wrong question. Was Joseph a prophet of God who restored the true gospel of Jesus Christ, and does that power and authority reside with the Church still today? Right question. And, again, history will not answer these "right" question. Get them answered in the only way they can be answered.

They both read about the same to me.

There is a great deal of speculation. I agree. What is not speculation is that God knows everything, sees everything, the beginning from the end, and is not learning/deciding as He goes. It is worth pondering. But it is worth pondering with a proper basic understanding of God, rather than a supposition that He's still not sure how He's gonna play all this out moving forward. Concerning the primary question: God's plan is based on a perfect foreknowledge. The question seems to imply that God may not have a perfect foreknowledge. He does. And that is the simple answer to the question. But I agree there is potential use in having an expanded discussion, but not if that expanded discussion has false premises at it's core.

Maybe off topic a bit, why should anyone care what Reinhold Niebuhr says on matters of faith? :) Frankly, the word play is...interesting...but not particularly compelling. What is "frantic" supposed to mean here anyway? Seems like a personality trait rather than indicative of anyone's motivation to faith. Moreover, faith and doubt are reactions to things unseen. They are choices, regardless of frantic orthodoxy or casual heterodoxy.