Why is Faith the 1st principle?

[JudoMinja]

you have a valid point that faith is a motivator. With my original post, I was referring to the kind of faith that is placed in metaphysical, spiritual, religious beliefs. I think that scientific faith is really about trusting that the observations one can make and that have been made by others are consistent and verifiable. Religious faith says that you have to believe without evidence.

My other question then is, what happens when the evidence found by science contradicts the faith I've placed in Mormonism?

But to the first question, I realize that Mormonism tells me to have faith like a seed, plant it in my actions and see if it grows into knowledge.

So does faith supersede knowledge?

Alma chapter 32 verse 21 teaches that "—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Then a few verses later (verse 26) the author states that "Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge." From this it is clear that the Book of Mormon teaches that "faith" is not a perfect knowledge. Now what Alma doesn't discuss is what happens when the facts (what you can see) start to disagree with what you had faith in (what you can't see). So what happens when your knowledge supersedes your faith?

Further on in verse 34 it explains that, once your knowledge is perfect in a particular thing your faith is then dormant. In other words, once you know a thing, you no longer need faith in that thing because you now know it. So, the thing that was not seen, is now seen. Here clearly knowledge takes precedence over faith or if you like belief.

There are those that once had the faith that the Church was true, that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and so on, but then they study other information that they see as true facts and contrary to the claims of the LDS church concerning these things. That knowledge disagrees with the things they had only had faith or belief in. They believe the knowledge they acquired from science and other secular sources supersede their faith.

It almost seems as though the teachings in Alma condemns the Mormon faith based belief when superseded by facts, if the facts do indeed contradict the teachings.

Hence my original quandry.

Your quandry exists because your interpretation of how to go about acquiring knowledge, based on faith, is faulty. Finding contradictory information in the world is going to happen, but that contradictory information does not equal "a perfect knowledge". The thing is, nobody has a perfect knowledge. Those who put out information that contradicts the teachings of the church are working on their own faulty knowledge and assumptions, so you cannot just accept what you read from them as fact.

Scientists understand that all the information they gather is going to carry with it bias. They base the likelihood of that information being true, correct, and accurate on how well it stands up to other equally biased information, and everything is considered an approxamation of truth. Even those things we regard as facts, scientists assign only a "probable" truth that could potentially be proven wrong with further scientific discoveries. So when an amatuer scholar looks at scientifically based information and claims it to be fact which discounts their religious beliefs, they are not properly applying to principles of scientific inquiry. Science cannot, does not, and will not provide a "perfect knowledge" of anything.

Pefect knowledge is gained through the exercising of faith. This is why Alma compares the gaining of such knowledge to the planting and nurturing of seeds. Let us use a small and simple example. Is there a God? Science cannot tell us the answer to this question. There are many many pieces of information out there that could be used to support or contradict his existence, but all of it is faulty and incomplete. So, instead of gaining an "approximate knowledge" through science, reason, and comparative study- you can gain a "perfect knowledge" by exercising faith. Plant a seed of faith in God's existence in your heart, or even the opposite- plant a seed of faith in his lack of existence. Nurture that seed, and examine your results after you have given it enough time to grow and bear fruit.

The eventual result of having faith in God's existence is that He will eventually show Himself to you. Maybe while you still live, maybe not. There are few who had a strong enough faith to see Him before they died- but those few who did see Him then had a "perfect knowledge". If you've seen God, talked with Him, walked with Him... you don't need to have faith because you KNOW. And those who did see Him would not deny His existence for anything- even their own lives.

Faith begets growth, and this life is about growth. So it is more important for us to have faith than knowledge, while in this life- excepting those few who are called to testify of His existence. Once we KNOW something, our opportunity to learn and grow from exercising faith ceases. This is why God does not command in all things, why He does not reveal all things to us. He wants us to grow and learn.

