"Blind" faith

[erog84]

Sure. But your reinforced believe still would not be true.

 

Let me put it this way: Suppose you have such strong faith in Christ that you can perform a miracle, such as a healing of yourself or another. Can any amount of "faith" in Santa Claus produce any such effect? Of course not. Santa Claus does not exist, so such "faith" has no power. So it is not faith.

 

What about all those times that you have such strong faith, but the miracle doesn't happen?  What I am trying to say is, the effect isn't proof of faith, they aren't directly dependent (might not be the right wording) on each other.  Your action is proof of your faith, it is a direct effect of how much faith you have.  The outcome for lets say a Miracle MAY depend on how much faith you exert, but isn't always the case.  Your action in regards to faith in a specific something can still be wrong.  What I interpret Traveler getting at is gaining or validating that faith in Christ.

[Traveler]

What about all those times that you have such strong faith, but the miracle doesn't happen?  What I am trying to say is, the effect isn't proof of faith, they aren't directly dependent (might not be the right wording) on each other.  Your action is proof of your faith, it is a direct effect of how much faith you have.  The outcome for lets say a Miracle MAY depend on how much faith you exert, but isn't always the case.  Your action in regards to faith in a specific something can still be wrong.  What I interpret Traveler getting at is gaining or validating that faith in Christ.

 

Or dare I say - a placebo effect - where someone becomes to believe something so vividly that it is perceived as true by them.  Which bring up another idea - can doubt become an exercise of faith?

[The Folk Prophet]

can doubt become an exercise of faith?

 

According to Joseph Smith they cannot co-exist. Whereas there are some obvious semantic issues involved, I'd have to ask you to clarify.

[Anddenex]

What about all those times that you have such strong faith, but the miracle doesn't happen?  What I am trying to say is, the effect isn't proof of faith, they aren't directly dependent (might not be the right wording) on each other.  Your action is proof of your faith, it is a direct effect of how much faith you have.  The outcome for lets say a Miracle MAY depend on how much faith you exert, but isn't always the case.  Your action in regards to faith in a specific something can still be wrong.  What I interpret Traveler getting at is gaining or validating that faith in Christ.

 

We exercise faith in truth, not in what we want the truth to manifest or the outcome we desire.  To exercise proper faith is to exercise faith in its true outcome.  If we exercise faith to heal, and we discover the truth to be that God, in his infinite wisdom, doesn't want a person to be healed, then we change and exercise our faith in what is real.  In other words, our faith is then exercised through prayer to comfort those who may experience a great loss, or the truth that it is sometimes the truth that an individual will be received beyond the veil (no matter the age).  

 

We exercise our faith in what is true, otherwise our faith becomes vain or without power (as the Book of Mormon specifies when the Nephites sought to turn the hearts of the laments but it was vain).  We exercise faith in missionary work. We exercise faith in a person's agency.  

 

This is why I love Alma's words regarding faith not being a perfect knowledge, but is some form of knowledge that gives hope in the unseen which is true.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Anddenex

[spamlds]

I'm surprised that no one has chimed in with Joseph Smith's explanations from Lectures on Faith.  Here is a snippet:

 

9 From this we learn, that faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen; and the principle of action in all intelligent beings.

10 If men were duly to consider themselves, and turn their thoughts and reflections to the operations of their own minds, they would readily discover that it is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action, in them; that without it, both mind and body would be in a state of inactivity, and all their exertions would cease, both physical and mental.

 

Everyone exercises faith in something every day.  We set the alarm clock at night expecting that it will wake us in the morning.  We flip on the light switch when we get out of bed with the assurance that (so long as we have paid the electric bill and that there isn't a disruption of service) the light will come on.  We turn the key in the ignition in the car with the assurance that, barring mechanical problems, it will start.

 

Anyone who enrolls in college has the assurance that, if he meets the conditions for success, he will pass the classes and earn a degree.  Anyone who goes on a diet and successfully loses weight exercised faith.  A farmer plants a crop and expects that it will grow.

 

All of these things are actions based on faith.  Faith is a choice we make.  Everyone has faith in something.  Atheists have faith in science.  I read an article a couple of years ago from a NASA scientist who is sure (has faith) that we will contact extraterrestrials in the next 20 years.

