The Folk Prophet

I thought I'd weigh in as the study of faith has been a pet pursuit of mine and I have what I like to think of as insight into it. First, "faith" is often conflated with "belief". But they're not the same thing. We are commanded to believe. That is its own principle. We are also commanded to have faith. That is a different principle. In point of fact, believing is an act of faith. But so is the following of all council and command. In fact having faith is an act of faith. The best word to describe faith that I've come up with is "commitment". So why not just say commitment? Well, because faith contains the idea that it is without a sure knowledge. It is a commitment to despite sure knowledge. I think that's the best way I've come up with understanding it. We could also use terms like loyalty, belief in*, dedication to, etc., and they are all tied together. *"Belief" or "belief in" can be synonymous with faith if one understands that to mean something more than simply "believing they exist" but actually believing in as in trusting in, committed to the idea of, dedicated to the reality of, etc. So despite the fact that I started by saying faith is conflated with belief and they're not the same, I must confess that what I really mean is that I think most people tend to conflate the complexity of faith with the simplicity of "I believe that God exists", which isn't faith at all -- as clearly demonstrated by the fact that Satan himself believes God exists, and yet clearly has no faith in Him. But believing that God has power to save, loves us, has all power, all knowledge, will keep His word, etc., etc... well that's a more complex idea that ties in more directly with the idea of faith...but... one can believe in all those things and still abandon their commitment to God, and thereby show no faith. When I was a kid I would often look at Hebrews 11:1 thinking it was a definitional statement of faith. But I think it's pretty clear that it is not. It's simply saying that faith (commitment) is the substance of (reason for) things hoped for. Or in other words, we have hope because of faith. That's not defining faith. The same thing with "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true". Not a definition. Just a statement of logic and reality. Yes. (Depending on what you mean by "greater than"). More important in this life? Yes. That probably depends on the receiver and what impacts them more. Not if we know something. Why would it be improper to say we know something if we know something, and who are you to claim those saying they know something don't really know it? Yes. More so that witnessing something with our own eyes. Much more so. I think the third. Faith isn't knowledge or belief. It exists alongside those things. But I think it's a mistake to suggest that saying "I know X..." is inherently flawed. It's not. But the idea that one shouldn't say "I know" if they don't has some validity. If one means "I trust in and am committed to despite not knowing" then that might be the better thing to say. Maybe. Yes. Moreso. Considering color blindness, the way light works, and examples of "the blue dress or the white dress" etc., I'd say your suggestion that sight is the most reliable is quite flawed. Seeing God face to face has nothing to do with faith. I would directly you to the examples of Laman and Lemuel who experienced direct interactions with God and angels and still did not have faith. I would also direct you to a myriad of examples of people who've had countless spiritual experiences but then fall away and leave the church. Because they lacked faith. Testimony is not faith. A witness is the witnessing of. That is all. If one has had an experience, one can testify they've had it. That doesn't mean they trust it, believe it, don't deny it ever, don't turn their backs on it, etc., etc. Seeing God face to face doesn't ensure anything but further damnation for the wicked. I think "seen" here isn't meaning literally with the eyes. It strikes me it's more generic. When you know, you know. When you have faith your are committed to, despite not knowing fully. When you know fully, you probably (and this is my best reasoning on the matter) don't need "faith" any more because you then have commitment with full understanding, and I think faith (at least per these scriptures) is being defined as commitment without full understanding. That being said, as @estradling75 said, it (faith) doesn't seem to be 100% definitionally consistent in usage. And there is certainly an argument to be made that one maintains faith even when having full knowledge and understanding. But not in the way Alma used the term, it seems. But as to the question, does perfect knowledge come from sight?" Absolutely not. There is nothing more reliable than the pure light and knowledge from God given to us as spiritual revelation. Nothing more concrete. No communication more perfect. Without it, we are lost. This is valuable if it is true. But I'd contend that claiming one knows the color of a car from looking at it but doesn't know if the Book of Mormon is true despite spiritual confirmation that it is is a very flawed premise. Once again...who are you to say who "knows" what? Speak for yourself. The two are not mutually exclusive in my view. I know certain things because of revelation. I also have faith in things. I don't undermine the one by the other. They are both true. I testify of what I know. That's what testimony means. I experienced. I witnessed. I felt. Etc. I testify of those things. That's what bearing testimony is. Saying I believe something that I haven't experienced IS NOT A TESTIMONY. What kind of witness would that make? "Did you see the murder happen?" "No. But I believe that John did it." That's not a testimony. Why is that the biggest aspect? I believe, as I've explained, the biggest aspect of faith is commitment. The knowledge relationship to it ties in...but not, I think, what really what makes or breaks faith. Faith is a choice. If it wasn't a choice then it couldn't be a commandment. We would have no agency in the matter. We couldn't be held accountable for not having it. Because we're speaking of what we "know". (I do understand that there are some who say they know when they don't. But I think you're mistaken to assume that's the typical case.) This is an interesting thing worth thinking about. I'll think about it.

