why do you believe

[mountthepavement]

I'm not sure I can agree that Jesus never got angry. There is the story of Jesus approaching the moneychangers in the temple. He felt they were desecrating a holy place. He got angry then. It was a righteous anger.

But as far as every other action or deed or thought I would say he was perfect.

Could you explain what you mean by "see his perfection?"

I mean, can we view Jesus through scripture and compare his qualities to what we see today in ourselves and others in order to "measure" whether he is perfect (the idea being that we do not measure up and ergo he must be perfect by default) or do we simply know he is perfect because of the divine origin of scripture or both? Or is he simply the idea of perfection?

By what measure is he perfect? Or is it that we simply don't measure up? Following this, I will have to ask how we can strive for perfection.

[pam]

If you don't mind I would like to give you the link to an article. It is from one of our past Presidents and Prophets of the Church. I think it would answer a lot of those questions you just asked me.

LDS.org - Melchizedek Priesthood Chapter Detail - Striving for Perfection

[Gab84]

I still consider myself an Agnostic, but I'm experiencing things that are putting my current beliefs in question.

[mountthepavement]

I still consider myself an Agnostic, but I'm experiencing things that are putting my current beliefs in question.

hmm, like what things? i guess the OP wasn't directed to you, but maybe it is.

Thanks for your post!

[bmy-]

Well, that's really neat! What about the PRIMORDIAL stuff? I mean, where did all the stuff that constitutes the medium for godly evolution come from? Is this an unfair question, perhaps a trick? I hope not. Also, is god still evolving and improving himself in some way? Is god immortal? If natural selection can be understood as what occurs when genetic variation is coupled with competition for reproductive resources, and evolution is the change in genetic make-up in a population over time due to the failure of some members to reproduce (perhaps even the death of some), then how is this process experienced by the gods? Especially, I am interested in what the limited resources are among the gods that would give rise to competition. I hope that is an interesting topic.

Thanks a lot!

I like you.. you're fun. You should stick around.. we could use some people like you. I read ahead and saw another question you asked me.. if I would one day hope to have 'faith' instead of 'hope'. My answer is.. I would like to experience 'faith' and make a decision then. I'd rather know the truth and be miserable than know ignorance and be happy. moving on..

I consider it just regular evolution. Evolution can occur up to a point and completely stop.. much like it has for the most part with us humans. We are now 'culturally evolving' or so it would seem. There is little competition and little reason to evolve. Random mutations get swept under the rug.

A species does not have to reproduce. It's one of strongest biological urges.. but even then some people do not experience it. But yes.. God is improving much like we are (and every other living organism).

I hope that helps. If parts are not clear let me know and i'll re-work it. My brain is fried from working in the sun today.. but i'll do my best.

[Justice]

Hi!

That is indeed very brief. Of course, what I am asking is, briefly, how did you come to accept that it is (true) scripture (versus what you perhaps might call untrue, such as the Vedas or something.)

Thanks!

The promise in the Book of Mormon is that if you read it with a desire to know if it's true, and pray in the name of Christ with an honest desire to know it's true, the Spirit will manifest the truth of it you.

I have studied it and prayed to know if it is true. I know it is. The feelings are undeniable.

[mountthepavement]

I like you.. you're fun. You should stick around.. we could use some people like you. I read ahead and saw another question you asked me.. if I would one day hope to have 'faith' instead of 'hope'. My answer is.. I would like to experience 'faith' and make a decision then. I'd rather know the truth and be miserable than know ignorance and be happy. moving on..

I consider it just regular evolution. Evolution can occur up to a point and completely stop.. much like it has for the most part with us humans. We are now 'culturally evolving' or so it would seem. There is little competition and little reason to evolve. Random mutations get swept under the rug.

A species does not have to reproduce. It's one of strongest biological urges.. but even then some people do not experience it. But yes.. God is improving much like we are (and every other living organism).

I hope that helps. If parts are not clear let me know and i'll re-work it. My brain is fried from working in the sun today.. but i'll do my best.