Think of your schooling. Do you learn more from being told the answers, or from working to find the answers for yourself? Does a lesson stick with you better when someone walks you through it and makes it easy for you, or when you have to struggle and stumble and recover from your mistakes. Think about that. That is what faith is for. That is why faith in Christ is the first principle of the gospel. Because the gospel is designed to help us grow, to prepare us for what will be required of us when we do gain a perfect knowledge.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Scientists understand that all the information they gather is going to carry with it bias. They base the likelihood of that information being true, correct, and accurate on how well it stands up to other equally biased information, and everything is considered an approxamation of truth. Even those things we regard as facts, scientists assign only a "probable" truth that could potentially be proven wrong with further scientific discoveries. So when an amatuer scholar looks at scientifically based information and claims it to be fact which discounts their religious beliefs, they are not properly applying to principles of scientific inquiry. Science cannot, does not, and will not provide a "perfect knowledge" of anything.

Well said!

The scientist also doesn't have to repeat every scientific experiment done before them to prove to themselves that those findings are correct. The scientist would take it as "fact" even though the "facts" are based in some amount of trust and faith that the progenitor scientists provided "truths" that are correct.

This is a very basic concept in our gospel that individual knowledge is stagnant and would take us off the path for eternal progression. This is what was proposed by Lucifer, to do it on his own. To figure it out on his own and by his own effort so he can claim all the growth and glory from the growth that produced on his own. That doesn't work. We all have had that discussion before this life and realized it doesn't work. The system that works is when we can inherit knowledge. In the same way a scientist can look through a text book on scientific principles and inherit the knowledge of all the studies and information obtained before that person, based in faith that the textbook information is correct as she didn't prove it for herself and doesn't have to run through all the experiments found in the textbook. We are all here to show our worthiness to receive such an inheritance. An inheritance rooted in the fact that we don't have to recreate all knowledge, we can obtain it from those who have it already. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called "inheritance" and there would be no grace, just works and knowledge earned.

(Even though I have been trying to say this like 3 times now, I don't think he is getting this message. You said it well though so maybe now it will be understood this time.)

[cryophil]

LDS see it differently than most other Christians. The discussion does not apply to what we believe.

We believe that matter is co-eternal with God. So, there is a component that is separate from God's creations. God creates by organizing matter from chaos to order. With this separateness is independence, or free will. All matter can decide to what level it will allow itself to be organized by God. When Genesis shows that called called his creations "good", it is because they obeyed him, not because they were perfect (see the Book of Abraham for more on this).

I've heard this, but then, this is one of the arguments Christians use to say that Mormons aren't Christians because they believe in God as a part of the universe instead of outside of it, and as such, is really just an alien being that is far superior.

The confusion for me on this particular point is, if God created the universe, but resides in it, how can he have full understanding of what he is in? It regresses to infinity fast. Plus, is this the same universe that God resided in when he was a Savior? Like Christ did here? Or is it a new universe?

[cryophil]

The imperfections of this world were created by the Fall. For this reason we need deliverance. God's creation occurred in the Garden of Eden, so what "creation" is he referring to?

For a person to learn of how there is no beginning or end requires learning, spiritually, line upon line. If one doesn't have a testimony of the value of faith then I can see how they would want to jump right to having all the answers from the beginning and want to answer such questions.

But the universe is a fallen state, and in Abraham it says God resides on a planet near Kolob which is part of the universe because it gives light to our very sun.

Yes, I am confused by all of this. It seems the doctrine and scriptures don't match up easily.

[JudoMinja]

I've heard this, but then, this is one of the arguments Christians use to say that Mormons aren't Christians because they believe in God as a part of the universe instead of outside of it, and as such, is really just an alien being that is far superior.

The confusion for me on this particular point is, if God created the universe, but resides in it, how can he have full understanding of what he is in? It regresses to infinity fast. Plus, is this the same universe that God resided in when he was a Savior? Like Christ did here? Or is it a new universe?

Why can't it be both? He exists both within and without the universe.