 

That last one is really significant, because these scientist lobby Congress for billions of dollars every year in the hope (faith) that they will find extraterrestrial life if they have the right tools and look in the right places.  How is that different from a person who seeks God?  If he looks in the right way, ine right frame of mind, with real intent, he'll succeed.  Discouragement and trials may buffet him, but eventually he'll succeed.  The faith is manifest in the actions he takes to achieve it.

 

Faith appears when action is taken, whereas belief is only passive.  A person might think there are aliens out in the universe, but it takes great faith to ask a government to fork over billions of dollars worth of the citizens' labor to find them.  

 

In that light, faith can be misguided.  We can have faith and act in error.  We can place faith in something that is erroneous or false, but the fruits that result will not be correct.  Faith manifested in something that is true brings forth good fruit, positive results, and increased understanding--leading to greater faith to act.  

Edited October 19, 2015 by spamlds

[Traveler]

According to Joseph Smith they cannot co-exist. Whereas there are some obvious semantic issues involved, I'd have to ask you to clarify.

 

If we consider faith as something that exist when knowledge is lacking - what then is the motivation to experiment?  Perhaps you are correct about semantics - like differentiating doubt from uncertainty.   I am wondering about exploring the idea that because we do not know or doubt something - we investigate in hope of overcoming doubt.  Or perhaps there is the other option to consider - that the person that doubts success but presses on (with faith? or hope?) that they will be better off to continue despite their doubts. 

 

I have doubts that there is a resurrection but I still do temple work.  I would like to say I have unwavering faith and never doubt - but in all honesty I doubt many things.  Sometimes I doubt that I am good enough for the Celestial kingdom or even to be a saint in these last days.  I hope it is faith that pushes me on despite doubt.  Just because I have doubt - is it not faith that bring me to action in hops to overcome my doubts?  Certainly I am not sure I should conclude that not only do I have doubt but because I have doubt - to think my faith is not real and therefore there is no reason to experiment or try?  Maybe those with doubts have the greatest faith to continue.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Traveler

[Vort]

I'm surprised that no one has chimed in with Joseph Smith's explanations from Lectures on Faith.

 

E.g. http://lds.net/forums/topic/58058-blind-faith/?p=839456

[The Folk Prophet]

If we consider faith as something that exist when knowledge is lacking - what then is the motivation to experiment?  Perhaps you are correct about semantics - like differentiating doubt from uncertainty.   I am wondering about exploring the idea that because we do not know or doubt something - we investigate in hope of overcoming doubt.  Or perhaps there is the other option to consider - that the person that doubts success but presses on (with faith? or hope?) that they will be better off to continue despite their doubts. 

 

I have doubts that there is a resurrection but I still do temple work.  I would like to say I have unwavering faith and never doubt - but in all honesty I doubt many things.  Sometimes I doubt that I am good enough for the Celestial kingdom or even to be a saint in these last days.  I hope it is faith that pushes me on despite doubt.  Just because I have doubt - is it not faith that bring me to action in hops to overcome my doubts?  Certainly I am not sure I should conclude that not only do I have doubt but because I have doubt - to think my faith is not real and therefore there is no reason to experiment or try?  Maybe those with doubts have the greatest faith to continue.

 

Yeah...I'm going with semantics. Uncertainty is not doubt. But, admittedly, they can be termed the same thing. In the context of the gospel and what it means to doubt then no....doubt does not correspond to greater faith. But in the terms you are using doubt, sure.

[erog84]

We exercise faith in truth, not in what we want the truth to manifest or the outcome we desire.  To exercise proper faith is to exercise faith in its true outcome.  If we exercise faith to heal, and we discover the truth to be that God, in his infinite wisdom, doesn't want a person to be healed, then we change and exercise our faith in what is real.  In other words, our faith is then exercised through prayer to comfort those who may experience a great loss, or the truth that it is sometimes the truth that an individual will be received beyond the veil (no matter the age).  

 

We exercise our faith in what is true, otherwise our faith becomes vain or without power (as the Book of Mormon specifies when the Nephites sought to turn the hearts of the laments but it was vain).  We exercise faith in missionary work. We exercise faith in a person's agency.  