I shared that with you in secret! I don't appreciate you using it as one of your examples.

As one who's essentially left the forum I can comment (as I happen to have joined back in for a day or two for a specific discussion). But since this thread is here during that time, (I won't be around long), I'll comment from my perspective. I think the reason I left the forum may be the issue at hand. When the division becomes as great as it has between two factions, those factions struggle for civility. I'll label those factions conservatism and progressivism, but those are relative terms. Still, it should be understood. And I don't mean politically. Politics only interest me as to how they relate to the eternal. These two factions, so divided, struggle to bond in any regard. And, really, in my opinion, they should not bond, because one of them is team Satan and the other is team God. But the result is conflict. So I find myself at an impasse. I have two desires -- two principles -- that are at odds one with another. 1. Civility and unity. 2. The need to stand strong and fight against what I see as the increasing growth of evil and its encroachment upon society. Keep in mind, the struggle I'm talking about on these two things is not with others. It is with myself. I wish to be civil and united. I also cannot engage with what I consider evil without taking a stand against it. I do not feel I can or should abandon either of these principles. And yet...how? And so I finally came to a point where the only option for me was to walk away. I can't fight the one fight without losing the other and vice versa. So I retreated instead. The plain truth is that the divide between good and evil is growing. And that, I believe, is the root of the problem. The growth of evil demands a violent, bloody fight! (I'm not suggesting literal, physical, fighting. I'm just being metaphorical here). It demands it! And yet...who wants to be in bloody, violent fights all the time? It's depressing, disheartening, discouraging, unpleasant, and just no fun. And yet, part of me feels like I've pulled a Jonah. But still.... Yes...I realize I'm worse than pretty much anyone else in my views in this regard. And therefore it is, frankly, surprising I engaged as long as I did. But it was, for the most part, no fun. And I came to the point where it broke me. And maybe that is a good thing. Maybe I've been wrong all along in my views on fighting the good fight. Or maybe I just suck at it.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Um....no. Am I disciplined? In many ways, yes. But am I good at it? No. It's a constant fight. My natural state is, decidedly, undisciplined. Am I committed? Depends on what to. The gospel? Yes. Other stuff...well, I could give you a list of the projects started and abandoned through the years.

I think for me, I would, by a thousand fold, rather hide behind religion in an effort to exercise faith than I would abandon faith in an effort to not hide behind religion. Really, my consternation over the article, can probably be summarized that simply.

I'll grant it's semantics. But...we are, at our cores, spiritual beings. If, as the article implies of "spiritual bypassing", we want to speak of burying our heads in the sand, I think an approach that pretends there is a separation between the spiritual and who we are is king of said head-in-sand burying. The eternal perspective is the only legitimate perspective because it is the only one that recognized truth as it really is.

Good catch. I think I had misread the part about being a "a therapist and Buddhist teacher", where she was referring to someone else and not herself. Maybe she is LDS. In which case my thumbs down increases by 20 thumbs.

I'd go so far as to say that there is no remedy to emotional and psychological issues that isn't spiritual.