Thanks a lot for the welcome! I feel welcomed. I guess for us to come to an understanding I would suggest that you are understanding evolution in a kind of metaphorical sense or general sense of the word, while I am trying to apply the principles as I see them that occur in biological evolution specifically!?

I liked what you said about preferring to know the truth and be miserable. That sounds rather Christian to me.

To continue the discussion about evolution, it seems to me that evolution via natural selection can only occur if change in the genetic make-up of a population is possible, i.e.: through death and reproduction of individuals that have genetically-based traits that interact in differing ways (conferring reproductive, number0-increasing advantage) or not. It would be interesting to consider how this might happen for gods.

Y'know, you could set up evolution by natural selection among, say, self-generating softwares that perhaps compete for and are selected for based on their ability to glean some particular resource, say bandwidth... such would probably be way too simple a system though. What kind of things could gods compete for? This is definitely a fun topic.

As regards faith, I hope one day you have something to say about faith! Why should an entire human word and concept be held opaque and useless to you? :) It must have some utility for describing something!

Here's half a thought: Hope is in something removed in time, of course. Faith is often said to be IN something, but sometimes they drop the "in" and it is just faith. What is the difference?

Often a good way to figure out a word also is to find its opposite. Does faith have an opposite? An obvious candidate is doubt. But is this concept the opposite of the word faith in all its usages if it has more than one? Does doubt/faith simply make religion into casting bets on the metaphysical, saying, yeah i'll put 50 on faith in Yahweh, or somebody else comes along and says, nah gimme 30 against Yah, 10 on self-determination, and 10 on the scientists.

Hope this is still fun. It is for me. :)

[mountthepavement]

The promise in the Book of Mormon is that if you read it with a desire to know if it's true, and pray in the name of Christ with an honest desire to know it's true, the Spirit will manifest the truth of it you.

I have studied it and prayed to know if it is true. I know it is. The feelings are undeniable.

Sorry to be a trickster, but I have noticed you used the word "feelings." Would you let that word be the briefest characterization of your criteria? I am becoming familiar with the process you describe though, not for myself, but I have heard others say something similar here.

Do you like analogies? Sometimes I don't, but here's one:

Your banker convinces you that having a savings account will be a good thing. You give him $25, get nothing in return at first, but then slowly it will begin to pay off. Parting with $25 might be difficult at first (it is hardest to take that very first step and fill out all that silly paperwork) but then you find, indeed, you seem to have even more money to your name, $25.01, $25.03, etc. You do the math and you are pleased to see that your returns are actually accelerating! Isn't that like the truth (do you say "the kingdom of god?") growing inside you? It builds on itself, and happiness or surety or truth begets more truth and so on.

However, there is always a problem with analogies if you overthink them, no? What if one day you go to withdraw the money -- not to terminate this lovely relationship which pays off so well, but only to look at it and consider it a moment (this could be a metaphor for reflection and self-examination). Indeed, it may be that the legal tender is rock hard and seems utterly secure. However, this is only an analogy, so we can consider the situation in which, no, your banker explains, due to the nature of the system and following a run on the bank, your ones and zeroes have all flown off. It may turn out you never had that money at all, and it was only on paper (or in the currency of oxytocin, perhaps.) This is valid as far as the analogy goes, but is it true? Nay, I don't say whether, but you can tell me.

Thanks Justice!

[mountthepavement]

If you don't mind I would like to give you the link to an article. It is from one of our past Presidents and Prophets of the Church. I think it would answer a lot of those questions you just asked me.

LDS.org - Melchizedek Priesthood Chapter Detail - Striving for Perfection

Thanks for a link.

It is true you can ask a text questions (which is what you sent me.) I guess it's not the same as asking people questions though. Can you direct to a particular quote so we can discuss it? I haven't read it thoroughly, and I am not motivated to yet, since I am in truth motivated to ask you questions as a particular believer rather than just get info for myself. I don't know what to do with all the info! Perhaps I ought to read it more thoroughly though, as you wish.