[cryophil]

Religion and Science go hand-in-hand. Scientific discovery enhances your understanding of what Christ taught. A perfect example is the discovery of the dinosaurs. When man discovered pre-historic fossils, it did not make what we learned about the Creation in 7 days as wrong. It merely enhanced our understanding of what the Creation story in Genesis actually entailed. The faith is still solid on why Adam and Eve got put on Earth in the first place.

Science or Facts answer the How. Religion provides the Why. Together they build a more complete story.

But I find that science contradicts the claims often. For example, what about the DNA evidence showing no middle east influence in the population of ancient America?

I realize that these things do cause a change in how the Church interprets its own teachings and scripture. The interesting thing and key point: Placing my faith in LDS teaching as it stands at present stands a big chance of being wrong and having to adapt to scientific observation in the future. That's been the trend almost or for each time the two have come in conflict. The interpretation of the Church changes, not science to the church.

Which goes to my original point, Faith is not guiding me. Fact is pulling me away from the original teachings of Joseph Smith.

[cryophil]

My point is that even in things that you are calling scientific "facts" you haven't proven them all yourself and yet you believe in them. By definition, that is faith. Not just initiated with faith but you still have faith in them and you build upon that faith.

It is all a matter of what you have faith in, not that faith contradicts "facts". Your dichotomy is wrong.

In fact, I work in science, and I have verified many theories with observations. So have all of you. Quantum mechanics is verified at every keystroke on your computer. The devices that make up your processor could not have been built if that theory were not extremely accurate. Likewise, many medicines you receive in your life, including vaccinations and antibiotics rely on evolutionary theory and on DNA science to work. Each day we see with our own eyes verification of theories that once did or currently do have play in contradictions to teachings once held by the church.

As I've said, the quandry is that the Church migrates its teachings toward science, not the other way around. So my original question is, why wouldn't I just start with science?

Edited May 10, 2012 by cryophil

[cryophil]

(Even though I have been trying to say this like 3 times now, I don't think he is getting this message. You said it well though so maybe now it will be understood this time.)

I do get it. But I don't think you really get the difference between the kinds of faith we're discussing. Faith in religious metaphysical beliefs are not like faith in science at all. One (metaphysical) cannot by definition be observed through emiprical means. The other (scientific theory) can be observed and verified (and is usually daily through technology based on its principles).

There are significant differences between various kinds of what we call "faith." Most religions seem to equate what they are calling "faith" with something quite different. I'm suggesting here that it is important to distinguish between at least three kinds of "faith": 1) what all of us must use in our daily lives, and which might be more accurately called "unavoidable faith," "trust" or "justified reliance;" 2) "harmless (religious) faith," and 3) "dangerous, stupid faith" or "gullibility." The latter is the kind that people have when they lose money in financial scams and multi-level-marketing schemes.

Now going back...Where I have problems seems to be where the Church teachings have made claims which then are contradicted by science. I can then verify that the previous interpretation of the Church's teachings are not correct according to science, the latter of which I can personally verify in observation. When this occurs, I've noticed that the church and its professors (apologists?) offer explanations that concur with science findings at the expense of re-interpreting what past church leaders have said. The nuance and scrambled logic they must endure to fit some teachings with current science is frustrating me.

(I may be a her, btw)

Edited May 10, 2012 by cryophil

[cryophil]

Why can't it be both? He exists both within and without the universe.

That's an awesome concept. Is that what the Church teaches?

[cryophil]

I realize that all of my questioning here is not very faith promoting. It will likely get me banned. I don't mean to be contentious. I feel I have legitimate questions. My bishop and stake president have not been able to answer them. At least here, I find my own thoughts being challenged with more well communicated responses. Thanks everyone. It is helping me, at the very least, to sharpen my question and what I'm really struggling with.

[Guest]

Through experimentation and repeated success, I know that the teachings and principles of the Gospel work for me in my life. Is it that much different?

[JudoMinja]

As I've said, the quandry is that the Church migrates its teachings toward science, not the other way around. So my original question is, why wouldn't I just start with science?