 

This is why I love Alma's words regarding faith not being a perfect knowledge, but is some form of knowledge that gives hope in the unseen which is true.

 

 

The first thing you said is what the overall discussion is about from my view, whether or not faith is inherantly only something true, or not.  But even in your own comments you say we "change", as in, our original faith in healing was wrong and so we move on to a more accurate action of faith, which is Gods will.  I completely agree with that, but that contradicts what your overall comments seem to indicate. (atleast what I interpret it as, but I could be reading your intentions wrong)

 

As Spamlds so well put it, " Everyone exercises faith in something every day.  We set the alarm clock at night expecting that it will wake us in the morning.  We flip on the light switch when we get out of bed with the assurance that (so long as we have paid the electric bill and that there isn't a disruption of service) the light will come on.  We turn the key in the ignition in the car with the assurance that, barring mechanical problems, it will start. "

 

When it comes to matter of faith in the Gospel, we do put faith in things that are not correct sometimes... and hopefully we learn from those over time to put our faith in what is true more often than not.

[Anddenex]

The first thing you said is what the overall discussion is about from my view, whether or not faith is inherantly only something true, or not.  But even in your own comments you say we "change", as in, our original faith in healing was wrong and so we move on to a more accurate action of faith, which is Gods will.  I completely agree with that, but that contradicts what your overall comments seem to indicate. (atleast what I interpret it as, but I could be reading your intentions wrong)

 

As Spamlds so well put it, " Everyone exercises faith in something every day.  We set the alarm clock at night expecting that it will wake us in the morning.  We flip on the light switch when we get out of bed with the assurance that (so long as we have paid the electric bill and that there isn't a disruption of service) the light will come on.  We turn the key in the ignition in the car with the assurance that, barring mechanical problems, it will start. "

 

When it comes to matter of faith in the Gospel, we do put faith in things that are not correct sometimes... and hopefully we learn from those over time to put our faith in what is true more often than not.

 

Contradict? Eh...not so much. What does it profit to put faith in something that is false?  Nothing.  What does it profit to place faith in a false God, when an invitation to exercise faith in the true God is given and rejected?  Nothing. 

 

Alma declares, "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."  There are three tenets defining faith:

 

1) Without a perfect knowledge, but implies there is some form of knowledge which causes us to act in faith

2) Hope in the unseen

3) The unseen is true

 

We haven't exercised true faith if our faith is exercised in something that is false.  To place faith in something that is not correct is damning, a halt to progression.  The scriptures refer to this as faith which is vain -- unprofitable.

 

No matter how much faith we put in a broken alarm clock, our faith isn't going to produce any result and it is vain, unprofitable.  We put faith in an alarm clock, as spamlds put "barring mechanical problems" that it will ring.  Our faith should always be exercised toward truth, when truth is revealed, or as specified in scripture we grow grace for grace, line upon line.  We exercise faith in order to learn true principles or to gain knowledge.  

 

In all the examples of faith, all the faith chapters (Book of Mormon and New Testament), what example do we have of someone who placed faith in something not true, and we considered them of great faith?  None.

 

Through faith Noah had dominion over the animals.  Through faith Moses parted the red sea, and whom had been previously told that he would have power over the sea.  Without a perfect knowledge, he exercised faith, and the sea parted.  The brother of Jared said unto the mountain be thou removed and it was removed.  By faith the brother of Jared not only saw the finger of God, but was given the privilege off seeing him face to face.  Through faith Abraham went and did as God commanded in sacrificing his son.  He, without a perfect knowledge, knew that God would deliver (even if that meant by raising his son from the dead), and he was delivered.  Through faith, the sons of Alma and Mosiah (with their friends) brought cities to the gospel light.

 

Through faith, we can hope with a "surety" in a better world -- something that is true.  Truth in action is what makes our faith profitable and powerful; however, if we want to get technical we can say according to scripture there are two types of faith.  Faith which is vain, or faith exercised in false principles and doctrine.  Faith which is profitable and powerful, or faith exercised in truth, and in accordance with scripture the only time faith is mentioned (faith chapters) is when faith is exercised in truth.  Never do we read, in scripture, "and the people exercised great faith in principles which were false."  In this case we read, "And satan got great hold of their hearts." Or, "the people began to be idolatrous, seeking after riches and the vain things of this world." 