Similar to my thoughts. The idea of avoiding things by sticking your head in the "positive" sand isn't a "spiritual" thing. One might as well say, "if you see someone smiling they may be putting on a façade and secretly miserable inside." Yes...this is definitely a potential. But when you turn that into, "smiling might be a evidence of 'happy bypassing'", then one is just being silly. Responding that way to things is a result of psychological and emotional immaturity. That is the cause and the problem that should be addressed. The blaming of the "spirituality" boogeyman is turning things upside down. (Now, to be fair, I don't think the article was that unfair or uneven. I'm just sharing some thoughts.) I think I agree. But I am concerned that the article sets it up so any time anyone suggests to another, for example, that they be positive in the face of difficulties, that such a suggestion must be engaging in something harmful. Moreover, the close relative is sharing the article, proselytizing it to others, to perhaps lead them into the same sort of "positive is negative" type think. Even more harmful...when said relative first shared the article with me they stated, "I have been long trying to study and compile and write about how codependency is taught culturally in our wards and stakes...." followed by having found the article that validates this. Of course, it's what's being taught at church that's the problem here, right? Essentially what I read into this (and I might be biased...but...) is that said relative is trying to convince others that if anyone suggests at church that we, as Jesus taught, turn the other cheek it's encouraging codependency. Yes...you are right...responding with that type of argument is unlikely to do anything but cause hurt feelings all around. But it sure bothers me. (In point of fact, the return to the forum for the day for me was to give me an outlet to express my frustration so I can get it out of my system without causing real harm with close loved ones.)

The article is not written from and LDS perspective. And I do think that there is legitimacy to some of the ideas when it comes to the hippy-voodoo "spirituality" that may be common to a lot of people's ideas of "spirituality". Where I have the problem is when you take the world's ideas and try and apply them to the God's religion, and true spirituality. If someone was sharing this article to explain how their Buddhism and yoga were false fronts that were being used to hide from actually facing their problems...sure...I'm on board. When you start trying to apply the same to an actual relationship with the actual God and the actual true processes He has prescribed for us to use, etc., etc... it starts smacking of relying on the arm of flesh pretty quickly. In essence, a lot of the article (if applied by a Latter-day Saint to the Church of Jesus Christ), seems to argue that the Savior's teachings were wrong, the prophets spout useless and harmful platitudes, and we should not take scriptural council as valid or legitimate because... you know...psychology.

A close relative of mine has been touting this article as wonderful and helpful and all that. I feel differently. I don't feel like expressing said differences directly to said close relative is a good idea. So I thought I'd post it here and see what you all think. Am I injecting some kind of bias, or is this article seriously flawed? https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-spiritual-bypassing-5081640

Do share then.

...what in the world is going on?! The license to go crazy has gone mainstream. Seriously. One of my closest friends for the last 20 years sent me the Plandemic video and when I didn't buy off on its full legitimacy immediately he flipped out and cut off our relationship for good. Is this what we're becoming? I'm only trying to exert the smallest amount of moderation in my views. (Surprise, surprise, I can be moderate in some things.) But apparently any sort of moderation and hoping/waiting for facts is unacceptable any longer. The kind of things I'm seeing people post on social media and believing whole-hog without evidence is...well, it's truly shocking. I know there's evil in the world. I know there's evil in government. I know there's evil in big pharm. I know there's evil in capitalism. I know there's evil in socialism. I know there's evil pretty much everywhere. Does that mean I have to buy off on any youtube video that supports someone's particular narrative or I'm the bad guy? Sure...I'm concerned by these evils. I'm much more concerned by the evil that seems to be stewing and brewing in my friends, neighbors, and family. The hatred and bitterness I'm seeing from them on Facebook and the like. We're supposed to be followers of Christ. And we're supposed to be one in Him. We're not supposed to hate each other for not buying off on all the minutia of our particular extreme brand of political think. Anyhow, I'm not really joining again here, but I do read, and thought the discussion of some of these conspiracies and the like would be interesting. So go for it.

Honestly I just wanted to ask him what his motivations were and see if I could get an upfront answer. I expect I wouldn't have.

Well, I had sort of been hoping to get into it a bit with the OP, (who I actually respect intellectually and his understanding and education by and large, but feel he's missed the boat on a few ideas here). But as he seems to have abandoned the thread for now at least, and as I'm actually not interested in re-attending the forum generally, I'm taking off again. Perhaps I'll pipe up again if he comes back and replies more.