Well, from what I've seen the Church does not migrate it's teachings toward science- apologetics do.

Apologetics explain and interpret things the Church teaches in relation to current scientific studies and discoveries. So, naturally, the stories we get from apologetics are going to continue to alter and flow alongside science. However, apologetics are not Church leaders, nor are their interpretations officially endorsed by the Church. So, they can be wrong.

The gospel doesn't migrate. It doesn't change. It is the same yesterday, today, and forever. But we don't have all of it. Never have. If you study the gospel from the old testament to now, you will see that there are periods where the gospel has been added upon, but not changed. The prophets are there to receive any further revelations that will add upon what we currently have, and we will eventually be privy to the entire gospel when Christ comes again to rule and reign.

Since neither science or the apologetics have the whole truth, you can pick and choose what to believe from both and seek to apply it to the gospel. It is good to have faith in current scientific discoveries that you have tested and "proven" for yourself- just remember that the possibility is always out there that such discoveries are wrong, even if only slightly. As Seminarysnoozer said- most new science requires building on old science and having faith in its truth. But, you can also go the other direction- if you do not have faith in those findings that have come before you, you can critically examine them and design experiments to prove them wrong and elicit a new discovery. Most of the biggest steps in science happened this way, and they happened because someone believed in something no-one else did and sought to prove it. When those leaps are made, everything that was built on the previous faulty assumptions is proven for naught.

Belief in the Savior is to believe in a foundation that will not be pulled out from under you. I would not give up on the gospel, until you have truly tested it properly- not in the half-way sense you seem to be doing it. However, I also strongly believe that people need to follow where their faith leads them- even if it leads them away from what I believe to be true. If you can come to understand how faith really works, really study the gospel and the basics and the foundation of the Church as it stands and not make assumptions about the teachings and interpretations of apologists, and you still lack faith... follow where your faith leads you. Whether or not that faith is misguided will eventually come to light.

[cryophil]

Through experimentation and repeated success, I know that the teachings and principles of the Gospel work for me in my life. Is it that much different?

It shouldn't be different, should it? And if external observables did not conflict with internal faith & knowledge, it would be essentially the same. However, external observables are conflicting with once were my faithful and very confident feelings/promptings of testimony. These conflicts have caused me to re-evaluate the basis of how I learn through faith, and through observation.

[JudoMinja]

That's an awesome concept. Is that what the Church teaches?

It is what I believe, based on my personal study of the gospel through the teachings of the Church, the scriptures, and science.

If you would like me to expound, I would be glad to start another thread on the topic since it strays from the main theme of this thread.

[JudoMinja]

Oh, and I don't think you'll get banned for your questions. You seem to be honestly, earnestly seeking for answers and input. Just don't link to anything "anti" .

[Guest]

But I find that science contradicts the claims often. For example, what about the DNA evidence showing no middle east influence in the population of ancient America?

I realize that these things do cause a change in how the Church interprets its own teachings and scripture. The interesting thing and key point: Placing my faith in LDS teaching as it stands at present stands a big chance of being wrong and having to adapt to scientific observation in the future. That's been the trend almost or for each time the two have come in conflict. The interpretation of the Church changes, not science to the church.

Which goes to my original point, Faith is not guiding me. Fact is pulling me away from the original teachings of Joseph Smith.

But see, you are placing your seeds of faith on the frills and basing your doubts on questionable "facts". TODAY... and I'm only speaking about what we know today... you can find evidence both for AND against the accuracy of the stories in the Book of Mormon. You can google it if you like.

As a scientist, you can take this evidence and that evidence and decide what to make of it. Now, if you don't have bearings (that is, a base hypotheses), you can take the whole lot of evidence and spin it to however you want to believe it to be. You can decide to throw out one evidence as lacking and take another evidence as closer to truth all to your own basic reasoning.