Edited October 22, 2015 by Anddenex

[erog84]

I don't think anyone is arguing that putting faith in something not true is beneficial, maybe I am missing it but I haven't seen anyone make that claim.  You claim as part of a condition of faith is "3) The unseen is true", but then turn around and say "To place faith in something that is not correct is damning, a halt to progression.  The scriptures refer to this as faith which is vain -- unprofitable.".  So which is it?  Can you put faith in something false or not? 

 

In regards to the alarm clock, you really could take that a ways further.  Most people probably don't understand all that is going on at the atomic level, but there is laws of the universe that are used to get the alarm clock to behave the way it does.  We put faith in this object to do a certain task because we have faith that all things working as intended, the laws of the universe do not change.  I would say that is something that qualifies as truth, but it may not be truth that progresses us toward exaltation.

 

"however, if we want to get technical we can say according to scripture there are two types of faith", yes I do want to get technical :) .  This is my overall argument, that there IS two types of faith, as you said.  I don't disagree with most of what you are saying, but my contention is that we can put faith in things not of God/Truth.  It is very real, people do it every day under the guise that it is for God/Truth, and it doesn't hurt to question our faith in certain aspects of our lives.

 

Back to the original question.  The way I interpret Blind Faith is people who once having put their trust in someone/something, never question it afterwards.  For example, we put our trust in the Prophet/Apostles that they are telling us what God wants us to hear, and we should obey, no ifs ands or butts about it.  Personally I think there is nothing wrong with questioning things at time to gain your own confirmation.  If the Prophet said God wanted me to kill someone, in my opinion, blind faith would be doing it because the prophet said, instead of doing it because you got a spiritual confirmation that is what God wanted you to do.  I don't agree with questioning every possible thing, sometimes blind faith is part of the overall confirmation, but at certain times I think it can only help us.

[hames02]

I didn't say faith was not a gift. Maybe you should re-read my comment more carefully. You quoted it, so I'm not sure how you missed it. But I'll re-quote this sentence in full with no editing:

[The Folk Prophet]

Personally I think there is nothing wrong with questioning things at time to gain your own confirmation.

 

The question, I believe, at hand, is not whether there is something wrong with questioning something one already has faith in, but whether there is something wrong with not question it.

 

If the Prophet said God wanted me to kill someone, in my opinion, blind faith would be doing it because the prophet said, instead of doing it because you got a spiritual confirmation that is what God wanted you to do.

 

That's a pretty unlikely, extreme example though. I think the problem tends to lie more in the prophet's realistic (vs. crazy-go-kill-somebody) counsel that people, who supposedly have a testimony of the truth of the gospel and that the prophet was called of God, but are unwilling to follow without personal confirmation. Like say, for example, when President Hinkley recommended the removal of piercings for men and only 1 pair of earrings for women. Does anyone really need special confirmation from the Spirit on such a matter before "blindly" following? And moreover, per my question above, if everyone in the church did "lockstep" follow, could it really be deemed harmful?

[Anddenex]

I don't think anyone is arguing that putting faith in something not true is beneficial, maybe I am missing it but I haven't seen anyone make that claim.  You claim as part of a condition of faith is "3) The unseen is true", but then turn around and say "To place faith in something that is not correct is damning, a halt to progression.  The scriptures refer to this as faith which is vain -- unprofitable.".  So which is it?  Can you put faith in something false or not? 

 

I don't believe I am going to be able to clarify anymore than what I have, nonetheless, I will try.  The conditions of faith put forward were put forward by Alma: 1) An imperfect knowledge 2) Unseen 3) Unseen is true.  These are conditions given by Alma.