[skalenfehl]

I used to have faith in the testimonies and experiences of my mother and other members. It wasn't until I began to study and seek the Lord and experiment in the Word that I began to find the signs. I've had those "feelings" as well and I still do. I recognize the whisperings of the Holy Ghost.

I used to believe but now I know. There is a distinct difference. Belief, in my opinion, is having faith and trusting that something is true or that someone is telling you the truth. Knowing is when you have witnessed with your own eyes the miracles, the signs and the proof that God promises when you seek Him. When I stand to be judged by Christ, I will not know any more then than I know now that He lives.

[Justice]

Feelings is exactly right. God does not work in man's ways. I have come to know that the Holy Ghost works in us by power and feeling. Peace is a feeling we can feel no other way. We can get into an elaborate discussion if you like, but you'll need to make a new thread.

[mountthepavement]

Feelings is exactly right. God does not work in man's ways. I have come to know that the Holy Ghost works in us by power and feeling. Peace is a feeling we can feel no other way. We can get into an elaborate discussion if you like, but you'll need to make a new thread.

Thank you, and I'll consider your suggestion.

[Misshalfway]

Okay, then faith is the process of nourishing the promise made by god through scripture (JS) by believing it and then proceeding to see what comes of this belief, if only experimentally and tentatively. And that this tentative process will perhaps grow in confidence? So, what it is, I see, is doing what the scriptures say, no, hoping sincerely that they are the path to truth, righteousness, etc.?

Is it possible that all of this is not true and that the positive spiritual feedback you experience is certainly a real process, but, reflectively, the propositions of your faith, such as JS spoke with an angel of god, are not true? This, of course, would be a seed of doubt parallel to the seed of faith described above. I do not mean to tempt you away from your faith; I just want clarification on how it is to be LDS.

Dostoevsky said something to the effect that he didn't care if Christ was a lie, that one ought to believe it anyway. Sorry for the paraphrase. Would you agree with this?

First of all, it would take a lot more than a simple question from you to shake my faith. Set your worries to rest. This is a good conversation.

Now, the story of Joseph Smith....the mission of Jesus Christ...the countless spiritual experiences of many individuals who "say" they feel the Holy Ghost...... (I could keep going).....It all might be false and it all may be true. How is a person to really know? We could intellectualize it all day. Use the latest technology to discover if someone is lying. You get my drift. OR one can go and find out if these claims are true by following the path of truth. If it isn't true, one can know either way. I think that is why I thanked Skal's post. There is a distinct difference between believing and knowing and there is a refiners fire that comes in the process of traveling from one place to the other. This kind of knowledge....it changes you. It kinda becomes part of who you are. It isn't easily lost, if you know what I mean.

And would I agree that believing couldn't hurt....even if it all turns out to be false? Yes maybe. I don't suppose applying oneself to any good effort is an erroneous thing. But I think that such a position is a weak one. I don't follow the LDS faith on such shaky ground. I want more than that. I need more than that. My devotion and my relationship to God requires more of me than that. I would guess that in some ways that position could even be seen as a cop out.

[pam]

Thanks for a link.

It is true you can ask a text questions (which is what you sent me.) I guess it's not the same as asking people questions though. Can you direct to a particular quote so we can discuss it? I haven't read it thoroughly, and I am not motivated to yet, since I am in truth motivated to ask you questions as a particular believer rather than just get info for myself. I don't know what to do with all the info! Perhaps I ought to read it more thoroughly though, as you wish.

Following this, I will have to ask how we can strive for perfection

The reason I referred you to this link it that it gives several examples and ways one might strive for perfection. It explains it much better than I ever could.

[pam]

Your banker convinces you that having a savings account will be a good thing. You give him $25, get nothing in return at first, but then slowly it will begin to pay off. Parting with $25 might be difficult at first (it is hardest to take that very first step and fill out all that silly paperwork) but then you find, indeed, you seem to have even more money to your name, $25.01, $25.03, etc. You do the math and you are pleased to see that your returns are actually accelerating! Isn't that like the truth (do you say "the kingdom of god?") growing inside you? It builds on itself, and happiness or surety or truth begets more truth and so on.

