What Causes Loss of Testimony?

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

So, to you, there isn't false faith, or faith in false things? Didn't people at one point have faith that the earth is flat and that the earth was the center of the universe? 

What about faith in things that are "true" only to a certain extent or in certain respects? Can people have faith in the arm of flesh? Can they have faith in Newtonian physics?

More to the point, doesn't much of the New Testament address the challenge of transitioning people who had firm faith in the old law to developing faith in the new law? If their faith was firm in what had been "true" for hundreds of years, might that not prevent them from having faith in what Christ was then telling them was true, and thereby loss faith in Christ?  

What I am getting at is cautioning against faith becoming so firm (dogmatic) that it prevents further growth in faith, and may even result in a loss of faith. For example, several decades ago not a few members had seemingly unwavering faith in God and church leaders, but their faith was either shaken or shattered upon learning that church leaders may have been fooled by the Mark Hoffman forgeries and that God had not revealed the ruse beforehand. Their faith in the principle of modern revelation and relative infallibility of General Authorities (i.e. they would never lead the church astray) was so firm or rigid as to not allow the wisdom of God in allowing leaders to be fooled.

Agreed. However, as intimated above, it can also occur with perspectives that are based in truth. The perceived tension between science and religion being a case in point. Members with a compelling and solid perspective on evolution have lost faith in the creation narrative, and eventually lost faith in the church and God. The same is true for members who had a firm perspective of geology and the creation/flood narratives, and because the two sets couldn't be reconciled in their minds, faith in one of the two was shaken or lost--oft in favor of geology--causing a loss of proper perspective. 

Again, I am cautioning against dogmatism./creedalism. I will attempt to convey this graphically in the next several posts.

Exactly.

Once again I am cautioning against dogmatism. Often quick and easy answers fool the receiver into believing that such answers are all there is, and nothing more is to be said or understood on the matter. For example, people who have queried about the nature of God may be given the quick and easy answer that "God is spirit" (Jn 4:24),  While this is true, if they hold dogmatically to that notion, they may not be willing to explore the truth that God has a body, and likely will ardently resist the notion, and fail to grasp that both can be compatibly true.

Solid faith and perspective derived from the easy answer that God is spirit, may cause a loss of faith and proper perspective and further understanding of God's nature as a Man.

This all attempts to examine how good and decent people, who are active in the gospel, and firm in the faith, can end up losing faith in the way they firmly hold to the faith.  

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I will write later when I have more time to clarify, but will address the first sentence. There is "true" faith and their is "counterfeit" faith.

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

Agreed. However, as intimated above, it can also occur with perspectives that are based in truth. The perceived tension between science and religion being a case in point. Members with a compelling and solid perspective on evolution have lost faith in the creation narrative, and eventually lost faith in the church and God. The same is true for members who had a firm perspective of geology and the creation/flood narratives, and because the two sets couldn't be reconciled in their minds, faith in one of the two was shaken or lost--oft in favor of geology--causing a loss of proper perspective. 

Again, I am cautioning against dogmatism./creedalism. I will attempt to convey this graphically in the next several posts.

Consider the photo below as a metaphor for secular/scientific world views: What they observe is generally true and beautiful, though all they tend to see is the earth and the things of the earth. Even the religious path in the middle of the picture may be viewed as merely earthy--i.e a product of removing or trampling down or ignoring that which grows from the earth--i.e. religion may ignore or defy science. This is because the secular world view, and the tools it use to view the world, are only capable of observing earthly things, And, while a secular world view is of great value, secular dogmatism can prevent people from considering anything but the flowers and ground, etc.. It allows them to look every which way but towards the heavens. .

Now, let the image below represent a religious perspective. Pretty much everything religionists see is beautiful and true. Because they live in the world, and yet they can look up and communicate with God, they observe both earth and heaven, though they may see them as separate and distinct from each other--neither the twain shall meet. 

However, if they are dogmatic in their religious beliefs, they may be prevented from looking this way or that, and might fail to understand how the earth and man may join with the heavens by following the path that leads to the tree of life

Secular and religious perspectives may be true, but if they are held too firmly/narrowly (dogmatically), will cause a loss of proper or more full perspective and a loss of proper or more full faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 14, 2017 by wenglund
Clarity

[Anddenex]

10 hours ago, wenglund said:

So, to you, there isn't false faith, or faith in false things? Didn't people at one point have faith that the earth is flat and that the earth was the center of the universe? 

What about faith in things that are "true" only to a certain extent or in certain respects? Can people have faith in the arm of flesh? Can they have faith in Newtonian physics?