But, if you put yourself in the bedrock of faith, then you can guide yourself on which may lead you closer to truth. Because, cryophil, I can give you ONE VERSE... just ONE out of any scripture and I can interpret that verse 5 different ways or throw the entire lot as false... but only one direction is the truth. The challenge is to find that which is true. Just like I can sample DNA in one population, choose 1 out of 5 possible conclusions out of the experiment and find out 20 years later, oh wait, yeah, that DNA evidence test I did 20 years ago... well, it wasn't quite complete... I mean, you see it all the time - drinking fruit juice is good for you because they found this chemical that seemingly provides a benefit, 10 years later, drinking fruit juice is bad for you because they found that along with that chemical another one rides along with it that is very bad for you... another 10 years later, drinking fruit juice is good for you again because they found that those 2 chemicals combined provides net benefit... it will change again later when more knowledge is found... so that, who knows what really is good or bad for anybody these days!

So, if you only base your testimony on proven science, then you'll be like the leaf... flying this way and that... because you don't have any solid WHYs to make the experiment mean something so that you're always having to change every single time something new comes up.

When you're in a bedrock of faith, you know one thing doesn't change - There is a God, there is a Plan, and Jesus is the way. Anything you find in science can be bounced against that truth. Anything else you can't explain, take it up to the Holy Spirit.

Hey, it might be that what you find makes sense to you is not the Book of Mormon. That's okay. As long as you put your faith on something solid, earnestly and diligently and tirelessly search for truth in all honesty... you'll be fine.

Edited May 10, 2012 by anatess

[Finrock]

Interesting. What you seem to be saying/implying here is that faith is a means to protect us from being permanently damaged by our own rebellion against proof (signs of god).

Pretty much. Satan rebelled against God in the full light of day, so to speak. There was no "excuse" for his rebellion. We live by faith until we know and once we know, we no longer require faith. But, just because we know one thing doesn't mean that we know all things and we shouldn't give up on faith. We continue to exercise faith until the perfect day when we will know all things with a perfect knowledge. Until then, because of faith, we are allowed to make mistakes and then be forgiven for them through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Without faith, it is impossible for us to progress.

So, this is another reason why faith is the first principle. It is necessary for learning and for progression and this is true in all cases (whether the subject matter be science, grammer, math, biology, whatever.)

I've seen many members use faith to deny facts in science and history too, and they give a strong testimony that even if anti-mormon or negative claims about the church or about Joseph Smith are true, it won't shake their testimony. That's kind of doing the same thing from the opposite direction.

I don't understand this point. Meaning, I'm not sure I see how what you describe and what I describe are similar or related. Are you stating that the view on faith that I shared from Alma 32 can be disregarded based on what you've posted? Can you and will you please clarify?

I see from your other posts to other folks here that you've moved on from the original question and it is apparent that you have some other underlying concern with the gospel and the question on faith was just a starting point. I guess I'm curious to know if you've already come up with some conclusions and you are simply trying to validate them or are you sincerely lacking in knowledge and are seeking to know and understand something that you simply cannot understand ? Or perhaps some other reason(s)?

Regards,

Finrock

Edited May 11, 2012 by Finrock
Fixed quote function. Took out redundant statement.

[Seminarysnoozer]

(I may be a her, btw)

Guess I was letting "phil" in your name drive that assumption, sorry.

[Seminarysnoozer]

In fact, I work in science, and I have verified many theories with observations. So have all of you. Quantum mechanics is verified at every keystroke on your computer. The devices that make up your processor could not have been built if that theory were not extremely accurate. Likewise, many medicines you receive in your life, including vaccinations and antibiotics rely on evolutionary theory and on DNA science to work. Each day we see with our own eyes verification of theories that once did or currently do have play in contradictions to teachings once held by the church.

As I've said, the quandry is that the Church migrates its teachings toward science, not the other way around. So my original question is, why wouldn't I just start with science?