Right. Do we keep the commandments because we have accepted Christ or do we accept Christ by keeping his commandments? Aren't both sort of true? I honestly don't understand the new-fangled preaching about grace that keeps popping up. Shouldn't we be, moreso, focused on things that we have control of rather than something we don't? I am less concerned with whether Christ's grace is conditional or not as I am over what I need to do. I can only control my works. Therefore my concern is my works. "Ah," but one says, "it's important that we understand this concept!" "Oh yeah?" I ask. "How do I go about understanding it then?" "Why through study, thought and effort, of course," they reply. "Oh...you mean by my works?" "......🦗🦗🦗🦗......" These debates are somewhat semantically ridiculous because depending on how you look at it, one cannot get away from works. Just accept Christ's grace says one? Well, that's a work says I. Which makes the whole debate seem silly. There seems to be this, sort of, "you're doing it wrong" idea behind proposals like the OP offers. The question I ask myself (as I've stated) is simple: What do I need to be doing? It's as simple as that. And that means works. Am I motivated by and grateful for Christ's grace? Oh yes. Very much. And if there is a problem with people taking pride in their works and crediting their salvation to themselves (as I expect there is in cases) then there does, in those cases, need to be some better perspective, humility, and improved understanding. But that doesn't seem to be the point of the OP or the attached interview.

Exactly. We are, indeed, saved by grace despite all we can do. We are also saved by grace, very literally, postliminarily "after" all we can do. This is why I don't, per se, have a problem with the idea of understanding it to be "despite" except in that it seems to be trying to supplant the common understanding. It's the conclusions being drawn that bothers me. Part of what bothers me about it is the assumption that everyone who thinks we are saved by grace in the end "after" all our own efforts also believes that we earned that salvation. It's trying to fix a problem that does not exist that I'm aware of in the church. Two more things that are not mutually exclusive. Just because I believe I have to pay the price asked does not mean I believe the price is equal to the reward.

I don't think the idea of holistic "legal code" is the proper approach either. As I'm sure you're well aware, even holistic legal code can only be interpreted when there is a shared understanding of phrases and meaning in the legal community. I'm mindful of @Vort getting on anyone's case who uses the phrase "begs the question" incorrectly. Technically, he's right, and yet per the literal meaning of the words and the common usage by those not in the know, he's sort of wrong. And yet he's right. And wrong. But who are we to say that the Lord, knowing full well that the lay person in the church would understand "after all we can do" to mean we have to do everything we can to qualify for grace didn't fully intend those words to be used in that way, even if Joseph really meant "despite all we can do"? The implication otherwise is that the entire church has been wrong and misinterpreting scripture for most of the history of the restored church -- but isn't that exactly why we have a living prophet -- to make sure we aren't being led astray? Didn't the great apostasy occurred precisely because such was lost and academic interpretations guided instead. And what have our prophets been teaching us for the history of the restored church about the meaning of that scripture? But some smarter-than-y'all know-it-all wants to come along and tell everyone the prophets are wrong and the academic, I've-studied-this-better interpretation of the scripture is the true and accurate one. Upon whose arm are we to really rely here? The problem I really have, as I've articulated up thread, is the question of why anyone would argue that it must mean "despite". What's the point? I think the truth is actually not that difficult and those who argue for a convoluted twist in the meaning based on a flimsy* argument are just as off based as those arguing for a concrete postliminary-only meaning. It seems pretty straight forward to me for anyone reasonably educated in the gospel. Grace is not earned. But we must qualified for it. Why anyone in the church would argue otherwise is really beyond me. "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." D&C 130:20–21 (emphasis mine) This plain (call it legal code if you will) scripture refutes any concept that grace, a decided blessing from God, is not predicated upon obedience (works). It is. Full stop. End of argument. In fact there are so many scriptures that teach the same sort of idea that it's really strange to me that this idea keeps rearing its head here and there. It should be obvious to the linguistics master that "earned" is a subjective idea and in one sense we do, indeed, "earn" salvation, but in another sense we very much do not "earn" salvation. That's not particularly difficult to grasp, methinks. And yet, apparently, it is. * I haven't seen all the examples the OP has for believing "after all we can do" was commonly used to mean "despite all we can do" but from what I've heard the argument seems flimsy. The idea that it was used in certain noteworthy writings doesn't mean that the average commoner understood it to mean that. And Joseph, at the time of translating the Book of Mormon, was ignorant and unlearned (as described by Emma). The likelihood of his familiarity with phrases that were not, indeed, common in daily speech is unlikely. Showing a phrase to be common in published writing does not show it to be common in the provincial. I have a hard time believing that the general populace in the early church would have understood the words, "after all we can do" to mean anything other than what the words say at their face value, in the same way most people understand "begs the question" to mean "pleads for a question". Moreover, the examples I did hear used modifier words. The ideas of "We are saved by grace after all we can do" is quite different than something like, "We are saved by grace even after all we can do". One word can drastically change the meaning of a phrase, and examples with different phrasing don't prove the meaning in this case.