More to the point, doesn't much of the New Testament address the challenge of transitioning people who had firm faith in the old law to developing faith in the new law? If their faith was firm in what had been "true" for hundreds of years, might that not prevent them from having faith in what Christ was then telling them was true, and thereby loss faith in Christ?  

What I am getting at is cautioning against faith becoming so firm (dogmatic) that it prevents further growth in faith, and may even result in a loss of faith. For example, several decades ago not a few members had seemingly unwavering faith in God and church leaders, but their faith was either shaken or shattered upon learning that church leaders may have been fooled by the Mark Hoffman forgeries and that God had not revealed the ruse beforehand. Their faith in the principle of modern revelation and relative infallibility of General Authorities (i.e. they would never lead the church astray) was so firm or rigid as to not allow the wisdom of God in allowing leaders to be fooled.

There is "counterfeit" faith (or false faith) and there is "true" faith which rests upon true principles and always leads to growth. Alma describes three principles of faith: 1) Faith is not a perfect knowledge (which implies it is based on some form of knowledge although not perfect) 2) Faith requires hope 3) Faith is based in that which is true. People exercised "counterfeit" faith in the earth being flat (it wasn't true). This had the appearance of faith, but wasn't faith (similar to counterfeit money -- no value).

The principle of faith must be exercised in truth. If faith is exercised in anything but truth, then it is counterfeit. Once we discover what is "true" then we need to exercise faith in the truth discovered. The concept of "only to a certain extent" appears to coincide with the definition of faith as "not a perfect knowledge." If we had a perfect knowledge then we would not need to worry about having faith.

As pertaining to the last paragraph we appear to agree; however, as to my understanding of "true" faith, and those exercising such would never be lead astray. That is the glory of the principle of faith. My caution to people would be to be aware of exercising "counterfeit" faith that is concerned with "personal" truths (itching ears, misguided, religious hobbies, etc...). Faith, when exercised properly, will always lead a person toward truth and its acceptance. Example, I exercise faith in the principle of Adam being our first progenitor. They did not evolve from any lower species. I do not have a perfect knowledge of such; although, I am open either way. I am more concerned with "what is". If Adam and Eve did evolve, well then they did evolve and we exercise faith upon principles "unknown" or as you have shared known "to a certain extent."

If we properly apply faith, my thoughts would say then my faith is rewarded when I am shown incorrect principles, understandings, fallacies. I am now given the option to extend my faith upon true principles and further my growth. I think of "lost faith" as faith not properly applied, which often occurs by desiring my own "truth" rather than God's truth. I think an example that is good is people who left the Church, a loss of "counterfeit" faith, when all worthy males received the priesthood. The principle of truth, that faith should have been properly exercised in, "and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." Unfortunately, "counterfeit" faith then began to be exercised causing a loss of testimony and ultimately leaving the Church.

I am a "firm" ( ) believer in properly exercised faith, and that when we do so, we will never fall.

[wenglund]

12 hours ago, Anddenex said:

There is "counterfeit" faith (or false faith) and there is "true" faith which rests upon true principles and always leads to growth. Alma describes three principles of faith: 1) Faith is not a perfect knowledge (which implies it is based on some form of knowledge although not perfect) 2) Faith requires hope 3) Faith is based in that which is true. People exercised "counterfeit" faith in the earth being flat (it wasn't true). This had the appearance of faith, but wasn't faith (similar to counterfeit money -- no value).

The principle of faith must be exercised in truth. If faith is exercised in anything but truth, then it is counterfeit. Once we discover what is "true" then we need to exercise faith in the truth discovered. The concept of "only to a certain extent" appears to coincide with the definition of faith as "not a perfect knowledge." If we had a perfect knowledge then we would not need to worry about having faith.

As pertaining to the last paragraph we appear to agree; however, as to my understanding of "true" faith, and those exercising such would never be lead astray. That is the glory of the principle of faith. My caution to people would be to be aware of exercising "counterfeit" faith that is concerned with "personal" truths (itching ears, misguided, religious hobbies, etc...). Faith, when exercised properly, will always lead a person toward truth and its acceptance. Example, I exercise faith in the principle of Adam being our first progenitor. They did not evolve from any lower species. I do not have a perfect knowledge of such; although, I am open either way. I am more concerned with "what is". If Adam and Eve did evolve, well then they did evolve and we exercise faith upon principles "unknown" or as you have shared known "to a certain extent."