Line upon line, precept upon precept. Each little piece of knowledge helps us to build upon and gain our testimonies of what we believe. Kind of like the little bit of interest earned on that $25.

[bmy-]

To continue the discussion about evolution, it seems to me that evolution via natural selection can only occur if change in the genetic make-up of a population is possible, i.e.: through death and reproduction of individuals that have genetically-based traits that interact in differing ways (conferring reproductive, number0-increasing advantage) or not. It would be interesting to consider how this might happen for gods.

Going along with this.. I would have to say that yes, change in the genotypes was possible.. the interesting part is the what and the how. As you mentioned.. what did they compete over? Was the population big enough to not be a bottle neck? Did they co-evolve with another race or did they hunt any other races to extinction?

Let's say.. ~6.5 billion years ago abiogenesis happened on the outer edge of the galaxy we call Andromeda. We had these complex polymers that eventually turned into the first simple bacteria. These bacteria competed, reproduced, mutated, and evolved over the course of a few billion years and eventually we had tiny aquatic animals swimming around. Fast forward a 300 million years later and there's a type-II civilization capable of intergalactic flight. Here is the great prezygote barrier that lead to what we call 'Godhood'.. they set out colonizing the uninhabited planets in different galaxies and effectively systematically spreading the seeds of life throughout the galaxy. They even terraform these planets (creation?), make the environment as hospitable to life as possible, they fly off at (or close to) lightspeed and return much later (or so it seems from the vantage point of the planet) and they then place their offspring on this planet.

Y'know, you could set up evolution by natural selection among, say, self-generating softwares that perhaps compete for and are selected for based on their ability to glean some particular resource, say bandwidth... such would probably be way too simple a system though. What kind of things could gods compete for? This is definitely a fun topic.

The same things we competed for in our more primitive years.. resources. Or what us LDS people would consider 'glory'. This is an excellent topic and I really do thank you for showing me an idea I hadn't thought much about. I think it's necessary to say that I do not believe the Gods were always Gods. Perhaps they too share a common ancestor with a mammalian quadruped

As regards faith, I hope one day you have something to say about faith! Why should an entire human word and concept be held opaque and useless to you? :) It must have some utility for describing something!

Me too. As I said.. I would like to experience it.. I would. I'm just not certain one can increase their ability to have faith.

Here's half a thought: Hope is in something removed in time, of course. Faith is often said to be IN something, but sometimes they drop the "in" and it is just faith. What is the difference?

I think it is just slang for 'faith in'.

Often a good way to figure out a word also is to find its opposite. Does faith have an opposite? An obvious candidate is doubt. But is this concept the opposite of the word faith in all its usages if it has more than one? Does doubt/faith simply make religion into casting bets on the metaphysical, saying, yeah i'll put 50 on faith in Yahweh, or somebody else comes along and says, nah gimme 30 against Yah, 10 on self-determination, and 10 on the scientists.

Can faith and doubt co-exist? If it can.. can one have a 'level of faith' like it speaks of in the Bible? Faith the size of a mustard seed.. it seems to me that the way 'faith' is commonly used is not compatible with doubt at all.

Pascal's Wager..

Hope this is still fun. It is for me. :)

The more the better. Here are a few links you might enjoy.. you seem to enjoy biology quite a bit.. and that's refreshing. Some of these are outdated i'm sure.. but they're all worth a read.

Artificial molecule evolves in the lab - life - 08 January 2009 - New Scientist

Newsflash: Time May Not Exist | Einstein | DISCOVER Magazine

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080407/sc_livescience/bizarrefroghasnolungs

[mountthepavement]

There is a distinct difference between believing and knowing

I seem to recall I have seen this in other LDS contexts or said similarly by others. Can you begin an explanation of the distinction?