To use the word verify means that you believe they are true, you have "faith" that they are true until they become proven to you. My point is that the majority of your knowledge is based in the work of someone else. It is not your own. It therefore requires faith in those scientists that came before you. This directly answers your original question of why faith in Christ is the first principle. It is not the only principle, just one of the first ones to get us to the gate. After through the gate then faith in Christ, hope in Christ, charity (the love of Christ) and endure to the end (keeping Christ's commandments) combined take us the rest of the way.

I have an advanced degree in Neuroscience and have worked in science all my life, my husband is a physician, my father taught in a University and I don't see any clash between the gospel and science at all. To me they really aren't on the same spectrum anyways.

As I said before, if gathering information, as is done in scientific study was all that was needed to be like God, then we wouldn't need to come here and be tested. We had had all the scientific training before this life began. We lived many many years with God and had matured before coming here. What we learned before coming here beats out any bit of knowledge obtained by all the scientists put together over all the years in the past and into the future. The moment the veil is lifted we will all see how fallen we are in this state. There is no amount of secular learning that will pass what you have already learned in the past. What we are to learn is how to discern spiritual desires from carnal and how to choose the spiritual over carnal passions. That is the wisdom we didn't have the chance to learn prior to this life. Not the knowledge of quantum physics, or medical science etc. We have already long surpassed the elementary knowledge of those things we get here.

What do you think the purpose of this life is?

[Seminarysnoozer]

3) "dangerous, stupid faith" or "gullibility." The latter is the kind that people have when they lose money in financial scams and multi-level-marketing schemes.

If one spends their life searching the physical world mysteries to the expense of not listening to their heart and they start to obscure their right eye, harden their heart, become stiffnecked to the point of struggling with concepts such as the first principles of the gospel, therefore cannot hear the promptings of the light of Christ and choose pathways that lead to things other than happiness, what kind of faith do you call that?

... I will tell you, it is faith in man. There are only two ends of the spectrum, most of us are somewhere in between as we are not perfect or have perfect faith in Christ. That is either a person has faith in Christ or faith in the teachings of man, again we are all likely somewhere in the middle of this scale.

All truth, whether it is scientific truth or metaphysical truth (as you call it) is known to be true by the spirit. I will prove it to you. Think of the smartest scientist you have ever known. Now, think of that person with end stage Alzheimer's disease. How much truth has that person obtained now?

If one puts their faith in things that turn to dust, so will their knowledge turn to dust. Faith in the everlasting makes it everlasting.

[Martain]

Say you are in school and the teacher gives you a test yet never covered any of the material. Having never learned or been taught the material on the test, you fail it. Would it be fair if you were flunked or suspended from school for failing the test? No! Was your teacher able to see what you were really made of? Whether or not you would listen and pay attention? Whether or not you would study and do your homework? Whether or not you understood what was being taught? No.

If you really want to test what someone is made of, you first have to give them truth. You first have to give them knowledge.

You can not test someone to see if they will obey the speed limit without posting a sign stating what the speed limit is. Without the speed limit, I don't learn what someone is really made of, I simply learn that they feel going fast is fun. If a parent wants to learn if the child will obey, they tell the child not to eat the cookies out of the cookie before dinner because it will spoil their appetitie. If the parent says nothing, the only thing that is revealed is that the child likes cookies and that cookies taste good and that the cookie jar should be placed out of reach.

Say you came to earth to be tested yet God never told you about the test or any of the test material. Having never learned or been taught about his existence and his commandments you fail it. Then in the end you come before him and he says you've failed the test and will forever be cut off from Heaven and those you love. Would it be fair for you were punished in this way? No! Was God able to see what you were really made of? Whether or not you would listen and pay attention? Whether or not you would obey the commandments designed to lead you to happiness? No! He would simply confirm that Satan is very effective at enticing people to sin.

You can not test someone to see what they are really made of without first giving them the knoweldge by which to take the test.

The truth is that there are laws. Laws which require someone pay when they are broken. Eternal laws that can not be avoided. Keeping someone ignorant of God, the life hereafter, heaven/reward or hell/punishement doesn't show you what someone is made of... it isn't far more revealing at all, it does show you that the adversary is very persuasive.