If we properly apply faith, my thoughts would say then my faith is rewarded when I am shown incorrect principles, understandings, fallacies. I am now given the option to extend my faith upon true principles and further my growth. I think of "lost faith" as faith not properly applied, which often occurs by desiring my own "truth" rather than God's truth. I think an example that is good is people who left the Church, a loss of "counterfeit" faith, when all worthy males received the priesthood. The principle of truth, that faith should have been properly exercised in, "and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." Unfortunately, "counterfeit" faith then began to be exercised causing a loss of testimony and ultimately leaving the Church.

I am a "firm" ( ) believer in properly exercised faith, and that when we do so, we will never fall.

I get what you are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain. I just view it as a semantic rather than an ontological distinction, if not the fallacy of No True Scotsman. Whether one firmly calls it counterfeit faith or faith in things that eventually turn out not to be true, is of little import to the advancement of understanding--at least in the context of the points I am making. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

I get what you are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain. I just view it as a semantic rather than an ontological distinction, if not the fallacy of No True Scotsman. Whether one firmly calls it counterfeit faith or faith in things that eventually turn out not to be true, is of little import to the advancement of understanding--at least in the context of the points I am making. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This statement here, "Whether one firmly calls it counterfeit faith or faith in things that eventually turn out not to be true, is of little import to the advancement of understanding" is where we would diverge, and to each their own. Properly exercised faith is what leads to advancement in understanding, not its counterfeit, which is expressed in false ideas. If false ideas are continually accepted, in light of truth given/received, the person will not grow in understanding. These distinctions, although subtle, are important. You expressed a thought, I shared where I would agree and disagree. Just as in the distinction between faith and conviction, and why I specified if you remove "faith" then yes we would agree. If you possibly view the explanation as a "No True Scotsman" I am OK with this -- to each their own -- we would disagree.

[Bini]

Answering the thread title.

For me, overall it amounted to deciding I preferred facts over faith. I identified as agnostic for a few months while I slowly registered stuff, and as things became clearer to me and my inner-self found peace, I was atheist. 

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, Bini said:

Answering the thread title.

For me, overall it amounted to deciding I preferred facts over faith. I identified as agnostic for a few months while I slowly registered stuff, and as things became clearer to me and my inner-self found peace, I was atheist. 

Bini!!  Long time no see!  How you doing?

[Bini]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Bini!!  Long time no see!  How you doing?

I am good  Just been busy with life and whatnot... Turns out little boys keep a mama on her toes...

[anatess2]

JUMPIN JUPITER BATMAN....

BINI IS IN DA HOUSE!!!

How's the baby?  Must be running around by now.

[Bini]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

JUMPIN JUPITER BATMAN....

BINI IS IN DA HOUSE!!!

How's the baby?  Must be running around by now.

 

Yeh he's a little tornado but loving it

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Bini said:

Yeh he's a little tornado but loving it

And the older sister is, of course, keeping him in hand? 

 

[Jojo Bags]

D&C 93:39 explains that false traditions take away light and truth.  Section 123:7-8 explain that inherited lies are "the mainspring of all corruption."  LDS have a big problem in that they mingle the secular  traditions and false teachings of the world with the Gospel.  They do not seek out correct knowledge and assume what they hear in school and college must be true.  That takes away light and truth.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jojo Bags said:

LDS have a big problem in that they mingle the secular  traditions and false teachings of the world with the Gospel.  They do not seek out correct knowledge and assume what they hear in school and college must be true.  That takes away light and truth.

And how did you come to that conclusion?

[wenglund]

20 hours ago, Anddenex said:

This statement here, "Whether one firmly calls it counterfeit faith or faith in things that eventually turn out not to be true, is of little import to the advancement of understanding" is where we would diverge, and to each their own. Properly exercised faith is what leads to advancement in understanding, not its counterfeit, which is expressed in false ideas. If false ideas are continually accepted, in light of truth given/received, the person will not grow in understanding. These distinctions, although subtle, are important. You expressed a thought, I shared where I would agree and disagree. Just as in the distinction between faith and conviction, and why I specified if you remove "faith" then yes we would agree. If you possibly view the explanation as a "No True Scotsman" I am OK with this -- to each their own -- we would disagree.

The reason I suggested that the distinction wasn't important to understanding the points I was making earlier is because it isn't self evident from the beginnings of faith whether something is true or not. It is not uncommon to have prolonged faith in false things, and not recognize it as counterfeit for some time, if not ever during this life. If I recall correctly, father Abraham had faith that the earth was the center of the universe throughout his life. Much of the Christian world did as well until Copernicus. Early Church leaders had faith that men lived on the moon. They didn't know any better. Whether they had faith in false things, or whether they had counterfeit faith, it was all the same to them. They had faith, and acted on their faith regardless how one may chose to label it. But, it isn't worth arguing to me. If you wish to call it counterfeit faith, that is fine with me. I can go with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

19 hours ago, Bini said:

Answering the thread title.