If you like, you could make reference to different types of knowledge that can be described by the terms sapere (to know facts) and connaitre (to know a person, to make the aquaintance of). Is knowing the truth more like sapare or connaitre?

Also, it is interesting (or not) to note that it seems sensible to compare the concepts belief and knowledge. Both may take propositions as their objects. For instance, in this context, we could say, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead or I know Jesus rose from the dead.

Consider belief in such: One might be tempted to stake some wager on one's beliefs. Can one know whether such is true? Is it beyond all doubt? Of course not. But can one know despite the possibility of doubt? Or is there possibility of doubt of any proposition? Maybe. Who cares about such intellectualism, right?

Are belief and knowing perhaps synonyms for one another and one is merely being overly INTELLECTUAL by pointing out a distinction between the two? Was JS being clever when he (did he?) brought up this discussion? Or was he perhaps simply calling attention to the possibility of INSINCERITY of belief, and he found that this weak form of belief could be contrasted with a stronger form, which he designated with the word knowledge.

Reread that last paragraph if you like since it was not connected with anything above, or just respond if you prefer.

:)

Thanks!

Edited June 9, 2009 by mountthepavement

[mountthepavement]

The reason I referred you to this link it that it gives several examples and ways one might strive for perfection. It explains it much better than I ever could.

Again, I may look more at that, but it is different to me from asking questions to people, which is what the fora are all about to me. (Not just "learning" per se.) I am interested in how people reflect on their faith. Reading the document you provided to me would get me thinking about Harold whats-his-name or... I could check back for that... but he is removed from me, and I would prefer not to speculate too much about him, when I could spend my time thinking about a more immediate voice.

Would you agree or disagree with the notion that "degrees of perfection" is an oxymoron?

Also, what is the criteria for perfection? What is the standard by which we measure (ans, I know: Jesus) But then how do we know Jesus is the standard? How do we know he was perfect and not hypothetically better than any of us by, say, referendum, or by the fact that we have mythologized him that way. How would a person even go about mythologizing perfection? Would that be possible?

Edited June 9, 2009 by mountthepavement

[mountthepavement]

Line upon line, precept upon precept. Each little piece of knowledge helps us to build upon and gain our testimonies of what we believe. Kind of like the little bit of interest earned on that $25.

This may illustrate the limitation or the imperfection of analogies, but notice that the savings account is built on the promise or assumption that the $25 is available to us at any time (perhaps given a short waiting period.) However, this may not be the case, in the event of a collapse of the industry. Now, is it possible that the kernel of peace and truth from which we have been told springs the tree of life (trying diligently not to mix metaphors up to a point) at the end of time does indeed grow and build upon itself in a visible way, but actually has at its core a less than absolute guarantee. Can we conclude by its growth and progress alone that it is indeed what we view it as, as in the case of our viewing money in the bank as money in our pocket (a little unwisely, as we perhaps have learned recently.)

Stuff like that.

Is it possible?

This is called a seed of doubt, which of course we ought to be wary against. Maybe.

Edited June 9, 2009 by mountthepavement

[mountthepavement]

Me too. As I said.. I would like to experience it.. I would. I'm just not certain one can increase their ability to have faith.

Perhaps we are all (everyone) equal in that respect, then.

...

Also,

Do the gods interact with humanity spiritually or materially? From afar, or was Jesus an ambassador, a physical guest? Perhaps he was engineered to appear and in fact be human yet know of his godly origins? If they interact with humanity spiritually, how is that accomplished?

Thanks for the links though, and your reply!

What is the difference between a god, a human, a sentient creature, and any-old life-form? Is it qualitative or quantitative?

Edited June 9, 2009 by mountthepavement

[mountthepavement]

Now, the story of Joseph Smith....the mission of Jesus Christ...the countless spiritual experiences of many individuals who "say" they feel the Holy Ghost...... (I could keep going).....It all might be false and it all may be true. How is a person to really know?