 

Faith, real faith, is exercised in accordance with these principles mentioned.  Faith also can have its counterfeit, or faith exercised in falsehoods.  This would be considered fake/false faith, much like counterfeit money.  Counterfeit money is real.  People can touch, people with a lack of knowledge will accept counterfeit money because it looks real enough; however, the end result -- unprofitable -- fools gold.  Is counterfeit money actually money?  No.  Counterfeit faith, faith exercised in things which are false, isn't faith, yet in wording we will still say someone exercised faith in a false God, similar to saying someone was given money which was fake.  

 

In regards to the alarm clock, you really could take that a ways further.  Most people probably don't understand all that is going on at the atomic level, but there is laws of the universe that are used to get the alarm clock to behave the way it does.  We put faith in this object to do a certain task because we have faith that all things working as intended, the laws of the universe do not change.  I would say that is something that qualifies as truth, but it may not be truth that progresses us toward exaltation.

 

Correct, faith doesn't solely need to be exercised in principles of progression which are true.  We exercise faith in both temporally and spiritual truths.  We exercise faith in gravity.  We exercise faith in our alarm clocks, assuming "all things working as intended."  All principles, doctrines, and laws (temporal or spiritual) which qualify as truth.

 

"however, if we want to get technical we can say according to scripture there are two types of faith", yes I do want to get technical  :) .  This is my overall argument, that there IS two types of faith, as you said.  I don't disagree with most of what you are saying, but my contention is that we can put faith in things not of God/Truth.  It is very real, people do it every day under the guise that it is for God/Truth, and it doesn't hurt to question our faith in certain aspects of our lives.

 

 

Questions are necessary for growth.  Without a question asked revelation cannot be received.  I would assume we would both agree, there is a difference is questioning for growth and learning, and questioning from a doubtful, lacking faith, heart?  In other words, asking questions to simply ask questions without any intent to learn, but to continue on ones current path.  Similar to Laman and Lemuel when they asked Nephi about their father's words, and yet, exercised no faith to learn for themselves.  They questioned to question.

 

As pertaining to being technical, yes; however, as previously mentioned one type of faith is counterfeit to the real exercise of faith.

 

Back to the original question.  The way I interpret Blind Faith is people who once having put their trust in someone/something, never question it afterwards.  For example, we put our trust in the Prophet/Apostles that they are telling us what God wants us to hear, and we should obey, no ifs ands or butts about it.  Personally I think there is nothing wrong with questioning things at time to gain your own confirmation.  If the Prophet said God wanted me to kill someone, in my opinion, blind faith would be doing it because the prophet said, instead of doing it because you got a spiritual confirmation that is what God wanted you to do.  I don't agree with questioning every possible thing, sometimes blind faith is part of the overall confirmation, but at certain times I think it can only help us.

 

 

Reiterating previous statement, without a question asked revelation cannot be received, and the manner of our questioning is really what is most important.

 

Questioning which results in disobedience, isn't good.  We have young men and young women (even adults) who question the importance of keeping the law of chastity.  As a result, they break the law of chastity ignorantly quoting Laman, "God has revealed no such thing to me" (paraphrased), or through their personal study they say like one member of the church said to me, "It is important that we become really good for our marriage partners and the only way is through practice before marriage."  So, questioning, is important; how we question and by what spirit we give ear to is even more important.

 

I assume, personally, I am not found of the connotation behind "blind" faith, or better said, I am not fond of how "blind" faith is presented in our modern era.   Faith incorporates "trust" and "trust" isn't necessarily blind.  When the children of Israel were commanded to wipe out a whole nation (i.e. men, women, children, and animals) I wonder how I might have responded.  With faith, or with doubt?  What if I questioned like Saul, and then did what I felt, and then I learned a hard concept which cost me much more "it is better to obey than to sacrifice."  What did Saul loose through questioning?

 

A conundrum of questioning is the statement given by Jesus, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine..."  In other words, we can question all we want, but until we do, at times, no witness will be given.  Said in another way, until after the trial of your faith -- no witness received.

 

Overall, questioning is good, and we are to question in order to seek revelation; however, many who question aren't really seeking an answer, but a reason to sacrifice rather than obey.

[hames02]

I feel like I've opened a can of worms here when I mentioned people who have blind faith. Of course, you couldn't read my mind, and so you had no idea who I was referring to. All you can do, then, is decide who YOU think I'm talking about and respond, negatively or positively.