Faith does not supercede knowledge. Faith precedes knoweldge. You can not obtain any knowledge without first exercising faith in something or someone.

I have the knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun. Yet I obtained it by faith. Have I seen the earth revolve around the sun? Tasted it? Touched it? Smelled it? Heard it? Have I with any of my physical senses confirmed that the earth revolves around the sun? No. I take it on faith. The majority of all the knowledge you possess is something you take on faith. All of the knowledge you possess was obtained through the exercising of faith.

Faith is wonderful! Faith is amazing! Faith is important! Faith is critical! Yet the end goal is to live by faith unto knowledge. Knoweldge can only be obtained through faith. As a child, I had faith that I could lead a mother donkey and her child through the gap in the fence back into their pasture and that the donkey wouldn't kick me. My faith was not based upon truth. Yet from this I gained the knowledge that being kicked by a donkey hurts.

Not all faith is based upon truth and not all seeds bring forth good fruit. Either the Book of Mormon is true or it is not. Either Joseph Smith was a true prophet or he was not. Which is the truth? Which are the good seeds and which are the bad seeds? If a man gives you two bags of seeds with one being full of good seeds and one of being full of weed seeds is it not foolish to mix the two together and try to grow them all at the same time? If you sow a bed of weeds, they'll grow up and choke out the life of the good seeds.

I had faith in the principal of planting a seed as spoken of by Alma. Faith in the test promised by Moroni. My faith was based upon truth. Using faith I've now gained knowledge. Do you want to know the truth? Do you want real knowledge? Do you want to know what I and many others know? If so I offer to send you a book that made all the difference when I was where you are now. It's yours if you want it, simply tell me where to send it.

I can now honestly and truthfully tell you cryophil that I know God lives. That I know Jesus Christ lives. That I know he is my Redeemer and Savior. That I know the Book of Mormon is true. That I know, these things and know many more as well. Could I always honestly and truthfully say that I "know" these things? No. I received this knowledge only by faith and obedience to the commandments of God.

The things I know bring me happiness and joy. They bring me peace and saftey. They grant me strength to endure things in my life that otherwise would overpower me unto death. I've lived without the knowledge I now have cryophil. I've lived without the Gift of the Holy Ghost. The difference between my life then and now is the difference between walking the world blind and deaf versus walking the world having sight and hearing.

If you're doubting, may I offer some advice? Please stop planting the seeds out of both bags. Only one of those bags can holds the good seeds. Plant from only one bag and make sure you don't plant the seeds from the other until you've tested that seed. How badly do you want to know? Enough to put forth faith to give it a real whole hearted attempt? I gave it a half hearted effort once but it wasn't until I gave it my whole heart to know that I finally obtained the knowledge I sought. Please stop looking to men for evidence for or against the Book's validity. Please stop looking at all the negative things people try to pass off as truth and factual. The Book of Mormon itself gives you the protocol by which you can test it so do that test.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Martain

[Avrham]

It seems that often we skip over assessing whether faith should be pre-eminent, and just accept it on, excuse the pun, faith.

But I have wondered why Heavenly Father, the Supreme Intelligence, would use Faith as a first principle, instead of study and fact.

It makes no sense that faith would be the way to test us. It makes more sense to me that facts and intelligence and knowledge of what actually is would be a better test. I believe that Omniscience and Intelligence requires rational thought and striving to find was is true from the principle of learning and knowledge rather than trusting and feeling truth.

___

ADD: I think a lot of people confused the idea of Faith with Hope. We all need hope to motivate us to act. I am not talking about that. I meant, faith as belief in that which is not evidenced nor will be in this life. That is, faith = trust when the facts are against supporting the concept or idea. As an example, the Book of Mormon makes several claims about a society in ancient America which are contradicted by several facts uncovered in the past hundred years. Having faith in the Book of Mormon is difficult for me because of these facts. I struggle.

interesting just found the problem there is no ''SENSE'' that we can know why faith in Christ is the 1st test because maybe we are trying too endevour too box God into what we think he should be and all we can really go by his dealings with us , I suppose trying too make ''sense'' of it all you will be doing your head in till the day you die .