Yes, that's what I meant. So, is there "reasonable" or "a shadow of a" doubt in the process by which you have come to conclude that the appropriate word to describe the set of propositions and perhaps nonlinguistic images and feelings that comprise your faith as knowledge? Then is knowledge the right word? Or is it beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond all but the empty, endless doubts of the sophistical philosopher, which, in their being endless, would result in a life considered but unlived and in fact completely and thoroughly avoided through procrastination? Or maybe this too is false?

One more simple though perhaps unclear and quite possibly tangential question: Can you use quantitative comparisons when dealing with something qualitative? In this context: is feeling a little that something is utterly true and feeling utterly that something is utterly true any different? Or, consider, would it make a difference to the truth of something if 6.49 billion people knew it to be true or if only one? Would it be more convincing if a small number, say a growing minority believed it to be true? If all these people benefited from their belief, could we then say that it must be true, because of good fruits it bore, or might we apply the reasoning of a criminal trial and point out that we have found a motive for untruth?

Perhaps I will get off this abject doubt tack in a moment though.

Edited June 9, 2009 by mountthepavement

[mountthepavement]

Originally Posted by pam

Each testimony has to be a personal testament to themself of their own thoughts and beliefs.

Perhaps I should have paid closer attention to this above.

...

Would you characterize this as a form of internal reflection? Is it similar or dissimilar to the experience of reflecting on other aspects of your identity?

Thanks!! :)

Can I return to this! I am really interested in this question: How is the personal testimony of your faith within you different from when you reflect on other aspects of your identity? Is it simply that ALL other aspects of your identity are not subject to the type of change characterized by constant reinforcement rather than "horizontal" or qualitative types of change?

[mountthepavement]

To everyone:

Is faith or knowledge to be valued more? I hope I am being sufficiently vague as to not guide canned you all into canned responses.

[mountthepavement]

And I think it would be easy to dismiss as hormones or even some prideful delusion if one wasn't able to discern. I think that is why the testing for me has made the difference because it has taught a little of how to discern.

(Rereading)

What does discern mean in this context?

[mountthepavement]

Well, we were just talking about this on another thread. Faith is a fundamental to the gaining of spiritual knowledge. You don't get one without the other. We learn by study (I mean the best books, latest research, scriptures, words of prophets, etc) AND by faith. Faith is a principle of action and power -- not just belief. Faith is the force that gets a diver to dive or a fisherman to fish and one that helps them obey the rules of diving or fishing. They obey the rules and believe and then the catch the fish. It is a process of walking into the dark in obedience BEFORE the light comes, but believing that the light will most surely come.

Spiritual knowledge is different than other kinds of knowledge. I mean, I can go to the library and become an expert on gardening or poetry or something scientific, but that sort of aquisition doesn't require much of me other than maybe my time and perhaps tuition fees.

Spiritual knowledge is different in that obtaining it requires some sacrifices of us first before it is given. It is kind of like a contractual relationship -- the blessing comes when certain conditions are met within the heart of the individual and one of those things is the exercising of faith. One must .....(prepare yourself, it is a yucky word).....change first. :) We kinda have to take spiritual risks ..... or become vulnerable. And its faith that drives that effort because it assures us that as we leave the known, that somehow we will find our way to a new place of safety. And that is kinda how faith brings knowledge. We step into the dark of what don't know.....armed with our study and faith....and then God illuminates the way ahead of us and teaches us the new and the old and sometimes even stuff that is unknown to the rest of the world.

I am thinking more about how faith and knowledge are connected. I see you have already discussed this.

So, do I have this right?: We recognize LDS as an hypothesis or claim among many. We test this hypothesis through a suspension of disbelief (is this faith yet?), and we receive a confirmation in the form of a warm to burning sensation :) and sense of peace and truth. The association of this unique experience is then sufficient to tag our heretofore hypothesis as knowledge.

I may have simplified it, but do I have the gist?

So, is faith the same as willful "suspension of disbelief"? I think I am unable to predict your answer to this question.