There. Avatar properly nerded up and chocolate frosting confusion averted.

I am a secret nerd who taught himself how to braid bullwhips so as to not have to pay $1000 for a David Morgan whip (the guy who made them for the Indiana Jones movies). 10 years and like $3000 or so later I can make a whip that's like almost 2/3rds the quality of a David Morgan! The image is one of the original whips from the Indiana Jones trilogy. I think from the 3rd one. I put it as my avatar because I was updating my "Religion" to use the full name of the church and decided to grab a different avatar too. The thought came from the fact that I've recently purchased more leather to braid a new whip, hopefully improving on my quality and getting to 4/5ths the quality of a David Morgan for only another $300 in materials or so. I pretend annoyance, but the truth is the process has been a lot more fun than just buying an expensive one. Turns out I like making them more than cracking them. #manlyCrafts

Having a hard time staying out of this thread despite* (*pun intended) intentional inactivity in the forum. This premise doesn't square with the idea of Joseph blocking light with a hat so he could see the literal words appearing. There are plenty of reports that imply Joseph didn't translate the Book of Mormon into anything but the words the Lord intended him to use. Of course they're secondhand reports and not entirely consistent, and even if fully accurate don't imply the entire process was the same. But still, we have, I believe, fairly good reason to believe the words used in the Book of Mormon are, generally speaking, from the Lord rather than from Joseph's idea of what it might/should say. Indeed, that is part of the miracle of the Book of Mormon, and differs distinctly from the revelations in the Doctrine & Covenants. Now, how someone could think that the Lord showing/providing Joseph what words to use meant Joseph lost his agency is very perplexing.

Jumping on for just a bit here: I cannot understand the motivation behind the "after all means despite" argument. For example, in the end of the interview Laura Hales says: "Yet we still cannot in our social culture, dissolve the almost magnetic attraction of works to the discussion of salvation. We always need to tack on that, but you need the ordinances, but you need to endure to the end." Well...yeah, Laura. That's a good thing, is it not? What am I concerned with in the gospel? What should I be concerned with? That's what matters to me. It comes down to a simple question: What do I need to do? The objective here seems to be to push people further away from that question. That seems highly problematic. Why would we want to teach people to believe what they do is of no import? Either that or the objective seems to be some sort of intellectual braggadocio. This is the plain truth: "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." (emphasis mine). We can wrest the scriptures all we want but this article of faith remains true. Christ's is a works based gospel. Always has been. Always will be. The reality that we're saved by Grace doesn't change that, or really relate. I don't have a problem with the idea that we are saved by grace "despite" all we can do in an of itself. The idea is correct. We cannot save ourselves. But I know of no one in the church that I've ever met or heard of that believes the Atonement of Christ was unnecessary because we can save ourselves. If anyone did believe that they'd clearly be in a state of severe apostasy. Nevertheless, the "tack on" idea that we need the ordinances and to endure to the end is obviously of paramount importance. Isn't our prophet constantly pushing us to be concerned with being on the covenant path? Are we not saved through the Atonement of Christ by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel? Are we not commanded, accordingly, to repent, serve, preach, sacrifice, etc, and make and keep covenants? And if we don't do such is not our salvation forfeit? So why the drive to push people's thinking in a different way? I seriously can't understand the...how was it put....rhetorical need behind this argument.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2020/04/11/how-two-women-made/?fbclid=IwAR1cMilwWL13vPsBA6YNJGyG2slowdg1AQg1M3IG0EyaDk6I1qr4V6IhNdI Cross dressing question answered.

Available on CD now: https://www.amazon.com/Alma-Amulek-Charles-Dail-Nielson/dp/B084DGQ58M/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=alma+%26+amulek&qid=1581008833&sr=8-2 Or for MP3 purchase: https://www.amazon.com/Amulek-Complete-Musical-Concept-Recording/dp/B083GCRG4S/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=alma+%26+amulek&qid=1581008833&sr=8-1 Though it's free to listen to through Spotify and the like with ads, etc.

Thought some of you might find some interest in this. https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/charlesdailnielson/alma--amulek-the-complete-musical-concept-recording