For me, overall it amounted to deciding I preferred facts over faith. I identified as agnostic for a few months while I slowly registered stuff, and as things became clearer to me and my inner-self found peace, I was atheist. 

This assumes that faith and facts are necessarily mutually exclusive. It also doesn't account for the huge portion of secular life that isn't factual, but operates on faith. For example, evolution is still considered a theory because there isn't sufficient data to call it a fact. To an extent, evolution is accepted on faith. The same is true for anthroprogenic global warming even given the alleged "consensus." Faith is even more a factor in the soft sciences. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jojo Bags]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

And how did you come to that conclusion?

By reading the, scriptures and the writings of the apostles and prophets.  I don't watch TV or movies and I don't read anything but church related material. I hunger and thirst after the Gospel.

[Guest MormonGator]

39 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

By reading the, scriptures and the writings of the apostles and prophets.  I don't watch TV or movies and I don't read anything but church related material. I hunger and thirst after the Gospel.

That's admirable (and I mean that sincerely) but how do you do that and avoid becoming pedantic and self-righteous? Or worse, developing a martyr complex? 

Edited February 16, 2017 by MormonGator

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

By reading the, scriptures and the writings of the apostles and prophets.  I don't watch TV or movies and I don't read anything but church related material. I hunger and thirst after the Gospel.

I'm going to show you again what just happened and why you didn't address the real question.

You said.

6 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:

LDS have a big problem in that they mingle the secular  traditions and false teachings of the world with the Gospel.  They do not seek out correct knowledge and assume what they hear in school and college must be true.  That takes away light and truth.

I asked how you came to THAT conclusion.

How do you know you have it right and others have it wrong?  When we get into interpretation and application of gospel knowledge, it is less solid ground to believe someone else is wrong and you are right.

 

[Bini]

22 hours ago, wenglund said:

This assumes that faith and facts are necessarily mutually exclusive. It also doesn't account for the huge portion of secular life that isn't factual, but operates on faith. For example, evolution is still considered a theory because there isn't sufficient data to call it a fact. To an extent, evolution is accepted on faith. The same is true for anthroprogenic global warming even given the alleged "consensus." Faith is even more a factor in the soft sciences. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If you say so. 

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Bini said:

If you say so. 

I can't disagree with that statement of faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Bini said:

If you say so. 

I missed your posts @Bini. I love your bluntness and style. 

[wenglund]

Adding one more point to the blindness of dogma point I made earlier (a form of selective attention), this video is instructive:

 

Here is a similar video for those who have seen the previous video:

 

If you have seen the first two videos, then this might help:

 

When we are focused on certain things, we are likely to miss seeing other potentially faith-affirming or faith-altering things, thereby putting us at risk of loss of faith.

For more videos, see here: http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/videos.html

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 17, 2017 by wenglund

[wenglund]

On 2/15/2017 at 3:10 PM, Bini said:

I preferred facts over faith.

If you don't mind, I would like to test this assertion. 

Here is a video that contain facts (shapes, sizes, color, distance, geography, physics, etc.) and faith-based things (like values, cultures, religions, emotions, etc.). It is an extreme video intended to make the point, though I warn against watching it because it is graphic and disturbing. Hopefully you can get the point without watching it and just knowing the subject matter: https://www.zerocensorship.com/uncensored/isis/khalid-ibn-al-walid-army-beheading-execution-wizard-religious-police-syria-graphic-video-384334

In contrast, here is a less extreme example--a picture that contains facts (size, shape, color, etc.) as well as faith-based things (love .beauty, relationships, value, etc.). Which is more meaningful to you, and thus preferred by you?

Truth is, we care very little about facts except in how they are arranged and interpreted in our value and meaning centric belief systems. In fact (pun intended), the facts we selectively filter in and out of our consciousnes, and even the way we perceive the facts, is largely dependent upon our faith-based values.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

In fact (pun intended), the facts we selectively filter in and out of our consciousnes, and even the way we perceive the facts, is largely dependent upon our faith-based values.

The highly esteemed and oft maligned Professor Jordan Peterson eloquently explains this notion in the 5th lecture on Maps of Meaning. He is due credit for some of the points I made above: 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-