Why would Avraham lead Isaac up a mountain too essentially execute him for God what was his faith made of can it be tangible so it can be duplicated I don't know but everyone I know who believe in God will have faith as a corner rock can it be duplicated probable not , faith is unique concept but is widely shared just like love we all both experiance it at some stage of life :):)

sorry for the rant

[PrinceofLight2000]

I'm going to give a rather simple answer to this question. The reason why it is first is because it is absolutely essential. If you don't have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, you CANNOT be saved from lack of eternal progression, or damnation, because you wouldn't be able to unbind yourself from your own sins without Christ's atonement to aid you. Furthermore, it is the most fundamental. The other three principles are followed and achieved as a result of and through faith in Christ. Think of it as the root of the tree from which the gospel grows in a person's heart.

EDIT: I seem to have mistakenly overlooked OP's allegation that reason is more valuable than faith in a spiritual context. Faith is the greater test because it opens the doorway to understand what transcends beyond our inhibited perceptibility and escape the natural inclination of the flesh, which in this case would be to only believe what can be directly physically observed. By our nature we are flawed and cannot understand the concepts Heavenly Father governs with (many, many people have tried to put their own ingenuity on par with God's and have been stricken down in their hubris, see the Tower of Babel), so much like Moses' transfiguration, we need some divine guidance to become aware of Him. That power has been given to us in the form of faith, which is defined by a witness of the Holy Spirit.

Edited May 13, 2012 by PrinceofLight2000

[Seminarysnoozer]

If you really want to test what someone is made of, you first have to give them truth. You first have to give them knowledge.

That truth was given in the pre-mortal life. Anyone who has passed the first estate has received the truth. That was the verbal part of the exam, this is the practical, but we still rely on that same knowledge base.

[CarstenNorgaard]

The following is pure speculation.

In my opinion, the reason faith is so important is because it brings a chance of failing into the equation of being tested in mortality.

The entire world would have to be redesigned to work differently for something else than faith to be the primary principle of the Gospel. That is my gut feeling. Everything is designed for faith.The world has been created to testify of God, but as you may have noticed science is still not quite sure if he's there.

Now, let's assume that faith was not the property we were to be tested on, but intelligence and reasoning. Everyone has an individual strength of intelligence. But if the test is going to be fair at all, it must mean that everyone must be able to distinguish that this-and-this is a fact about God. There can be no gray zones about certain facts, because we must have access to the material necessary to pass the test. If that was the case, two problematic types of lives would exist:

Those who would not have access to the truth would, because there is no faith in a different and better world beyond what is immediately observable, see their lives become a non-test. The purpose of their creation vanishes, at least if God's word about this life being a probation are to be trusted :)

Those who do have access to the truth (which all people should in order for such a plan to work) have a problem. The end goal of the plan is that everyone becomes like God. They are not yet like him, so they are not yet ready for the reality of what it is like to be him. But since it's not about faith and yet there is supposed to be a test, much information must be readily available. If they do not process it correctly, that must indicate that God created them in a way that couldn't meet the demands of the test anyway, and if they do process it correctly their inability to accept all of the available truth, which can easily be proven to be true in a world where reasoning becomes the primary thing to focus on, means that nobody gets to be where God is.

I also wondered about the Atonement. Its power is real. And the Holy Ghost, the power of which is also real. With these two things, people could easily test and see that something happens when you do this and this, and this. It would really take the test away from all of us.

Basically, I think it would be a non-test for so many reasons. Maybe an in-depth analysis could show more nuances? But that seems to be the most likely outcome. There are so many good reasons that faith is what works best as the first principle of this mortal trial. It helps bring focus back on spiritual matters, for one.

/end speculation